S. Weasel did these.

Full disclosure: We agreed to go 50-50 on any profits.

Posted by: Ace at 11:06 AM | Comments (100)
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

They need 51 of 59 votes (well, 50, if Sheriff Joe plays the tie-breaker).

One down.

We can guess that Nelson, Lieberman, and Bayh will bail on this too.

I still think they will end up being able to cobble together their 51, but the reconciliation process, as I understand it, is there only for deficit-reduction. You can raise taxes and you can cut spending and that is it.

So reconciliation, if I understand it properly, cannot be used to pass the Cadillac Tax exemption for Obama's political allies. (Think how brazen that is -- Obama is setting up a system where his allies pay less in taxes and his opponents pay more in taxes. )

Because doing so -- cutting taxes -- is not permitted.

Now, I think maybe they could try to wrap this provision up with another provision to cut spending, so that on net, the two together supposedly reduce the deficit; but I don't know if provisions can be so combined.

Cite: My sketchy understanding of reconciliation comes lately from this Chris Matthews demolition of Grayson. Grayson keeps asserting that the whole bill can be passed through this process; Matthews tells him he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, and all you can do via this process is raise taxes or cut spending.

Harry Reid: "No Rush" on Health Care. No rush? Really?

Apparently so.

Even though I'm posting about reconciliation and stuff, I have to be honest, I think health care is dead. I think this crap about reconciliation is just holding out hope for the nutroots/cultists. Sometimes you have to let them down slowly.

And when I say "I have to be honest," I guess I mean I could pretend that I think this is some kind of big threat to drum up drama and hits.

But I don't. I think this is over.

Correction: Drew sends me this digest of what can and can't be done in reconciliation. Apparently I'm wrong -- you can past tax cuts in reconciliation.

Posted by: Ace at 10:49 AM | Comments (97)
Post contains 362 words, total size 2 kb.

Apparently no collusion with Axelrod and Co.

The Plain Dealer reports, and I've also confirmed parts of this, that the mysterious pro-Obama letter-writer is, in fact, a nurse named Barbara Brooks from Kern County, Calif...

And so if this wasn't a grand conspiracy, what did it mean?

It means that for two straight years Obama and his zealots have waged a massive propaganda war on the world to convince us all that Obama was inevitable and then, after having been elected, was massively popular. All of this was done to demoralize his opposition, and to delegitimze opposition as "fringe." And also to discourage his opposition from voicing that opposition in the first place, because if you're convinced that you're all alone in opposing Obama, you tend to shut up about it.

This is why Glenn Becks' "You Are Not Alone" campaign/exhortation caught on so big. The opposition needed to hear just this as a tonic for the endless "You Are Alone" messaging from Obama, his campaign staff, his more frothy supporters, and the media. (The last two in that list have a "but I repeat myself" character.)

Throughout Obama's Long Fall from the summer of the Tea Parties, this PR technique has been employed again and again. Obama's supporters don't need marching orders from Organizing For America; they don't need to be told the how the PR campaign is supposed to work. It's pretty obvious how it's supposed to work. His frothiest supporters know full well everything about this guy is creating the air of inevitability/invincibility/well-nigh universal support. From the fake Presidential seal to the fake White House colonnade at his nomination acceptance speech to the vicious delegitimization of the Tea Partiers as insane racists (just a few isolated nuts, as they say) to the ridiculous assault on FoxNews to the War on Scott Rasmussen for daring to report poll numbers demonstrating that the public was increasingly aware their Boy Emperor Has No Clothes -- it's pretty obvious what the game plan is here, and his supporters don't need to coordinate with David Axelrod to play a useful role in executing it.

But it's all ridiculous. It began as tactically sound (I secretly gave Obama props for his balls and savvy for the faux trappings of the presidency before a single vote had been cast), but then became both dishonest and dismissive, then truly objectionable as ordinary Americans were attacked mercilessly for daring to exercise their birthright of political agitation.

Now it has become downright risible and ridiculous. Obama's got 45% support, and something like 45-55% of the country opposes him, depending on the poll, depending on the week.

And yet they are still trying to sell the meme that that 55% who opposes him is "fringe" and "just a few isolated nuts and malcontents."

The 55% Fringe.

Although, I notice, some of the media is refusing to carry water for them on that point any more. Chris Matthews, Butterball Pudgebunny, did as much as anyone to deligitimize the Tea Party Movement as some fringey racist band of survivalist losers, spoke somewhat respectfully of them on his show yesterday, asking, without any denigrating or sneering, how the Democrats could coopt/appease "the Tea Party Movement," acknowledging it as a real and legitimate political force.

But some, of course, will stick to their old methods. Flood newspapers with 47 virtually-identical letters, just like the annoying Ron Paul Zealots used to do, cynically believing people to be both 1) stupid and 2) shallow enough to join a bandwagon just because the illusion of a bandwagon had been created.

What does it mean, Ben Smith? It means that Obama cultivated a cult, and that many of his cultists have not gotten word yet that the God Who Walks Among Us is in fact the God Who Failed.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Sorry About Yesterday/Today: I got really run-down and have one of those flus or whatnot where you get a headful of liquid and you get a little dizzy when you just turn your head.

Posted by: Ace at 10:08 AM | Comments (197)
Post contains 689 words, total size 4 kb.

We talked about this statement of principles idea when it was introduced back in November. At the time, I expressed general support for the idea while others were opposed to the idea in total and others because it didnÂ’t go far enough.

Well, itÂ’s apparently coming up for a vote next week. Today the WSJ comes out against it and says we might not have Scott Brown in the Senate if this resolution had been in place as the GOP would have been prevented from supporting him.

Supporters call this "Reagan's Unity Principle," but that's unfair to the Gipper. If the elections in Massachusetts and 2006 and 2008 showed anything, it's that Republicans can't win with their base alone. They need independent voters. Those independents don't want to be told that every GOP candidate must first bow to big-shot party vetters.

President Obama's agenda has alienated enough independents that Republicans have the opportunity to compete again in New England, the Upper Midwest and even parts of the Pacific Coast. The National Republican Congressional Committee is vowing to field a candidate in all 435 House districts. Yet the party will be wasting money and credibility if it intends to make candidates in Illinois or Oregon meet a test crafted by Republicans who can win in South Carolina.

The better route is the pragmatism the GOP showed in uniting behind Mr. Brown. The Massachusetts Republican is a fiscal conservative, but his more moderate cultural views made it difficult for Democrats to define him as out of step with most Bay State voters. Mr. Brown's promise to be an independent voice for his state was crucial to giving Republicans their 41st Senate vote.

...The litmus list includes: support for smaller government and lower taxes, troop surges in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Defense of Marriage Act, containing Iran and North Korea, and gun rights; as well as opposition to ObamaCare, cap-and-trade legislation, "amnesty" for immigrants, union card check and government-funded abortion.

We're not sure Mr. Brown would have made this cut.

A couple of thingsÂ…

First, a candidate has to be able to support 8 of the 10 points. ThatÂ’s not a litmus or purity test. Those things require 100% allegiance, you are either in or out. This list allows for some diversity of opinions.

Second, we can over read the Brown victory. The idea that the GOP is going to consistently win in Massachusetts or similarly liberal states is insane. You canÂ’t set your policies based on such rare events. The Democrats donÂ’t set their policies based on the idea they are going to win in Idaho, I donÂ’t see why Republicans should pander with the idea they will win in Massachusetts on a regular basis.

Third, nobody is saying these points have to be the principle issues a candidate runs on or emphasizes. It's just that if they want party support they need to show they share some basic positions with the people they are asking for money from.

Fourth, Brown likely could pass the ‘test’ as its constituted.

Let's look at BrownÂ’s campaign issues page and seeÂ….
more...

Posted by: DrewM at 09:02 AM | Comments (261)
Post contains 848 words, total size 5 kb.

I have a sense that the Obama administration is kinda mailing it in on the Haiti thing and is underestimating the kind of political damage screwing it up can do to them.

...Fully 60% say they followed news about the earthquake very closely; about the same percentage (58%) said they followed news about the tsunami in the Indian Ocean very closely in January 2005. Public attentiveness to both events far surpasses interest in other overseas natural disasters in recent years. Somewhat more people paid very close attention to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 (70%)...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 08:48 AM | Comments (89)
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.

The momentum has been building for awhile but now there's a poll out showing Marco Rubio leading (technically it's a statistical tie) Governor Charlie "I loved Obama's Stimulus Before I Was, Sorry What's The Question" Crist.

For the first time, Quinnipiac finds the former state House Speaker Marco Rubio leading the formerly very popular — and still well-known — Gov. Charlie Crist by a margin of 47% to 44%.

“Who would have thunk it? A former state lawmaker virtually unknown outside of his South Florida home whose challenge to an exceedingly popular sitting governor for a U.S. Senate nomination had many insiders scratching their heads,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “He enters the race 31 points behind and seven months later sneaks into the lead.”

“And, the horse race numbers are not a fluke,” Brown added. “Rubio also tops Crist on a number of other measurements from registered Republicans, who are the only folks who can vote in the primary. Rubio’s grassroots campaigning among Republican activists around the state clearly has paid off.”

Of course the knock on Rubio by, um, true conservatives like David Frum, is that he can't win the general election. Well....

It would appear Rubio also has a good chance at beating the leading Democratic challenger, South Florida Congressman Kendrick Meek. Rubio leads Meet 44% to 35% among Florida voters. Crist also has a good chance to beat Meek, though, leading 48% to 36%.

I've been a big advocate of accepting less than stellar conservatives in states where that's our best chance (hello Massachusetts) but Florida clearly isn't in that category.

If you support Crist on grounds a more conservative candidate isn't electable, the truth is you really aren't interested in electing conservatives.

Meanwhile, if you are a conservative...

Posted by: DrewM at 07:23 AM | Comments (199)
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.

For commenting on the linked Top Headlines in the sidebar at right. You can also use it to share your own Top Headlines. A sticky of this thread is at the top of the sidebar. -->

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:23 AM | Comments (179)
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

Howdy all and welcome to the start of a new week. Lots of fun stuff ahead so now might be a good time to hit the head and refill those drinks.

Remembering the Kittinger jump

Man to Attempt 23-mile Skydive From the Edge of Space
Sometime later this year Felix Baumgartner will jump from a balloon 125,000 feet high and attempt to break the 102,000ft record set by USAF Colonel Joe Kittinger back in 1960. He's expected to break the sound barrier within 35 seconds of jumping. Just in case he goes into a flat-spin and loses consciousness, he'll wear an automatic parachute opener set to open at 3500 feet.

I wish Baumgartner well but Kittinger is by far the more interesting and heroic figure. On August 16, 1960, he jumped from the gondola of the balloon Excelsior III at 102,800 feet and fell for four minutes and 36 seconds, reaching a maximum speed of 614 mph before opening his parachute at 18,000 feet (watch the video here). Due to a glove leak his right hand swelled up to twice its normal size during the fall. For this he was awarded a second Distinguished Flying Cross.

Later he served 3 combat tours in Vietnam and shot down a MiG21. On May 11, 1972 his F-4D was shot down and he spent 11 months as POW in the 'Hanoi Hilton' prison at the same time as John McCain who he used to talk to by tapping morse code through the prison walls. He was released in 1973 and later retired to the Orlando, FL area. In 1984 he became the first person to cross the Atlantic solo in a hot air balloon. And today he's still active, stays in contact with McCain, likes Sarah Palin and is advising Baumgartner on his jump.

Posted by: Open Blog at 05:45 PM | Comments (841)
Post contains 648 words, total size 5 kb.

Ah, State of the Union time, when a President on the ropes turns to any gimmick he can to make you forget he's spending money the grandchildren of your still to be born kids have yet to earn.

Now that he's run up trillions in spending, Obama is really, really interested in cutting a whopping 2 dozen billion a year.

President Barack Obama intends to propose a three-year freeze on spending that accounts for one-sixth of the federal budget—a move meant to quell rising voter concern over the deficit but whose practical impact will be muted.

To attack the $1.4 trillion deficit, whose size is becoming an increasing issue for voters, the White House will propose a three-year freeze on discretionary spending unrelated to the military, veterans, homeland security and international affairs, according to senior administration officials. Also untouched are big programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

The freeze would affect $447 billion in spending, or 17% of the total federal budget, and would likely be overtaken by growth in the untouched areas of discretionary spending. It's designed to save $250 billion over the coming decade, compared to what would have been spent had this area been allowed to rise along with inflation.

The administration officials said the cap won't be imposed across the board. Some areas would see cuts while others, including education and investments related to job creation, would realize increases.

This is like when Obama ordered his cabinet secretaries to find $243 million in savings after signing the $700+BILLION 'stimulus' package.

Look, I'm all for freezing spending (hell, I'm all for actually CUTTING spending) but this is a drop in the bucket. Call me when you are serious about cutting real programs, amounting to real money (you know like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security). Until then, it's pretty much just all show.

Like most State of the Union proposals, this one will quickly be forgotten but Obama will get his fawning news coverage for a day and that's what this is all about.

For a little fun, just consider what would happen if a Republican suggested this. Oh wait, John McCain did during the 2008 campaign.

Who do you think said this?

"The problem with them and the problem with Limbaugh in terms of intellectual philosophy is they are stuck with Reagan," Brooks said during an appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." "They are stuck with the idea that government is always the problem. A lot of Republicans up in Capitol Hill right now are calling for a spending freeze in a middle of a recession/depression. That is insane. But they are thinking the way they thought in 1982, if we can only think that way again, that is just insane. And there are a lot of Republicans like David Frum ... who are trying to say Reagan was right for his era, but it is time to move on. And there are just not a lot of them on Capitol Hill right now, and I think the party is looking for that kind of Republican."

Barack Obama? Nope but close...David "Trousers" Brooks. Heart. Ache!

Here's what Obama said in 2008 when McCain proposed a freeze in an 08 debate:

MCCAIN: How about a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs.

LEHRER: Spending freeze?

MCCAIN: I think we ought to seriously consider with the exceptions the caring of veterans national defense and several other vital issues.

LEHRER: Would you go for that?

OBAMA: The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel. There are some programs that are very important that are under funded. I went to increase early childhood education and the notion that we should freeze that when there may be, for example, this Medicare subsidy doesn't make sense.

Let me tell you another place to look for some savings. We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when they have a $79 billion surplus. It seems to me that if we're going to be strong at home as well as strong abroad, that we have to look at bringing that war to a close.

Well no doubt Obama's spending freeze will be much smarter than McCain's would have. Or something.

Just a reminder of the real Obama economic legacy, faux spending freeze aside.

Posted by: DrewM at 04:19 PM | Comments (307)
Post contains 790 words, total size 5 kb.

In my earlier "Captain Bullshit" post, I linked to a photo Cuffy found of Obama, um, admiring himself.

Well, Slu 'found' what Obama sees when he looks in that mirror.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:33 AM | Comments (508)
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.