It's a video, for once. And it is great.

Posted by: Ace at 12:16 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

In 1994. So she obviously believes this, as she merely dusted it off and replaced "woman" with "Latina" in 2001 for her La Raza audience.

Misspeaking?

Sure. I've written the words "dork her up the squeakhole" a dozen times but each time I "misspoke." I chose my words poorly. I meant something else.

What did I mean? I don't know. You tell me what meaning you can assign those words which you will not find offensive, and that's what I meant.

In Allah's post he references this silly bit about Rush Limbaugh mulling endorsing Sotomayor, because maybe she's pro-life.

This is silly. As a commenter points out at the link, Rush is doing his deadpan irony thing again. He's doing an "Operation Chaos" thing on the liberals, trying to get them to worry about her pro-choice cred.

Sotomayor has of course guaranteed Obama precisely which way she'll vote on Roe cases, despite the fact that she will lie under oath in her her Senate testimony and claim she is barred from discussing the subject at all.

Oh: Greg Sergeant, Super-Liberal Number 1, thinks the big story here is that "Republicans failed to make an issue of the statement" at her previous confirmation hearing.

There is a reason for that. Alfonse D'Amato and Pat Monynihan had an agreement about judges at this time -- one in four nominations, they'd allow the other to push a judge on to the courts. Sotomayor was Moynihan's pick, and the Republicans went along with it because of D'Amato's deal with Moynihan.

As Byron York explained here:

he first thing you have to understand is how judges are nominated to the federal district courts, which are below the circuit courts of appeal and the Supreme Court. The higher courts are often the stage for ideologically-based confirmation fights. The lower district courts, are, in the words of one former Bush official, "darn near patronage jobs." Senators, even those in the opposing party from the White House, wield great power over who is nominated to the district court seats in their states. And in 1991, when Sotomayor was nominated, the Senate was controlled by Democrats, and the two senators from New York were Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Republican Alphonse D'Amato.

By a number of accounts, Moynihan and D'Amato had a longstanding arrangement. "It was a special deal whereby D'Amato agreed to defer to the pick of Moynihan for one out of every four district court seats," another former Bush official told me. "That was a deal that preceded President Bush I, so basically Moynihan was picking one of four district court nominees." That deal stood even though Republicans controlled the White House and thus (theoretically) the right to choose judges for the federal courts.

And at that moment, in 1991, it was Moynihan's turn to choose, and his choice was Sotomayor. There is no evidence that anyone in the Bush I White House or Justice Department thought Sotomayor was a conservative, or even a moderate, but no one wanted a fight with Moynihan. "She was not our first choice," recalls a third Bush I official, "but she was someone who was, if we were going to get a nominee confirmed to that position -- essentially someone we had to go with."

There is no such deal anymore.

And the big story here, despite the insistence of Obama Super Booster Greg Sergeant, is that this is long and deeply held belief of Sotomayor's. She did not "misspeak," and there's not a single liberal who honestly believes she did.

Oh-- and it's almost certain no one even knew of this comment, because they don't scour the backgrounds of lowest-level federal judges as they do Supreme Court nominees.

But keep trying, Greg Sergeant. You are my hero.

Lindsey Graham Trying His Hardest to Make Me Like Him: I don't know if it'll work, but I do approve of him trying so goshdarn hard.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) gave a harsh assessment of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor Wednesday afternoon, criticizing her ideology, questioning her temperament and saying he had little intention of voting for her.

In a critical news conference following his 30-minute closed-door meeting with Sotomayor, Graham said that he would have great difficulty supporting her — and that he let her know it.

"I was very direct," Graham told reporters gathered outside his office. "I have to decide how to play this game, quite frankly. If I use the same standard that Sen. [Barack] Obama used, then I would not vote for you, quite frankly."

Graham's comments were the most critical so far during Sotomayor's dozen visits to key Senate offices over the past two days.

While Republicans do not have the votes to block Sotomayor, Graham's tough criticism is an important moment in the process because he is considered one of the top Republican legal minds in the Senate. His statements may clear the way for other Republicans to follow suit with tougher stances.

Graham argued that Obama had voted against Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito because they differed with him on ideology, and that going by that standard, he would not be inclined to support the presumably far more liberal Sotomayor.

"He used a standard, I think, that makes it nearly impossible for a person from the opposite party to vote for the nominee," said Graham.

"When I look at her record, her ideology, I'm deeply troubled," he added.

Despite the fact he's a McCainiac maverick douche-sucker, I have to confess I've always kind of liked him. Although he's been angering me since I first met him, as one of the Clinton Impeachment Managers. (He undermined his own case by stating, more emphatically than necessary, that a Senator in good conscience could vote to acquit Clinton.)

Maybe it's the Prodigal Son phenomenon, which McCain also benefits from (and Colin Powell used to benefit from): These guys disappoint you so much that when they finally do something in your favor, you become excessively grateful for their ideological homecoming.

Posted by: Ace at 11:18 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 1031 words, total size 7 kb.

The chief law enforcement officer of the Nation of Cowards.

Thanks to Luca Brasi, if that is his real name.

Posted by: Ace at 11:04 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

He doesn't think that's just a little bit of a dereliction of duty?

"I understand that during her career, she's written hundreds and hundreds of opinions. I haven't read a single one of them, and if I'm fortunate before we end this, I won't have to read one of them,” the majority leader told reporters at the Capitol on Tuesday.

Lazy. But, really, do we expect him to do anything other than fully support whatever the President does?

Some cases that Reid (and the rest of the Senate) should at least take a look at:

Obviously, Ricci v. DeStefano is at the top of the list.

Didden v. Village of Port Chester in which Judge Sotomayor agreed that the Village of Port Chester could condemned a property when the owners refused to pay $800,000 to the city's designated developer for the area. In Didden the city's developer gave Didden, who wanted to build a CVS pharmacy, an ultimatum: (1) pay $800,000 or 50% of the proceeds of their project for the right to proceed with the construction of a CVS on their land or (2) the city will seize the property through eminent domain and transfer it to the developer.

(This is a good one on the "empathy" question, since she showed no empathy toward the property owner or understaning of the importance of property rights in a democracy. Also, it's an execellent example showing how fair-weather President Obama is. He claimed to rule against then-Judge Roberts because, in his view, Roberts sides with "established power structures" against the little guy. In Didden, Sotomayor sided with the city and its chosen developer against the little property owners.)

Maloney v. Cuomo, a Second Amendment case in which Judge Sotomayor disingenuously sidestepped the central question: is there a fundamental right to bear arms? She assumed not, even after Heller and gave that question no discussion at all in the opinion. If this is the extent of her keen judicial reasoning or special Latina wisdom, she most certainly is not fit for the Supreme Court.

More to come...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 10:57 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 367 words, total size 2 kb.

Are the Dutch technically Scandis?

Who cares, right? They live cheek-to-jowl with true Scandis in the Earth's frozen buttcrack so we'll assume guilt by association and cousin-touching. The point is not that we're correct, but that we keep in practice and shake the dust off our slurs from time to time.

Apparently Australian troops are accustomed to eating fresher food than the Dutch are:

Australia's soldiers fighting Taliban militants in Afghanistan are up in arms, over Dutch food.

A special team of Australian military cooks had been rushed to Afghanistan to produce "Aussie food" after scores of soldiers complained about the Dutch-run mess at Tirin Kot military base, in southern Uruzgan province, parliament was told Wednesday.
--------------------------------------------

Houston said the Dutch-prepared food was generally nutritious, but was not as fresh as Australians were generally accustomed to in their diets.

"...not as fresh" = Pickled narwhale gallbladder in fermented herring sauce.

"Scandis Go Home:" Newer readers might want to read this to get the running jokes about dirty Scandi icebacks and snow-wops.

Posted by: LauraW at 10:30 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

He talks a lot about this. I think he's right.

He starts by noting the (confusingly worded) Rasmussen poll which seems to ask who is primarily at fault for the recession. As both Bush and Obama now have four months of it on their records, it's still easy to call it Bush's recession.

But it will become increasingly obvious that the large deficit Obama has incurred while pursuing his cure for the recession is, on its own, causing more problems than it solves. As high interest rates and, most likely, inflation, begin to set in -- with no relief in unemployment -- it will be obvious that Obamanomics isn't working and is, in fact, aggravating the economic trouble.

Obama, recognizing the danger, has recently begun to speak out -- without even cracking a guilty smile -- against the huge budget deficit he created. He is trying to blame the deficit, too, on Bush. But voters will not overlook the huge spending sprees of January and February, when Obama quadrupled the 2009 deficit. They will come to see that spending as a huge mistake and will shift their blame to the new president who proposed it.

Obama now faces a choice of poisons.

He can leave taxes as they are and take the poison of high interest rates, rapid inflation and a new recession, all caused by the massive borrowing he has forced on the Treasury. If the Treasury cannot sell enough bonds at a reasonable interest rate, it will, of course "monetize the deficit" -- economics-speak for printing money so that there will be enough to buy the Treasury debt at moderate interest rates. But the process of so vastly expanding the money supply (or even just leaving the current expansion in place without trying to soak up the extra money) will cause its own runaway inflation.

Or Obama can break his pledge and raise taxes on everybody. His soak-the-rich approach will not be enough to cover the deficit. Especially when one factors in his healthcare proposals, big tax increases on the middle class become an increasing likelihood. And when we consider his cap-and-trade legislation, huge increases in utility rates also loom.

Either poison will make it clear that the economy is suffering from the medicine Obama administered, rather than the original disease that started under Bush.

He ends by talking about the possible shapes of the recession -- U-shaped (a drop, and then a recovery), L-shaped (a drop, and then a long period of depressed activity and no recovery) or W-shaped (drop, start to recover, drop again).

Most people (not experts) expect the U-shaped recession, and anticipate a relatively quick recovery. That's why (with a big assist from the media) they actually give Obama higher marks on the economy during a recession than they did Bush during an expansion.

But when it's revealed that this is not like a typical recession, largely because Obama has pursued anti-recovery policies during it, the tide will turn.

Of Course... If Obama's medicine somehow works (or is perceived as "working") then, as Dick Morris says, sell the phones and close down the office, because then it's all over, and we "all become liberals."

Well, we won't. But enough people will that we'll be irrelevant.

Posted by: Ace at 10:01 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 553 words, total size 3 kb.

Granny Rictus McBotoxImplants once promised "the most ethical Congress in history." Right before simply blocking all investigations into Democratic malfeasance.

Steny Hoyer, pressured by Jeff Flake and his own Speaker-ly ambitions and maybe even his conscience, may be bucking her. Hate-bucking her, maybe.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) plans to offer as early as Wednesday afternoon a privileged resolution to force the ethics committee to disclose whether it is investigating senior Democratic appropriatorsÂ’ ties to the PMA Group, Democratic sources say.

Hoyer’s move follows eight attempts by Republican anti-earmark crusader Rep. Jeff Flake (Ariz.) to jump-start a probe — and aims to pre-empt Flake’s ninth stab at the issue, which was due for a vote on Thursday. It marks a sharp break from Democratic leaders’ previous approach to the burgeoning controversy involving the now-defunct lobbying firm, which amounted to them trying to keep their ranks in line opposing the Flake resolutions.

In late winter, when Flake began his assault, Hoyer argued in leadership meetings that Democrats should embrace the resolution to neutralize it.

But Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) pushed back, contending that such a move would open lawmakers up to ethics witch-hunts down the line. Since then, Democrats have slowly peeled off to support Flake: While only 17 broke ranks on his first attempt, 29 supported his latest, offered just before the Memorial Day recess.

The move comes just after Rep. Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.) acknowledged his offices and some staff had been subpoenaed as part of a federal probe into PMA. Other Democratic appropriators, including Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), have long ties to PMA and its clients.

Jeff Flake is pretty sweet, eh?

"Cover:" The Hill reports this is just intended as cover for Democrats-- the Democrats get to vote on weak measure and claim they take corruption seriously, while, um, not taking corruption seriously.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) is making plans to offer a resolution as early as Wednesday afternoon that will provide Democrats political cover on an FBI investigation into the now-defunct PMA Group and its ties to senior Democratic lawmakers.

The resolution would force the House ethics committee to disclose whether it is investigating the nexus between campaign contributions and earmarks PMA Group clients have received, according to knowledgeable Democratic sources. Such a move would implicate Reps. Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.), whose office the FBI subpoenaed for documents last week, as well as Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) because both are top recipients of PMA campaign contributions and have doled out millions of dollars in earmarks to the firmÂ’s clients.

HoyerÂ’s move is aimed at countering a resolution Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) has offered nine times. That measure would force the ethics committee to investigate the PMA Group matter and report back to the full House within two months. Democrats have managed to kill debate on the resolution each time Flake has offered it, but it has gradually picked up Democratic support. The first time Flake offered it only 17 Democrats bucked their leaders and voted with Flake; the last time 29 Democrats broke off.

Flake, however, will permit the measure, as long as it's not further watered down, and still thinks the weak measure would wind up forcing an investigation, and that "there are a lot of places that could go."

Posted by: Ace at 09:36 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 576 words, total size 4 kb.

Playboy just hired him as Articles Editor.

Police in Arizona have arrested a 20-year-old man over allegations that he raped a woman live on the internet.

According to media reports, the man - who comes from Surprise, a suburb of Phoenix - was taken into custody on charges of sexual assault, kidnapping and taking a surreptitious photograph, after a police investigation uncovered footage of the incident.

Court documents allege that the event took place in February, following a night when the man and a female friend got drunk. According to the affidavit, the man waited until the woman had fallen asleep and then set up a webcam before streaming the assault on the internet - apparently making a series of comments and jokes throughout the 30 minute broadcast.

"Karma's a bitch, isn't it?" he quipped.

Re: the Playboy article: I embargoed it because I didn't want to link them, hoping someone would screen-cap the pages and then I could link that. Someone eventually did, but then that page was overwhelmed.

Plus I can't seem to finish my rebuttal piece.

Ed Driscoll has a recap with lots of links to other commentators.

Posted by: Ace at 09:20 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

A quick break from Obama.

Time for Miss Israel in a bikini! more...

Posted by: DrewM at 07:37 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

Bow, nod, whatever. 4 months into this abomination of an administration and nothing surprises me anymore.

I'm just glad it wasn't Matthews or Olbermann, it would have been x-rated.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:24 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.