President Bush, I mean, in 2003.

I believe that some day freedom will prevail everywhere, because freedom is a powerful drive for people toÂ… and itÂ’s the beginnings of people expressing themselves toward a free Iran, which I think is positive."

Very good point made in The Nation (though I'm linking Hot Air, which quotes it). Obama was sold to us as having Absolute Moral Authority on hope and change and peace and love. He had much greater moral suasion that Bush, we were told. The world hated Bush, but loves Obama. Ergo, Obama would be able to make the compelling case for freedom and peace that Bush never could, even though he tried.

Ya been had. Bamboozed. Run amok. Because Obama is using that Absolute Moral Authority to protect his precious debating partners.

And it's noticed. Mousavi's own spokesman to Obama: Stop saying we're just like Ahmadinejad.

A good round-up of Iran news at the Berman Post. The post concludes with this cartoon:

That's from the Dry Bones Blog, which posts a cartoon every day.

And speaking of Ron Paul: Only one Congressman voted against a resolution condemning the regime for its violence and repression, and that of course was The Only Man Who Can Save America (Ron Paul!!11!1!eleventy!).

The only two politicians in America who believe that the Iranian regime should not be condemned are, then, Ron Paul (Ron Paul!!! and Barack Hussein Obama.

White House Spokesretard Gibbs claimed the resolution's language was "very consistent" with Obama's-- but as Jennifer Rubin notes in the above-linked post, that's a, what's the word, lie. Barack Obama specifically refused to condemn the regime. He specifically, out of his own mouth, considered that word and then dismissed it.

Further, Obama's support for the protesters extremely limited -- he supports their right to protest for a while, then give up and buckle under the mullahs with few getting hurt but nothing at all being changed.

Which is exactly the same level of support Khamenei and the mullahs show for the protesters, too. They too want this to end relatively bloodlessly, but with their fraudulent election winning and their power undiminished.

Mike Pence piths:

“When Ronald Reagan went before the Brandenburg Gate, he did not say ‘Mr. Gorbachev, that wall is none of our business,’” said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.

Even Obama SuperFan David Ignatius at the WaPo finds Obama wanting:

President Obama was right to speak carefully about the events in Iran during the first week of protest. But it's time for him to express his solidarity with the Iranians who are so bravely taking to the streets each day. He can do that without seeming to meddle if he chooses his words wisely.

Obama should invoke the Iranian yearning for justice -- which was a powerful theme of the revolution. He should cite Iran's own rich history of political reform, going back to Cyrus the Great, whose declaration on good governance was chiseled in the Cyrus Cylinder in 539 B.C. He should cite the Iranian constitution of 1906, which established elections and basic freedoms. Democracy is not an American imposition but an Iranian tradition.

...

Obama's agenda of "engagement" with Iran must be on hold for now. He shouldn't renounce his offer of talks, but allow it to sit. Let the Iranians chase the West for a while; they're the ones who need legitimacy.

On the other hand there's David Brooks (link to Commentary). He is, of course, reassuring us all once again that Obama is much smarter than we can even begin to contemplate and that there is great wisdom and innovation in his domestic agenda and his Iranian cowardice.

Jennifer Rubin doesn't buy Brooks' go-to "he's just too brilliant for you to even understand how brilliant he is" spin:

There is of course another explanation: he’s a radical liberal on domestic policy and a Chas Freeman “realist” on foreign policy (e.g. hostile toward Israel, unconcerned with human rights, contemptuous of the idea of American exceptionalism). That isn’t the image he spun for the elite punditocracy during the campaign but it sure explains his actions since taking office.

Oddly enough, Charles Krauthammer agrees with David Brooks, and writes that Obama is handling this "nearly perfectly," likening him to the "calm and clear eye of the storm, around which the maelstrom swirls."

Kidding. He slashes him to bloody ribbons.

Millions of Iranians take to the streets to defy a theocratic dictatorship that, among its other finer qualities, is a self-declared enemy of America and the tolerance and liberties it represents. The demonstrators are fighting on their own, but they await just a word that America is on their side.

And what do they hear from the president of the United States? Silence. Then, worse. Three days in, the president makes clear his policy: continued "dialogue" with their clerical masters.

Dialogue with a regime that is breaking heads, shooting demonstrators, expelling journalists, arresting activists. Engagement with -- which inevitably confers legitimacy upon -- leaders elected in a process that begins as a sham (only four handpicked candidates permitted out of 476) and ends in overt rigging.

Then, after treating this popular revolution as an inconvenience to the real business of Obama-Khamenei negotiations, the president speaks favorably of "some initial reaction from the Supreme Leader that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election."

Where to begin? "Supreme Leader"? Note the abject solicitousness with which the American president confers this honorific on a clerical dictator who, even as his minions attack demonstrators, offers to examine some returns in some electoral districts -- a farcical fix that will do nothing to alter the fraudulence of the election.

Moreover, this incipient revolution is no longer about the election. Obama totally misses the point. The election allowed the political space and provided the spark for the eruption of anti-regime fervor that has been simmering for years and awaiting its moment. But people aren't dying in the street because they want a recount of hanging chads in suburban Isfahan. They want to bring down the tyrannical, misogynist, corrupt theocracy that has imposed itself with the very baton-wielding goons that today attack the demonstrators.

This started out about election fraud. But like all revolutions, it has far outgrown its origins. What's at stake now is the very legitimacy of this regime -- and the future of the entire Middle East.

Getting your face beaten in by foreign thugs imported by your tyrannical masters = dialogue; tyrant = Supreme Leader.

Read the whole thing.

Can't Stop the Signal: Good for the BBC. The Iranian tyranny is jamming the satellite they usually use to broadcast into Iran, so they're enlisting two more satellites to beam their coverage in.

The BBC, bastion of the left, is "meddling" more in Iran than Obama. Must have been taken over by neocons or somethin'.

Posted by: Ace at 11:28 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 1155 words, total size 8 kb.

Spend, spend, spend.

Public anxiety about red ink — muted during this winter’s debate over an economic stimulus package — has come roaring back, with a Gallup Poll showing deficits and spending as the only issues where more people disapprove of Obama’s performance than approve of it.

Republicans think the “borrow and spend” issue may be the biggest single vulnerability for Obama and the Democrats in the midterm congressional elections of 2010 and the presidential year of 2012. The president’s own advisers privately agree.

That’s one of the reasons Obama is emphasizing what he calls “savings” — otherwise known as cuts — that would help pay for his plans.

That is why Democrats admit that it was a public relations disaster this week when the Congressional Budget Office issued a report this week concluding, from a partial draft of a Senate health committee bill, that the plan would cost $1 trillion over 10 years but only provide coverage for 16 million of the estimated 50 million Americans who are uninsured.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a member of the health committee, said on Fox News Thursday that he considers the CBO finding “a devastating blow to the administration’s plan.”

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) now says Democrats will need to come up with a bill that costs less than $1 trillion — but many liberals say it would be meaningless to do something that small and leave so many people still uninsured.

Democratic Rep. Cooper writes that the plan is "on life support:"

[W]e are explicitly told not to work with Republicans.

Now, my personal belief is that Congress could begin marking up the bipartisan Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act right away. Smart commentators like Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic and Ezra Klein at the Washington Post have praised this bill. ItÂ’s progressive, itÂ’s bipartisan and itÂ’s deficit-neutral.

All I know is that health care reform is on life support because the Senate canÂ’t figure out how to pay for it. Jon Cohn and Ezra Klein are worried. IÂ’m worried. And IÂ’m speaking out today because IÂ’ve been through a failed health care reform process before. We canÂ’t afford to repeat those mistakes this year. LetÂ’s follow President ObamaÂ’s lead and work together to finally provide health care to every American. And letÂ’s do it right now.

"Those mistakes" refers to the 1993 HillaryCare failure. Cooper was a Congressman pushing for health care then, too.

Meanwhile the public isn't quite as hot for Hope and Change in health care as might have been thought. Public support for big changes is actually lower than it was in 1993, when Hillary's plan ended in Epic Fail.

A majority still says it's more important to expand care, but there was a +54 point advantage for "expand care" in 1994, and a mere +20 advantage for it now.

According to the Politico argument, many liberal Democrats feel that there's no point trying to craft a bipartisan bill (they're probably right, too) and so, of course, will table the issue until spending is controlled and we have the money to pay for this.

No, of course not. They want to ram it through on not just party-line votes, but liberal only party-line votes, losing moderate and conservative Democrats entirely (except for those few votes they can buy through bribes to get a razor-thin majority).

Michael Barone sees trouble for Obama on several fronts, including health care:

But consider these findings from the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll:

● 69% say they have a great deal or quite a bit of concern about government ownership of General Motors and a 56%-35% majority opposes government aid to General Motors in return for a share of its stock

● 58% say the president and Congress should concentrate on keeping the budget deficit down, even if it takes longer for the economy to recover

● when presented with arguments for and against a government health insurance plan, it was favored by only a 47%-42% margin

● when asked the most important economic issue facing the country, 24% chose the budget deficit and only 11% chose health care

● a 52%-39% majority opposes closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay

Or consider these findings from the CBS/New York Times poll:

● when asked to volunteer the most important problem facing the country, 38% said the economy, 19% said jobs and 7% said health care

● only 44% approve ObamaÂ’s handling of health care, while 34% disapprove

● only 41% approve his handling of the problems facing the auto industry, while 46% disapprove

● by a 52%-41% margin they prefer reducing the budget deficit to stimulating the economy

● only 30% think Obama has developed a clear plan for dealing with the budget deficit, while 60% believe he hasnÂ’t

Polls keep indicating the public does not agree that health care is a "crisis," as Obama claims. They seem to think runaway budgets are something closer to a crisis, which his bank-breaking health care schemes would turn to 11.

Karl Rove thinks Obama's plan can be beaten, but only, he says, if Republicans have some kind of alternative to point to. Which they also won't be able to pass, but they can draw away support with a better alternative.

He endorses a plan by some Congressional Republicans which, unless I'm missing something, looks a lot like McCain's old plan, minus McCain's plan to tax health care benefits.

(Which was actually a tax cut in the net, because it came along with a government rebate for health care that would exceed the taxes paid for employer-provided health care by a fair amount for most people. In other words, if your employer provides your health care, you could use the tax rebate to pay the taxes on the health-care-given-as-compensation and put the excess of the rebate right in your pocket.

It makes little financial sense to give the rebate without taxing employer-provided benefits -- in the net, more deficit spending -- but 1) there's little chance of this passing anyway and 2) we need an attractive alternative and 3) people are dumb.)

Posted by: Ace at 10:54 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 1024 words, total size 7 kb.

I agree with Ed about this.

I have the same position that conservative icon Barry Goldwater took on this question. The only thing that mattered to Goldwater was whether a soldier could shoot straight. As long as a member of the military abides by the regulations governing conduct, sexual orientation should make no difference.
In fact, DADT has proven that correct. The policy presumes that gays can serve effectively in the military unless their orientation becomes public. That means that the problem isnÂ’t with the soldier or sailor, but with the service itself, a rather odd hypocrisy that sometimes gets overlooked. When else do we discriminate on the basis of not what a person is or does, but what others think of it? The sixteen-year experiment of DADT shows that gays serve effectively in the military otherwise, which should be enough for them to have the same access to serving their country as anyone else. It has also not produced a massive exodus of people from the service during that time.

Be sure to click through to get to the General's remarks, which directly address the argument that repealing DADT will lead to soldiers quiting or deciding not to enlist.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:13 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

Stephen Nicholas is a linebacker for the Atlanta Falcons, and his family had a rough year during their 2008 season. His infant son, Stephen Jr., had cardiomyopathy (a condition where the heart doesn't efficiently pump blood to the body), and ultimately required a heart transplant. The story ultimately resolved itself well, and provided insight into some pretty good folks within the Falcons' front office.

Leaving out the obvious parallels one could draw to the healthcare situation in the US, this is a nice story, and makes it worth giving a shout-out to the Falcons' organization (which is never easy as a lifetime New Orleans Saints fan). This is the second time in my adult life that I've been made aware of professional sports organizations having their hearts and minds in the right places, and it's a nice break from the grim stories that march through the news.

Here's Pat Yasinskas's blog on it over at ESPN.

Posted by: Open Blog at 08:00 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

The suit was a test-case for the recording industry. Yesterday, a jury awarded $80,000 per song for Jammie Thomas-Rasset's copyright infringment.

Attorney Joe Sibley said that his client was shocked at the fine, noting that the price tag on the songs she downloaded was 99 cents.

She plans to appeal, he said.

Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America, said the association was "pleased that the jury agreed with the evidence and found the defendant liable."

Thomas-Rasset downloaded work by artists such as No Doubt, Linkin Park, Gloria Estefan and Sheryl Crow.

Sheryl Crow? Good lord, it's a wonder they didn't fine her more than $80,000 per infringment. Federal law allows up to a $150,000 fine each.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:02 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.

Two NorCal cities passed "Youth Protection Acts" in November 2008. The laws forbade military recruiters from having contact with anyone under age 18. Yesterday, a federal district court threw out the laws.

U.S. District Judge Saundra Armstrong in Oakland agreed Thursday with the federal government and invalidated the laws, saying they violated the clause of the Constitution that establishes the Constitution, federal statutes and treaties as the supreme law of the land.

Government attorneys argued in written statements that the law is clear: Recruitment for the military clearly falls under the purview of the federal government, which cannot be regulated by state and local governments, they argued.¹

The cities are mad they did not get their day in court. The judge ruled on the pleadings after cancelling a hearing last week.

¹Yes, yes, that last paragraph-long sentence is a sad illustration of journalistic and editorial talent. "Government attorneys argued [blank], they argued." Yeah, nice job, AP writer. And nice job, WaPo editor.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:49 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

That's his story and he's sticking with it.

In a special address at a Friday prayer service, Khamenei told the tens of thousands of people who spilled out of a covered pavilion at Tehran University that the election is over and that "the Islamic republic never betrays the votes of people."

He expressed confidence in the vote tallies. "The margin between the candidates is 11 million votes," he said. "If it is 500,000 maybe fraud could be of influence. But for 11 million, how can you do that?

Khamenei also blamed the unrest on the usual suspects, the US, the UK and of course...teh Jews.

The opposition called off their protests for today after Khamenei announced he'd be making this speech but have more rallies scheduled for tomorrow. Khamenei warned them that time was running out for them.

Mr Khamenei demanded an end to the demonstrations. "I want to tell everyone these things must finish. These street actions are being done to put pressure on leaders but we will not bow in front of them," he said.

Without naming the three losing candidates who have challenged the election results, he ordered them to "open their eyes" and see behind the demonstrations "the enemy hands working, the hungry wolves waiting in ambush".

He added, with distinct menace: "Those politicians who somehow have influence on people should be very careful about their behaviour if they act in an extremist manner...This extremism will reach a sensitive level which they will not be able to contain. They will be responsible for the blood, violence and chaos."

The opposition is now on notice. I don't think anyone expects these hundreds of thousands of people who have been showing up daily for almost a week now to call it a day.

This is going to get ugly.

Posted by: DrewM at 05:05 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.

Fall in love with a man and you end up doing laundry.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:34 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

No flies were harmed in the writing of this post, though a couple were subject to “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

Item #1: The Telegraph U.K. reviews a new book called No Regrets: The Best, Worst and most Ridiculous Tattoos Ever. Well, review might not be the right word since itÂ’s just images of some of the stranger ones. Mild content warning due to things that cannot be unseen. Thanks to momma.

Item #2: Rdbrewer passes along this classic time waster of a game. ItÂ’s a few years old and Ace actually linked it in a couple of posts back in 2004 when he only had seven readers. Yes, those were happy, carefree and even troll-free days. So it might be new to most of you. ItÂ’s a little hard to describe the game, so letÂ’s let Ace tell you about it In his own words.

Item #3: Finally, if you find that Twitter just overwhelms you with itÂ’s 140 character maximum, help may be on the way in the form of Flutter. (Source video is from SlateV.com)
more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 06:26 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

Doesn't really seem much like the "nightmare guest" the Dailymail made him out to be.

Eh, some general unease. Good natured. Nothing like Letterman and Dr. Ruth back in the day.

UPDATE: A moron commenter puts us some f'n knowledge.

21 Conan should have recognized that as the Ferengi auctions gesture

Posted by: kbdabear at June 18, 2009 08:10 PM (93F13)

Heh.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 03:27 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.