Shocking.

The Berkeley City Council drew a deluge of disapproval nationwide in January when it voted to advise the Marines that their downtown recruitment office was not welcome and that they would be considered "uninvited and unwelcome intruders" if they chose to stay.

On Tuesday, the council was scheduled to consider a second resolution put forward by two council members that would rescind the letter and draw a line between opposing the war in Iraq and "our respect and support for those serving in the armed forces."

Berkeley, here's a suggestion from your old pal Dave in Texas. Vote on whatever the hell you want. Nobody will believe your "we support the troops" jackassery, that's bullshit and we all know it.

Just be yourselves. It's liberating.

More: I had forgotten about the DeMint bill to pull some of their federal funding (thanks V the K and JFH), so it's really just "how much douchebaggery can we get away with and still get the money"? Good on DeMint for forcing them to backpedal.

Also, Nice Deb has been covering the confrontations this morning between the Code Pinkos and the pro-troop org Move America Forward.

Posted by: Dave In Texas at 09:50 AM | Comments (20)
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.

Obviously, Ace has forgotten two of the sacred AoSHQ Lifestyle Rules:

1) Never Blog Sober and, more importantly,

2) BROS BEFORE HOES!

Just consider this your official "CROSS OVER AND VOTE FOR OBAMA" reminder. This way, you can stay home in November and still have the satisfaction of having voted against a Clinton!

Oh yeah, you're welcome.

Posted by: Jack M. at 09:40 AM | Comments (24)
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

Chilling post from Hot Air -- yes, reality is confirmed, if Hillary doesn't start winning and winning big (specifically in Ohio and Texas) her campaign is finished. The superdelegates she's counting on won't stay with her just to back the weak candidate.

Hillary! is now Hillary?

And this point is so obvious I guess it needs to be made:

A few days ago, I asked an experienced Democratic strategist this question: Given everything that has happened in the campaign so far, is there any foreseeable scenario under which Hillary Clinton wins the nomination and black Democrats say, ‘Well, Obama ran a good race, but she won it fair and square’”? The strategist said, no, there is no such scenario. The damage has already been done, and if Obama is defeated by the votes of superdelegates loyal to the Clintons, Democrats will be a party plagued by divisions far more serious than anything Republicans are experiencing now.

So duh I think even I've written that.

So we've got to put lipstick on this pig ASAP, guys. Switch your party registration, tell a friend, vote early and often.

Oh, and it looks like Hillary is going to lose today. Though probably not by the margins predicted:

I had a two word answer for all the folks who said it was over, that Hillary was dead, that all the money and momentum for Obama meant he would walk on water come the time for the polls to close.

Two words - New Hampshire. And New Hampshire it was.

ItÂ’s not that Obama didnÂ’t do well, of course he did. He did very well.

But, California turned out to be as clear-cut a victory for Hillary as most people thought it would be two weeks earlier. The Latino and women's vote stayed with Hillary.

New York was a romp. New Jersey was easy. Even Massachusetts — the most liberal state in the nation, where Obama won the endorsements of both Senators, Kennedy and Kerry, not to mention the newly elected African American Governor, Deval Patrick, even Massachusetts was Clinton country.

What is going on?

If you paid attention to the gushers in the press and punditry in the days leading up to Super Tuesday, Hillary was on her way to the morgue, murdered by her crazy husbandÂ’s loose talk, abandoned by young voters and women and anti-war Democrats, and anyone else they could think of.

Not so.

Partly, it’s a measure of Hillary’s strength. But it’s also a sign of Obama’s weakness which, it seems, we who chatter for a living have been reluctant to speak about, lest we be tarred with having raised the “race card.”

But, the fact is that there is a long pattern of what we in California call the “Bradley problem” in polling, after the former Los Angeles mayor who was elected governor in every poll, including the exits, except that he lost at the ballot box. Did I mention that he was African-American?

That was, according to the pollsters, the problem: about 10 percent of the electorate claimed that they were going to vote for him, and in many cases even told pollsters that they did, but they lied.

Shocking. Racism in America. WhoÂ’d a thunk it?

Only a small part of that is racism. A lot of it is just political correctness -- we're all supposed to claim we want the black guy to win, even if we don't like him terribly much.

Plus, the left is singing songs to his divinity. It's rude to deny a messiah.

Estrich moves on to play the race card herself:

...

No one doubts, or at least no one who is honest does, that both racism and sexism come into play as people decide between Clinton and Obama, but could it be that people are more willing to admit that they wonÂ’t vote for the woman than that they wonÂ’t vote for the black?

If this is happening even among us good Democrats, what does that say about ObamaÂ’s strength in a general election? Not pretty questions. Not a fair world.

But for Democrats who want to win, these are questions that must be addressed.

Hey, fine. Whatever it takes for My Gal to win, I'm in favor of it.

Posted by: Ace at 08:56 AM | Comments (45)
Post contains 720 words, total size 4 kb.

In the file marked "Huh. I didn't know that," Fred Thompson endorsed John McCain this past Friday. I don't know if I missed it because I was busy or if it wasn't widely reported. Both Stop the ACLU and Michelle Malkin had it over the weekend.

"This is no longer about past preferences or differences. It is about what is best for our country and for me that means that Republican should close ranks behind John McCain," Thompson said in a statement reported by the Associated Press.

Thompson's endorsement was expected. The two men were colleagues for years in the Senate and shared what associates called a friendship. But while he was in the race, Thompson had bristled at the idea that he was going to drop out and endorse McCain.

The endorsement now may help McCain to coalesce the factions of the party around him. Thompson, who represented Tennessee in the Senate for eight years, is thought of well in the South, an area that McCain has not done well in.

Malkin seems very offended (surprise) at being told to "fall in line." The endorsement hasn't brought McCain the South and it almost doesn't matter for purposes of the primaries. Republican voters are left with only two candidates to chose from, and the national polls reflect that.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:46 AM | Comments (49)
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

The bastards just won't quit.

Apparently not contented to wait for a pro-amnesty President to be elected (whoops, we already did that), House Democrats are working on a plan to give every illegal alien currently in the US a ‘temporary’ 5 year visa.

Of course there will be the fines and the background checks. You remember the criminal background checks… the ones that Homeland Security and the FBI can’t get done for people waiting on the list to get in legally but will magically get done for millions and millions of illegals. Now about this bridge I have for sale in Brooklyn….

This is all coming up now because there are some ‘conservative’ House Democrats who are pushing for an enforcement only bill and of course that’s got the liberals in the House all in a flutter.

When does McCain get asked about all of this and is it good enough for you if he says either, this is a hypothetical bill and he won’t comment on it or just repeats his lessons learned spiel?

UPDATE:
First, this is not for those with weak hearts. LauraW sent me this link and described her reaction thusly…”I could feel my carotid artery throb, and the right side of my face became paralyzed. It's quite stimulating.”

Now she’s a hunchback so she can take it. You? Maybe not so much.

Anyway…

The President of Mexico knows what’s wrong with the US…people who don’t love open borders.

"The worst thing that happened in this country is this anti-Mexican or anti-immigrant perception of people. We need to contain this," Calderon said after a speech at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

"I need to change in Mexico the perception that the Americans are the enemy, and it is important to change the perception that the Mexicans are the enemy," he said. "We are neighbors, we are friends and we must be allies."

By my count this is the 8,542 time I’ve had to say this…it’s not the immigrants. It’s not the Mexicans. It’s the ILLEGAL part that I and I think most other enforcement types object to. Of course, that's a distinction the President never gets around to making.

But really there’s almost no point in making this argument. The open borders types never argue facts, they simply paint sympathetic pictures of the illegal immigrants and call everyone else racist.

BTW- If Mexicans view us as ‘the enemy’ why are so many of them risking their lives to come here?

Posted by: DrewM. at 07:41 AM | Comments (66)
Post contains 423 words, total size 3 kb.

The bastards just won't quit.

Apparently not contented to wait for a pro-amnesty President to be elected (whoops, we already did that), House Democrats are working on a plan to give every illegal alien currently in the US a ‘temporary’ 5 year visa.

Of course there will be the fines and the background checks. You remember the criminal background checksÂ… the ones that Homeland Security and the FBI canÂ’t get done for people waiting on the list to get in legally but will magically get done for millions and millions of illegals. Now about this bridge I have for sale in BrooklynÂ….

This is all coming up now because there are some ‘conservative’ House Democrats who are pushing for an enforcement only bill and of course that’s got the liberals in the House all in a flutter.

When does McCain get asked about all of this and is it good enough for you if he says either, this is a hypothetical bill and he wonÂ’t comment on it or just repeats his lessons learned spiel?

UPDATE:
First, this is not for those with weak hearts. LauraW sent me this link and described her reaction thusly…”I could feel my carotid artery throb, and the right side of my face became paralyzed. It's quite stimulating.”

Now sheÂ’s a hunchback so she can take it. You? Maybe not so much.

AnywayÂ…

The President of Mexico knows whatÂ’s wrong with the USÂ…people who donÂ’t love open borders.

"The worst thing that happened in this country is this anti-Mexican or anti-immigrant perception of people. We need to contain this," Calderon said after a speech at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

"I need to change in Mexico the perception that the Americans are the enemy, and it is important to change the perception that the Mexicans are the enemy," he said. "We are neighbors, we are friends and we must be allies."

By my count this is the 8,542 time IÂ’ve had to say thisÂ…itÂ’s not the immigrants. ItÂ’s not the Mexicans. ItÂ’s the ILLEGAL part that I and I think most other enforcement types object to. Of course, that's a distinction the President never gets around to making.

But really thereÂ’s almost no point in making this argument. The open borders types never argue facts, they simply paint sympathetic pictures of the illegal immigrants and call everyone else racist.

BTW- If Mexicans view us as ‘the enemy’ why are so many of them risking their lives to come here?

Posted by: DrewM at 07:41 AM | Comments (65)
Post contains 430 words, total size 3 kb.

The only competitive eating I've done is a bet I had with a couple of co-workers about 15 years ago on who could eat the most slices of pizza at a lunchtime buffet. I ate 18 slices (they were pretty small, so it was probably a whole xtra large pizza) and I can't remember if I won or not, since we all pretty much slept at our desks that afternoon.

You all saw the announcement of what I'll be doing on March 1, so you know that I'm going to be looking down at a plate filled with sweet, artery clogging pork candy and wondering how to eat it all & ask for seconds.

The eating contest is supposed to run from 2pm to 3pm, and I'm assuming that we'll have the whole hour to get busy with chowing down. I'm assuming that the bacon will be sliced to a regular thickness like you find at the store, so it's probably fair to figure that it will weigh approximately 1 ounce per slice (precooked weight), resulting in 16 slices per pound. If I plan on eating a slice every 15 seconds, that puts me on pace to eat 1/4 pound of bacon every minute, and gives me a hour-end total of 15 pounds. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't WANT to eat 15 pounds of bacon at one sitting, but I've got to have a pace, so this is the one I've chosen. I'm not figuring in any bathroom breaks, or stopping to laugh as my opponents spew half-digested bacon & PBR on the crowd, so that pace isn't intended to be an hour-long average. I just figure that I should try to eat at a constant rate, and that seems like a good number to shoot for.

What I need now is advice on how to prepare myself for the day of reckoning. Should I eat lots of bulky foods in the run-up to the event to help stretch my stomach, or should I go in hungry & hope my stomach stretches enough during the competition to accomodate the platters of crispy pig that I'll be wolfing down? One of my college buddies is going with me, and he jokingly said that he's planning on sitting down every night with "Eye of the Tiger" on the stereo and 2 pounds of bacon on his plate to "train for the event".

Any thoughts?

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at 07:04 AM | Comments (50)
Post contains 422 words, total size 2 kb.

Heller has been in the news recently because the parties and amici have been filing their briefs with the Supreme Court. Along with the consolidated cases making up the Indiana Voter ID case, a decision in Heller is enthusiastically awaited by court-watching conservatives this term. Most people believe that the Court is ready to conclusively decide that the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to keep and bear arms, and not a collective one (or "narrow individual right" as it has been restyled).

I've been amused by the dueling amicus briefs, which raise interesting policy issues distinctly separate from the question in Heller. For example: more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 01:06 AM | Comments (26)
Post contains 1094 words, total size 8 kb.

The Wasthington Post's Dan Balz considers "8 Questions the Potomac Primary Could Answer" in today's paper. They are good questions, but the answers are largely just guesswork. Click on over to see what he thinks, then come back here for my answers. I disagree with Balz on the answers to questions 1, 2, and 3. The rest are either too obvious or too speculative to say.

1) Will a Sweep by Obama Make Him the Front-Runner?
Balz says "no." I say "yes." At the moment, he is out in front merely because he managed to come from obscurity to beat Senator Inevitable. Clinton spent the last year losing ground, even if she's still ahead in some national polls. Her recent losses, along with her money problems and the shakeup in her campaign team are sending bad signs to primary voters. Wins in Ohio and Texas will go a long way toward fixing the impression that her campaign is in freefall.

On the other hand, if Obama sweeps Wisconsin, Ohio, and Texas, I think we can safely call him the frontrunner. At that point, he'll have enough of a lead on Clinton that even with the dueling methods of counting pledged delegates he'll be a clear winner.

INSERT: Yeah, loose shit. The Potomac Primaries (DC, Virginia, Maryland) are today. Wisconsin is next week. Ohio and Texas are March 4.

2) Will the Clinton-Obama Race Split the Party?
No. As fun as it is to daydream about Clinton losing it during one of the upcoming debates and saying something overtly racist, I don't believe that it is going to happen. I'm sure you've noticed that both campaigns have pulled back somewhat from the cliff's edge they were fighting on in the past month. However personal it gets sometimes, these are professional politicians. They are not going to sacrifice the party; it would mean that even if they took down their opponent, they'd have sown the seeds of their own defeat. Keep in mind that the superdelegates, who it appears will be deciding this race, are also professional politicians who rely on the continuation of the DNC to remain in power.

As far as the observation that Obama's supporters are unlikely to turn out for Clinton in the general election, I think that was true even before the racist episodes.

3) Will Edwards Endorse Someone Soon?
Edwards missed his chance to really extort a position out of one of the candidates. He may still be able to cut a deal, but his political clout lessens every day. Too much time has passed; his supporters have already switched to one of the remaining candidates.

Balz writes that "[a]n endorsement would make a big splash," but I think that's only true to the extent that it will spawn a thousand articles and blog posts. But I doubt very much it will sway many voters.

I look forward to seeing what the morons think in the comments. We should have better guesses by this evening.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 01:06 AM | Comments (26)
Post contains 505 words, total size 3 kb.

Since everyone is emailing this, I guess it's interesting.

Posted by: Ace at 07:40 PM | Comments (26)
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.