We fought this war, but I made all the right decisions.

Larry Sabato joked that this would be Obama's version of LBJ's "light at the end of the tunnel" speech.

Nailed it:

"...even as there will be dark days ahead in Afghanistan, the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance."

Thanks to Andy Levy. Technically, I am watching this too, but I'm not really watching it. As I have said, I cannot focus on his voice.

Posted by: Ace at 04:02 PM | Comments (344)
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

And it's not Sheriff Joe, either, saying this.

During a televised interview on Fox News, Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever said the most recent blaze -- the so-called Monument Fire -- was "man-caused" and began about a week ago near Coronado National Forest, where the border fence ends. Dever said the 4,700-acre park had been closed for days prior to the start of the fire.

"The bottom line is, there was nobody in the park [who] would've been there legally," Dever said. "There were no vehicles, no nothing. It's a high-intensity drug trafficking and human smuggling area. We have scouts that hang out there all the time. They light signal fires, they light warming fires because it gets cold at night Â… There is nothing to indicate that there was any other cause. And the highest probability -- not possibility -- is that this is how this fire started."

Why do liberals hate trees and squirrels?

Posted by: Ace at 03:48 PM | Comments (81)
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.

Allah finds a little silver lining here for Obama-- the public is getting even more patient, not less, when it comes to expecting positive results on the economy in Obama's first term. (This gets reported as "the first two years" for some reason; I have mentioned it to Allah, and he says the quirk in wording is in the poll itself.)

I suppose.

I'd be curious to know if that question was asked about previous presidents, like, say Bush. What I'm suggesting is that the question immediately, by design, asks people to re-evaluate whether or not they feel they have the right to ask for results, or are just being crankypants.

The sort of "are you being a little bitch or what?" nature of the question may mean that the re-elect figure is closer to right whereas these numbers are people just saying, "oh, of course, it's totally unfair of me to expect this guy to perform as he promised, my bad."

But either way: The Republican Party has to begin assigning blame here. Constantly. Effectively. Almost robotically.

To the extent the public gives Obama a pass -- which could result in his reelection -- it's because his opposition isn't hammering him on his own culpability here.

If the opposition permits the President to say "It's not my fault, these things just happen," then the public will believe that, and Obama will be reelected.

A.B.A.B.

A-- Always

B--Be

A--Assigning

B-Blame

Always be assigning blame. Always be assigning blame.

Posted by: Ace at 03:18 PM | Comments (147)
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like an opportunity to spend money we don't have.

Democrats' demand for new stimulus spending is at odds with the work of negotiators, led by Vice President Joe Biden, who are trying to find trillions of dollars in savings as part of a deal that would allow Congress to sign off on new government borrowing before the U.S. runs out of money to pay its bills.

Those talks, which resumed on Wednesday, have largely focused on spending cuts over the next 10 years. Senate Democrats want the deal to include more money for highway construction, a payroll tax cut and clean-energy subsidies to bring down the 9.1 percent unemployment rate.

"Get the recovery right before you get in this deficit-cutting mode," Assistant Senate Democratic Leader Dick Durbin told reporters. "Get people back to work. Let's start moving in that direction."

Republicans, who favor deep spending cuts, said that idea was not likely to go far in the Biden-led talks.

"They're not talking about spending money in there. That's not what they're trying to do," said Ryan Patrimina, spokesman for Senator Jon Kyl, one of two Republicans participating in the talks. Many Republicans view President Barack Obama's 2009 stimulus package as an $830 billion failure.

Many Republicans? If only there were some way to demonstrate the so-called "stimulus" was failure under the terms laid out by Obama himself. Perhaps if it were done graphically, it would look something like this.

It's almost as if Democrats are idiots and don't quite get it. Of course they really believe this and think it's an economic and political winner for them. So, good luck with all of that.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve announced today there's no way in hell Obama is going to be reelected next year (I'm paraphrasing there).

According to the FedÂ’s economic projections, unemployment will take longer to come down than forecast in April, hitting 7.8 to 8.2 percent at the end of 2012, rather than 7.6 to 7.9 percent.

...The new projections will give an indication of whether Fed leaders expect the weakness to persist into next year.

Growth has slacked off, unemployment ticked up, fuel prices fallen and financial markets have become jittery since the April Fed meeting. Leaders appear skeptical that further intervention, such as another round of Treasury bond purchases, would do much more for the economy. The FedÂ’s response is to maintain super low interest rates for an extended period and to keep more than $2 trillion in bonds on its balance sheet.

What's that word again? Oh right....DOOM.

Oh, I forgot to mention the CBO has a report out today on the size of the debt. Basic take away....we are in a word...SCREWED.

Within 10 years, debt will exceed 100% of GDP. By 2037, it would be more than double the size of the economy.

That scenario, as dreadful as it is, is wildly over-optimistic, because it doesnÂ’t account for the effect of rising debt levels on interest rates and the economy.

Want more? Sure! There's always room for more DOOM!

What did the so-called "stimulus" get us, oh not much.

According to CBO projections, before ObamaÂ’s stimulus became law, federal debt equaled 36 percent of GDP and was projected to decline slightly over the next few years. Instead, thanks in large part to the stimulus, debt reached 62 percent of GDP by 2010.

You can argue whether or not Obama and the Democrats set out to destroy America, the simple fact is they have.

Posted by: DrewM at 02:27 PM | Comments (110)
Post contains 628 words, total size 4 kb.

This totally snuck up on me, like an Icelandic ghost at Netroots nation.

The NYT is continuing to tell the lie that most of the weapons which end up in Mexico came from the U.S. They also show their complete ignorance when they say the weapons sold were military rifles. They were not....

The WaPo is perhaps more thoughtful in their attack, attempting to look like real reporting. Using anonymous sources to take potshots at Issa, claiming he was briefed in on the operation last year.

This is disingenuous at best. How is it senior officials in the Justice Department were unaware of the operation yet Congress knew all about it? It simply doesnÂ’t make sense.

No, of course not. Apparently Darrel Issa like totally knew everything and now when he asks for information they say "F*** you."

Uh-huh.

Via Sister Toldjah with still more.

Posted by: Ace at 01:47 PM | Comments (112)
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

Well I assume they did, at some point, or will in the future. Seems like something they'd do.

But that's not what this post is about. This post is about the actual Netroots Nation, Kos' stupid meet-up thing.

Damn, that's a Whiter Shade of Pale.

Top Ten Things Almost As White As Netroots Nation 2011

10. The editorial staff of Modern Coxswain

9. Nina Totenberg's greasy underboob

8. The membership of W.A.S.P. cover band S.T.I.N.G.E.R.

7. The Greenwich, Connecticut Society To Preserve Historically-Precious Badminton Courts and Also Keep The Riff-Raff Moving On Through To New York or New Haven

6. The palest egg of an albino swan and, btw, the swan has the "Michael Jackson disease" vitiligo, and sidenote, the swan is also a Grand Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan

5. Lester Holt

4. People who read book reviews in the New York Times and then front like they actually read the book but you're like "Wait, everything you just said was just from the review" and they say "Yes, that review was spot-on, it really captured the essence of the book" and you say "Yes, but can you name one single thing from the book that wasn't in the review?" and then they say "Oh, I mustn't tarry, I'm late for a luncheon at the Harvard Club with someone who once engaged in moderate-to-heavy frottage with Martha Stewart"

3. Despite the misleading voice -- this guy

2. People who watch and/or work for Keith Olbermann

...and the number one thing almost as white as Netroots Nation 2011...

1. Five Way Tie: Netroots Nation 2007, Netroots Nation 2008, Netroots Nation 2009, Netroots Nation 2010, and people not carrying serving trays at Arianna Huffington's super-progressive soirees

Picture taken (without permission, but I don't want to kill his server) from progressive blogger Joe My God.

Thanks to A.A.

Bonus:

0. A guy who just pointed at Edgar Winter and Ed Begley, Jr. and said "How can these entertainment-business joyboys afford to spend so much time in a tanning bed?"

00. People who own the Criterion Edition of The Big Chill and think it's "great cinema" that "really speaks for a generation"

BTW: I did not post at Joe My God, and I'm annoyed that someone posted there as "Ace," after I just linked that post, and could think that's probably me.

That's sockpuppeting. The comment is innocuous ("Why are there only white people there?") but it's still sockpuppeting me.

Unless this is someone who generally goes by "Ace." But it really looks like a dumb attempt to sockpuppet me. Why do that?

No More Trolling Over There, Please: Since I'm swiping his picture, don't antagonize him too much, okay? The whole post sucks without the picture. more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:34 PM | Comments (377)
Post contains 481 words, total size 3 kb.

Here we go.

President Obama plans to announce Wednesday evening that he will order the withdrawal of 10,000 American troops from Afghanistan this year, and another 20,000 troops, the remainder of the 2009 “surge,” by the end of next summer, according to administration officials and diplomats briefed on the decision.

These troop reductions are both deeper and faster than the recommendations made by Mr. ObamaÂ’s military commanders, and they reflect mounting political and economic pressures at home, as the president faces relentless budget pressures and an increasingly restive Congress and American public.

I know a lot of people will point to the advice of the generals but it actually doesn't bother me for one reason...this is a political/national strategy decision, not simply a military one. Obviously the professional advice of military commanders is paramount in how to fight a war but this is essentially a decision about how to end a nearly decade long war.

But the speed and scope of this plan is striking.

It amounts to a broad rethinking of the military’s troop-intensive counterinsurgency strategy that Mr. Obama adopted 18 months ago after a painstaking review. Officials have indicated that the administration now plans to place more emphasis on focused counterterrorism operations of the kind that killed Osama bin Laden — which the president is expected to cite as Exhibit A for a substantial American drawdown.

For good or bad, hat kind of decision is properly a decision for civilian political leaders. Ultimately, the President is the only one who has to face voters on an issue like this. Purely as a matter of electoral politics, it puts Obama in line with most Americans.

For the first time, a majority (56%) says that U.S. troops should be brought home as soon as possible, while 39% favor keeping troops in Afghanistan until the situation has stabilized.

The proportion favoring a quick withdrawal of U.S. forces has increased by eight points since last month (from 48%), immediately after the killing of Osama bin Laden. A year ago, just 40% favored removing the troops as soon as possible, while 53% favored keeping them in Afghanistan until the situation stabilized.

...

Republican support for removing U.S. troops as soon as possible has risen 12 points since last June. At that time, 65% of Republicans favored keeping U.S. forces in Afghanistan until the situation is stabilized while 31% favored removing them as soon as possible. In the current survey, 53% support keeping the troops there and 43% favor their withdrawal.

Over the past year, support for withdrawing the troops has doubled among Republicans and GOP-leaning independents who agree with the Tea Party. A year ago only 21% favored immediate troop withdrawal; that has risen to 42% currently.

The military advice of generals is important but ultimately it's the opinion and will of the American people that matters most.

As always, Obama seems to manage to find a "solution" that is the worst of all possible worlds.

I argued when Obama announce the surge there was a strong case for moving more to counter-terrorism at the time and start to draw down. But Obama decided to up the ante. Now that there might be some progress being made, he's going to pull the plug on his plan and put whatever gains have been made at risk.

The strategy he announced in December 2009 was going to require a significant commitment of time (more than two years) but his reelection strategy was always going to conflict with that. Was it ever really in doubt which imperative would win in the end?

Posted by: DrewM at 12:05 PM | Comments (75)
Post contains 618 words, total size 4 kb.

I don't even know where to start. Some guy was booted off a plane, right, because his pajamas were pulled down low, exposing his boxer briefs, or something. He wouldn't pull them up, when asked to. I think he's black, but the article won't tell me for sure.

Okay, if the guy wouldn't pull up his pajama bottoms -- and why on earth wouldn't you? -- boot him.

But he's claiming some discrimination because he was profiled as a "thug." Or something.

I continue to believe he should have just pulled up his g-damn pajama bottoms but that's just me, I kick it old school.

Anyway, I guess as part of his effort to prove discrimination, he wants people to know US Airways has a very inconsistent policy on proper attire for a flight.

O'Sullivan is the lawyer for Doctor PJ's.

O'Sullivan added, "A white man is allowed to fly in underwear without question, but my client was asked to pull up his pajama pants because they hung below his waist."

Tarlow, 40, who was returning home to Phoenix after helping her mother move, said she had been shocked when she noticed the older man in blue underwear and black stockings standing in the Fort Lauderdale terminal. Tarlow said the man had obliged when she asked to take his photo.

"No one would believe me if I didn't take his picture," Tarlow said. "It was unbelievable. ... And he loved it. He posed for me."

It is, in fact, unbelievable, which you will confirm for yourself by clicking on this link. It's not actually obscene.

But it is unappetizing and singularly inappropriate.

It does raise questions about which minorities are now Top Dogs of the Victimization Heap, whereby some shall not be questioned at all on plainly questionable behavior.

Remember, if someone's gay, or whatever he is, some kind of old saggy-scoted lingerie-on-an-airplane Lemon Party weirdo, we cannot possibly ask them to comport with the normal guidelines of civil society. That would be repressing him or something.

Ohhh... I was just going to link the photo but I can't. I must post it.

The airline says this is kosher because his genitals were not exposed. Except, of course, in clear outline, much like the Weiner Happy To See You picture.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:11 AM | Comments (272)
Post contains 482 words, total size 3 kb.

Map is BIG so I am putting it below the fold:
more...

Posted by: CAC at 10:49 AM | Comments (72)
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

And it's my gut that they're still way too optimistic.

The Federal Reserve cut its economic growth forecast for the second time this year, reducing its estimate of 2011 gross domestic product growth to a range of 2.7% to 2.9%, down from 3.1% to 3.3% in April and 3.4% to 3.9% in January.

Based on that downshift, they've also reduced their even-more-optimistic projections for 2012.

If their current projections for 2012 end up being accurate, Obama has a decent, if not great, chance of being re-elected, because they're still forecasting a very meh, but at least it's meh, 3.3 to 3.7% GDP growth rate. That's not the sort of growth you expect in a for-real recovery, but that would still be so-so growth. It would at least exceed natural population growth and inflation, by a bit.

On the other hand, they're also upshifting their projections for inflation and unemployment.

Thanks to JackStraw.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:19 AM | Comments (97)
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.