The Dark Lord and Master takes a look at Republican prospects in the Senate next year and sees a lot of cause for optimism.

With a good environment this election cycle, Republicans have recruited competitive candidates who could turn otherwise close contests into runaway victories, likely defeats into wins or at least close contests that, if things break right, tip to the GOP.

Today, there are only 40 Republicans in the Senate. In January 2011, there could be 44, 46 or more if the party runs strong campaigns in contests that haven't jelled yet, or if some Democrats retire instead of risking defeat.

One feature giving Republicans an edge is that several senate seats are up for grabs because the politicians who were elected to fill them are now serving in the Obama administration. This includes seats formerly held by Mr. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.

...The GOP probably won't win control of the Senate, but Republicans lead five incumbent Democratic senators in the polls, often by double digits, and trail in just one seat of their own (by a point). A lot can happen in a year, but if Democrats keep telling themselves that their greatest danger will come from not passing monstrosities like Mr. Reid's health-care bill, Republicans will have a target-rich environment next year. We are once again in a GOP ascendancy, sparked by talented, energetic challengers.

I get that politics is a zero sum game, we win-they lose but I have one somber note...Republican gains (assuming there will be some, even some substantial ones) are pretty much coming because the Democrats have pissed people off faster than anyone thought possible. It's not as if the Republicans are gaining because they have lots of new and popular ideas like in 1980 or 1994.

So let's not forget a lot of these GOP types were the cause of our trip to the wilderness. This is a 3 step process...

Step 1- Win (in '10 and '12)
Step 2- ??? Hold to the principles of the rhetoric that get you there
Step 3- America Succeeds

A year is an eternity in politics, just ask Obama, Reid and Pelosi, so we shouldn't get too focused on anything but Step 1 but the ground work will be laid now for what comes after that.

And just to be clear, 3rd party runs? Just Say No!

3rd party candidates focusing on spending will be a disaster that results in Democrats surviving. Complain all you want about the two major parties but that's how the system works and I'm not interested in electing more Democrats to prove a point or something.

Related enough: Sen Nelson (of Florida) calls Reid's health care plan "a non-starter".

Reid announced this week that Democrats had reached a "broad agreement" on replacing the public option with a Medicare "buy-in" provision and a series of non-profit insurance plans similar to what federal employees are offered.

But apparently that "broad agreement" didn't include Nelson.

"I think when we get the score back from CBO that itÂ’s going to be too costly," Nelson told Fox News Live today.

So, Harry, what's Plan C?

Posted by: DrewM at 08:50 AM | Comments (286)
Post contains 545 words, total size 3 kb.

We are living in some very strange times.

Consider these two stories.

First, it's a great time to work for the federal government.

Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.

The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.

When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.

The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules.

Meanwhile, the so-called "Pay Czar" is busy deciding how much mid-level employees should be making at banks.

The nation’s “pay czar” is at it again Friday, and this time, midlevel executives at bailed-out firms are getting a pay cut.

Fewer than 10 of the 450 employees will be allowed to earn more than $500,000 per year, according to a source familiar with the plan, which covers six firms that received federal bailout funds.

...Negotiations over the stringent pay measures may be one reason why several banks have been eager in recent days to pay back the government and free themselves from FeinbergÂ’s authority. Bank of America sent the federal government a check for $45 billion this week, completing its withdrawal from the TARP program. And Citigroup is in negotiations with government officials over how it will be allowed to exit as well.

I don't love the federal pay caps for TARP funded companies but I get the argument that if you are taking The Man's money, you are going to play by his rules.

The reality however is that the in overall numbers (50 or so employees at what? A dozen companies?) the federal pay scale is far more expensive and damaging to the economy.

How about we take Mr. FeinbergÂ’s considerable talents and put them to the task of reworking the federal pay scale?

Posted by: DrewM at 07:22 AM | Comments (119)
Post contains 391 words, total size 3 kb.

Steven McIntyre at Climate Audit (new site is active, so update your bookmarks), has poured pored over the emails, and details the context they provide for the most widely publicized suggestion of malfeasance by IPCC scientists in the ClimateGate scandal.

I'm not going to excerpt any of it, as doing so would only defeat the purpose and the effort painstakingly made in detailing & sequencing the relevant emails and publications.

The ball is now in the court of Jones, Mann, Briffa, et al. whose only defense is to claim that the emails are taken out of context, yet thus far have refused to fill in the blanks with more documentation.

McIntyre's conclusion:

Climate scientists say that the “trick” is now being taken out of context. The Climategate Letters show clearly that the relevant context is the IPCC Lead Authors’ meeting in Tanzania in September 1999 at which the decline in the Briffa reconstruction was perceived by IPCC as “diluting the message”, as a “problem”, as a “potential distraction/detraction”.

I am struck by the wording "diluting the message." It is not improper in itself, but it reinforces the suspicion that at root, the IPCC is delivering a message approved by political committee rather than driven by the actual data.

Posted by: Open Blog at 06:03 AM | Comments (77)
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.

Noteworthy because not only do they not like it, but they run "experts" who also don't. Maybe they're a little buttsore from shilling for the old public option and want a break?

Senate Democrats have provided few details about their latest health care proposal, but this much seems clear: Anyone who wants to buy the same health benefits as members of Congress, or to buy coverage through Medicare, should be prepared to fork over a large chunk of cash.

[...]

But Mr. Francis warned against the Medicare buy-in proposal, which he said would undermine the new national plans and would leave people nearing retirement with insufficient coverage.

“Medicare is not a good health plan,” Mr. Francis said. Even with coverage of prescription drugs, he said, “it still doesn’t have catastrophic protection.”

If you're a Democrat and the NYTimes is giving you less than full-throated support, you have a serious problem.

Oh yeah, remember how I said the New Public Option would lead to single payer (just like the Old Public Option)? Exit quote:

“Extending this successful program to those between 55 and 64 would be the largest expansion of Medicare in 44 years and would perhaps get us on the path to a single-payer model,” said Representative Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:52 AM | Comments (27)
Post contains 232 words, total size 2 kb.

Somebody at work told me that it might be worthwhile to take a glance at the happenings in Maricopa County this past week. It was and it wasn't. Things are way more complicated there than I expected, but this is interesting in a "maybe we should just let God sort them all out" way.

Here's the shortest version: Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his lackey, County Attorney Andrew Thomas, are continuing their war on the Board of Supervisors by bringing a RICO suit against them. The suit seems contrived and petty and I'll bet you a beer it ends up with Thomas facing another state bar disciplinary investigation. To think these two could end up Governor and Attorney General of a state in this country (and not, say, some third-world shit-hole where their jackbooted thuggery would be less remarkable) depresses the hell out of me.

Now for a looooong version, interesting only in how desperate Thomas seems and how fervent Arpaio is to stick it to the Board. more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:38 AM | Comments (115)
Post contains 1787 words, total size 12 kb.

It is widely believed that free-range chickens are far superior to captive ones, as they result in a more tender, juicy, healthful meal. Dick Cheney believes this too, but about homeless people. -- Commenter Andrew, back in the day.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:25 AM | Comments (65)
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

The NYT dismissed Robert Goddard as a crank back in 1920.

On 17 July 1969, when the Apollo crew was on the way to the first landing of man on the Moon, The New York Times finally printed a correction:

A Correction. On Jan. 13, 1920, "Topics of the Times," and editorial-page feature of the The New York Times, dismissed the notion that a rocket could function in vacuum and commented on the ideas of Robert H. Goddard, the rocket pioneer, as follows:

"That Professor Goddard, with his 'chair' in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react - to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools."

Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th Century and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error.

For the record, the "Topic of The Times" said much more than The Times presented here (see page 117 of Blazing the Trail). The correction also leaves an impression that rocket functioning in vacuum has been "definitely established" long after The Times attacked Robert Goddard. Nothing is also known whether the Times regretted the pain its actions inflicted on the American rocket pioneer.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 12:04 AM | Comments (79)
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.

On Twitter, I am arguing with Gabriel about Evil Corporations. I like 'em. He hates 'em.

As movie villains, I mean. He doesn't like the implicit, he thinks, critique of business and profit.

I like 'em.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 06:59 PM | Comments (376)
Post contains 1772 words, total size 11 kb.

Ho ho ho it's Thursday so away we go...

Oh and 1842 and 3606!

Dick Dale and the Del Tones Play "Miserlou", 1963
Just cause I love the song. Dick Dale pretty much invented surf rock back in 1961. And in 1963 he adapted the Greek folk tune "Miserlou" in response to a boy who challenged him to play a complete song on one string. Despite fighting off cancer a few times, Dick is still around and still playing. Here he is playing in 2008.

Posted by: Open Blog at 06:00 PM | Comments (583)
Post contains 256 words, total size 3 kb.

(A series of daily-ish roundups of the day's Climate news and commentary.)

This is by no means a comprehensive recap. The stories come from a variety of sources, and I highly recommend exploring the linked sites for more breaking news.

Today's episode brought to you by Deutsche Bank, who has submitted the following statement from honcho Kevin Parker for the most over-the-top AGW statement sweeps.

“People often ask about the costs. But the figures people tend to cite don’t take into account conservation and efficiency measures that are easily available. And they don’t look at the cost of inaction, which is the extinction of the human race. Period.”

To which I say, wash your unterwäsche, fraulein, and rest easy: It appears the science is about as unsettled as your bladder.

(after the break...)
more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 05:17 PM | Comments (43)
Post contains 1021 words, total size 8 kb.