Reader Lee tipped me about this yesterday, saying it showed Hayworth was a "Birther."

I don't think it goes that far. One doesn't need to believe any particular thing to stand for the proposition that given the Constitution only lays out two (?) prerequisites for assuming the most powerful office on earth -- age of 35 or older and "natural born" citizenship -- any candidate contending for that office should have the burden, without a lot of arguing about it, of proving his qualifications.

This isn't a dramatic statement.

I have some worries about Hayworth overplaying this issue and winning the primary only to have made himself toxic in the general, but this clip doesn't indicate, to me at least, that sort of overplaying. I consider this a pretty reasonable statement: If a man wants to be president, he should have no problem releasing the run-of-the-mill public records that prove he satisfies the age and birth requirement.

Sure, I could take it on faith, but why the hell should I?

(Also, I never really thought "Birtherism" was as toxic an issue as some believe -- after all, to most people, the effort needed to disprove such theories is absolutely trivial -- and also 2010 is such a favorable climate for the GOP (knock wood) that it's hard to imagine Hayworth, if he won the primary, would lose the general over a bit of soft-form pseudo-Birtherism.

Maybe it's pandering. If so, color me shocked to see a politician pandering for votes.)

more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:49 AM | Comments (330)
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

Former Obama advisor, Clinton Sec. of Labor and Berkely Prof. Robert Reich blames the 94 thrashing of Democrats on the usual suspects (the circa 2010 ones).

Even worse, by that time the Dems had lost the House and Senate. Washington was riding a huge anti-incumbent wave. Right-wing populists were the ascendancy, with Newt Gingrich and Fox News leading the charge. Bill Clinton thought it desperately important to assure Americans he was on their side.

Which is a pretty nifty trick, since that was almost two years before Fox's first broadcast.

"Right-wing anger" is like the awesomest force ever.

via Wiserbud over at H2

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 09:13 AM | Comments (249)
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

(A series of weekly-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.

(after the break...)

more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 07:51 AM | Comments (34)
Post contains 583 words, total size 5 kb.

I will get around to posting something non-poll-based eventually, I promise.

The victory of a Democrat in the special election to fill Vice President Gerald Ford's House seat in February 1974 was a clear indication that the bottom had fallen out for the Republican Party. Brown's victory last week looks as if something similar has happened to the Democratic Party.

Many people ask me whether the Democrats are in as much trouble as they were in 1994. The numbers suggest they are in much deeper trouble, at least at this moment. Back in 1994 I wrote the first article in a nonpartisan publication suggesting that the Republicans had a serious chance to win the 40 seats necessary for a majority in the House. That article appeared in U.S. News & World Report in July 1994.

This year political handicapper Charlie Cook is writing in January, six months earlier in the cycle, that Republicans once again would capture the 40 seats they need for a majority if the House elections were held today. I concur. The generic vote question -- which party's candidates would you vote for in House elections -- is at least as favorable to Republicans as it was in the last month before the election in 1994.

Nothing is entirely static in politics, and opinions could change....

But I sense that something more fundamental is at stake. Obama in his first year adopted the priorities of what pundit Joel Kotkin, a Democrat himself, calls the "gentry liberals."

That last bit is a sort of interesting observation -- Obama abandoned the blue-collar/middle-class Democratic voter in favor of two groups, the lower class, and the, ahem, "Educated Class" about whom David Brooks waxes so poetically.

I was just talking to a friend about this. I don't know what the number is, so let's call it $250,000 per year -- at that level of income, all of your needs, and most reasonable wants (great private school for kids, big damn house, etc.) are taken care of. Any additional taxation doesn't really sting too badly, because above that level, you're pretty set.

On the other hand, anyone making less than that still has outstanding wants. And if you take money from them, they feel it. That means no new (or new-ish) car for your daughter. That means no renovation on the house. That means you take a cheap domestic vacation with your family rather than something more extravagant.

At lower levels of income, it may mean living in a house that's too small for your family, or being unable to send your kids to the schools you want.

The two cohorts Obama cares about -- the lower class, and the "Educated Class" -- don't care about this as much. The "Educated Class" tends to be wealthier, and have fewer children, and also tends to be so partisan that even if they're not making that much money, they set aside such concerns for the sake of political victory. The lower class of course approves of direct wealth transfers from the middle class to the lower class.

But the middle class -- the uncontested kingmaker in American politics -- gets that the Obama/liberal Democratic agenda is not only not designed to help them, but to affirmatively hurt them, dismissing their concerns and insecurities as trivial compared to their great project of further socialization and further transfer of wealth and benefits from the middle class to the lower class. (Inefficient transfer, too, of course -- of every dollar stolen from taxpayers, only seventy cents, tops, winds up in the hands of the poorer beneficiary; the rest goes to the government.)

Would-be radicals in American politics have to con the middle class into thinking their agenda will help them, or at least not hurt them. They do so by promising endlessly to only tax others -- the "rich," of course.

But the rich do not have that much money, in aggregate -- because there's so few of them. Sure, they individually have a lot of money, but collectively, they have quite a bit less than the middle class has in aggregate.

In some point, any would-be radical must take it out of the hide of the middle class. Why? Well, as Willie Sutton answered when asked why he robs banks, "Because that's where the money is."

Barone mentions the possibility that Obama might triangulate and seek a more centrist course as Clinton did, much to his benefit, in 1995.

But that seems impossible to even contemplate. This is who Obama is. This is what he believes. Like the scorpion in the fable, this is his nature.

We face an odd situation of a president who might wind up being a lame duck for a full three years of his term.

Correction/Softening: Angler disagrees that any taxation after $250,000 doesn't "sting."

Well, yeah, I overstated; I shouldn't have said that.

The point I was trying to make was that in relative terms, it doesn't sting as much as it does at lower levels of income, in terms of addressing your wants.

If I hike taxes by $12,500 per year on someone making $350,000 per year, that doesn't eat into the "reasonable wants" funds as much as taking $5000 away from someone making $125,000 per year.

At some point, all marginal income becomes more or less "disposable income." The point I am making is that taxes on disposable income is not as onerous as taxes on non-disposable income. And at some point, if you are rich (and especially if you are also childless, or have just one kid), more and more of your income is in the "disposable" category.

Do you want to keep that money? Of course you do. Do you have a right to your money? Of course you do. Can you find a good use for that money? Of course you can.

But there is a difference in how such taxes actually impact the way people live their lives. At lower levels of income, I know people (for example) who are living in apartments that are simply far too small for their families. Taking additional taxes from such people -- even if on paper the family is making $200,000 per year -- really, genuinely forces them to give up important things to pay the costs of government.

At very high incomes, yes, of course you have a right to keep money you earn, and of course you can spend it better than the government, but I think it's much less true that additional taxes actually compel different economic decisions. Less for your retirement account and investment portfolio, yes, but at high levels of income, you've got a fair amount going into that and it's really mostly a question of how much you can bequeath your children, not whether you can live comfortably in retirement.

And yes, that's a concern. I don't mean to suggest otherwise.

But there is a difference between worrying about the size of a child's inheritance and worrying if you can pay for the tuition for his first-choice college in the present.

The latter obviously is a greater impact on someone.

And what I was attempting to do was to explain why someone like Chris Matthews, with his quite-undeserved million-a-year contract (or whatever it is), is so dismissive of the idea of hiking taxes.

It's not due to his altruistic nature, although he'd like to ascribe it so.

It's because he's made his nut and he's no longer really striving like so many middle-class folks are. The utility to Chris Matthews of each dollar taken by the government is far less than the utility of each dollar taken from someone making, say, $90,000 per year.

He'd like to think he doesn't care about additional taxes because he's such a swell guy, but the real reason is simply that he's making so much money that taking another $20,000 from him doesn't change the way he lives his life day-to-day in the least.

Higher taxes, to Chris Matthews, become something of an abstraction, because whether he has that money or the government has that money, either way, he'd have to work to actually spend that money. He'd have to go out of his way in terms of consumption to actually use that money in the here and now.

I really was just trying to explain why it is the very-wealth tend to be much more liberal than the middle class. (Much more left-liberal.) And my point is just that at their levels of income, taxation becomes an abstract sort of issue to them. And they are very willing to trade one abstraction (higher taxes on money they'd have trouble spending even if they really tried) for another abstraction ("I want to see Obama win on this just so he can have his victory").

It's not abstract to the great majority of Americans.

It's counter-intuitive, because the very, very wealthy should, theoretically, be small-government/low-tax types, but the fact is many of them are not. Many of them -- I don't know the figure, but it seems to be a high percentage, like 40% -- are very left-liberal on this issue.

And I am just trying to figure out why, and cast it as an assertion (I suppose I really should cast it as a theory or as questions, but it's punchier to say I just know it's like this, even though I don't quite know it).

All of these Hollywood guys like Ben Affleck can agitate all they like for higher taxes because at their level of income it is almost cost-free to do so. Oh, there is a cost, but it's mostly a paper cost; Ben Affleck won't have to change a single lifestyle choice even if the government took an additional $100K from him per year.

And, again, they ascribe this to their altruism and their concern for the downtrodden and all that, but at their levels of income, it's not really about altruism. Altruism is when you give up something of value for someone else. At their levels of income, $100,000 is... well, you can never say it's without value, of course, but in practical terms of day-to-day living, it's just money they'd have to work hard at actually spending anyway.

Posted by: Ace at 07:41 AM | Comments (241)
Post contains 1731 words, total size 10 kb.

Of course, it's all for the children.

Oregon voters approved two special tax measures Tuesday designed to close a $733 million state budget gap. With 80% of the expected vote tallied, the Associated Press reported "yes" voters for Measures 66 and 67 garnered about 54% of Oregon's mail-in ballots.

Elections here are by mailed ballot only. Tuesday was the last day ballots could be cast.

Measure 66 increases Oregon's personal-income-tax rate by two percentage points for households earning over $250,000 a year. Measure 67 calls for an increase in the state's minimum corporate income tax, currently $10 a year, and imposes a tax on gross revenues for corporations that do not report a profit.

..."Passage of these measures means we keep core services of education, health care and public safety that Oregon families, businesses, and communities count on," said Oregon House Speaker Dave Hunt, a Democrat who represents Clackamas County. Defeat, he said, would have forced the state to cut nearly a billion dollars more from such services.

The twin ballot measures also served as a gauge of anti-business populism and highlighted a nationwide debate over whether to fix state budgets by targeting the affluent. But they also fueled resentment of "tax and spend" legislators, as well as public-employee unions whose members enjoy job security at a time when thousands here have lost jobs.

Two fearless predictions:

1-Democrats around the country will use this as evidence for claims that people are dying to pay more taxes. Well, to have other people pay more taxes.

2-In about a year there will be a spate of stories about how these measures didn't raise as much money as predicted. How businesses laid off more people than expected and new jobs didn't spring up to replace them.

Liberals never quite understand that people with means won't sit around on their asses while the state confiscates ever increasing amounts of their money and that companies don't actually pay taxes but instead pass them on either through higher costs or savings like firing people.

The people of Oregon might want to ask their neighbors to the south in California how the idea of taxing your way to prosperity works out in the end.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:27 AM | Comments (169)
Post contains 385 words, total size 2 kb.

According to Ambinder, these are the policies we can expect to hear about in the speech.

(1) Non-defense, non-discretionary budget freeze.
(2) Salary freeze for WH and political appointees.
(3) Tax cuts and credits aimed at the middle and working classes.
(4) Education funding.
(5) Call for Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal.
(6) Call for amnesty.
(7) Call for legislative attack on the financial industry.

All of it, with the exception of the DADT repeal will be couched in his new-found faux-populism. I also expect some sort of nod to Haiti, probably the announcement of a new relief program or something.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:58 AM | Comments (101)
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

She hasn't got a crush on Obama:

Amber Lee Ettinger -- the buxom sensation who lip-synched about her love for then-candidate Barack Obama -- said she wishes he spent his first year in office more fo cused on fixing the abysmal economy.

"I think he's doing an OK job," said Ettinger, whose original "Crush on Obama" video, first shown in 2007, has had more than 16.5 million views on YouTube.

"I know he's getting a lot of flak for things that he's not doing," she told The Post. "In my opinion, I feel like he should be focusing a lot more on jobs and the economy."

Ettinger, 28, said that even though she doesn't have health care -- "I can't afford it" -- she still thinks Obama should have waited to tackle the thorny legislation that has been blamed for the devastat ing Democratic loss of Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.

"It's definitely a distraction because of the economy being as bad as it is," said the Jersey City resident.

"He did create some jobs, but most of them were government jobs and that doesn't really help the middle class. But it helps a bit," said Ettinger.
Her grade for Obama: B- minus.

If even ObamaGirl is giving him a B-...

In related news, Sasha and Malia give him a C+ and say "he should have included tort reform in his health care package."

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Et Tu, NPR Poll? 49% approve, 48% disapprove, even in NPR's poll, which oversamples Lexington, MA and the Castro in San Francisco.

Oh: And checking Hot Air, I see I should have scrolled down -- 44% GOP, 39% Dem in generic Congressional.

Posted by: Ace at 06:48 AM | Comments (59)
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

Tonight, in his first official State of the Union, President Barack Obama is going to explain "why he thinks the American people are angry and frustrated."

Hilarity sure to ensue.

Let's face it - this is likely going to be a tedious speech (as most SOTUs are) in which Obama outlines new and interesting ways to spend our money, but we here at the AOSHQ are here to help you get through it. First, there will be live-blogging with the usual suspects at the helm. No word on whether special guest stars such as Peggy Noonan, Chris Matthews will show up.

Since it's a good bet that at least 99.4% of you will be in possession of an alcoholic beverage of some sort, various writers are offering various games that, if the rules are followed, are sure to make you regret playing. Seriously, don't play these. It's not like they're just handing out replacement livers.

The Huffington Post - don't let the website keep you away. This one is pretty funny.

The San Francisco Chronicle - Funny, but this one requires actual physical activity at times, so it's not exactly Moron Nation-friendly.

S.E. Cupp - The most moron-friendly of the bunch.

For those who are not drinking-inclined, how about a game of bingo? I've created this one (pdf), and Nom de Plume was nice enough to send us the one available below the jump, which was great since I was too lazy to create multiple cards. more...

Posted by: Slublog at 06:00 AM | Comments (182)
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

The President is damned with faint praise in the Washington Post's slideshow of his first year in office (at present available here, though that will change):

Since January 2009, Obama has signed an economic stimulus bill, pushed Congress to pass health-care reform, traveled overseas and upheld traditions like the White House Easter Egg roll and a State Dinner.

Did you catch that? His Big Five are the spendulus, a healthcare bill that may never pass, some travel, an easter egg hunt and a state dinner that got crashed by a couple of utter fools. Ouch.

The same caption has been attached to WaPo articles here and here.

To be fair, he also got Justice Sotomayor confirmed, but that victory really should be laid at the feet of the Senate Republicans who for the first six weeks after her nomination couldn't stop hiding from the "Wise Latina" for fear they'd look bad on TV talking about how unacceptable her race- and gender-bias is on the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:30 AM | Comments (124)
Post contains 182 words, total size 2 kb.

Big day.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:15 AM | Comments (71)
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.