Behold the fierce urgency of...maintaining your majority and your own Senate seat.

“We still have next year to complete things if we have to,” said Mr. Reid, a Nevada Democrat, when asked if the Senate might wait till 2010 to vote on such legislation. He noted that the Senate has a busy plate during the remaining months, with lawmakers increasingly preoccupied by legislation overhauling the nation’s health care system.

Mr. Reid’s spokesman, Jim Manley, says the senator is “a long way from making a decision” on when to hold a vote on climate legislation and “still intends to take health care reform, [financial] regulatory reform and cap-and-trade to the Senate floor by the end of the year.” And on one level, his statement is fairly obvious, given everything Democrats in Congress are trying to accomplish.

I'm sure that Democrats in the House, who went out of their way to shove something through, will appreciate being left hanging out to dry by 'the other body'.

Obama's spokestool says Reid's dithering is no big deal even thought they wanted something before the big 'climate change' festival in December.

Not to worry, even if the US doesn't pass some sort of economy killing plan in the name of the left's false religion, it won't be alone.

AustraliaÂ’s Senate rejected the governmentÂ’s climate-change legislation, forcing Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to amend the bill or call an early election.

Senators voted 42 to 30 against the law, which included plans for a carbon trading system similar to one used in Europe. Australia, the worldÂ’s biggest coal exporter, was proposing to reduce greenhouse gases by between 5 percent and 15 percent of 2000 levels in the next decade.

Gaia is not going to be happy about this. Not one little bit.

Posted by: DrewM at 11:20 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.

Stormtruthers.

Posted by: Ace at 10:43 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

And by "racist" I mean they disapprove of Obama's stupid dickheaded health care "reforms."

One week after President ObamaÂ’s speech to Congress, opposition to his health care reform plan has reached a new high of 55%. The latest Rasmussen Reports daily tracking poll shows that just 42% now support the plan, matching the low first reached in August.

A week ago, 44% supported the proposal and 53% were opposed. Following the speech last Wednesday night intended to relaunch the health care initiative, support for the presidentÂ’s effort bounced as high as 51% (see day-by-day numbers). But the new numbers suggest that support for health care reform is now about the same as it was in August.

Seventy-four percent (74%) of Democrats now support the plan while 80% of Republicans are opposed. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 67% are opposed.

The latest figures show that, overall, 23% Strongly Favor the plan and 44% are Strongly Opposed. In late August, those figures were 23% and 43% respectively.

Hey, I know what can turn these numbers around -- insulting people some more! Maybe they can craft some kind of "compromise proposal" of calling people racists which isn't quite as offensive as calling them racists, like "krakkers."

Meanwhile, Snowe's out and won't support the Baucus compromise; and yes, Baucus' bill of course slashes Medicare and Medicaid spending.

From Craig's list of cowbell songs, the thematically appropriate "Dr. Feelgood," for the doctor who's going to give you pain pills instead of actual treatment.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:38 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 3 kb.

I think I've made my dislike and disrespect for Jon Stewart clear enough.

However, reporters actually look up to him as a truth-teller. They are incapable of monitoring their own biases and incompetencies, and only realize they're guilty when Jon Stewart tells them so.

Here, he lets these brainless children their "dog ate my homework/we're too good to do actual news" excuses do not fly, even with an archliberal:

Posted by: Ace at 10:14 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 3 kb.

Via the Washington Times:

ACORN, calling the actions of some of its employees "indefensible," has suspended advising new clients as part of its service programs and is setting up an independent review to see what happened.

ACORN chief executive Bertha Lewis said in a written statement that she was "ordering a halt to any new intakes into ACORN's service programs until completion of an independent review."

The actions were taken, she said, "as a result of indefensible action of a handful of our employees."

Related: Jon Stewart to media: "Where the hell were you?" It's a funny video, and a great question, but I think Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe have already provided the answer. Eventually, they won't be needed. Look at what two people with a video camera have been able to accomplish.

Posted by: Slublog at 09:54 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

According to the sages at the NYT, who edit ACORN statements to make them appear to not be blatant lies, conservatives have discovered an entirely novel, unprecedented, brand-spanking-new method of political opposition:

Conservatives believe that they have hit upon a winning formula for such attacks: mobilizing people to dig up dirt, trumpeting it on talk radio and television, prompting Congress to weigh in and demanding action from the Obama administration.

First of all, that was the standard liberal playbook for eight years so give me a break.

Second of all -- as Althouse points out, the way they characterize it sounds like it comes from Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, which is of course Obama's and ACORN's Bible.

Posted by: Ace at 09:42 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

Start spreading the wealth around!

Obama started increasing welfare spending immediately after assuming office. The stimulus bill included $220 billion in new means-tested spending, including a little-noticed provision that repealed one of the key welfare reforms of the Clinton era. The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act capped welfare dollars to states, ending the perverse system that rewarded states for adding cases to their welfare rolls. The 2009 stimulus bill lifted the caps. Once again, states that add to their rolls qualify for more cash.

...President Clinton said his legislation would “end welfare as we know it.” If (the Heritage Foundation's Robert) Rector’s estimates are correct, Obama will spend twice as much on welfare as Clinton did. He is off to an incredible start. His $88.2 billion increase in welfare spending in 2009 is twice as large as any other increase in history. By the end of next year, he will have increased welfare spending by $263 billion, which is two and a half times greater than any previous increase.

Turns out welfare as we used to know it was only mostly dead. All it takes is a flood of 'stimulus' money from a redistributionist lefty to bring it back.

God help me but...I miss Bill Clinton.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:39 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 1 kb.

And he's the only guy who can do it.

The first black president is facing the prospect of losing his major domestic agenda item. Not only will he look weak and inept, but so will his majority party. Seeing as the majority party is not going to be interested in taking the blame for that going into the mid-term elections, it will fall to him. And the storyline that is developing is that white racism has hamstrung the nationÂ’s first black president...

ThatÂ’s why it is time for the president to rise above his own shortcomings and political agenda, and do something for the nation. At some point in the not-too-distant future, whether his health-care plan continues to crash and burn or is resurrected in a new figleaf evolution, the president needs tell the nation that it is OK to disagree with him, that political dissent and even anger do not equal racism.

The racism charge has become the Democrat's excuse for a losing position on a loser argument, poorly constructed, rushed and pushed in a blatant attempt to slide it by the American people. Faced with the prospect of getting their asses handed to them at the ballot box, congressional democrats are perfectly willing to let Obama take the hit instead. And the reason he can't persuade Americans to go along with this nonsense, according to them and their partners in the "FromageGate media", is because he's a black man.

Obama can either accept this weak excuse as cover for his lousy performance or man up and refute it. Nobody else can shut it down. It's entirely up to him.

It's a good piece, check out the whole thing.

Race Related [ace]: Legal Insurrection has a very good piece on this topic, too.

tipped by Slublog

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 09:20 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.

The answer is no. Michelle Malkin has a post up now titled "Report: Rules of engagement led to soldiersÂ’ deaths". I wrote her to explain why this is not the case.

When Gen. McChrystal released his new Tactical Directive there was much consternation about the fact that there were strict limitations about when strikes against civilian locations were authorized. This was done to change our methods of dealing with enemy activity from dropping a bomb or indirect fire on them, to disengaging if possible to avoid killing civilians. This is a wise move if we are ever to gain the trust and help of the Afghan people. The new directive specifically states that if a unit cannot safely disengage, then they can use fire support against civilian locations.

(NOTE) This directive does not prevent commanders from protecting
the lives of their men and women as a matter of self-defense where it
is determined no other options (specific options deleted due to
operational security) are available to effectively counter the threat.

In the case under discussion an advisory unit and it's Afghan counterparts were ambushed and called for fire support from Apache gunships and artillery. They got neither in a timely fashion and almost certainly that was a factor in the deaths of the four Marines.

U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties,rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers duginto the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly thatthey weren't near the village.

But it was not the Rules of Engagement (ROE) that caused their deaths. If this report from a McClatchy journalist is accurate then mistakes were made. But the mistakes were in improperly applying the ROE and in disregarding the commander on the ground saying that there were no civilians in jeopardy regardless. If as reported they were denied this fire support due to an overly tight and wrong interpretation of the ROE, and worse if the chain of command failed to listen to the unit in contact advising that the call for fire would not harm civilians, then heads should roll. But let's find out if that is the case before we jump to judgment. And you will pardon me if I decline to take a story published by one journalist as the gospel truth on this. None of this, however, points to the ROE as the cause of these Marines deaths.

We need to adapt the way we operate and fight in Afghanistan to minimize civilian casualties or we will never succeed. But, we have to do so without leaving our troops incapable of defending themselves. These are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Posted by: Uncle Jimbo at 09:01 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 457 words, total size 3 kb.

Via Dealbreaker, which asks how, precisely,
this grizzled old vulture ended up in the
top five of DC's hottest people [via hc]

Bring the full power of the media to bear against citizens who won't get with the new Five Year Plan.

"Vet" ordinary citizens -- I mean "teabaggers," as Maxine "Cleveland Steamer" Waters calls them -- like they "vetted" Joe the Plumber for asking a question. (But not Van Jones, a czar controlling $80 billion of the public fisc.)

Sounds kinda anti-American, but what do I know. Until the House bravely expressed its disapproval of Joe Wilson, I was like three minutes away from forming my own Race-War skinhead heavy-metal band.

I'm going to call it "Aryan Tygers."

Aryan, to let people know I am a strong warrior for my race and vigilant defender of my blood.

Tygers, to let people know I have a sense of whimsy.

The media should investigate the racial views of conservative activists like the ones who descended on Washington last weekend, one liberal congresswoman said Wednesday.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said that it's not enough for African-Americans to levy allegations of racism against the right-leaning protesters, and that the media must look into their views.

"I want those people talked to; I want them interviewed," Waters told the liberal Bill Press Radio show in a podcast. "I want journalists to be all over those rallies and the marches with the birthers and the teabaggers."

The media has been doing this -- that hidden-camera attempt to elicit racist statements from NASCAR fans comes to mind. And they will be doing more of it.

Meanwhile, speaking of investigations, you know who the House Ethics Committee thinks needs investigating? Maxine "Donkey Punch" Waters.

The ethics committee did not indicate what allegations it is examining involving Waters, but a series of news reports earlier this year questioned the California lawmakerÂ’s role in the decision to provide $12 million in federal bailout funds to OneUnited Bank, where her husband, Sidney Williams, had served on the board and owned a minimum of $500,000 in stock in 2007.

...

As reported in March by the Los Angeles Times, the California lawmaker, a senior member of the Financial Services Committee, arranged a September 2008 meeting between OneUnited BankÂ’s chief executive, other financial institutions and Treasury Department officials.

The newspaper quoted a former Treasury official who attended the meeting as saying that it was intended to focus broadly on problems facing minority-owned banks, but instead focused primarily on OneUnited Bank.

Also being investigated: Jesse Jackson Jr., for his role as "Candidate Number Five" in the Blago Pay-for-Play scandal, and Republican Missouri Rep. Sam Graves, who....

invited his friend and neighbor Brooks Hurst to testify before a Congressional hearing on renewable fuels, without mentioning that his wife and Hurst are investors together in renewable fuels plants in Missouri.

Posted by: Ace at 08:48 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 515 words, total size 4 kb.