I'm probably the last person who's seen it (I'm slow). Still, some of these "In the Bunker" videos make me giggle like a little girl.

(only some, the joke's kinda played. Dead horse, meet DiT whip)

The National Republican Congressional Committee tweeted it (that verb is coming, if it isn't already here), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee got all outragey outraged, so the NRCC spokesman apologized. Given Pelosi's stupid remarks about Tea Party demonstrators, you should probably turn off your irony meter before you read it.

But since you're not humor-impaired, check this out.

via Cuffster. more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 01:47 PM | Comments (48)
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

Peoples Republic of Baltimore 52
buzzion 49
moflicky 49
Dave R 48
Liberrocky's Losers 48
Sock Puppet Steve 48
Svenster61 48
Red State NY 48
Carthago Delenda Est 47

10 racists tied with 46

More importantly I've gained ground on DrewM. I'm just a racist in your rearview mirror, gettin ready to pass on the right.

Thanks again to BenRacist for pulling the numbers together.

Update: Heck of a way to win (or lose) a high school football game. more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 01:13 PM | Comments (37)
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

Comparing him to Yaphet Kotto, the villain in the Bond flick Live and Let Die, and opining that he'd like to see Rush Limbaugh die in a similar fashion.

This from a guy who just a few weeks ago was ranting about the undercurrents of incitement to political violence on the right wing, just the same way the right wing was talking up violence in 1963. (He forgot to mention that while there was indeed dark talk of violence by the right in '63, Kennedy was in fact killed by Marxist/Soviet-emigrant Lee Harvey Oswald. Must have slipped his mind.)

But talking about the murder of Rush Limbaugh? Just good, insightful political commentary.

Incidentally, that whole "racist" thing in the headline? Yeah. Not the dumbest racism charge of the day. Seems Tammy Bruce wanted a funny picture to illustrate a post about Obama getting the Nobel Prize, so she put up one of a raccoon digging in a Cracker Jack box.

Raccoon. Raccoon. Don't you see? Don't you see the racism?

Well the brain trust at Sadly, No! did. (Above link is to Patterico, goofing on them.)

Thanks to DrewM.

Oh: Rush's "Slavery" Comment. The left has been claiming that Rush once said (years ago) that slavery had its benefits -- including that it was "safe to walk the streets at night," or something along those lines.

When I read that, I figured that that was Rush doing that irony thing -- taking his opponents' claims to their logical conclusion, to show the stupidity of them; irony that liberal critics alway seem to fail to comprehend.

I didn't realize that there was another explanation -- that the "Limbaugh remarks" are simply invented out of whole cloth.

O'Reilly's research team can find no evidence of these remarks -- no audio, no contemporaneous reportage of them -- except the left's own unsourced claims about something they all claim happened twenty years ago. The only citation for this claim seems to be the left all quoting each other's assertions about it.

They seem to have simply made it up.

This possibility -- that the left is simply lying ad making stuff up -- rarely occurs to me. I usually assume that there's a kernel of truth here; they may be twisting it, but there's still some truth in their claims.

I don't know why I assume that. I guess I just assume that no one is malicious or stupid enough to simply invent libelous claims.

But the left never fails to disappoint.

Thanks to RobertE.

More: The Left actually has a pattern of inventing "Limbaugh quotes," inserting them into WikiQuote, and then citing their own made-up WikiQuote entries as evidence of Limbaugh's supposed racism.

This blog provides a case study of this behavior -- some guy simply making up a "Limbaugh quote" from 1998 -- in 2005 -- stating that MLKJr's assassin should have been awarded a Congressional Medal of Honor, and wishing him "Godspeed."

Um, in 1998, Rush Limbaugh was huge. If he had said this someone would have noticed. A quote praising MLK Jr's assassin would, I'm pretty sure, have made it into one of Al Franken's moronbooks.

But Wiki itself is so politicized that despite clear evidence this was entirely fabricated by some internet loser, they will only go so far as to say the quote is "DISPUTED."

Disputed. Absolutely zero evidence it was ever said, and lots of evidence it was simply fabricated, and the best we get out of Wiki is "DISPUTED."

MSNBC Peddles: MSNBC couldn't track down the quote, of course, it being made up out of whole cloth.

Did that stop them from running it? No, of course not -- they quoted linebacker James Farrior mentioning it, running the quote on screen, with the "citation" "Cited by James Farrior."

Cited. See, they're not saying Limbaugh said it -- they're saying someone else says he said it.

That's "journalism" now at MSNBC -- quote things you know for a fact aren't quotes at all and dodge your fact-checking by just noting a linebacker "cited" the claim.

That "cited by James Farrior" is evidence of MSNBC's guilty knowledge -- it's plain they attempted to find a citation for the claim. It's also clear that they came up empty.

So rather than debunking the claim, or just not reporting it all, they report that someone else claims it was said. And offer the word "cited" in the supposed attribution to give the quote some kind of superficial authority.

But you know, FoxNews is biased and stuff, and used to run the outrageous shorthand quote of Al Gore's -- "I invented the internet" -- when he said nothing of the kind.

He merely said "During my time in Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet." Completely different, you see.

Posted by: Ace at 11:05 AM | Comments (279)
Post contains 816 words, total size 6 kb.

The CBO has very strict rules about how they "score" a bill. Most importantly, they have to score a bill -- or "conceptual language" in a non-bill, as we have here -- according to what is written therein, even if it's jackass.

In other words, if a bill claims that certain things are going to happen that the CBO knows with 95% confidence will never happen -- like Medicare payments being cut -- the CBO still has to pretend those cuts will happen, even though they know, as we all know, they almost certainly won't.

Their scoring methodology resembles a computer's "thinking" -- a computer doesn't think. It follows the rules it's been programmed to follow, no matter how stupid those rules might be. It has no common sense or judgment. The analysts at the CBO might have common sense and judgment, but they're stripped of that -- prevented from using that -- by the "code" of the program they follow, hard-wired into the system by law.

That means that it's not very hard to trick the CBO's "programming," just as it's no difficult feat to crash a computer. Garbage in, garbage out. And the Baucus bill is specifically designed to produce garbage, to get a "salable number" for the deficit.

And that number, while salable, is 100% false, by design.

Among the tricks used to generate that false number:

1. Increased revenues through increased taxes begin in 2010, but new payments and outflows begin in 2013. Meaning the ten-year window the CBO is required to score contains ten years of higher taxes and higher revenues, but only seven years of higher expenses. This is obviously an apples-to-oranges comparison -- and if the CBO looked at 2013 through 2023, with ten years of higher revenue matched against ten years of higher expenses, they'd find a growing deficit, not a faked-up "deficit reduction" of $81 billion.

But the Baucus bill deliberately takes advantage of the artificial stupidity of the CBO's code to compare seven years of spending to ten years of taxes to get a "deficit reduction."

Sure it's jackass to do that. But that's the way the CBO is supposed to do it -- even if it makes no sense -- and the Baucus bill "conceptual language" deliberately exploits that in order to deceive the public.

2. A large amount of the expense for federal health care spending is simply pushed off to the states, taking it off the fed's books -- supposedly. But the states are all operating at deficits now -- they only reason they're not bankrupt is that the federal government periodically votes them huge grants (supposedly as "stimulus") to help close the gap between revenue and spending.

If this health care bill passes, the states will be in even worse shape fiscally. They will avoid bankruptcy through two means: They will raise taxes -- many of these hitting those who make under $200,000 per year (sales taxes, cigarette taxes, other sin taxes) and thus breaking Obama's pledge of no new taxes for such people. He's just mandating that the states do his dirty work for him.

And they will seek, and receive, more aid from the federal government, this aid granted to pay down the huge new unfunded mandates the government has imposed on them.

The CBO's rules are deliberately subverted here -- because technically, the states are supposed to come up with this revenue themselves. In reality -- which the CBO isn't allowed to consider -- the federal government will simply grant them more aid.

The trick is that this aid-to-the-states, inevitable as death, isn't counted as a cost of the Baucus plan. After all, it's not specifically labeled "Federal Subsidies to the States to Fund Federal Health Care Mandates." It's not labeled at all, and so the CBO can't count it as a cost of the federal health care plan. (Actually, since this inevitable aid isn't written into law -- yet -- they have to pretend it's not going to happen at all, and not count what they know will ultimately be passed.)

In reality, it should be so counted. If the federal government has to start granting the states $40 billion a year to pay for the new mandates, that is a federal expense deriving from the Baucus bill. But it won't be labeled as such, and the CBO therefore won't score it as such.

Schwarzenegger, quoted widely by the Leftwing Media in "support" of ObamaCare, specifically objected to this shell-game, stating that if a program is too expensive for the federal government, it's damnsure too expensive for the rickety finances of the states. (Oddly enough, the Leftwing Media wasn't particularly interested in this part of his remarks.)

3. Part of the revenue is supposed to come from increased taxes on high-end insurance plans. Trouble is, health care costs rise every year, and in some states, the health care costs are high enough that it won't take too many years before many plans are deemed "Cadillac plans" and get higher taxes imposed on them -- according to the bill as it is written.

Because the CBO isn't supposed to take into account that Congress will escalate the level at which those increased taxes start kicking in. Garbage in, garbage out.

Congress will almost certainly adjust the numbers in the future to keep too many middle class families from paying big new taxes on their health care policies. And so the deficit will be increased, because a big chunk of the Baucus bill's "conceptual language's" revenues assume that all those voters will be ponying up more in taxes in the future. Again, the "conceptual language" is written in such a way to induce the CBO to pretend that the sky is pink and therefore give them their absurd "deficit reduction" claim.

4. A lot of "savings" come from cutting Medicare and Medicaid... supposedly. But year after year Congress blocks any proposed cuts; this is the third rail in American politics. But the CBO is obligated to pretend they don't know this, simply because the Baucus "conceptual language" claims it will happen.

In all the above examples, the Baucus bill "conceptual language" is written not as a bona fide plan of legislation, but as a "hack" designed for no other purpose than to exploit the strict rules the CBO works under and produce a false number for public consumption. A more straightforward and honest bit of "conceptual language" was scored by the CBO as producing a big new deficit. That conceptual language has not been changed in any meaningful way -- it's simply been reworded to abuse the CBO's methodology and produce a false result.

"Hello," they lied.

And wait 'til they get past their introductions.

Oh, and 5.

5. It's nearly an absolute rule that a politician can't vote to cut Medicare or Medicaid -- not without putting his career at risk. Health care coverage is income like any other -- if your employer gives you a $5000 insurance policy, that's $5000 in income. Same if the federal government gives you that policy -- that is income to you, courtesy of the government other taxpayers.

Medicare and Medicaid are key factors blowing up the US budget in ten years or less. But no one can do anything to bring those costs under control, because -- well, there are millions of seniors who vote. And when they vote, they are being asked, basically, if they'd like to cut their salaries.

Or if they'd like to keep their salaries.

Or if they'd like to increase their salaries.

Guess which is the most attractive option, which is the next most attractive option, and which is the least attractive option of all?

The Baucus/Obama plan will put millions of Americans in the exact same position as the nation's seniors -- where the most important factor (or one of the top three, at least) is whether a politician promises to increase their salary, keep it at the same rate, or... make less income.

Yay, less income!

But the CBO is not supposed to take into consideration what happens when millions of Americans are newly socialized and their primary choice every election cycle is whether to give themselves a raise.

I don't believe they're going to forgo raises very often, and I know for a fact they're never going to vote to cut their salaries.

Posted by: Ace at 10:26 AM | Comments (113)
Post contains 1425 words, total size 9 kb.

But sick. Sorry for taking yesterday off, but I was sick, it was Columbus Day, and my pud's not going to slap itself.

Infringement: Michael Jackson and Paul Anka co-wrote a song 20 years ago. Jackson never recorded it, so Anka gave the song to another singer, who recorded it. And then Jackson retitled it and either he or his estate credited him solely with it on his posthumously-released album.

After making some legal threats, Jackson's estate has given Anka the proper co-credit and 50% of the royalties.

TMZ has cuts of both versions of the song, for comparison.

Thanks to JeffD. and a few other commenters.

Posted by: Ace at 09:20 AM | Comments (77)
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

Noted in this post over at Hot Air written by "Eeyore-pundit" himself (I keed, I keed; all the AP critics should read it anyway because he's got a good point).

Quick summary: Pawlenty is hiring two former McCain staffers, including Randy Scheunemann, who was Sarah's more aggressive defender among the insiders from Team McCain. Does this mean that Scheunemann has soured on Sarah and is looking for greener pastures? Does it mean that she's unlikely to run in 2012?

My thoughts? It's too damn early to tell. Maybe RS has had a change of heart and now loves him some Minnesota Nice. Maybe he's just looking for a paycheck and Pawlenty is willing to hire him 3 years out while Palin wants to wait a while to assemble her team. Maybe.....she's just not that into him?

One question that I have to ask: Is it really VITAL for Sarah to hire former McCain staffers for a potential 2012 presidential run? Its not like that team really covered itself in glory the last time they were on the field, now is it?

You don't hear a lot of ESPN talking heads downplaying the Lakers' chances at making the playoffs this year due to their inability to sign any former Washington Generals starters, do you? Wouldn't this be somewhat of a similar situation?

Don't jump ugly on AP for asking the question, because its a good question and it needed to be asked. Just don't start weeping & gnashing your teeth while screaming "GAME OVER, MAN! GAME OVER!" repeatedly. WAY too early for that, if you ask me.

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at 09:00 AM | Comments (50)
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

I think Hillary! was overcharged for her "Reset" button.

Russia pushed back Tuesday at U.S. efforts to threaten tough new sanctions if Iran fails to prove its nuclear program is peaceful, a setback to the Obama administration's desire to present a united front with Moscow.

After meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow believed that such threats would not persuade Iran to comply and that negotiations should continue to be pursued.

"At the current stage, all forces should be thrown at supporting the negotiating process," he told reporters at a joint news conference with Clinton. "Threats, sanctions and threats of pressure in the current situation, we are convinced, would be counterproductive."

...Clinton, who met later with Medvedev, said she had not asked for Moscow's specific support for actually imposing sanctions. But U.S. officials said they were disappointed that Lavrov had come out against even the threat of new penalties.

One senior official traveling with Clinton said the U.S. continued to believe it is critical to get tangible signs of support from Moscow for at least considering new sanctions because the more united they are, the more likely pressure on Iran is to work. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal administration thinking.

Sergey? Hello? Three words...Nobel Peace Prize. What the hell is the problem here? It's like you think Russia has national interests (which include stymieing the US whenever possible) and aren't willing to give them up because Obama is, well, not George Bush.

That sound you hear? The Iranians laughing as they get their 'secret' enrichment site ready for the big inspection.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:26 AM | Comments (67)
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

It's going to pass but that is somewhat meaningless since this bill will have nothing to do with the final bill. Whatever they pass today they will have to be reconciled with the Senate HELP Committee bill. Then that will have to be reconciled with whatever the House passes.

So today is an interesting milestone in that we'll get to see where a couple of potential crossover votes stand at the moment...Olympia Snowe of Maine and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.

Right now Senators are making speeches and asking questions. Rockefeller just asked Douglas Elmendorf (CBO Director) if insurance companies could suck up the added costs and not pass them on (that's the answer Rocky wanted). Elmendorf gave the honest answer...added costs almost always get passed through to consumers.

Hatch is pointing out this is a farce and that the real bill is being written somewhere behind closed doors and arguing for the 72 hour review period.

I'm not going to liveblog this (real work and all) but I'll update if there's a surprising announcement in the voting.

Snowe just asked a series of process questions about CBO scoring and legislative language. It's important but arcane and gave no hint about her vote.

UPDATE:
Lincoln sounds like she's voting yes. She cited the CBO scoring and then a litany of how awesome it will be for Arkansas.

Says she's in for now but not a guarantee for the future. She sounds a little afraid for doing so but she's in for now.

UPDATE 2 I hate this woman. Like Lincoln she says it's not a promise to vote this way in the future and it's a flawed bill with lots of bad things in it. She rambled on about "history" calling and the need to show Congress can act. What an idiot.

She actually thinks her vote adds legitimacy to the process and outcome (her words, not my interpretation).

God damn I hate these "we were sent here to do something, anything" people. She lost on process (legislative language), she lost on budget and other issues and yet she is voting yes and handing the Democrats a bill and a political tool to do what she says she opposes in the name of doing 'something'. And being the great bi-partisan lioness of the Senate.

Get your ego gratification somewhere else Olympia, this stuff is too important.

Update 3 [ace]: Lieberman says he'll vote no. He says he doesn't like the fact that 87% of the new tax revenue from the plan will come out of the wallets of those making less than $200,000 per year.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:03 AM | Comments (216)
Post contains 457 words, total size 3 kb.

Big story later today...Senate Finance Committee vote on health care bill.

Posted by: DrewM at 05:20 AM | Comments (129)
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

Welcome to Monday all. Or as I refer to it, Day 78 in the great White House Shunning of Fox News. Robert Gibbs was the last administration official to appear on Fox and that was on July 26th. Maybe we should start tying yellow ribbons on the old oak tree.

Oh and congrats to our own US Citizen for winning Iowahawk's Endowment For The Arts contest. Spend that $33.18 wisely!

Attack of the Eel
How four brave Houston fisherman defeated a prehistoric monster using only their wits along with a beer cooler lid, steel gaff, the rest of the cooler, and a fire extinguisher. And yes, beer was involved. When they make the movie, the tagline will be: "Never be afraid to cut the line."
(Thanks to Jim Wilson via genghis)

Posted by: Open Blog at 06:10 PM | Comments (886)
Post contains 376 words, total size 3 kb.