Indoors. In a skydiving arena. more...

Posted by: rdbrewer at 03:01 PM | Comments (128)
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.

Swell.

In New Hampshire, where Tea Party types overran the state Legislature and wrested control of the state party last year, turnout in the 2010 primaries was under 20 percent, as it usually is.

The turnout in next yearÂ’s presidential primary, on the other hand, will probably reach 60 percent. That means the influence of the most conservative, most motivated activists will almost certainly be diluted.

Second, it’s vital to remember that next year’s primaries will be the first since 1996 where Democrats haven’t had their own nomination fight going on. In other words, in the last two contested Republican primary seasons, independents in “open states” like New Hampshire split their votes between Republicans and Democrats. But this year, all of them will be voting for a Republican.

Via Ben Smith.

First an aside. Note the language used to describe the democratic victory of conservatives, "overran" and "wrested". What bias, right?

Anyway...what could possibly go wrong with letting independents who can't be bothered to actually join the Republican Party help decide the winner of the GOP's first primary? Oh, that.

While NH just lets independents vote in the GOP primary, as of now the next big primary, South Carolina, is a completely open .

Want more Huntsman fun? His top strategist is John Weaver. Weaver at one time was McCain's top guy, including during the period of time when McCain was flirting with the idea of becoming a Democrat. And what does Weaver think of the conservative base? Not much really.

"There's a simple reason our party is nowhere near being a national governing party," Weaver told Esquire. "No one wants to be around a bunch of cranks."

Right, that's why the GOP picked up House seats across the country last year, because it's a regional party. Or something.

On the other hand, when Weaver says "our party" he may be talking about Democrats.

John Weaver hunches his angular frame over a Styrofoam cup of coffee in the basement cafeteria of the United States Senate and tries to explain what might seem–to an outsider–his peculiar political loyalties. Once a loyal Republican strategist who directed the presidential aspirations of ber-conservative Phil Gramm and helped plot John McCain’s maverick primary run in 2000, he has since reregistered as a Democrat and severed consulting ties to all Republicans except McCain, for whom he still serves as chief strategist. “I only work for Democrats now,” he tells me. Noticing that he has overlooked the party affiliation of his most prominent advisee, I helpfully add: “And John McCain.” Weaver shrugs his shoulders and grins, “Oh, right.”

That's from a 2002 profile.

There's more on Huntsman here , here and here.

McCain was able to parlay wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina into the nomination last time. I'd hate to see Huntsman follow the same path.

Posted by: DrewM at 12:51 PM | Comments (278)
Post contains 513 words, total size 4 kb.

And they confront him back.

Little backstory, I have no idea what this is about (and I don't think Breitbart does either), but some Twit on Twitter claimed that there were rumors (you can see how awesome this story is already) that someone who claimed to "work for Breitbart" harassed someone. Like some Muslim woman, saying Muslim men make bad husbands, or something.

Do these guys know who actually works for Breitbart? It's like... six people, total. All of whom are known people, not shadowy figures that no one could identify.

Like: Dana Loesh. Like that.

So who was this guy? Did he he even exist? Did he have "B" carved into his forehead?

In the clip below, Breitbart keeps asking a variant of "Have you even found this person or identified him or do you have a photo of this alleged event?," but of course the Reality-Based Community just keeps ignoring that very irrelevant datum.

"I don't want to talk about whether this even happened! I want to hear you denounce this thing I'm probably making up!"

The confrontation starts at 1:05. Not sure if this is worth posting, but I did want to share some of my experiences of the Right Online convention.*

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:43 AM | Comments (385)
Post contains 502 words, total size 3 kb.

Bob Owens thinks so.

From a report:

“DOJ and ATF inappropriately and recklessly relied on a 20-year-old ATF Order to allow guns to walk.” The agencies misrepresented the intention of the order to justify their actions.

“Supervisors told the agents to ‘get with the program’ because senior ATF officials had sanctioned the operation.” At least one agent was cautioned that if he didn’t stop complaining about the dangerous nature of the operation, he would find himself out of a job, and lucky to be working in a prison.

“Operation Fast and Furious contributed to the increasing violence and deaths in Mexico. This result was regarded with giddy optimism by ATF supervisors hoping that guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico would provide the nexus to straw purchasers in Phoenix.” ATF officials were seemingly unconcerned over the deaths of Mexican law enforcement officers, soldiers, and innocent civilians, noting that you had to “scramble a few eggs” to make an omelette, in a callous disregard of human life.

The split on the right, to the extent there is one, is over that "gleeful" line.

Some on the right -- a few bloggers -- are postulating a sort of deliberate effort at a Reichstag Fire situation an anti-gun-dealer frame-up: That, wanting evidence that American gun dealers were supplying Mexican gangsters with weapons, the ATF... ordered gun dealers to supply Mexican gangsters with weapons.

I don't believe that, because I don't think people usually think like that. I think a key of understanding people's psychology is everyone is the hero of their own story. And I don't believe many -- very, very few, not enough for a large conspiracy -- could possibly convince themselves they're acting like the Good Guys in pursuing a Reichstag Fire scenario an attempt to frame up a perpetual bogeyman for the left.

Rather, I think the "gleeful" indicates how terribly, bizarrely misplaced their priorities are. In an effort to get at the Straw Buyers who are responsible for gun deaths down the line, they... caused a lot of gun murders down the line.

But hey! At least we have some good data on those Straw Buyers! We'll get those malefactors now!

Sure, a few dozen more people died as a result of our investigation than we'll wind up saving but... Straw Buyers! Evil! Google it!

I don't even get how you get information about Straw Buyers when you're cutting the Straw Buyers out of the equation entirely by selling these guns to the narcoterrorists directly.

Like, haven't you put them out of a job at that point? (And-- was that your goal? Undersell them out of business?!)

Of course, what we have right here is a lawless administration attempting to cover up its responsibility for the death of at least one American ATF agent.

This will get worse.

Corrected: I summed the more "deliberate" theory of the crime as "Reichstag Fire scenario," which I now realize is denigrating, by over-exaggerating the actual theory.

I have rewritten to specify the actual theory here, supplied to me by Have Blue.

More Corrections: I'm a little bit behind on this story. Now I know why Andrew Breitbart skips the posts and reads the comments.

Ed says the straw buyers were not clipped out of the chain:

Seriously though, Straw buyers were always buying the guns. The scandal is...we watched them buy the guns, and then stopped surveiling the guns and let the straw buyers send them god knows where. (Obviously, south to the Drug Cartels.)

Here's another correction: In the comments, I specifically said that I don't think people usually employ Break A Few Eggs To Make An Omelet type thinking.

But ed points out I really should have read through my whole pull-quote:

ATF officials were seemingly unconcerned over the deaths of Mexican law enforcement officers, soldiers, and innocent civilians, noting that you had to “scramble a few eggs” to make an omelette, in a callous disregard of human life.

Ahem.

Well, I never said I was an expert on anything except a couple of penises.

Still, I think my general point is sound. (I always say this; this is how you know I'm really wrong, when I begin talking up my general point being sound.)

But seriously, my general point is sound: Explore this, investigate this, try to prove this. But don't sell this as the main theory of the crime.

Why? Because this is their Culpability Turned To 11, which is great, but what if the evidence only establishes what I suggested (an 8 on the culpability scale)?

You never want to over-speculate the charges into such a flagrant, horrific crime that if the evidence comes in that merely an awful crime was committed, you've given them an "out" where they can say, "Hey, at least I didn't do that other thing."

From The Report, Pages 38-39:

B. "You Need to Scramble Some Eggs"

According to the ATF agents, their supervisors in Phoenix were sometimes shockingl: insensitive to the possibility the policy could lead to loss of life. Agent Dodson explained:

Q. [S]omebody in management . . . used the terminology "scramble some eggs."

A. Yes, sir.

Q. If you are going to make an omelette you have got to scramble some eggs. Do you remember the context of that?

A. Yes, sir. It was — there was a prevailing attitude amongst the group and outside of the group in the ATF chain of command, and that was the attitude. . . . I had heard that . . . sentiment from Special Agent [E] Special Agent [L], and Special Agent Voth. And the time referenced in the interview was, I want to say, in May as the GRIT team or gunrunner initiative team was coming out. I was having a conversation with Special Agent [L] about the case in which the conversation ended with me asking her are you prepared to go to a border agent's funeral over this or a Cochise County deputy's over this, because that's going to happen. And the sentiment that was given back to me by both her, the group supervisor, was that. . . if you are going to make an omelette, you need to scramble some eggs.

Well there is some Break A Few Eggs thinking. I still think it is hard to conceive of someone deliberately doing this for a frame-up and then convincing himself, as most people convince themselves, he's the Good Guy.

Very few people think of themselves as the Black Hat.

Posted by: Ace at 10:26 AM | Comments (382)
Post contains 1110 words, total size 7 kb.

The government role in the economy has to be cut.

"The proposition that the government is always right is manifested either in corruption or benefits to 'preferred' companies," he said.

"My choice is different. The Russian economy ought to be dominated by private businesses and private investors. The government must protect the choice and property of those who willingly risk their money and reputation."

. . .

Medvedev said that the country must begin to tackle the problem immediately to avoid "the point of no return from the (economic) models that are moving the country backwards."

"Corruption, hostility to investment, excessive government role in the economy and the excessive centralization of power are the taxes on the future that we must and will scrap," he said.

This guy is awesome!

This is seen as a political speech and a challenge to the authority of murderous thug Valdimir Putin, who is currently awaiting the chance to run again for president. The Russian constitution limits a president to two consecutive terms. So it appears this "placeholder for Putin" wants to keep the job.

I hope he has some trustworthy bodyguards. And plenty of food tasters. Things are about to get real in Russia.

Added: Medvedev thanks Angry Birds creator for creating an occupation for a huge number of government officials who now know what to do with their time. Dude's funny too. more...

Posted by: rdbrewer at 09:13 AM | Comments (128)
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

They definitely nailed the costume. more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:40 AM | Comments (97)
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

Sort of thin here, as we have "one Republican source," not necessarily any kind of Palin partisan, saying it is "expected" she'll decide next week.

Update: At Hot Air, a link to Sarah Palin not exactly denying but snarking "I guess they forgot to inform me what I am 'expected to do.'"

That's not a true, total denial, but it also doesn't have the tone you might expect if it were true. If it were true, I'd expect more of teasing, playful tone, like "No one can know what the future may bring..."

But that's just my hunch. I don't have a super-great read on Palin, obviously.

Also an automatic post: Any ad hitting Obama on his abattoir economy. Below Mitt Romney politely suggests he stops talking about Depression-level unemployment as so many bumps in the road.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:17 AM | Comments (240)
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

You can take this as you like, of course, but I never took it as the "wimp" thing. I took it as John King attempting to provoke a fight, just for ratings and to help the Democrats, and Pawlenty, surprised by that, wound up a little on the wrong foot.

My assumption is that he had planned to address this, in due time, but felt he couldn't with John King basically demanding he do so.

I saw it as head's you're beta, tails you're not alpha -- ether your decline, in which case you're beta, or your hop-to when John King tells you to, in which case you're not alpha.

Anyway, that's my spin, but in this case it's my real read. On the other hand, Pawlenty does seem to have a basic tendency to play nice, which he's going to have to train himself out of, or start setting his sites on a lesser posting, like secretary of Labor.

Still, a problem (even if King created it), because Pawlenty needs to stress these differences with Romney. He can't coast or anything. He seems to have realized this, if a little too late, and now says he "should have been more clear" and "should have made the point."

One skill a politician needs is the ability to be gracefully nasty. You need to deliver the blow. But you have to come across as almost saddened that you had to deliver it.

Past master of the gracefully nasty attack is Barack Obama, who relies on his surrogates to call people racist while he postures as post-racial, but even in delivering his attacks himself, he's fairly graceful about it. Sometimes I think the GOP is going too hog-wild in calling him out (like with Paul Ryan), but it's probably necessary to do this, to get it on the record that no, he isn't running the positive campaign he claims to be running.

Mitt Romney, especially his own surrogates, was, I think, the most hated among other GOP contenders in 2008. He usually comes across as Mr. Clean Cut and Mr. All Business while being kinda nasty. I think that's a good skill.

I remember hating Huckabee for not having this skill, or having an odd variant of it. Huckabee would make some over-the-line comments about Romney's religion ("Isn't it interesting that Mormons think Jesus ans Satans are brothers?") and then did this unconvincing "Gee I had no idea that was an attack" schtick. What bothered me more is that a lot of people seemed to think this was actually plausible and/or an effective way to do it, and I didn't think this would play in the general election at all. The comparison made was to that character on Leave it Beaver -- Eddie Haskell -- who always did wrong and then had some transparent "Gee Mrs. Cleaver I didn't know..." excuse.

My main opposition to Michelle Bachmann has been that I saw her as likely not good at this at all, and just being very obvious about it when she made attacks or served up some piping hot red meat. However, as everyone is praising her for her debate performance, it could be she's pivoted on this, and knows that what plays when she's running for head of the Tea Party won't play when running for President, and so might have modified her game accordingly.

Not sure. I have to confess, Michelle Bachmann was so not on my radar I didn't watch her very closely during that long, long debate. So I have to defer to everyone else who did, who say she was impressive.

Correction: Eddie Haskell, not Wally. Who the heck was Wally? Eh, I never really saw the show.

Rebuttal To My Take: It occurs to me the idea that T-Paw would be surprised, and unprepared, for this angle from John King is pretty thin. He would have/should have anticipated it.

Still, John King was so obvious about what he was after -- a Jerry Springer style "Oh no you di'n't!" -- who knows, maybe T-Paw felt he was being set up to lose if he went after Romney too aggressively, like John King had just snapped his fingers for the Rottweiler to feed.

Posted by: Ace at 07:07 AM | Comments (311)
Post contains 719 words, total size 4 kb.

Backpack + ammonium nitrate = Tea Party Activist?

Someone will say it. Bet me.

Authorities found al Qaeda-related statements, a backpack containing ammonium nitrate, and spent 9mm shells Friday after stopping a suspicious vehicle close to the Pentagon and arresting a man, ABC's "Good Morning America" reported

He's probably upset about the healthcare bill.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 04:49 AM | Comments (252)
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

Gotta get down on Friday.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:08 AM | Comments (245)
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.