Here's the speech as prepared. The Weekly Standard provides a brief recap of the most to-the-point quotes right up front.

The title of the post is taken from the cool facts about Dick Cheney thread.

While on a sex-spree in a Tijuana whorehouse, Dick Cheney used a live cougar as a condom.

The bodycount was fourteen Mexican whores and one cougar.

In Tijuana, they refer to this as "The Night of the Sodomizing Cougar-Man."
Dick Cheney refers to it as "last Thursday."

Thanks to DrewM.

Posted by: Ace at 02:50 PM | Comments (167)
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

It's written right here on my script, she says.

As Ron Burgundy could tell her, that's really not a good excuse. (Warning for one F-bomb.)

Oh-- and keep, um, plucking that chicken, Contessa.

Posted by: Ace at 02:10 PM | Comments (181)
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

A clatch of super-liberal commentators met with Obama. Olbermann, Maddow, Dowd, Gwen Ifil, Eugene Robinson.

And Gloria Borger.

Needless to say, The One’s entitled to talk to whomever he wants, but playing pattycake with MSNBC’s primetime stars does further raise the question of why Beck and Hannity are problematic “opinion” shows while Olbermann and Maddow aren’t. And yes, that question is entirely rhetorical.

Well. Look what Borger came out of that Monday meeting with. (Link Fixed.)

Borger: Republicans snipe instead of offering solutions

Borger: Republicans have opposed Obama's work on health care, economy, war
GOP arguments against president are way to avoid taking responsibility, she says

So far we already have a strong echo of Obama's "mop" speech.

She says Republicans have gained politically from opposing president
But, she says, GOP will need substantive arguments to beat Obama in election

By Gloria Borger
CNN Senior Political Analyst

Editor's note: Gloria Borger is a senior political analyst for CNN, appearing regularly on CNN's "The Situation Room," "Campbell Brown," "AC360°" and "State of the Union With John King," as well as during special event coverage.

And she just met with Obama, dictaphone at the ready. They don't mention that.

Gloria Borger says Republicans complain about Obama as they look for ways to avoid responsibility.

(CNN) -- Every president believes, upon election, that his term of service will be transformative. Some, like Barack Obama, actually campaign on the idea: that his brand of leadership and force of personality are so persuasive that they will change the way the world (aka Washington) does business. "We are the hope for the future," the candidate told a crowd before his huge wins on Super Tuesday last year. "[We are] the answer to the cynics who tell us our house must stand divided."

How has that worked out for the new president?

No Republican votes in the House on the economic stimulus package; a handful in the Senate.

No real help in the House on health care reform; a single GOP vote, so far, in the Senate.

On Afghanistan, GOP applause when he sent more than 20,000 troops at the beginning of his term. Now, Republican predictions of outright catastrophe if the president doesn't send 40,000 more ASAP.

The math is a simple GOP political calculation: The economy? Obama owns it. Afghanistan? It's his war.

...

Sure, some GOPers complain that Obama let the liberals hijack his agenda -- and, in some instances, they're right. But mostly, their arguments have just been a rationale as they look for ways to leave no fingerprints. It's always easier to run to the hills and shout "no" from safe terrain.

Republicans have predictably gained some political traction with their "he's-a-big-spending-liberal" Obama narrative. And there's no doubt that House Democrats from moderate districts are increasingly at risk, given the burgeoning deficit.

Sill, Republicans haven't exactly been reborn, either. Consider this: A new Washington Post/ABC news poll Tuesday reports that only 20 percent of Americans now consider themselves Republicans -- the lowest number in 26 years. That's not exactly a national vote of confidence.

What has that to do with her thesis, here? Note she calls it "predictable" that Republicans have had some traction calling Obama a tax-and-spend liberal -- as if we're merely calling him that, but he isn't guilty of the charge.

And then she notes the deficit. In two words. Count 'em: "Burgeoning. Deficit."

And where you'd expect she'd now rebut those charges -- given that she's not willing to credit them with any substantive validity whatsoever -- her rebuttal comes in the form of repeating the WaPo silliness about only 20% of the public identifying as Republicans.

What does a party's relative popularity have to do with the validity of the charges it's making?

So now comes the tipping point. It's almost one year, and Obama's economic plan has been hatched. The result? While Wall Street and some banks are coming back, the jobs and home loans are not. It's trouble for the Democrats.

As for health care and Afghanistan, more trouble ahead. Assuming the president gets some kind of reform by Christmas, it won't be everything he wanted, but it will be more than enough fodder for Republicans to rip apart, piece by piece. For deficit hawks, it will inevitably cost too much. For seniors, there will be complaints it will raise Medicare costs. And on and on.

Afghanistan is another conundrum preoccupying the president. Send more troops, and liberal Democrats are horrified. Send fewer than 40,000 troops for at least $40 billion -- as requested by the generals -- and Republicans will tag Obama as a weak commander in chief. (Some of these are the same Republicans, by the way, who don't want to add a penny to the deficit.)

Why is only the "horrified" reaction of liberals' legitimate? She mentions that as if that political calculus is perfectly relevant here. But then she immediately demeans Republicans for tagging Obama as a "weak commander in chief" if Obama balks at doing what is necessary to win a war.

Republicans are dicks for wanting to win a war. (And hypocritical, too!) But, on the other hand, liberal senators would be "horrified" if we tried to win the war, so, you know, liberals have the edge here.

The problem set is enormous: How to set a broken economy on a path of growth while fixing high unemployment.

The solution, on the other hand, was simple: All we had to do was pass Obama's spendulus, and we were promised this "enormous" problem set would go away.

Oh? What's that? Now it's much more complicated than that?

Oh. Well. Gee, I guess it's the Republicans' fault Obama had to promise his Spendulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8%.

How to fix a broken health care system with 46 million uninsured.

Off-message, Gloria. Even NPR is sending around memos telling their reporters not to claim 46 million, as that figure includes illegal aliens, and the Democrats are now pretending they won't insure illegal aliens.

30 million, Gloria. 30 million.

Oh well I guess Obama slipped and said "46 million" again.

How to fix a war in which it may already be too late to succeed.

Um, the Republicans have a plan -- it's McChrystal's plan, put forward by the man Obama hand-picked for the task. So this seems to go against your general thesis that all Republicans do is say "No."

Sad how the calculations work, though. The more complex the political problems, the more simple the opposition math: If it's tough, disappear.

Again, Republicans are urging Obama to follow McChrystal's recommendations. The fact that this "horrifies" liberals does not change that fact.

Obama finds anything he doesn't want to, or can't, handle (a list of things that grows on a daily basis) too "complicated" to solve.

That may work for now and the midterm elections. But when it's time to challenge Obama, there's more simple arithmetic to consider: It's hard to beat something with nothing.

Obama whines about FoxNews' "biased" coverage, and the media say nothing, as the rest of the media knows they offer this kind of biased, partisan "analysis" every single day.

Every. Single. Day.

Borger's piece isn't particularly remarkable, except for the suggestive timing of it coming out right after her chat with Obama, in which he surely whined about every Republican who won't "help him with the mopping."

The Head-Pat Media puts this crap out there every day. And then they have the gall to call FoxNews partisan?

It only seems partisan to them because it's the opposite of the partisan messaging they engage in every single day.

When Obama and his Liberal Spirit Squad talk about Republicans "offering solutions," what they really mean is "Republicans should offer their votes." Because that's what is wanted -- votes. Not input, not constructive criticism, just the rubber stamp of their votes.

And, of course, Borger goes through this whole essay without noting that Democrats have supermajorities in both houses of Congress and don't need a single Republican vote to pass anything they want, including defeating any and all filibusters.

But Democrats won't pass this. Thus the need for Republican votes. And just the votes, thank you -- Democrats want their at-risk members to be able to vote against this horror so that they can get re-elected. They want Republicans to vote for this obscenity so that they don't have to.

Republicans do have ideas about health care. Obama just isn't interested in listening.

Last month, he promised in his big prime-time speech that he would take a look at tort reform and including that in the bill.

How's that "taking a look" coming, Sport? I have not heard a single peep from the White House or any Democrat about how this "taking a look" is progressing.

But, you know: Republicans are intransigent and can only say "no."

Obama, on the other hand, is willing to "take a look" at Republican solutions like tort reform.

And he'll keep looking and looking and looking, just like he's looking and looking and looking into the McChrystal report.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Posted by: Ace at 01:45 PM | Comments (123)
Post contains 1570 words, total size 10 kb.

I keep trying to find some info on it, but I can't seem to find anything. I asked Charlie Gibson, but you know, he hadn't heard anything either.

Really, I'm lost here. Can anyone refer me to a blog that might be covering this race?

Your pal,

Jack.

Posted by: Jack M. at 01:35 PM | Comments (87)
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.

I expect the end cannot be far away after Dede Scozzafova's escapade and meltdown at Doug Hoffman's office today.

Exclusive photos from the event at the link and below the fold: more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 01:12 PM | Comments (74)
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

She showed up at Doug Hoffman's office to challenge him to a debate on the street. (He's asked her to debate several times, by the way. She's refused.)

Anyway, check out the visuals she got for her trouble.

Added... Ian's photoshop.

Incidentally, this post wasn't a joke. I attempted to put it into draft the moment after I saw Dave had just done the same post, and thought I had done so, without anyone seeing.

But apparently my internet connection was lost.

When it came back, I checked the site to see that it had never been put into draft. And by that point there were 100 comments mocking me, so what could I do? J

Posted by: Ace at 11:50 AM | Comments (297)
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.

DrewM mentioned earlier that Dede Scozzafava decided to hold a presser outside Hoffman's campaign HQ today to call out her opponents on refusal to debate (which ain't true).

She comes off looking a little out of place.

More here, including video. Check it out, it's even worse (if that's possible).

via Cuffy Meigs

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 11:42 AM | Comments (175)
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

As part of the plan to (giggle) buy doctors' support for ObamaCare (those free white smocks apparently weren't enough), the Democrats wanted to freeze -- forestall -- cuts in their Medicare reimbursements mandated by a 1997 law.

In other words, they want to pay doctors more than what the 1997 law provides for, and the AMA was willing to bless this boondoggle if they just forked over that $247 billion.

They thought that the vote would be easy as they had 27 Republican votes to make up for the 5 known Democratic defectors. But they don't.

Reid is claiming that he was "misled" by the AMA into thinking those 27 Republican votes were there.

The Senate is expected to reject a motion by Reid to begin debate on a doctor payment when it votes on the issue shortly after 2 p.m. on Wednesday. At least five Democrats have said they would not support legislation to shore up doctorsÂ’ payments unless it was paid for.

Reid brought the $247 billion bill to the Senate floor this week as part of a deal to secure the support of doctors groups such as the AMA for passage of a separate, broader healthcare reform bill later this year. But the strategy has backfired.

Reid knew that he needed Republican votes because of several centrist Democrats made it clear to him before this week that they would not vote for the so-called “doctor fix” if its cost was not offset. Reid though he could count on a few Republican crossover votes.

Now, Democrats concede that they will not be able to muster the 60 votes needed to proceed to the bill. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a brief hallway interview that he didnÂ’t think the motion to proceed to the bill would pass.

Reid told reporters on Wednesday that he was led to believe that more than two dozen Republicans would vote for the bill, though he did not mention the AMA by name.

When the day started, I thought this was going to pass. So, that seems good.

Did the Republicans trick Reid?

Two Points: One, everyone in Washington knows this measure is intended to buy the AMA's support for ObamaCare -- so it should be included in the costs of ObamaCare. The Democrats want to pretend it's a standalone, unrelated bill and so "save" $247 billion from the costs of ObamaCare.

Two, it shows the absolute horseshit of Congress promising to make cuts to a government program ten years down the line. This measure, I'm sure, was passed in 1997 for one reason -- to make it look as if we were doing something to contain the exploding costs of Medicaid and Medicare. Well, the cuts promised -- "mandated" by law -- 12 years ago are now due, and Congress of course scrambles to rescind the cuts and restore payments to what they would have been without the 1997 "cuts."

But we're supposed to believe that the various measures that supposedly bring down the costs of ObamaCare, set to occur conveniently in the future, will be carried through?

Cloture Fails... by a lot. 47 vote yes on cloture, 53 against. (Former Klansman Robert Byrd returned to the Senate.)

Not even 50 votes for it.

Posted by: Ace at 10:26 AM | Comments (140)
Post contains 562 words, total size 3 kb.

Yesterday I interviewed Rep. Thaddeus McCotter the #4 ranking Republican in the House and Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee. He is a very sharp guy and had some solid views about our policy for Afghanistan.

Posted by: Uncle Jimbo at 10:19 AM | Comments (27)
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

Details here.*

* I'm totally kidding now, that links to Drew.

Posted by: Ace at 10:10 AM | Comments (20)
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.