Obama, Flailing, Reaches Out For First Term "A-Team" as a Lifeline
— Ace

A book called The Obamas featured this delicious nugget:

Obama had always had a high estimation of his ability to cast and run his operation. When David Plouffe, his campaign manager, first interviewed for a job with him in 2006, the senator gave him a warning: "I think I could probably do every job on the campaign better than the people IÂ’ll hire to do it," he said. "ItÂ’s hard to give up control when thatÂ’s all IÂ’ve known." Obama said nearly the same thing to Patrick Gaspard, whom he hired to be the campaignÂ’s political director. "I think IÂ’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters," Obama told him. "I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And IÂ’ll tell you right now that IÂ’m gonna think IÂ’m a better political director than my political director."

A first-class temperament, they told us in 2007. Plus, a first-class intellect to go with it.

There's an old bit of wisdom -- old, but true -- that the more you know the more you realize you don't know. And conversely, only someone who knows a tiny little bit could possibly be under the illusion he knows it all.

Flash forward to today's story of Zeus throwing down thunderbolts on he whose hubris astonishes even the arrogant gods.

A struggling President Obama is calling for help from members of his first-term A-Team, who have left the White House for other jobs.

With his poll numbers falling and his second-term floundering so far, Obama has sought help from the former aides who helped catapult him to the presidency.

...

One former aide described ObamaÂ’s trusted inner circle from the first term as "the originals," and speculated that if they were still at the White House they could have helped prevent some of ObamaÂ’s second-term blunders, such as the decision Monday to give a fiery speech criticizing Republicans just hours after 12 people were gunned down a few miles away at the Navy Yard.

You could do a better job of political directing than the political director but you didn't know that?

Obama is plainly surrounded by yes-men who are intimidated by him. He's like Elvis at in the declining years. Whatever The King says, that's just a great idea.

"I donÂ’t think he would have made that kind of mistake in the first term," one former administration official said on Tuesday. "Sometimes it feels like thereÂ’s a void over there. There are some new, extraordinary folks over there, but it definitely leaves something to be desired."

But Obama does have some of his Sage Council* remaining.

...

To be sure, Obama has had some of the same faces around him during the second term, including Carney.

Oh well he's just the guy to give it to you straight.

But after a painstaking period of self-criticism and self-examination, Team Obama thinks they've figured out what's been going wrong with them lately.

Surprise! It's the same thing they always say is going wrong with them.

....

Former Obama aides, however, maintain that there has been a messaging problem at the White House ever since Obama won reelection.

Fortunately, there is a cure: They can begin putting out a Message that Obama almost never puts out lately.

And they say that aides need to do a better job reasserting the narrative that Obama is, as one put it, the "aggressive champion of the middle class."

And the Middle Class. No, he never mentions And The Middle Class (ATMC). I mean, sure, he mentioned it for no reason at all in his Syria speech, but he practically never mentions And The Middle Class, apart from Always.

The problem isn't that he doesn't mention it. It's that he doesn't believe it and we all know it. And that's not a Messaging Problem. It's a Priority Problem, or, as we usually call it, just a straight-up Problem.

* Not a misspelling, Spelling Nerds. Usually I say "Sage counsel," as in wise advice.

But now I'm saying he has a Council of Sages. So the change in spelling is appropriate given my change in meaning.

So you just go right ahead and eat a bag of dicks, Spelling Nerds. more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:12 PM | Comments (336)
Post contains 724 words, total size 5 kb.

Book: Pressure From Black Donors Compelled Obama's Re-election Team to Actually Hire a Black Employee
— Ace

Remember this very white picture and the top ten I did with it?

Apparently that picture actually did bother some black liberals, who did notice that Team Obama was as white as a blizzard of rice.

And so they forced the Racial Healer to actually hire a black employee.

Now, a new book filled with inside information from the campaign reports that top Obama aides were also taking heat from key donors and supporters. In The Message: The Reselling of President Obama, author Richard Wolffe writes that influential black supporters were unhappy with the lack of black aides in top campaign roles. The supporters were so unhappy that they forced the campaign to search for African-Americans to fill senior roles in the effort. After months of searching, the campaign found exactly one.

A token effort.

"Inside the campaign to re-elect the country's first black president, there was an embarrassingly low number of African-Americans in the senior ranks," Wolffe writes.

Jim Messina, the campaign director, is, according to the usual rules of this game, a vicious racist.

Those are the rules established. The left must abide by the rules they established.

Posted by: Ace at 09:35 AM | Comments (195)
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.

Starbucks Reverses Policy, Asks Customers No Longer Open Carry In Stores
— JohnE.

Last night, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announced a policy reversal regarding open carry in Starbucks coffee shops. The announcement was made on the company's website last night. Some are quick to blame Starbucks and liberal whining and complaining, but I don't really see it that way. From his post:

We appreciate that there is a highly sensitive balance of rights and responsibilities surrounding America’s gun laws, and we recognize the deep passion for and against the “open carry” laws adopted by many states. (In the United States, “open carry” is the term used for openly carrying a firearm in public.) For years we have listened carefully to input from our customers, partners, community leaders and voices on both sides of this complicated, highly charged issue.

Our company’s longstanding approach to “open carry” has been to follow local laws: we permit it in states where allowed and we prohibit it in states where these laws don’t exist. We have chosen this approach because we believe our store partners should not be put in the uncomfortable position of requiring customers to disarm or leave our stores. We believe that gun policy should be addressed by government and law enforcement—not by Starbucks and our store partners.

Starbucks, of course, is not a conservative organization. They champion plenty of liberal/progressive causes from the corporate level. They were however, quite accommodating to the issue of gun rights on the local storefront level. Essentially, they were just mirroring whatever state law was on the books.

Liberals, as they often do, staged boycotts and protests. This isn't the first boycott of Starbucks by the left, by the way. Newtown kicked this thing into overdrive.

Gun rights activists started "Starbucks Appreciation Day", which encouraged people to open carry in stores where the law allowed. Frankly, I think this is where it started to go off the rails. Gun rights is an issue we're winning pretty comfortably. The left seeks to paint gun rights supporters as "gun nuts" and nothing helps their case more than pulling stunts like this.

Now tell me, what was the point of that? Any CCW class, or NRA gun safety program you take will relentlessly preach the importance of responsibility. There are few things more irresponsible as a gun owner than bringing a rifle to a business with the express purpose of creating an argument or altercation, all for the glory of your YouTube channel.

Apparently, Starbucks didn't want to continue to have their stores be ground zero for a political debate. You know what? They are completely within their rights to make this call as a private business. Starbucks CEO:

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.

For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

Notice, this is not a ban. It's a polite request they are asking customers to honor (It's a little unclear as to whether this applies to just open carry or concealed as well). Some are claiming he just buckled to liberal pressure and he's lying through his teeth. I'm willing to take him at his word, because I assume the company just wanted to sell coffee without the endless headaches that go along with people making a spectacle of the previous policy.

Please understand, I am a strong supporter of both open and concealed carry. The issue I have here is one of strategy. I do not think this type organized campaign wins us any converts in the middle, because it seems very much like intimidation to "moderates" on the issue. I think even people who are inclined to support expanding gun rights would be turned off by the sight of a bunch of people walking around with rifles in Starbucks.

It's a shame they decided to change the policy. Had gun rights activists sent emails or letters thanking the company for their policy and simply continued their patronage (while carrying when they otherwise would), I don't think it would have come to this.

Oh, I'll be on NRA News at 3PM discussing this.

Posted by: JohnE. at 10:10 AM | Comments (331)
Post contains 786 words, total size 5 kb.

Trolling BuzzFeed: 9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped by Someone Carrying a Personal Firearm
— Ace

John Ekdahl started the #BuzzFeedCounterTroll behind-the-lines missions, and now a new guy continues them.

Ooops: The writer isn't a troll, he's a #BuzzFeed staffer, John Ekdahl says.

More: Starbucks has published an open letter asking gun-owners to not bring their guns into Starbucks (or outside in the outdoor seating area), citing "concerns" or something.

From the beginning, our vision at Starbucks has been to create a “third place” between home and work where people can come together to enjoy the peace and pleasure of coffee and community. Our values have always centered on building community rather than dividing people, and our stores exist to give every customer a safe and comfortable respite from the concerns of daily life.

We appreciate that there is a highly sensitive balance of rights and responsibilities surrounding America’s gun laws, and we recognize the deep passion for and against the “open carry” laws adopted by many states. (In the United States, “open carry” is the term used for openly carrying a firearm in public.) For years we have listened carefully to input from our customers, partners, community leaders and voices on both sides of this complicated, highly charged issue.

Our company’s longstanding approach to “open carry” has been to follow local laws: we permit it in states where allowed and we prohibit it in states where these laws don’t exist. We have chosen this approach because we believe our store partners should not be put in the uncomfortable position of requiring customers to disarm or leave our stores. We believe that gun policy should be addressed by government and law enforcement—not by Starbucks and our store partners.

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.

For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.

Gun owners have politely responded that they intended to politely ignore the request.

That picture is actually from a previous Starbucks Appreciation Day and not one recently taken in defiance of Starbucks' request.

Shouldn't this policy be set store-to-store? There are areas where people aren't so a-scared of guns, of course. Now, I imagine that in those areas Starbucks patrons would be the most a-scared of guns, but as they see them every day in other stores, I really don't think they'd be freaking out over it.

Posted by: Ace at 08:34 AM | Comments (318)
Post contains 631 words, total size 5 kb.

Details On House Leadership's CR And Debt Ceiling Plan
— Gabriel Malor

The short version of the leadership's plans: the House will pass a CR that defunds Obamacare and send it to the Senate to see if Senate GOP can make it stick. The House, anticipating that Senate Dems will strip out Obamacare defunding, will also pass a 1-year debt ceiling increase in exchange for an Obamacare delay until 2015, some tax and budget reforms, and the Keystone pipeline.

The longer version notes that this is essentially a challenge to Senate conservatives to put their money where their mouths are. They've been slamming House GOP members as, among other things, part of "the surrender caucus."

Well, says Speaker Boehner, here's their big chance:

“On every major issue we’ve faced for the past two and a half years, the math has been the same,” Boehner said, according to a source in the room. “House Republicans either find a way together to get to 218, or the Democrats who run the rest of Washington essentially get everything they want.”

GOP leadershipÂ’s goal is to force conservatives like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to hold up any government funding bill that doesnÂ’t defund Obamacare. Senior House Republican aides and lawmakers are sick of Senate conservatives blaming the House for funding the law.

I suspect this won't satisfy Senate conservatives or outside conservative groups like Heritage and Freedom Works. If the Senate Dems can simply strip out the Obamacare defunding portion, the House vote to defund matters about as much as its 40 prior votes to repeal.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:38 AM | Comments (272)
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

Wednesday Morning News Dump
— Pixy Misa

• Cooke: Gun Control's Dead End
  
• Police Warned About Navy Gunman's Instability Six Weeks Ago
  
• Obama: Everyone Is Wrong To Doubt Obamacare
  
• The Economist Exposes The Public Pension Illusion
  
• Taranto: Punishment For Gluttons
  
• Vulnerable Dems Flee Anti-Gun Nuts Within Their Own Party
  
• Starbucks Is Requesting Customers Not Carry Guns At Their Stores
  
• NY Daily News Leaves Up Article That Is Completely False
  
• Ben Domenech Launches New Website
  
• Conservative Groups Flagged By The IRS Over "Anti-Obama" Comments
  
• Did Bogus Methodology Enable Nate Silvers Perfect 2012 Prediction
  
• Chemical Weapons And Gun Control
  
• Ex-Gitmo Detainee Dies Fighting Assad
  
• Another School History Book Changes The Definition Of The Second Amendment
  
• Funny Obit
  
• Boeings 787-9 Dreamliner Makes Its First Flight
  
• 13 Tips For Jobless Grads On Surviving In Your Parents Basement
  
• 3,000 Year Old Mummy Restored With The Help Of Lego
  
• Are We Finally Going To Get Our Jetpacks?
  
• The Next Moron Meetup Will Be In Sweden
  

Follow me on twitter.

more...

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 05:21 AM | Comments (304)
Post contains 176 words, total size 4 kb.

Top Headline Comments 9-18-13
— Gabriel Malor

Humpday!

Ace covered the big news last night -- the House is gonna try a defunding CR, say leadership sources. Two things, though: (1) officially, no member of leadership and no leadership aide will confirm the story -- a leadership spokesman says that the decision on what to do won't come until after a caucus meeting this morning; and (2) "many House insiders" expect that Sens. Cruz and Lee will be unable to push a defunding CR through the Senate and that the House will turn to a "Plan B," which looks a lot like the Cantor plan.

There are officially just four legislative days left on the House calendar, but it's looking very likely that the House will cancel next week's planned recess.

Buzzfeed has 9 potential mass shootings that were averted by armed citizens.

And that's all I've got time for this morning. If you haven't listened to last week's podcast yet, it's a good one:

---

AoSHQ Weekly Podcast: [ RSS] [iTunes] [Download Latest Episode]

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:55 AM | Comments (243)
Post contains 169 words, total size 2 kb.

Retraction: Aaron Alexis Wasn't Blocked by State Law Forbidding Sale of AR-15
— Ace

When I linked that NYT piece I wondered if they were going for the spin that Serious You Guys gun laws prevented an AR-15 from getting into this guy's hands.

Well, it turns out they sort of just made up the predicate fact in the first place. Out-of-state buyers can buy an AR-15 (they need additional forms of ID but there is no ban on it) and Aaron Alexis, having never been formally dinged by the system, passed a background check.

Apparently he just didn't want an AR-15.

But the Times really wants that AR-15 in his hands save for government action, so.

Posted by: Ace at 08:34 PM | Comments (94)
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

Overnight Open Thread (9-17-2013)
— Maetenloch

Legal Insurrection: Why Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and Ted Cruz Are Natural Born Citizens

Okay, Okay I know you're all burned out on this topic and tired of rehashing the same arguments - God knows I am too. But given that it IS Constitution Day and for once we have an actual legal scholar who's gone and done the actual research on the topic, I think we can open this can of worms one more time.

So Prof. William Jacobson of LegalInsurrection.com went back to the original sources including the writings of the Founders before and after the drafting of the Constitution and in his post lays out exactly what found regarding the 'natural born' citizen requirement.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

It's a clear, well-written and semi-long post and it's worth your time to read it. But if you're all Teal Dear and stuff, here's the quick summary:

• The term 'natural born citizen' is used but never defined in the Constitution. Nor is it defined in other writings of the time by the signers.
• There seem to be two categories of persons whose status has never been disputed from the earliest days:
  • Clearly Natural Born citizens  - A person born in the United States to parents both of whom are United States citizens - e.g.  the vast majority of people in the US historically.
  • Clearly NOT Natural Born citizens - A person born outside the United States to parents neither of whom is a United States citizen e.g. Prince Charles, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and most people of the world. 
• Since the Framers never explicitly defined the term nor included text dealing with the status of people who didn't clearly fall into either one of the above categories, we can assume they intended it to be defined through later laws and statutes.
• From historical documents and letters the Framers also didn't seem to be looking for technical reasons to exclude people from the first category. They were mostly concerned with obvious foreigners running for president.
• Later statutes and court decisions have been specific and narrow and haven't defined the term either or set a precedent.
• Since by statute Rubio, Jindal, and Cruz were all eligible for US citizenship at their birth, they should be considered 'natural born citizens' under the Constitution.

Given that at the time of the drafting of the Constitution about 99.9% of people alive would have clearly fallen into either category one or two, I think that was good enough. After all the Constitution is a framework of laws and meta-laws (laws for making laws) - not a piece of software that is required to cover every single exception and edge case. Ultimately you have to leave it to future citizens to figure out certain things.

more...

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:43 PM | Comments (492)
Post contains 1354 words, total size 16 kb.

Not a Surprise: Boehner Caves
Suprise: He Caves to Conservatives
And Open Thread
— Ace

Now, the GOP has telegraphed that it is frightened of this fight, but you can't beat up on them too much for giving in to their base.

House GOP leaders are looking to reverse course and agree to tea party demands to try to use a vote this week on a must-pass temporary government funding bill to block implementation of President Barack Obama's health care law.

A GOP aide says the latest strategy, to be offered to rank-and-file Republicans at a closed-door meeting on Wednesday, would be to link a "defund Obamacare" provision to the stopgap funding bill and send it to the Senate. The aide required anonymity to discuss the strategy because it has not been announced.

...

The Senate would likely strip out the health care provision and send it to the House, raising the possibility of a confrontation that could lead to a partial government shutdown after the Sept. 30 end of the budget year.

Now that might not sound like progress, but in fact they had previously planned something even weaker:

The earlier strategy, rejected last week by angry conservatives, would have sent the measure to the Senate as two bills to ensure the Democratic-controlled chamber would be able to ship the spending measure straight to the White House and more easily avert a government shutdown.

Good Lord. That's simply insulting. It insults themselves, as a first matter.

You know you can't win in poker unless you at least bid for the pot with a raise. Under no circumstances will an opponent fold to a call. Or fold to you fold.

This guy has a special message for Generation Special Little Snowflake: You're not special.

Serious You Guys worth a read. People will be talking about it. It's basically a hate crime against Generation Y. But not you Gen Y'ers here. I mean the other ones. The ones who want to live The Life of Julia.

The new Fox Schedule will be pretty much what you thought it would be, except no moving Red Eye to an earlier timeslot, because apparently Roger Ailes hates money and influence.

Someone mentioned that when they re-run the evening's shows, the show The Five at 2am. They could at least swap Red Eye with the repeat of The Five. 2am is barely better than 3am... and yet it's still better.

Wake up Fox.

And: Woman stabs her roommate for playing The Eagles. My guess would be "Witchy Woman."

That's all I have. Here now some baby elephants and dogs. Baby elephant tries to wake up dog; baby elephant sees ocean for first time; dog plays with squeak toy.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 04:30 PM | Comments (334)
Post contains 472 words, total size 4 kb.