Brought to you this morning via working wifi.

We're here for you America.

Brand Democrat™ image on loan from the Slublog collection.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:19 AM | Comments (232)
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

Eh, Eric Boehlert is required to whine about "conservative bias" in a press that's clearly liberal. This in turn requires him to say stupid shit -- even more stupid shit than he says in his free time.

His latest whine is that the media is claiming Democrats are alarmed by Obama's decision to fully support the Hamas-endorsed Victory Mosque. See, he claims that an ABCNews piece contains no direct quotes from Democrats about this.

More annoying though, is Klein's repeated proclamation as fact that Democrats are upset with Obama about the mosque issue (they're "grumbling"; it was "an unwelcome distraction"), even though Klein doesn't bother to quote one Democrat, either on or off the record, in his entire piece expressing that sentiment.

Not one.

Democrats can't grouse off the record? Really? About their party's nominal leader?

But as stupid as that all is, if he'd been following this story at all, instead of dodging it as thoughtcrime, then he would have found that Democrats have in fact complained of Obama's decision, by name, and on the record.

And Democrats — at least those who were willing to comment — could barely contain their frustration over Obama’s remarks, saying he had potentially placed every one of their candidates in the middle of the debate by giving GOP candidates a chance to ask them point-blank: Do you agree with Obama on the mosque?

That could be particularly damaging to moderate Democrats in conservative-leaning districts, already 2010Â’s most vulnerable contenders.

“I would prefer the president be a little more of a politician and a little less of a college professor,” former Rep. Martin Frost (D-Texas), who once ran the House Democratic campaign arm, wrote in POLITICO’s Arena. “While a defensible position, it will not play well in the parts of the country where Democrats need the most help.”

But for Eric Boehlert, reporting this stuff as serving Democrats want it reported -- on background -- constitutes "conservative bias" in a press just determined to make bad stuff up about Obama.

George Soros pays him to write idiotic crap like this. At least it's George Soros paying him and not our tax dollars and our Justice Department.

Posted by: Ace at 06:55 PM | Comments (93)
Post contains 381 words, total size 2 kb.

Which, damnit, I really wanted to see yesterday but didn't.

Nolte's got a point.

Critics arenÂ’t dumb, they know the public doesnÂ’t much care which way their thumbs point. But critics do know that based on their opinions and reviews they can enjoy an influence over what kind of films get made. And thatÂ’s not a small amount of power. Culture is upstream from politics, after all.

If you have 95 percent of critics savaging a faithful retelling of the Gospels as anti-Semitic, no matter how successful “The Passion” is, no one’s going to go near that subject matter again. And that’s the goal. Same with anything that comes close to patriotism or conservatism. Such cinematic rarities are frequently labeled “jingoistic, fascist or simple minded.” This is all done consciously and for a desired effect.

You have to understand that when I look at the critical community I only see it for what it really is: a journolista cabal of left wingers deeply engaged in a cultural and ideological war, deeply committed to shaping the powerful messaging of sound and fury that emanate from our pop culture masters.

He then catches an LAT "journalist" trying to do just that:

ut the Stallone picture — with its hard-charging, take-no-prisoners patriotism unbothered by the vagaries of the real world (it takes place in a fictional country, for starters) and its caricature of freedom-hating enemies (”We will kill this American disease,” as the TV spot enticed us) — planted itself squarely in the old-school genre. And this weekend, the movie showed that there’s life in that category yet. …

...

Political eras are, of course, rarely just one thing or another, and the movies we want to see in a given period are hardly monolithic. But as tempting as it is to infer that the success of “The Expendables” shows a deeper cultural need, it may well be the wrong inference. When times are confusing, we want movies to reflect that confusion, and even to make sense of it. But we probably don’t want to pretend that confusion doesn’t exist.

Nolte goes on to mock him for his supposition that dreary, muddled pieces of crap like Syriana are just outstanding filmmaking, and that films about clear-cut heroism just don't sell tickets anymore.

To get to that claim, the leftist is required to ignore successes like 300.

Or, Nolte himself forgot: Iron Man.

And On That Note: Psychologists (who are, let's face it, critics of the mind) caution that you shouldn't let your boys read superhero comics -- Superheroes are "too macho" and send "the wrong message."

Posted by: Ace at 06:50 PM | Comments (72)
Post contains 455 words, total size 3 kb.

Vince Vaughn Parachutes With The Army's Golden Knights

Along with his mother. This was just a few days ago at the Chicago Air & Water Show.

Vince seemed remarkably low-key during the whole thing. I don't know if that's just how he is normally or was a result of little air sickness and fear.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:44 PM | Comments (708)
Post contains 516 words, total size 6 kb.

Hey, it's kinda like blaming Obama, in a way:

Frank said Obama made a critical mistake when he took office in January 2009 by being too nice to Republicans and failing to tell the public just how bad things were following the presidency of George W. Bush. That has left Frank and other Democrats vulnerable to Republican attacks that they are to blame for problems facing the nation — from the intractable war in Afghanistan to the economic collapse at home — when the roots of those crises were planted during the Bush administration, Frank said.

“The president was not partisan enough; he did not put the blame where it lay, and so we’re in a tough fight now,’’ he told roughly 70 attendees at a fund-raiser.

On account of Obama's nice-making gestures to the Republicans, and his darned reluctance to blame them (and Bush!) for the economy, people are irritated and surly now and that makes things harder on us Democrats. Because when people are pissy, those darn negative ads, they sure do sting.

Who us? We didn't do nuthin. But we'd like to do more.

Barney Frank's got a fevah, and the only cure is more authority.

Brand Democrat™ courtesy Slublog

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 04:56 PM | Comments (211)
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.

No same sex marriages in CA for the foreseeable future.

The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumps a lower court judge's order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.

Lawyers for the two gay couples that challenged the ban said Monday they would not appeal the panel's decision on the stay to the Supreme Court.

In its two-page order granting the stay, the 9th Circuit agreed to expedite its consideration of the Proposition 8 case. The court plans to hear the case during the week of Dec. 6 after moving up deadlines for both sides to file their written arguments by Nov. 1.

The court did ask parties to brief the standing issue (pdf). The original suit was filed against Arnold Schwarzenegger in his capacity as Governor of California but both he and California Jerry Brown essentially violated their oaths and refused to defend the voters of the state. The sponsors of the Prop 8 measure were able to step in and defend the law at trial but now there's a question as to whether they have standing to appeal.

Yeah, I don't get it either but hey justice and common sense have very little to do with the law.

Posted by: DrewM at 03:51 PM | Comments (144)
Post contains 230 words, total size 1 kb.

This morning the big news was an interview Gates did where he talked about what everyone has been wondering... When will he go? Lots of folks jumped on it as if it were an imminent thing but later Gates' spokesman played down the Secretary's words.

Still, when Gates leaves is a major source of speculation and one which will impact the Defense Department moving forward.

Gates, who turns 67 in September, says he wants to leave the job and retire, this time for good, sometime in 2011. "I think that it would be a mistake to wait until January 2012," he said. It might be hard to find a good person to take the job so late, with just one year to go in the president's current term. And, he added, "This is not the kind of job you want to fill in the spring of an election year."

He pointed out that he's the 22nd U.S. defense secretary since the position was created in 1947. "If I stay until January 2011," he said, "I will have been in the job longer than all but four of my predecessors. And those four are Robert McNamara, Don Rumsfeld, Cap Weinberger, and Charles E. Wilson." He laughed. All four are famous for having stayed long past their welcome. Two of them, McNamara and Rumsfeld, started out energetic and celebrated before tumbling into the traps of ill-considered wars.

Then again, Gates said much the same thing about not wanting to stick around after 2008. Is his new countdown ticker, set to go off in 2011, another "covert action," as he put it, to discourage Obama from asking him to stay? He certainly doesn't say so. But if the president does ask, Robert Gates has always been the type to say, "Yes."

That retirement bit comes at the end of a longish but interesting profile of Gates, the issues he dealt with at Defense and how he became a central player in the Obama administration.

I know a lot of folks around here are down on Gates and I am as well on a number of issues but let's be honest, his staying on is probably one of the main reasons we still have anything approaching a chance to succeed in Afghanistan. Whatever faults we may all have with him, he's likely the best we're going to see out of Obama.

Obviously there's a lot that can be said about Gates pro and con but one thing you can't say is he was just killing time in the job. Part of that reflects the fact that he's spent almost 6 years managing two wars but beyond that, he's set the Pentagon on a path very different from the one it was on when he took the job. Major weapons systems were cut or eliminated, budget constraints have recently led to calls from Gates for cuts in support personnel to free up money for war fighters and he has shaken up the top ranks of the services.

For good or ill, the Pentagon is going to be living with the results of Gates' thinking for years to come.

My biggest concern with Gates is his seeming preoccupations with the size of America's military compared to other countries. That's a great talking point but it tends to ignore the huge demand on American troops, even without a war in Afghanistan and an on going mission in Iraq. I mean, when an earthquake rocks Hatti, no one says, "Hey, better get China's People Liberation Army Navy on the line ASAP!". Even if you don't like soft power missions, think about what the US military, especially the Navy, has to do even if peace broke out in Afghanistan tomorrow.

Something else that worries me about Gates is his betting that we won't be facing a military like China anytime soon. I hope he's right but hope ain't a strategy. I also think there's something to the idea that a strong force helps to ensure you don't have to use it. It's a tough sell in a budget fight but it's not as if there's not historical precedent for the idea.

So when will Gates go and who will replace him?

He says he will step down in '11 but wants to leave early enough so that his successor can have a meaningful tenure. That would argue for earlier in '11 or right after the midterms. The factor that argues for him staying longer is the pending Afghan strategy review scheduled for the end of this year. How much will the outcome of that impact his decision? Will he be willing to go before the July 2011 decision/off ramp/not all that important after all date?

As for who will replace him? John Noonan, who covers defense issues for the Weekly Standard, seems to think Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Michele Flournoy is a likely candidate. I've seen others suggest Hillary Clinton but I think she's going to replace Biden on the ticket next year.

Either way, it's most likely going to be a Democrat who is a big believer in cutting the budget. For all his faults, I think most conservatives will miss Gates when he's gone. Whenever that is.

Posted by: DrewM at 03:00 PM | Comments (109)
Post contains 892 words, total size 6 kb.

The old leg tingles have given way to a prickling up the spine for Chris Matthews.

He looks like someone just told him Obama's married and probably not leaving his wife.

Is it that bad? Depends on who you ask. Gallup says yes, it's that bad; 50-43 in favor of Republicans on the generic Congressional. A seven point gap and Republicans at 50%.

But if you ask Rasmussen, on the other hand, the answer is also yes, but it's Hell yes. 48-36, a twelve point gap.

Those are both highs for this cycle.

Thanks to JonathanE for the poll tips.

Bob Shieffer, Do They Have Televisions On Your World? If So, Do They Cary FX? Do They Carry Justified On Your Planet's Cable System?

Schieffer's here to talk politics, and the party that's in big trouble in November, and that means that Schieffer's here to talk about Republicans.

Bob Shieffer then asked if the Saints would be able to contain Indianapolis' high-powered offense in last year's Super Bowl.

Posted by: Ace at 02:28 PM | Comments (124)
Post contains 192 words, total size 2 kb.

The victory mosque's official twitterbitch:

if Haaretz likes publishing fables, perhaps they could go back to the Yiddish ones with parables

The road to moderation and tolerance runs directly through Jew-baiting.

Posted by: Ace at 01:45 PM | Comments (171)
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

What is getting very clear is that we don't count.

Our opinions aren't sought and our consent isn't necessary.

There was a funny film in 1994 called Swimming With Sharks about the nastiest, most arrogant, entitled asshole of a Hollywood producer and his psychological torment of a new assistant.

The Democrats are Buddy Ackerman. You're the assistant.

First clip, just to set the tone. Remember: Shut up, listen, learn: You. Have. No. Brain. What you think means nothing. You are here for me.

Next clip, which really pays it off: Your thoughts are nothing. You are nothing. And yet you have the nerve to walk into my office... Who do you think you are, you snot-faced punk?

Posted by: Ace at 01:09 PM | Comments (72)
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.