Thank God, at last, a candidate for 2012 committed to deficit reduction and limited government and reduced spending!

That candidate? Barack Hussein Obama.

The word went out among Washington politicos yesterday: Barack Obama is about to become very, very tough on federal spending.

I was talking to a Democratic strategist yesterday (our talks are always on a no-name-used basis). He is a supporter of health care reform -- he prefers the Baucus bill at the moment -- but told me that, immediately after winning the health care battle, Obama needs to take a radically different course.

"As soon as health care reform is over, he needs to pivot hard to becoming a deficit and spending hawk and a jobs creator," the strategist told me. "He should say, 'We did the stimulus because the world would have collapsed if we didn't. We did health care because it's something that needed to be done for working families and will reduce the deficit by $100 billion over the next ten years. And now, we're going to become absolute tyrants on spending, and that means I'm going to be vetoing things.'"

I asked whether Obama, after presiding over the stimulus, the bailouts, the big Democratic budget, the House cap-and-trade vote, health care reform, and finally, a tripling of the already-high federal deficit, could plausibly position himself as a spending hawk. "Their principle failure is that they have allowed themselves to be defined as government interventioners and huge spenders," the strategist told me. "If he becomes the great expander of government and the great increaser of spending, he's going to get destroyed in 2012."

But Obama already is the great expander of government and the great increaser of spending, I said. There's a factual basis for his image. How can he change that? "He's got the bully pulpit," the Democrat said. "When he opens his mouth, everybody writes it. He needs to open his mouth on this and frame it and define it until it's holy writ."

Ah, right. He's going to talk about shit and expect the media to cover his ass by relentlessly repeating his claims without fact-checking them. (Only SNL sketches get fact-checked these days.)

What a novel strategy. That well's not going dry anytime soon.

John MacEnroe just emailed me to say "You cannot be serious!"

Also, a rape-battered chicken just emailed me to say he doesn't want just the men who violated to be prosecuted, but the men "who stood and watched and clapped," like in The Accused. He asked me for Kelly McGinnis' phone number, which I do not have.

Posted by: Ace at 09:33 AM | Comments (152)
Post contains 467 words, total size 3 kb.

Good news/bad news: Cook rates 81 of these seats lean Democrat or better, and a mere 27 as lean Republican or better. But that's a bit misleading, because most of the competitive seats are held by Democrats -- in other words, the GOP has lost most competitive/swing districts, and so any most competitive seats we could win represent pick-ups.

A little bit of more good news: Many of the seats rated as lean Democrat are actually Republican district. Cook is factoring in the power of incumbency, I guess, which may be a dubious advantage, given that anti-incumbent sentiment is at its highest level in two decades.

Cook's report seems exactly congruent with his previous forecast -- it's likely that the GOP will pick up seats, and 20 is about the median number. I sort of think he's trapped by his previous analysis, because the Democrats' situation has in fact deterioriated since his last forecast, but that doesn't seem reflected in this new analysis.

There doesn't seem much recognition here that Gallup shows a big shift to the Republicans on the generic ballot, or that the unemployment rate is at 10.2% officially and will likely go to 12%, and that the real unemployment rate is somewhere around 17.5% (and some argue it's as high as 22%), and that the employment situation is just dismal in virtually every way.

Update: For instance:

For how unrealistic Cook is, just look at Carol Shea Porter the two termer from NH listed as likely D. In two very large D years (06 and 0 she had 51% and change against the sitting rep Jeb Bradley. Bradley challenged her again in '08. She is a liberal nut who is a reliable vote for Pelosi. '10 is going to be VERY anti incombent and although most people believe NH was a republican state, it was never. It is a strong libertarian state. They have no sales tax, no income tax, the state legislature is part time and get paid something like $200 per year, etc. So to think a very liberal rep who does not fit her district and couldn't break 52% in the two strongest years for D's since '92 is crazy. She has a very good challenger in Manchester NH mayor and the R candidate for senate Kelly Ayotte is ahead in the polls and will be a very strong candidate (she's the former AG, AG's are appointed by the Gov in NH, not elected but she is very well known statewide.

Yeah, and Owens in NY win's by 5% in a mess of a special election, breaks 4 promises that he ran on the first day and it's lean D.

Cook should include a muliplier with his predictions. What he says will happen then apply the multiplier to see what will happen. But yeah, independants break 2 to 1 in NJ and VA and he just ignores it.

Thanks to CraigA. for pointing that out.

So bad, in fact, that Obama and Reid are cooking up Stimulus 2.0. Because, you know, the last one worked so well, why not do it again?

I mean, when you've got yourself a $1.4 trillion deficit, why not throw another $250 billion into the National Money Hole?
more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:18 AM | Comments (62)
Post contains 570 words, total size 5 kb.

You can read a lot of dumb things on the internet (hell, I've written some of them) but this is surely Hall of Fame level idiocy.

According to law professor Marci Hamilton, the Stupak Amendment banning abortion funding in the health care bill, is unconstitutional on several grounds.

First, the Amendment violates the Constitution's separation of church and state. The anti-abortion movement is plainly religious in motivation, and its lobbyists and spokespersons represent religious groups, as is illustrated by the fact that the most visible lobbyists in the Stupak Amendment's favor have been the Catholic Bishops. This is a brazen and frank attempt to impose a minority's religious worldview on the entirety of American healthcare.

As I've pointed out several times, I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure that argument would have been laughed out of an undergraduate ConLaw class.

ItÂ’s always amusing and a little sad when liberals are more vested in protecting fake, made up rights than they are with real ones. For the record the words "separation of church and state" don't actually appear in the Constitution.

The words that do appear in the 1st Amendment are,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Holding a law unconstitutional for no reason other than it is supported by people of religious faith would seem to run afoul of those bolded clauses.

Do they not teach those parts at Cardozo School of Law?

The professor surely does not think that one forfeits one's rights to "free speech" or "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" simply because they elect to exercise their right to worship.

Or does she?

As John Pitney Jr. points out at The Corner, where I found this article, this argument (such as it is) would mean that the Civil Rights legislation of the 60's was unconstitutional on the same grounds.

Not satisfied with that excursion into the strange, Hamilton doubles down by arguing the Stupak Amendment violates the equal protection clause. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 10:40 AM | Comments (156)
Post contains 976 words, total size 7 kb.

It really has become just a prosecution of the War on Terrorism. Obama will bring Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other detainees to New York to face criminal charges.

Bringing such notorious suspects to U.S. soil to face trial is a key step in President Barack ObamaÂ’s plan to close the terror suspect detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Obama initially planned to close the detention center by Jan. 22, but the administration is no longer expected to meet that deadline.

The New York case may also force the court system to confront a host of difficult legal issues surrounding counter-terrorism programs begun after the 2001 attacks, including the harsh interrogation techniques once used on some of the suspects while in CIA custody. The most severe method — waterboarding, or simulated drowning — was used on Mohammed 183 times in 2003, before the practice was banned.

Several other terrorists including one of the U.S.S. Cole attackers will face military commissions. I'm going to assume that the Obama people have determined which of the bunch have a likelihood of conviction under the more burdensome evidentiary rules of the criminal courts. Those without a high likelihood of conviction are probably being kept for the military commissions.

That's almost shameful, by the way. The President undermines the legitimacy of the military commissions, but doesn't have the stones to replace them or end them. There is no guiding principle here, no brave and historic philosophy of governance. It's mere electoral practicality.

The President knows he can't merely sit and do nothing this time. He made a bunch of nice words about closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and sending these guys to criminal trials. His minders probably pulled him aside twenty minutes after sitting down in the Oval Office and explained that if he did that, he'd never see a second term. As a result, we have this bifurcated prosecution. Some go to criminal trials, some go to military commissions and not a rhyme or reason to it except the President wants to be reelected.

Sidebar: that number, 183, has become the received wisdom on KSM's waterboarding. It is not actually the number of times he was waterboarded and it's a shame that the NY Post is repeating it.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:26 AM | Comments (478)
Post contains 398 words, total size 3 kb.

Bleargh.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:09 AM | Comments (111)
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.

The highest-ranking Obama flunky to be pushed under the bus thus far:

Mr. Craig had been at the center of controversial decisions over whether to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as well as revising administration policies on the interrogation and detention of prisoners. For months, questions have circulated inside the White House about his status, but an official said early Friday that Mr. Craig had made the decision to resign.

[...]

He drafted executive orders banning torture and ordering the Guantanamo prison closed within a year. Over the objections of the Central Intelligence Agency, he recommended the release of Justice Department memorandums describing aggressive interrogations. He also was at the center of the White House decision to reverse itself and withhold photographs of abuse of detainees.

Mr. Craig took considerable criticism for those decisions and for not doing more to build consensus within the administration or prepare the political ground in Congress. The prospect of closing Guantanamo in the first year of Mr. ObamaÂ’s presidency is now almost certain not to happen.

Friends of Mr. Craig have said that he was unfairly made a scapegoat for decisions supported across the administration.

Heh, I'll bet.

Fool Obama fan-girls like Craig still haven't realized that he's a "use 'em and lose 'em" type of guy. NOT RELATIONSHIP MATERIAL. The President is only interested in you so long as you're useful. Remember Reverend Wright? The President doesn't.

The timing is significant too. The President is out of town for a week and will likely face no irritating questions about canning his top lawyer.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:12 PM | Comments (84)
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

It looks like a suicide car bomber nailed some of ISI's digs in Peshawar killing eight and totaling the office. Its gotta really suck when your Frankenstein monster turns on you.

Over the past few months it does seem like Pakistanis have gotten into the game with a tad more enthusiasm than for say...the first 8 years. I do suppose when the Taliban starts bombing your own shit and killing your own people it tends to ummm...change perspectives somewhat.

Well, good for them, better late than never, and all that. See, the problem now is this guys -- Bush ain't prez anymore, and its looking like President Present is gonna hang you out to dry along with Afghanistan. So, you may be kinda on your own here unless you can present him with something he can use -- like solid evidence you bribed a bunch of Senators to vote for ObamaCare that wouldn't have otherwise. Now THAT might get you back in his good graces. more...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 08:33 PM | Comments (40)
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

Welcome to Thursday all M&Ms. So close and yet so far from the weekend.

Amazing Time Lapse Videos
Done by Tom at Timescapes. You can see a making-of video here.

Posted by: Open Blog at 06:00 PM | Comments (614)
Post contains 220 words, total size 3 kb.

See, I know Ace has his heart set on Vegas. But, really, that is so...done...isn't it?

I think so. Which is why I have come up with the following list of cities that I think should be considered as the ultimate destination location.

Sure..I'm a big blog celebrity and all. But unlike some people I could name but won't for fear they will take away my posting privileges, I don't ever forget my roots. Which is why I think these Heartland cities should be considered.

(Not Indianapolis though. It's gawd-awful boring; it's David Letterman's kinda-sorta hometown; and I hate seeing that omnipresent, towheaded, bastard-spawn of Satan, Peyton Manning on my TV, let alone face to ginormous hydrocephalic head.)

So here, for your review, are the 10 Towns I will be lobbying for behind the scenes. Feel free to offer your own suggestions in the comments. I'm good like that, and I won't be reading them anyway. more...

Posted by: Jack M. at 03:22 PM | Comments (473)
Post contains 1028 words, total size 6 kb.

She takes the expected and well deserved shots at Katie Couric and Charlie "Never Heard Of It" Gibson.

Unexpected...the McCain camp didn't pay for legal bills related to her vetting. Really?

[S]he says that most of her legal bills were generated defending what she called frivolous ethics complaints, but she reveals that about $500,000 was a bill she received to pay for the McCain campaign vetting her for the VP nod. She said when she asked the McCain campaign if it would help her financially, she was told McCain's camp would have paid all the bills if he'd won; since he lost, the vetting legal bills were her responsibility...

...She writes at length about Couric. She says that the idea to meet with Couric came from McCain campaign aide Nicolle Wallace, who told Palin that Couric — also a working mother — liked and admired her. It would be a favor to Couric, too, whom Palin notes had the lowest ratings of the network anchors. Wallace said Couric suffered from low self-esteem. And Palin replied that she almost began to "feel sorry" for Couric.

She alleges that Couric and CBS left out her more "substantive" remarks and settled for "gotcha" moments. She writes that Couric had a "partisan agenda" and a condescending manner. Couric was "badgering," biased and far easier on Couric's Democratic counterpart, Joe Biden.

The way that is written it's not clear if she incurred the legal expenses preparing materials for the campaign to review or if the campaign or its lawyers charged her for work they did vetting her.

Either way, it's idiotic to stick her with the bill.

UPDATE: Oh boy, here we go.

A senior McCain campaign official tells First Read that Palin's charge isn't true. The $500,000 charge came from Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein, and much of it had to do with Van Flein's work on the infamous Troopergate investigation that began before McCain selected her as his VP.

This senior McCain campaign official says they considered the $500,000 bill from Palin's lawyer to be exorbitant -- plus, even if they wanted to, they couldn't use their general-election funds to pay for it (remember that McCain accepted some $84 million in federal funds for the general election).

"Everyone thought it was ridiculous," the senior McCain official tells First Read.

Two things.

One...the AP may have mangled the quote from the book. It's not like that never happened. Though the "senior McCain official" seems to know all about it so something along these lines happened.

[See the update at Hot Air, The AP quote was inaccurate, it was 50K]

Second thought...Really? Just when the focus is on the idiocy of the Democrats and their health reform schemes, we're going to reply the '08 campaign?

Awesome! Because you know things were so much better then than they are starting to go now.

As for Couric...never, never, never feel sorry for someone in the media when it comes to business. It will bite you in the ass. Every time.

Below the fold, Palin and Oprah excerpts. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 02:23 PM | Comments (165)
Post contains 527 words, total size 5 kb.