This is more explicitly activist than Ace himself gets, but...

Have you morons taken steps to be a GOP precinct committeeman yet?

Instapundit covered it in December. Ace even linked a NYT article last week. But those are both pieces about Tea Party folks.

Look, if we leave taking over the GOP to the Tea Parties, (1) there will be way too many CIA-controlled Ronulans involved, and (2) there's no way we'll get that hobo-hunting plank onto the Republican platform.

So instead of complaining that McCain or some local Dede got the party nod, read the information here, check your state info, and get a voting voice in the party. If you've ever done doors for a campaign, the actual work involved should be cakepudding.

Posted by: Open Blog at 12:12 PM | Comments (49)
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

Ace mentioned he's getting his hair done, or something.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 11:00 AM | Comments (182)
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

You know, I haven't felt this good politically in a long time. Might have to make another pudding run.

"I think it's an un-American decision," Schumer said at a press conference Thursday. "I think when the American people understand what this radical decision has meant they will be even more furious and concerned about special interest influence in politics than they are today."

...

"As chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, which is the committee with jurisdiction over these issues, I'm announcing that we will hold hearings on the impact of this decision within the next of couple of weeks," Schumer said.

Funny thing, the old "demonize corporations" game Schumer and his pals love to play, I wonder how well it works when a growing number of Americans who used to work for corporations start missing them a little bit?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 10:57 AM | Comments (138)
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

Like, mostly real facts, too, at Treacher's new gig.

She was in Overboard? For like two seconds? I did not know that.

Oh: John Edwards is going to Haiti.

Yeah, that's what they need.

Thanks to LarryT.

Posted by: Ace at 10:04 AM | Comments (113)
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

They're like the Terminator.

They will not stop until we stick a pipebomb in their robotic pelvis.

A well-informed source tells The Mouth Nancy Pelosi is set to announce the House will go the reconciliation route on health care reform.

Of course, that means using a budgetary procedure that requires a simple majority to pass.

ItÂ’s still unclear to us precisely what that means would be passed, but possibilities would be creating a national health care exchange and expanding Medicare or Medicaid coverage.

Democrats are caucusing now, so stay tuned.

What we need now is for Lieberman (and maybe others) to say they will not go along with this process, and will not provide the votes for the reconciliation stuff.

This is going to drag the process out still further, hurting the Democrats even more, as they have to attempt one after another reconciliation vote. Some votes won't even be allowed -- they cannot take the Cadillac Tax off union workers and government workers, for example, as that measure would increase the deficit, and only deficit neutral (or deficit-reducing) measures are allowed per this process.

So the unions and government employees will get shafted.

Perhaps they think the Republicans will permit this as part of normal-course-of-business, and I pray to God they are wrong on that. Republicans are for tax cuts, but not highly-selective tax cuts only for Obama's political allies.

Thanks to enoxo.

Wait: I rechecked the time-stamp on this article. It's from 9 am. I think Pelosi's later-in-the-day statement that she doesn't have the votes trumps this. I think this may be dated news.

Posted by: Ace at 09:54 AM | Comments (85)
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.

In a Hitler Poll.

Again, the caveat: This is based partly on the health care issue, which may not be an issue for too much longer.

Republican Roy Blunt now holds a six-point lead over Democrat Robin Carnahan in MissouriÂ’s race for the U.S. Senate.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds Blunt ahead of Carnahan 49% to 43%. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

The latest numbers mark a shift in BluntÂ’s favor from last month when Carnahan had a narrow 46% to 44% edge over her Republican rival. The candidates, both members of prominent Missouri political families, were tied at 46% apiece in September. As it has for other Democrats throughout the nation, the health care issue appears to be creating challenges for Carnahan. Just 37% of Missouri voters favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats, but 62% oppose it.

More at Hot Air.

Oh: A Field Poll finds Tom Campbell has jumped ahead of DeVore and Fiora, but trails Boxer by 10, 48-38.

The others are further behind.

Posted by: Ace at 09:17 AM | Comments (86)
Post contains 207 words, total size 2 kb.

Coming up on February 2nd: The primary to determine the Republican candidate who will contest for Barack Obama's old Senate seat in Illinois.

Apparently Mark Kirk is the front-runner for the bid. But a site called Tea Party Nation has deemed him a RINO, and is pushing his challenger, deemed a strong conservative, named Pat Hughes.

I was going to do some research on this but I remembered Thomas Sowell's thesis that even so-called "experts" (and I ain't one) have only 1% of the available knowledge, and the other 99% is held by everyone else.

So this isn't really laziness: It wouldn't be too hard for me do do a quickie bit of research and post my own quickly-formed and very incomplete opinion. (Though, having done the post, I would, as people tend to do, pose as more of an "expert" than is warranted, and, again, no such posturing is warranted at all.)

I've seen commenters mention this race -- so, let's have the true experts weigh in, those who have been following this for a while.

As a general matter I'm conservative by temperament on these things and I'd say "If Kirk is already ahead, that must mean he's done something right, let's just push him."

The trouble is, Kirk was one of only eight Republicans to vote for... Cap and Trade.

Now, being on the tactical/flexibility/big-tent side of this debate, most of the time anyway, I should force myself to forgive that and tell myself that Illinois is a liberal state, and maybe he voted that way because he knew it would be necessary to have that on his record if he was to win the Senate race, and maybe it was purely cynical and opportunistic and he didn't mean a word of his "Yea," and etc.

But inside every sell-out RINO lurks a Purity Republican, and I am, in fact, a Purity Republican on this issue. For me, if you're voting for Cap and Tax, you're pretty much dead to me.

And even worse: even if this was a case of pure political positioning, he would seem to have badly erred in that positioning, because the current political temper, even in very liberal states, is pro-growth, pro-growth, pro-growth. Pro-growth at almost any cost. People want a recovery, and they are highly skeptical of any measure that seems likely to increase taxes and slow growth and forestall and diminish any recovery that may be on the horizon.

So, for the genuine experts: What are Kirk's strengths? Is he attractive and appealing? Is he a solid Republican on other matters?

And this Paul Hughes -- what are his intangibles? Is he too conservative to win statewide in Illinois? For example, is he down-the-line pro-life? (A position that would cost someone dearly in an abortion-happy state.) Or is he pro-life mostly in the way Scott Brown is (against the most egregious sorts of abortions, against federal funding for it, against forcing people to provide abortions against the command of their conscience, etc.)?

Who's our guy here? I genuinely don't know. I'm leaning pretty strongly towards Hughes based on Kirk's offending of my inner Purity Republican (and also my tactical Republican -- that vote is not going to help him), but I could go either way.

Ooof! See? No expert. It's Pat Hughes, not Paul Hughes, as I first wrote.

Posted by: Ace at 08:56 AM | Comments (305)
Post contains 569 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm not just linking this because it's an ego-stroke.

I'm linking it because it's genuinely funny.

Oh: I see some commenters asking what this whole "Pudding" thing is about. I've avoided saying what it means because I don't want to embarrass any campaigns that have recently invited me to cover their victory speeches, if you see what I'm sayin'.

But this clip should explain it.

Posted by: Ace at 08:39 AM | Comments (90)
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

It can happen...

If health care dies, Toomey might lose part of his lead -- as that is, again, giving him a lot of supporters.

Toomey leads Specter by 49%-40%, and he leads Sestak by 43%-35%. A month ago Toomey led Specter by 46%-42%, and led Sestak by 44%-38%.

...

From the pollster's analysis: "Just 41% of Pennsylvania voters favor the health care legislation currently before Congress while 57% are opposed. Those figures include 22% who Strongly Favor the legislation and 47% who are Strongly Opposed. Those who Strongly Oppose the health care plan overwhelmingly prefer Toomey over either Democrat. Those who Strongly Favor the plan prefer the Democrats."

Posted by: Ace at 08:36 AM | Comments (65)
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

We all knew it but now it's official.

"I don't see the votes for it at this time," Pelosi said. "The members have been very clear in our caucus about the fact that they didn't like it before it had the Nebraska provision and some of the other provisions that are unpalatable to them."

"In every meeting that we have had, there would be nothing to give me any thought that that bill could pass right now the way that it is," she said. "There isn't a market right now for proceeding with the full bill unless some big changes are made."

There's talk that what the Democrats will do next is pass the popular elements of the plan, things like removing bans on pre-existing conditions or eliminate the ability of insurance companies to drop people after they become ill.

The problem is a lot of those 'goodies' were predicated on the idea that insurance companies would be getting a lot of new customers from the individual mandate and people getting big subsidies to buy policies. Without those you simply kill what insurance actually means. I doubt there's actually the votes in the Senate for those ideas alone.

Obviously the best option would be to do market based reforms which include things like eliminating state barriers so you could buy policies from any company and tort reform.

Unlikely? Sure, though you never know.

But the big reworking of the system like individual mandates, tax increases, Medicare cuts and a huge expansion of Medicaid? Dead.

One more time!

Posted by: DrewM at 08:06 AM | Comments (175)
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.