It's a movie based on the game Battleship. Yes, C4, you sunk my battleship.

It has a fleet of five ships (I'm guessing, for the game tie-in) up against, of course, an alien marine navy.

I don't know what the hell to make of it.

If you notice a lot of boobage in that trailer (for a movie aimed at kids), you're not alone. Someone put together a clip of just Brooklyn Decker's boob-squish.

Thanks to Gabe and rdbrewer.

I know it's an old joke that Hollywood is officially out of ideas but seriously, Hollywood is officially out of ideas.

I mean -- Footloose

They "remade," supposedly, The Killer Elite, but it really looks like they just bought the name and wrote a completely different (standard action dopiness) script.

And for those of you who can't get enough of boardgame-based movies and bizarre remake choices, you'll be happy to know that the cheesy and crappy but sort of good Clue movie is, yes, being remade too.

Posted by: Ace at 03:19 PM | Comments (146)
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

I mentioned this poll earlier but Instapundit noted the Paul/Obama 50/50 split.

The poll analysis indicates that several Republican candidates suffer merely from a lack of name recognition. Scanning down the list, it appears that many of the names people tend to know wind up beating Obama -- Romney and Giuliani, for example, and even Ron Paul manages a tie.

People with higher name recognition (50% or higher) who don't win against Obama include, yes, Palin and Bachmann, and also Gingrich.

I'm thinking that this reinforces my belief that people do want to turn Obama out of office, and several people could win -- so long as the public is reasonably comfortable with them.

(Perry loses to Obama in this poll, but the same margins Palin and Bachmann do, but his name recognition is a mere 30%.)

Now how did Ron Paul manage a 50/50 split in this poll? Isn't he a "threatening" Republican with no executive experience?

Not really sure. Could just be that he's always running, so the public is comfortable with the idea of Ron Paul.

Posted by: Ace at 03:08 PM | Comments (56)
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.

I just saw this ad by Crossroads GPS on Fox.

It's Daisy-like in featuring a child in great danger at the end. more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:19 PM | Comments (138)
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

He says it's just the first skirmish in a longer war.

Another Tea Party/CCB House Republican, Bill Flores, now says he's voting for the Boehner plan.

Rep. Bill Flores (R., Texas), a freshman member of the House Budget Committee, tells National Review Online that support for House Speaker John Boehner’s (R., Ohio) deficit plan is “really growing.”

“It’s not a perfect plan, but it is the best plan that we have available,” he says on his way out of a weekly meeting between GOP leaders and freshman members. “Those of us that are very concerned about the future of our country and for our kids and grand-kids think that it’s the right thing to do to pass this bill.”

So, they've decided.

Krauthammer Advises Keeping The Eye on 2012: In this clip from tonight's O'Reilly, he argues that real change can only happen when we have undivided government, and we have a chance for just that in 2012, and should set our minds to winning it all.

Posted by: Ace at 01:56 PM | Comments (272)
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

Best that we can do?

Members will be presented with an updated draft of the plan later this afternoon, with a vote tentatively scheduled for Thursday. GOP aides wonÂ’t predict whether or not they have the votes to pass the plan, but acknowledge things are moving in the right direction. Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), however, said he thought the plan would pass. Tea-party favorite Allen West (R., Fla.), who supports the plan, said he might be willing to bet his retirement check on it.

From a source, NRO's Robert Costa says the vote might not even wind up being close.

New Boehner Plan Slightly (Slightly!) Bigger: Now up to $917 billion, which is still not $1.1 trillion and still meager anyway, with $20 billion in first year deficit reduction.

The best lipstick I can put on this pig is that you need to stop spending more before you can reverse and spend less, but that's not really a great spin.

Posted by: Ace at 12:57 PM | Comments (338)
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

Well.

The Labor Day weekend visit to the nation's first voting state comes after Palin indicated during an appearance on Fox News earlier this month that she would make her decision about whether to launch a campaign in August or September.

All signs now point to September as the month when Palin would throw her hat into the ring, as logistical concerns ranging from fundraising to getting her name on the ballot in various states would likely preclude further delay.

...

Palin has been relatively quiet over the past month, as she has retreated to Alaska to immerse herself in policy and to strategize with her husband, Todd, and top advisers about how a potential campaign would work.

SarahPAC, Palin's political action committee, has not hired a pollster or a media consultant, and Palin appears to have little interest in doing so, although the addition of a national press secretary may soon be on the horizon.

So, Perry is getting ready to jump in and now Palin (maybe).

Funny how all these months leading up to this were simply warm ups for the main event.

Posted by: DrewM at 12:13 PM | Comments (197)
Post contains 225 words, total size 1 kb.

This is actually a smart move.

“You know what I would do?” Limbaugh said. “Folks, it is real simple and I have mentioned this before — stop presenting a plan. All we are doing is compromising with ourselves. Just stop presenting the plans. Just sit around and say, ‘We will wait for yours.’ Say it to Obama. Say it to Carney, whatever. But we’re through.”

My only concern is the timing: Two weeks ago this is brilliant. But now? I'm not sure there's time for this.

John McCain, meanwhile, signaled his capitulation in the fight, saying a debt ceiling increase was inevitable (which it is, but there's no point folding early), and then went on to chastise Tea Partiers for their "foolish" demands connecting the Balanced Budget Amendment to the debt ceiling hike.

He's the foolish one. It is completely possible to pass a small (say, $300 billion) debt limit increase that kicks in immediately while making the rest contingent on passing the BBA out of the Congress in, say, two months time.

Limbaugh Has A Point: While conservatives are shredding each other trying to compromise with each other, the Democrats sit back and do nothing.

House Republicans 0n Wednesday morning were calling for the firing of Republican Study Committee staffers after they were caught sending e-mails to conservative groups urging them to pressure GOP lawmakers to vote against a debt proposal from Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

Infuriated by the e-mails from Paul Teller, the executive director of the RSC, and other staffers, members started chanting “Fire him, fire him!” while Teller stood silently at a closed-door meetings of House Republicans.

“It was an unbelievable moment,” said one GOP insider. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”

An RSC aide sent a Tuesday e-mail to outside conservatives seeking to “kill the Boehner deal.” The RSC emails were sent to a listserv with conservative activists.

Carney Admits No Default On August 2: So let's not give up the fight based on a false premise.

Posted by: Ace at 11:10 AM | Comments (251)
Post contains 350 words, total size 3 kb.

Just another data point.

That plan, as House Speaker John Boehner himself understands, is far from perfect. But there is no reasonable prospect, given the current political balance of power in Washington, to get anything better on the debt ceiling issue. We cannot know exactly how financial markets will react to the various scenarios that might play out over the next several days, but the potential cost of finding out what the defeat of the Boehner Plan would be is not worth the risk.

If AmericaÂ’s prospects for economic recovery are gravely impaired, if President Obama is able to turn the inevitable turmoil to his political advantage and achieve re-election, and if we face four more years of his debilitating economic and national security policies, the safety and security of America in the world may be damaged irreparably.

In politics as in battle, conservatives should remember Carl von Clausewitz’s sage advice to be satisfied with identifying and achieving “the culminating point of victory.” That does not mean total victory, but rather the maximum that can be achieved in any particular engagement. We should not stop short, but neither should we risk what we have achieved by proceeding dangerously beyond that culminating point.

For all the furor over the Boehner plan, it seems forgotten that Obama has suggested he would veto it. The optics of that-- should he do that -- would be worth something, I guess.

Posted by: Ace at 10:54 AM | Comments (113)
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

Video below. This Newell is flirting with a perjury charge. If you watch other videos, like this one, you see how Newell simply doesn't want to answer questions, and keeps answering them vaguely, often offering the same nonresponsive answer multiple times.

He does that in the video below, too, refusing to answer why he prefaced his heads up to a White House aide with "You didn't get this from me."

The testimony demonstrates that the White House was aware of Fast and Furious, but that doesn't necessarily mean Obama knew. But it's progress.

At a lengthy hearing on ATFÂ’s controversial gunwalking operation today, a key ATF manager told Congress he discussed the case with a White House National Security staffer as early as September 2010. The communications were between ATF Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix office, Bill Newell, and White House National Security Director for North America Kevin OÂ’Reilly. Newell said the two are longtime friends. The content of what Newell shared with OÂ’Reilly is unclear and wasnÂ’t fully explored at the hearing. Â…

Congressional investigators obtained an email from Newell to O’Reilly in September of last year in which Newell began with the words: “you didn’t get this from me.”

“What does that mean,” one member of Congress asked Newell, ” ‘you didn’t get this from me?’ ”

He keeps avoiding answering that in the clip below, repeating "Well he was my friend," which is nonresponsive. Ultimately he coughs up, "...and obviously I shouldn't have been sending it to him."

This guy is evasive and wormy and clearly uncooperative.

Question: If the media does not have a political bias, but just a bias towards drama and sensationalism and Jon Stewart alleges -- why no interest in this?

More: At Moe Lane. He sums up what we've learned just this week.

Let’s start with this report from the House Oversight Committee, which helpfully informs us that BATFE officials active in Mexico were allegedly deliberately not told by their superiors – and the rest of the government – that there was a program in place to allow guns to be illegally resold to Mexican narco-terrorists and then lose trace of the guns. Once those officials found out about this on their own, they were allegedly told that the program had been completed several months before it actually was… only by which time both Mexican and American personnel were dead. To say that these officials are displeased that their own organization violated their training and made them unwitting dupes in an international incident is, to put it mildly, a vast understatement.

...

Oh, and in case you were wondering: House Oversight Chair Darrell Issa (R) has indicated that the government is attempting to intimidate whistleblowers out of providing full details on this debacle.

BATFE, by the way, attempted to stonewall Issa by claiming that no F&F guns were used to actually kill Border Agent Brian Terry (F&F guns were found on the scene). Guess what? The FBIÂ’s own ballistic reports didnÂ’t rule out the possibility.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:29 AM | Comments (144)
Post contains 551 words, total size 4 kb.

First, let me say I like this back and forth stuff.

Second, let me also stipulate that Gabe and I (and everyone at the HQ) want the same thing...massive cuts in spending and the scope of government. The question on the table isn't the end goal, it's how do we get there and how much can we get at a time when there are people running most of the political branches who vehemently oppose us. This isn't a fight between enemies or sellouts (even with all the RINO/purity jokes), it's a debate between people of goodwill trying to find the right tactic.

With that said, let me trash Gabe (I kid).

A vote against Boehner's plan is a vote for Reid's plan.

This I was not aware of. Personally, I thought a vote against Boehner's plan is...a vote against Boehner's plan. More to the point, there's no evidence that Reid's plan is going to get out of the Senate. The GOP can filibuster it there. Is a vote against Reid a vote for Boehner? If not, why not? If Boehner's plan can't pass the House, why in the world would you think Reid's can?

FTR- I didn't say I'd vote against if I had a vote, I said I'd wait until the new plan and score came out. Boehner 1.0 is as dead as Cap, Cut and Balance. I didn't do that. Boehner did.

The reality is the House can pass Boehner and the Senate can pass Reid and then they will conference. It's not a binary choice as Gabe would have it seem. That's why I want Boehner to come in as big and front loaded as possible so that when we cut the deal, we negotiate from a big number. Where do you negotiate from when you start with $1 Billion? $133 million, some National's tickets and a pack of gum?

Even Drew admits that Cut, Cap, and Balance isn't happening while Democrats control the Senate (although he strangely then takes Boehner to task for not cutting as much as the Ryan budget, which also got shot down by the Democrats in the Senate). So what's the alternative?

I know and I addressed this. There's no rule that says the debt ceiling hike has to be offset by cuts. In fact, I don't think it ever has been. The point of linking them was using the leverage caused by the debt limit hike to get something for going along with what is normally done for free.

Personally, I think the something we get should be something we couldn't otherwise win...cuts the Democrats wouldn't normally go for. The whole point of this exercise should be to screw the Democrats into doing what they don't want to. As someone once said, "never let a crisis go to waste." Make no mistake, this is a "crisis" of the GOP's making. We could have just done what was always done and raised the ceiling. If we didn't want to force a showdown and walk away with something tangible for having played the game, we shouldn't have sat down at the table. Sure, at some point you can push to hard and they just say no. That's why $1 trillion in FY12 is folly. The number should be somewhere between $30 billion and the amount of the debt ceiling increase.

Again, when you negotiate, you state a maximum position knowing you'll come off it. Boehner 1.0 came in with our worst offer and that we'd give up from there. Why not just do a clean hike then? In essence that's what it was, at least in terms of real deficit reduction.

I'm not going to get into Gabe's scenarios about what happens if we hit the ceiling with no deal because I agree it's bad and doesn't enhance our leverage after it happens (something I covered in my post). But let's not pretend there aren't other alternatives. A week or two extension while there are negotiations between Boehner 2.0 and Reid (likely 2.0). Obama will sign it because he's a coward.

I'm also not going to get into whether or not this is an exercise in futility or not since we covered this in the comments of my original post.

I imagine this is about it from me on this. At least until we get the scoring for Boehner 2.0.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:48 AM | Comments (189)
Post contains 739 words, total size 4 kb.