Sometimes you wonder if they're shooting themselves in the foot on purpose.

Liberal lawmakers in both chambers had pressed their leaders to schedule a vote on legislation that would make permanent the tax cuts for families earning below $250,000 but allow the rates for families above that threshold to rise. Families in the top brackets would see their income tax rates rise from 33 and 35 percent to 36 and 39.6 percent, respectively.

Centrists and Democrats facing tough reelections, however, balked at voting for any tax increases. Republicans have argued for an extension of all of the current tax rates, which became law during the Bush administration.

They're driving another nail in their election day coffin. It must feel awesome to be able to come up with one more super neato idea to move voters away from their struggling candidates. They seem uninterested in doing anything to make Americans think they're serious about promoting economic growth and jobs.

Except pollsters. They're gonna be busy again for a while.

"We'd really like to help struggling families, energize businesses and improve their growth outlook by preserving tax rates at present levels. That said, we're gonna blow it off and ride this wave of popularity into Nov. 2."

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:07 PM | Comments (95)
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

He just has some good YouTube moments, it turns out.

It is true that Christie is weak on immigration. It's also true that he hasn't campaigned for a Tea Party candidate.

And?

There are large swathes of the country where Sarah Palin cannot campaign for candidates, because the voters there don't like her, and that's true of Jim DeMint, too.

Or is Levin saying... I don't know what he's saying. He's just bitching. And moaning. And bitching. And moaning. And moaning some more.

Eh, toughen up, Buttercup. It's politics, not Super Best Friends Clubhouse. We don't all have to be so in love with each other we all get mass-married, you know.

He's really getting on my last nerve with his Endless Purge act.

Update your material, dude. I know you have hours to waste every day but there's a lot more to talk about.

Posted by: Ace at 03:30 PM | Comments (518)
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

48-42.

Internal poll, of course. Still, and all.

Oh, and if you're one of those poor Texans who have wondered how long you must suffer under all-hat-no-cattle Chet Edwards, the answer is until January.

Article Up: A local rag on the poll. They suggest the rise might be due to Klein's leaking of West's Social Security number.

Posted by: Ace at 02:55 PM | Comments (102)
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

Everything they said was a lie; everything we said was pretty much true.

Thus, ObamaCare offers not much of a clear benefit to either party.

I promise if you like your coverage you can keep your coverage; that said, you can't keep your coverage.

Posted by: Ace at 02:49 PM | Comments (69)
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

Four articles making this point.

The Weekly Standard:

A recent New York Times/CBS News poll shows, among other things, that more than twice as many Americans “strongly disapprove” of Obamacare (34 percent) as “strongly approve” of it (15 percent). Moreover, the poll shows that the vast majority — 82 percent — of those who disapprove of Obamacare (whether strongly or otherwise) want it to be repealed. In response to the poll, Politico opines that the “big takeaway…is just how much health reform has fallen off the radar as a 2010 campaign issue, not offering much of clear benefit to either party.” Wow.

The media is really amazing, isn't it? I don't even know who they think they're lying to anymore.

These are the people who say "trust our judgment." The people who think that this sort of unpopularity of Obama's signature "accomplishment" doesn't offer "much of a clear benefit to either party."

Keep that in mind -- the issue offers no clear benefit to either party -- while perusing this.

What’s the one issue that independent voters most strongly demand that a candidate get right? According to a survey of 1,000 independents (and likely voters) recently conducted by Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen and commissioned by Independent Women’s Voice, the answer isn’t “national security,” “taxes,” “immigration,” “the size of government and its level of spending,” “putting a mosque near Ground Zero,” “the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” or “the stimulus and bailouts” — all of which were listed as options. Rather, the answer is “health care reform.”

Nearly half (48 percent) of all independent voters said that even if a candidate otherwise held perfect views (in the eyes of the voter) — even if they “agreed with him on all other issues” (italics added) — they still couldn’t vote for him “if [they] disagreed with him on health care reform.” (Another 13 percent weren’t sure whether they could abide such a costly error in judgment or not.)

And what must the candidate’s position on health-care reform be? For 83 percent of the respondents who said their vote would hang in the balance, the candidate must oppose Obamacare. So, according to the survey, if you support Obamacare, you’ve just lost 40 percent (83 percent of 48 percent) of the independent vote — before any other issue is even addressed.

Joe Collins notes that "jobs" wasn't apparently listed, so that would probably top the list (almost definitely), but I'm citing this more for that last stat: If you support ObamaCare, you just lost the vote of 40% of independents, before any additional issues or positions are considered.

Even Politico -- sweet, dumb, predictable, litigious Politico -- wakes and sniffs at the fresh brewed political reality.

Rarely have so many political strategists been so wrong about something so big.

But when it comes to the health care bill, everyone from former President Bill Clinton on down whiffed on some of the more significant predictions.

Democrats would run aggressively on the legislation? Nope. Voters would forget about the sausage-making aspects of the legislative process? DoesnÂ’t seem that way, as the process contributed to the sense that the bill was deeply flawed.

They tick down the dumbest predictions made about it.

Not a single Democrat up for reelection is running ads touting ObamaCare:

Politico writes, "[I]t appears that no Democratic incumbent – in the House or in the Senate – has run a pro-reform TV ad since April, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) ran one."

If you think about it, this is really quite incredible: 279 Democrats, House and Senate included, voted for Obamacare, and not one of them has been willing to publicize that fact in a single TV spot over the past four months in the midst of a congressional campaign? Apparently, the only Democrat who's running pro-Obamacare TV ads is President Obama, and he's funding them with your money.

I asked Michael Barone about the Democrats' full year of denial, about when they finally started to grasp that this was genuine outrage, a citizenry aroused.

He didn't answer that, but he did offer this explanation: The Democrats assumed all the Tea Party rallies and Town Hall confrontations were astroturfed and filled with Republican operatives, because that's precisely how they gin up their public displays of support.

They almost couldn't grasp the possibility that our rallies, unlike theirs, might be real.

Instead of Waterloo, I'll link the even-more-appropriate S.O.S.

And A Fifth: Even TNR. Even TNR.

You.

Really.

Should've.

Listened.

You exercised raw political power without regard to our opinions, just to show you could. We're stupid animals, you thought; these stupid animals will all fall in line when we tug on the leash hard enough.

No. And we're not just tugging back. We're going for your fucking throats.

You exercised raw political power.

Our turn, bitches.

Posted by: Ace at 01:08 PM | Comments (427)
Post contains 818 words, total size 6 kb.

This is the video of the confrontation mentioned earlier.

I have a deranged Ewok thing for Ed Buck but I don't want to waste it on his ilk.

Christie Vetoes $7.5 Million in State Subsidies For Planned Parenthood... Shutting Many of Them Down: Third rail, gripped.

Posted by: Ace at 10:40 AM | Comments (498)
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

The segment might get chopped from the show because she's showing boobies.

Since her persona is sort of hyper-sexual, she shouldn't be on Sesame Street, right? The actual dress isn't all that immodest. But you don't really want kids looking up what other fun songs she does, do you?
more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:31 AM | Comments (135)
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

I think they're both wrong, and in ways that have become wearying predictable, each playing his cliched and exaggerated role.

Erickson:

Perhaps the Most Ridiculous Thing to Come Out of Washington Since George McClellan

The House Republicans’ “Pledge to America” is out. A thrill will run up the leg of a few Chris Matthews’ types on the right. As Dan noted on Twitter, the Contract with America was 869 words and this is 21 pages. The Contract told you everything you needed to know about how a Republican Congress would be different from a Democrat Congress after 40 years of Democrat control.

No, it really didn't.

These 21 pages tell you lots of things, some contradictory things, but mostly this: it is a serious of compromises and milquetoast rhetorical flourishes in search of unanimity among House Republicans because the House GOP does not have the fortitude to lead boldly in opposition to Barack Obama.

I have one message for John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and the House GOP Leadership: If they do not want to use the GOP to lead, I would like to borrow it for a time.

Yes, yes, it is full of mom tested, kid approved pablum that will make certain hearts on the right sing in solidarity. But like a diet full of sugar, it will actually do nothing but keep making Washington fatter before we crash from the sugar high.

It is dreck — dreck with some stuff I like, but like Brussels sprouts in butter. I like the butter, not the Brussels sprouts. Overall, this grand illusion of an agenda that will never happen is best spoken of today and then never again as if it did not happen. It is best forgotten.

The pledge begins by lamenting “an arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites” issuing “mandates”, then proceeds to demand health care mandates on insurance companies that will drive up the costs of health care for ordinary Americans.

The plan wants to put “government on the path to a balanced budget” without doing anything substantive. There is a promise to “immediately reduce spending” by cutting off stimulus funds. Wow. Exciting.

All right, several points. First of all, Erickson's entire political premise is faulty. Platforms are not supposed to be detailed legislative agenda items. more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:40 AM | Comments (225)
Post contains 2694 words, total size 17 kb.

...about the New Black Panthers spiked case and about J. Christian Adams allegation that the Division will simply not go after minority malefactors.

The writer at PJM is a former lawyer at the Division, too. He headlines that the testimony will be "likely incredibly damaging" to Holder and especially to Jule Fernandes (who I think is a Deputy Assistant AG for Civil Rights). She is the alleged to have laid down the law that no such cases against minorities should ever be brought forward.

One thing, though: Bear in mind that word "likely." We don't know what he'll say, and he could just wind up defending Fernandes.

Posted by: Ace at 09:00 AM | Comments (93)
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.

Or maybe "especially" if it means that.

Some jackass heckled Meg Whitman at Christie's joint appearance with her.

Chivalry engaged.

"What are you hiding?" shouted Ed Buck, in jeans and a light shirt in the front row of the 400-person event. "You're looking like Arnold in a dress," he said in a reference to outgoing California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Before Whitman could respond, Christie stepped down from the stage and got in Buck's face.

"Hey, listen. You know what. You want to yell, yell at me," Christie said, shutting down Buck as Christie's bodyguards calmly but quickly approached the two men. "It's people who raise their voices and yell and scream like you who are dividing this country. We're here to bring this country together."

Ah, a good leftist attacked a woman on her sexuality. I'm sure the feminists will run riot about that. Insert second dubious premise which by implication casts further doubt upon the previous premise.

You need to click over to the see the picture, which I want to steal, but that would be poaching.

Over at The Right Scoop, two vids of Christie with Whitman. First clip: Christie asks some firefighters "Why are you booing the first guy who's telling you the truth in twenty years?"

The second clip, at the site, is about Christie mentioning he's gone from 49% of the vote at election-time to 57% approval.

I really can't overstate how important Christie is. Christie, plus the Tea Party. It's one thing to vote against Democrats. But Christie, and the Tea Party, offer an affirmative reason to vote Republican, the hope that this isn't going to be business as usual.

The fact that Christie's a hit is crucial for weak-kneed poll-obsessed Republican clockwatchers and goldbrickers. You cannot trust people to do the right thing. You can only trust them to do what is in their interest.

As Milton Friedman observed:

Great point, posted by a commenter in a thread (sorry, I forget who), that the political culture will change not when we change those in office but when we change the electorate: "The way you make [good government that doesn't rely on hand-outs and payoffs] politically profitable is to make it easy for the wrong people to do the right thing."

Posted by: Ace at 08:12 AM | Comments (220)
Post contains 431 words, total size 4 kb.