There's a little dispute here. Perry seems to be repeating the reporter's words -- "I'm not going to wait that long" -- but the reporter (and the rest of the Texas media) claims the reporter said "I can't win on this one."

Eh, doesn't matter all that much either way. Clearly Perry thought he'd said "I'm not going to wait that long."

Listen to the reporter's ponderous, pompous voice and tell me he didn't deserve this.

Now, I'm looking at Perry in the two video clips at Hot Air. Both are worth watching, to get a sense of him. Glenn Beck seems ready to join Team Perry.

It's uncanny how much he looks and sounds like Bush. That's not a good thing, of course. And that "Adios mofo" line is pure Bush.

But before anyone freaks out too much, bear in mind the liberals' joke will be "They're bringing up another governor from Texas who was a pilot."

Ha-ha.

But bear in mind that's a joke. The liberals will mean it, of course -- they're dumb -- but how many people exactly do you think are going to be persuaded by the insinuation that this is the same person in (thin) disguise, or a clone, or a cyborg?

Probably not many.

But there are uncanny similarities.

Perry married his high school sweetheart. That's not exactly Bush's story, but I'll count it as ballpark.

Perry was an Air Force Pilot. Thankfully, not TANG, but USAF. Served 72-77 flying C-130 transports. I checked the dates of his education and I don't see any Vietnam dodging.

Perry also gives the press corps "funny" nicknames, like "mofo," "stupid ass," and "Professor Dickweed." (Ricky Bobby joke.)

Anyway. I have inside information that Governor Perry is "giving a presidential run appropriate consideration."

My source for that insider tip is Governor Perry himself, who says it on Cavuto.

Oh, and Rich Lowry just saw Perry give a speech, and thinks it sounds like it could easily be a presidential stump speech.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:46 PM | Comments (179)
Post contains 355 words, total size 2 kb.

Says here that our future deficit numbers are worse than you've heard. I'm not talking about the 10s of Trillions of far future unfunded MediSocialSecurity. I'm talking about the next 10 years.

1. Interest-rate payments and underestimated: They will cost $5.4 trillion more than the current estimate over ten years.

2. Future economic growth rates are overestimated: The president’s budget predicts a growth rate of over 4 percent, which is unlikely...

3. The cost of the health-care law is grossly underestimated, by $1 trillion ...

I suggest we copy the strategy of the Byzantines when they ran into this problem - more chariot races!

Posted by: Open Blogger at 07:24 PM | Comments (59)
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.

I made some cracks about this last night, but it really just annoyed the hell out of me. King kept groaning and grunting through the answers, just as loudly as the candidate responding.

It felt like (to me) some sort of anticipatory cut-off thing, "this is the sound I use to silence you after 30 seconds".

What do I know? I'm not a professional television guy.

I don't do this in meetings though. more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 06:51 PM | Comments (70)
Post contains 103 words, total size 2 kb.

We're just so... "automated."

President Obama explained to NBC News that the reason companies aren't hiring is not because of his policies, it's because the economy is so automated. ... "There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don't go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate."

In a vibrant, healthy economy, in which innovation and experimentation and risk are rewarded, what happens is that when man-hours are saved via automation for some task easily automated (giving you $100 in five twenty dollar bills), those man-hours are soon after diverted towards a need which people wanted fulfilled but there simply weren't enough man-hours to cover (such as my dream start-up venture, GAP for Dogs).

In an economy where no one dares risk for the government is determined to seize the natural fruits of successful risk, people don't bother. Lost jobs stay lost.

Two videos. Old Glory, and Prince.

Six months ago I couldn't find any Prince on the internet, now I'm finding deep cuts from 1999. I guess he gave up.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 05:37 PM | Comments (328)
Post contains 265 words, total size 4 kb.

That's just a joke referencing my A/NotA/B analysis of the debate. It's my way of saying I don't think this is right:

Beyond that, Pawlenty has a basic strategic problem identified here by Ace in that he’s presenting himself as a clearly defined alternative to Romney and Obama rather than as the “not Romney” (and “not Obama”) in the race. That is to say, by proposing his own economic program early in the campaign and embracing the “truth-telling” gimmick on the stump (no ethanol subsidies for Iowa, etc), he’s framing the election as a choice between him and his competitors rather than as a referendum on Romney/RomneyCare and, ultimately, Obama. Which, considering that T-Paw’s big advantage is how bland and baggage-free he is, is exactly the opposite of what he’d like to be doing.

I think he's got that wrong. Had I continued to Part IX., and Part X., I might have noted that playing NotA to Obama's A is sound general-election strategy, and one pursued, to one extent or another, by virtually every candidate.

However, in a primary, primary voters are not just looking for "Not Obama." Any Republican candidate is "Not Obama," and most of them are "Very Much Not Obama."

Primary voters are in fact looking for specific reassurances and promises on specific policy questions, not a general promise to be "Not Obama."

Now this always the tension in this process; to win a primary, you have to undertake enough specific promises to convince the primary voting base that you will adequately represent them, should you win office.

But if you get the nomination, you'd prefer, to the extent possible, to run having made as few support-reducing specific commitments as possible.

For example -- I'm just speaking here in terms of your best chances for winning a general election, and expressly not in terms of best policy platform -- it would be best for any candidate to basically say "My position on abortion is what's the best policy for women and children everywhere," that is to say, say something perfectly senseless and empty so that as many people as possible can say, "Oh, what's best for women and children? I like women and children. I like that guy's take."

Now, that's not possible, but Clinton got as near as possible to that Non-Answer Nirvana with his formulation that abortion should be "safe (pro-choice!), legal (pro-choice!), and rare (sort of pro-life!)."

Bush had a similar fudge, not quite as melodic, in declaring himself in full support of the culture of life (pro-life!), but recognizing that the nation was not yet adequately educated into a culture of life (but not pro-life yet).

So, in the primary, I don't think Pawlenty's more specific policy commitments are contrary to his political interest. His specifics might hurt him in the general, but they should, in theory, help him in the primary.

Ah, but here's the rub: As long as he actually points out he's undertaken a more thorough set of conservative promises on issues than his rival Romney.

If Pawlenty creates a set of bold, conservative-pleasing proposals, but then doesn't show them off in a debate and create a contrast with the more Generalist Not Obama candidate Romney, what good does it do Pawlenty?

Edit: Of course some of T-Paw's stuff alienates some primary voters. But he doesn't have to win everyone. His budget cut/pro-growth proposals should appeal to up to 40% or so of the budget hawk part of the party. Assuming people know about them, that is.

Romney won because he did pretty well, but also because his chief rival didn't take very many shots on goal. He was all on offense against Obama (and I didn't mind that too much) because Pawlenty wasn't shooting pucks at his net.

I've already tipped my hand as soft partisan for Pawlenty, assuming he can get his his performance issues resolved. I've long said on paper he looks damn good; he's got to look damn good off paper, too.

So I'm not pleased to write any of this. I'd like to rah-rah Pawlenty, and say Romney stumbled, but that's not true.

But if we're just ignoring specific policy commitments, why not just go with the guy who seems to have an easier command of the camera? Which is why Pawlenty should not be ignoring specific policy commitments.

Anyway, hit Allah's links for other fallout from the debate, including, as I mentioned in the comments, the possibility that T-Paw might start losing some donors over a lackluster pair of debate performances. The money primary, and the media primary, are almost as important as the actual primary.

I still think T-Paw can right his ship. Or, at least I hope so, because Romney, for all of his advantages, also has some real weaknesses I could do without.

But I think right now Pawlenty has one life left on this quarter.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 04:11 PM | Comments (255)
Post contains 837 words, total size 5 kb.

Actually, I don't really get his plan here, but it took guts, whatever it was, and I guess it sort of worked.

Plans may be overrated anyway. As one of the criminals said in The Way of the Gun, "A plan is just a list of things that won't happen."

Posted by: Ace at 03:25 PM | Comments (40)
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

"One of the courts that we are charged with supervising has usurped the legislative power which the Wisconsin Constitution grants exclusively to the legislature.”

Quoted by Instapundit. Pungent and piquant.

Decision up. Full victory for Walker, I'm told.

More: Generally, when a higher court calls bullshit on a lower one, it's called a remand, a declaration that the lower court got it wrong, and to try again.

Commenters are telling me the court ruled here ab initio, which (context clues, it's been forever since I did anything law-oriented) means it's expunged from memory altogether as being improperly entertained from the start, which means there is no remand to the lower court to try again. The higher court has said "Not only did you get this wrong, you got it so wrong we don't trust you with another bite at the apple, so we're directing your decision from here. It's over. Done. Finished. Kaput."

And more. This judge, Sumi, attempted not to rule a law unconstitutional but a bill -- a not-quite-yet-a-law -- unconstitutional, as she ordered the law to be unpublished, that is, to remain a bill without going to the final step to make it a law.

The court finds that is preposterous:

"There is no such thing known to the law as an unconstitutional bill. A court cannot deal with the question of constitutionality until a law has been duly enacted and some person has been deprived of his constitutional rights by its operation."

Thanks to smart people in the thread.

This whole shebang was, transparently, lawless from the start, with a make-it-up-as-you-go agenda antithetical to the Rule of Law. I'm glad the Supreme Court took this opportunity to chastise and embarrass this socialist, totalitarian little scrunt.

Posted by: Ace at 02:05 PM | Comments (300)
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.

Steven Crowder got rejected in his bid to be a conservative pundit on the Daily Show. (Not sure if he pitched himself as a one-shot or an ongoing thing; probably the former with an eye to the latter, if he performed.)

Here's the tricky thing: Crowder runs the peril of seeming jealous/pissy/etc. due to his rejection.

But he navigates this perfectly. Because he points out that Stewart expressly holds himself out as, if you can stand to hear this without laughing your eyes out of your skull, non-partisan, the reasonable man floating above the fray.

So is he?

Well, his producer's letter to Crowder's manager said Crowder was talented and funny, however, they have a blanket policy of absolutely no conservative-leaning pundits, period.

So, like every other liberal occupying a position in the media, he poses as non-partisan when in fact being partisan as all hell.

A liar, put briefly.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:44 PM | Comments (161)
Post contains 597 words, total size 4 kb.

Janice Hahn is the Democrat candidate seeking to fill the seat vacated by Jane Harman in the special election for California's 36th Congressional District.

Her record of accomplishments for the citizens of Los Angeles as a member of the city council is about what you'd expect in this charter member of the Loyal Order Of the Terminally Boned.

Her greatest hit? Subsidizing gangs to gang bang.

Ladd Ehlinger Jr. takes after this moron (and not the good kind) in a great new attack ad.

Hahn is liberal Jane Harman (Newsweek, Daily Beast) approved, which means Hahn is also George Soros approved. Another reason to have fun at her expense, and let people know what an idiot she was and is.

As Ace said on the ad link in the sidebar: Moderate Content Warning for a stripper shakin' dat ass, and some edgy racial themes.

Posted by: andy at 01:42 PM | Comments (22)
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

Perry to have a howdy-do with Rudy Giuliani.

They'll probably talk about all the cultural affinities they have in common. That's what I figure.

On the other hand, I should say that while I never previously saw the logic of a fresh Giuliani run, now I sort of do. Giuliani is almost disqualified due to his very soft position on abortion.

However, in a primary, he'd compete with Romney for the establishment/Northeastern Republican type vote. (And not all NE Republican types live in the northeast.)

So he would have a logical niche: Okay, I've got that gay marriage/abortion baggage. But I don't have the RomneyCare baggage.

Now, who wins in that sort of intermural scrum in the moderate division of the primary? Probably Romney, as he's generally been stronger in debates and furthermore has been working hard at this since... well, he never stopped running for President, actually. So he has all sorts of on-the-ground or bank-account advantages Giuliani doesn't and won't.

However, it is possible Giuliani could win the Moderate Playoff, which may be enough to get in.

So yeah, I figure this is what Perry is feeling out Giuliani about. Not sure why Perry really cares, as I can see a case for a Giuliani vs. Romney scrum helping him.

But if Giuliani isn't running, of course Perry will want some high profile endorsements.

Via @allahpundit on Twitter.

Posted by: Ace at 12:17 PM | Comments (239)
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.