It's almost as if they want our support but not our input.

Kaus, suggesting this is largely about amnesty, links the Times. That would be my guess. That, and government shutdown/defunding ObamaCare.

The article begins by noting Pete Sessions, a Republican Texas Congressman (Local News Story, I guess, and yet the Times is covering him) has failed to schedule any town hall meetings this cycle.

One of his constituents, Katrina Pierson, 37, who describes herself as a “conservative grass-roots volunteer” and had hoped to press Mr. Sessions on his commitment to pulling financing from the health care law, is so exasperated that she and a group of like-minded advocates have offered to host a meeting for him.

“He can just give us a date,” she said. “We’ll set it up.”

Though Republicans in recent years have harnessed the political power of these open mic, face-the-music sessions, people from both parties say they are noticing a decline in the number of meetings. They also say they are seeing Congressional offices go to greater lengths to conceal when and where the meetings take place.

“The whole thing is very anti-democratic, and it’s classic behavior of entrenched insiders,” said Matt Kibbe, the president of FreedomWorks, a Tea Party group that in 2009 helped send legions of demonstrators to town halls. Now, it is trying to draw out seemingly reluctant members by staging public events like mock meet-your-lawmaker meetings with empty chairs. “We’ve lost that Rockwell image of citizen participation in democracy.”

...

Members of Congress and their aides were reluctant to talk about the lack of town halls on the record, mindful of the pressure from liberal and conservative groups alike. “Ninety percent of the audience will be there interested in what you have to say,” one Senate Republican aide said. “It’s the other 5 or 10 percent who aren’t. They’re there to make a point and, frankly, to hijack the meeting.”

...

“The reason 2009 was so successful for the grass roots was because the politicians never saw it coming,” said Jennifer Stefano, the state director for the Pennsylvania chapter of Americans for Prosperity, a Tea Party group. “Now they know. And they are terrified.”

I don't even understand what this could possibly mean. Your constituents who show up at a town hall to express their views and to get answers to questions relevant to themselves are "hijacking the meeting" by doing so?

These guys just want a controlled, manufactured event. They want to have a nice, staged photo op they can call a Town Hall where they give a standard stump speech and then go home.

Now I grant you a lot of people who show up at these things -- being intense partisans, and having political axes to grind -- may pepper Congressmen with odd questions. Silver dimes questions, Birth certificate questions.

And so what?

The entire point of a non-scripted live opportunity for questioning is, well, the lack of the script. There is no point in merely reading a printed press release aloud -- and that seems to be what these guys want.

We see this from celebrities, and of course we see it a lot from politicians. But while celebrities do not have any particular obligation to be candid with, open with, and accessible to their fans -- their constituents -- politicians obviously do.

Particularly those who claim to wish to return to a better America, the earlier America, the America in which the Constitution was not only binding law but a sort of secular holy law, a time in which Americans were so joyous about their new-won freedom that they eagerly attended town halls to add their voices to the public debate.

Technology and changing cultural norms provide a method for politicians to escape ever meeting their actual constituents. They can appear before them, virtually, on TV. They can send them virtual letters through email.

They do have the ability now to never actually meet their constituents, except virtually, which permits them to control the directionality of speech: Speech flows outwards from them, to the constituent, but not the other way around.

This is corrosive to democracy. It's not the way it was and it's not the way it should be.

If a politician has any kind of personal command he can handle a few noise-makers. If a politician has a brain in his head he can parry the oddball obsessions of a crank.

And if a politician is going to take a position opposite that of the people he supposedly represents, he ought to have the guts and integrity to tell them so, to their faces.

You know, politicians supposedly live in their home districts.

They don't. They live in Washington DC and its tony suburbs. They visit their alleged hometowns.

That means that the social circles they move in, and the thought-communities that influence them, are made up almost entirely of inside-the-beltway professional media class/permanent bureaucracy. City slickers, by and large, though those from Texas might occasionally wear boots and those from North Carolina will still eat some barbecue.

I would posit that it is a very healthy thing to occasionally force oneself to be subject to the influence -- even if rude, even if confrontational -- of the people one is actually supposed to represent rather than permitting oneself to be solely influenced by the courtiers, praetors, archons, provincial governors, tax-farmers, and high priests of the Imperial Capital.

Democracy is supposed to be rude and confrontational. It is supposed to involve dialogue, not just monologues.

Monologues are for funerals.

Just a couple of times a season. Just a few times every season, and then you can go back to ensconce yourselves in the New Rome and enjoy its higher level of civilization, its delicious intrigues, and of course its exquisite bathhouses.

Posted by: Ace at 02:29 PM | Comments (201)
Post contains 988 words, total size 6 kb.

Under the name "Lois Home," which is not quite as ridiculous a pseudonym as "Richard Windsor" but it does conceal the actual identity of the account's owner.

Today, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, sent a letter to IRS official Lois Lerner seeking e-mails related to her official duties, in her non-government e-mail account.

“Through the course of the investigation, we have learned that you sent documents related to your official duties from your official IRS e-mail account to an msn.com e-mail account labeled ‘Lois Home,’” the letter sent to Lerner states. “This raises some serious questions concerning your use of a non-official e-mail account to conduct official business.”

“[T]he use of non-official e-mail accounts to conduct official business implicates federal records requirements,” Issa and Jordan continue. “It also creates difficulties in fulfilling the IRS’s obligations under the Freedom of Information Act and other litigation requests. Your use of non-official e-mail account also frustrates congressional oversight obligations.”

She probably didn't know a non-official account would frustrate congressional oversight obligations.

And the IRS is still employing "secondary screening" against Tea Party applicants, per a witness' testimony. That remains the current directive.

Q: “So, you would treat a Tea Party group as a political advocacy case even if there was no evidence of political activity on the application. Is that right?”

A: “Based on my current manager’s direction, uh-huh.”

Posted by: Ace at 09:42 AM | Comments (168)
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.

I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you.

Since the moment the idea was floated by a handful of conservative lawmakers, House Republican leaders have been wary of the tea-party plan to shut down the federal government this fall unless Obamacare is defunded. Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, a veteran of the Gingrich wars, has never been eager to go there, nor has Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia. But they didnÂ’t immediately storm out of their offices and nix the pitch. Instead, due to the fragility of the bonds holding the House GOP together, they have labored behind the scenes, pouring cold water in careful measure on their colleaguesÂ’ boiling brinksmanship.

...

“A shutdown? It’s not happening, it’s really not, but I guess you won’t hear people say that out loud, including me,” chuckles a senior House Republican. “No one, you see, wants to be ‘out-toughed’ on Obamacare. We’re out here talking about repeal everyday. But the speaker and everybody else here know that the Senate votes, unfortunately, will never be there to pass a continuing resolution to defund Obamacare.”

...

Members were also buzzing about the leadershipÂ’s emerging strategy for the autumn talks. Sources tell me the House GOP will probably avoid using a shutdown as leverage and instead use the debt limit and sequester fights as areas for potential legislative trades. Negotiations over increasing the debt limit have frequently been used to wring concessions out of the administration, so there may be movement in that direction: Delay Obamacare in exchange for an increased debt limit. As members huddled and talked through scenarios, leadership aides reminded them that since the House GOP retreat in Williamsburg, Va., earlier this year, the plan has been to end the year with a debt-limit chess game, and not a messy continuing-resolution impasse. But the aides didnÂ’t press too hard. As Boehner knows all too well from past struggles, it often takes only 20 to 30 irritated Republicans to destroy his best-laid plans.

They aren't willing to go to the mattresses on the CR/shutdown but they are totally going to risk busting the debt limit? Please.

And yes, there's no clear endgame where a shutdown leads to victory but that's true of Boehner's supposed, "vote forever" strategy. Ohhhh....you voted to delay ObamaCare and nothing happened? Great, let's keep doing that!

I understand the reality Boehner is facing. There's almost zero chance of a shutdown leading to any meaningful reform of ObamaCare but simply letting it happen means it's here to stay in one form or another.

It comes down to the damage you think ObamaCare (or a slightly less awful Republican version) will do to the fabric of America as we know it. If you look around at the growth and power of government in the last half century or so, then putting the final piece in place (the takeover of health care) is a great idea. If you think now is the time to take a stand before the last step to full on Euro-socialism hits, then no cost is too high to try and stop it.

Republicans had their shot at stopping ObamaCare and their plan was to nominate Mitt Romney. It's time to let the other guys take a turn. We need to put it to the country clearly and concisely....this is a very bad and dangerous thing that is about to happen. Speak now or deal with the consequences.

Keeping the Republican's powder dry at this point is simply an effort in making sure they have a seat at the table while the last scraps of the carcass are picked over. The GOP is interested in that, conservatives shouldn't be.

Go down fighting and hope for some puncher's luck or go down quietly. That's the choice.

Related: The Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee is frustrated with conservatives who don't want to spend more and pass bills.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:50 AM | Comments (243)
Post contains 676 words, total size 4 kb.

Keep talking Marco, you make yourself look less and less presidential every time.

“I believe that this president tempted will be tempted, if nothing happens in Congress, to issue an executive order as he did for the Dream Act kids a year ago, where he basically legalizes 11 million people by the sign of a pen,” Rubio said in an interview Tuesday on WFLA’s “The Morning Show with Preston Scott.”

If that were to happen, Rubio warned, Republicans would not get the provisions they have been fighting for in the immigration debate, such as billions of dollars to strengthen border security and a workplace “e-Verify” system to help ensure that employers do not hire undocumented workers.

“I have tried to come up as best as possible, given who controls the Senate, with a way to start the conversation to at least address some of these issues,” Rubio said. “It only gets worse as times goes on.”

Imagine a President Rubio..."Putin is going to do what he wants anyway. We might as well give up missile defense. At least we'll get something out of it."

Rubio is right that Obama may do just what he says or he may just claim he tried and tell Hispanics to vote out of revenge. Maybe both.

Of course if the GOP hadn't been so scared of its own shadow and stood up for the rule of law when Obama assumed dictatorial powers to give kids status he might be worried about the cost of doing it again. Embolden a bully and he gets more bold.

The big problem with Rubio's cowardly logic is that he's right, Obama is a man who recognizes no checks on his power. So why hand him more power in an amnesty bill? The supposed security measures Rubio is on about would simply be waived by Obama.

ObamaCare and the shutdown that isn't going to happen is getting all the attention but amnesty needs to be front and center. Here's information on congressional town halls where you can let your Representative know that amnesty isn't acceptable. Who knows? Maybe one or two will listen.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:44 AM | Comments (236)
Post contains 386 words, total size 3 kb.

Are you worried that your overreaching secret surveillance programs are causing people to question your power grabs? If you're Barack Obama that means saying a lot of lofty things about "trust", "transparency" and "outside experts" to the public. But when it comes time to putting that all together you turn to your Director of National Intelligence, who has already admitted to lying to Congress about the scope of those projects.

This will totally change everything!

And there are other signs that the group wonÂ’t turn out quite the way the president described it on Friday. FridayÂ’s speech talked about the need for input from outside experts with independent points of view. The president made no mention of the need for outsiders or independent viewpoints in his memo to Clapper.

The stated mission of the group has also shifted. On Friday, Obama said the group would examine “how we can maintain the trust of the people, how we can make sure that there absolutely is no abuse.” But today’s memo makes no mention of preventing abuses. Instead, it will examine whether U.S. surveillance activity “optimally protects our national security and advances our foreign policy while appropriately accounting for other policy considerations, such as the risk of unauthorized disclosure and our need to maintain the public trust.”

Meet the new boss, literally the same as the old one.

Releated, the NY Times has a big profile up of Laura Poitras who along with Glenn Greenwald has been releasing the information provided to them by Edward Snowden.

It's mostly what you'd expect...brave reporter, bravely reporting...blah, blah, blah.

To me the interesting part is about her experience with the US government after she produced a documentary on Iraq in the midst of some of the heaviest fighting. She was suspected of having ties to Iraqi insurgents. She denies this and the Times found a retired military officer who agrees with her. Still, she was put on a terror watch list for this and routinely interrogated by security whenever she flew anywhere.

Until....she finally agreed to let Greenwald publish a story on it. And then the checks suddenly stopped.

If she was legitimately thought to have ties to terrorists, heightened and even unpleasant attention would be warranted but if what she says is true and it stopped as soon as she went public and became an embarrassment to the government, it's something very different.

Add this kind of thing to Lois Lerner and Obama's faux "trust and transparency" effort and it's pretty clear the government is way, way out of control.

In less than two months it's really going to get extraordinary powers over the health insurance and health care system in this country.

Our economic DOOM isn't our only or biggest problem.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:53 AM | Comments (180)
Post contains 492 words, total size 3 kb.

• Mayors Against Bloomberg's Bombast
  
• Were 400 Surface-To-Air Missiles Stolen In Benghazi Attack?
  
• The Tales Of Three Bankrupt Cities
  
• Hillary To Start 2016 Campaign Early
  
• Just How Devious Is Harry Reid
  
• Why Texas Isn't Going Blue Anytime Soon
  
• Low Premium, High Deductible Health Plans Endangered By Obamacare
  
• Entrepreneurs Turn Oligarchs
  
• This Is Not Rosa Parks: Oprah's Swiss Adventure
  
• Man Falls To His Death At Turner Field
  
• Smartest Woman In The World Pays Tribute To Medgar Evans
  
• Alvin Greene Arrested
  
• Are Elections Decided By Chance?
  
• Technocrats And Populists: Who Trusts The People?
  
• Uber: Capitalism Hits The Streets
  
• How The Education Establishment Hurts Kids
  
• 10 Years After Blackout, US Grid Faces New Threats
  
• NC Governor Signs Voter ID Law
  
• Eric Holder Owes The People Of America An Apology
  
• The Worst Movie Ever Made, Buried For Decades, Finally Showed Up On Youtube
  
• Professor Has Manic Breakdown On Twitter
  
• 'Leftover Women' In China Face Tough Choices Looking For Love
  

Follow me on twitter.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 05:31 AM | Comments (202)
Post contains 166 words, total size 4 kb.

Happy Tuesday.

Andy spotted this bit of fun, and there's your daily reminder that journalists don't know anything about anything.

Another day, another part of Obamacare delayed until after the elections in 2014.

Oklahoma's challenge to Obamacare survived the government's motion to dismiss. You'll want to keep your eyes on this one.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:49 AM | Comments (292)
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

[Hi all I'm back at least for a night or two - thanks for all the thoughts and prayers for my dad. He's doing much much better but isn't out of the woods yet. He has CHF and is hoping to get a Dick Cheney-style LVAD. WiFi here at the hospital is weak so the ONT could end up pic-less. Only upload times will tell. :-)]

Iconic B-Movie Stars

Most are pretty good actors who for one reason or another never became known as leading men but still often carried weak movies just on their charisma and believability.  Today they're known for 'fun' movies rather than Oscar-bait.

You may or may not know their names but you'll certainly recognize their faces. And yes some of them are known (or suspected) to be full-on Morons.

And bonus points if you recognize this actor without cheating. Hint: He's faced off against Schwarzenegger, Mel Gibson, Patrick McGoohan, and the Hasselhoff. Classic line: "The gaaaate! THE GAAAAAATE! "

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:44 PM | Comments (667)
Post contains 517 words, total size 13 kb.

Eh, America had a good run.

The Missouri State Fair on Monday imposed a lifetime ban on a rodeo clown whose depiction of President Barack Obama getting charged by a bull was widely criticized by Democratic and Republican officials alike.

The rodeo clown won't be allowed to participate or perform at the fair again. Fair officials say they're also reviewing whether to take any action against the Missouri Rodeo Cowboy Association, the contractor responsible for Saturday's event.

The entertainment during the bull riding contest featured a clown wearing a mask of Obama with an upside down broomstick attached to his backside. Spectators were asked if they wanted to see "Obama run down by a bull." Many in the audience responded enthusiastically.

Numerous Missouri officials denounced the act after video and photos were posted online. Some Democratic Missouri lawmakers suggested Monday that there should be financial consequences for the fair.

I guess in America, in these trying times, we all have to Watch What We Say.

Below, a Thoughtcrime in progress. more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:57 PM | Comments (427)
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

There's nothing to celebrate in the Bulger verdict, David Lewis Schaefer writes at NRO.

The fact that Bulger got away with his crimes for so long thanks to collusion with and bribery of the FBI constitutes a major black mark on that widely esteemed organization. In addition, it is shameful for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that Bulger’s brother Bill served for a record 18 years as president of the state senate, immediately followed by appointment to the presidency of the state university – despite remaining in periodic contact with his brother and concealing whatever knowledge he had of Whitey’s whereabouts from the authorities. (One of Mitt Romney’s finest moments as Massachusetts governor was his forcing Bill to resign from his lucrative university position.)

Andy, @theh2, earlier linked this Jeff Jacoby piece on the government's own collusion with Whitey. And I don't just mean Bill Bulger, president of the Massachusetts state senate and then president of the University of Massachusetts.

But Bulger wasn’t the only one on trial in Boston’s federal courthouse. So was the government trying him. Bulger and his henchmen may have been the degenerates who physically committed the gruesome murders and other crimes that jurors learned about during 35 days of sometimes stomach-churning testimony. But it was other degenerates, in the FBI and the Justice Department, who for so long enabled Bulger’s bloody mayhem. They enlisted Bulger as an informant, protected him from police investigations, and warned him to flee when an indictment was imminent. “If the FBI had not made Whitey its favorite mobster, broken the rules, and rigged the game to his benefit,” reporter David Boeri has concluded, “Bulger would never have reached as high as he did.”

...

It would be comforting to believe that this was a one-off, that law enforcement agencies never abuse their authority, that the immense powers of the federal government are always deployed with scrupulous integrity. But no one believes that.

He then links the government's behavior in the Bulger case with the generalized lawlessness of the current administration.

Posted by: Ace at 02:55 PM | Comments (139)
Post contains 355 words, total size 3 kb.