Please join the rest of the cobloggers and me in congratulating Ace for being named the winner of the first Breitbart Award for best blog:

The Heritage Foundation and Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity will host an awards dinner this Friday in honor of Andrew Breitbart, the conservative firebrand who passed away earlier this year.

...

The Washington Examiner's Phillip Klein will take home the Professional Journalist award; Ace of Spades HQ will receive the award for best blog; and Andrew Marcus will receive the Citizen Journalist award. John Fund, the senior editor of The American Spectator, and Sonnie Johnson, of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, will speak.

I know the award is "technically" for the blog as a whole, but I really don't think my open thread Ewok signal or Gabe's morning headline comment posts had much to do with it. This one's all Ace's.

And it's only fitting since Andrew loved the blog and the Moron Horde's comments.

Man, I miss that guy.

Posted by: andy at 09:58 AM | Comments (375)
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

The indispensable naval blog Information Dissemination turns 5 this month and they are celebrating with a virtual symposium on the challenges facing the US Navy (yeah, they're nerds).

Today's installment features John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan and current adviser to the Romney campaign. Neither he nor Romney are impressed with Obama's plan for the Navy.

Our Navy stands today at 285 ships. It has never come close to the long-held goal of 313, a number that was itself found to be far too low by the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel which called for a force of 346 ships. This is because, as the QDR commission said, “it is unlikely that the United States can make do with less than it needed in the early 1990s, when Americans assumed the world would be much more peaceful post Cold War.”

In his 2013 budget request and shipbuilding plan, President Obama scrapped even the 313-ship goal for a fleet of “around 300.” Yet at the same time, President Obama wants U.S. foreign policy to “pivot” toward Asia. The important states of Asia form a great maritime region in which dominant sea power is the key to prosperity, security, and a balance of power. However, the President’s latest budget cut 16 ships out of the shipbuilding plan and takes nine ships out of commission years before their service lives have expired, while spending hundreds of millions of dollars on algae for jet fuel and other unaffordable distractions. The unavoidable fact remains that the Navy is retiring ships faster than it builds them, and the “pivot” to Asia exists mainly in words.

The President’s plan for the Navy continues a pattern of kicking the can down the road. Like the coming pain of Obamacare and the drastic need to address the nation’s growing debt burden, the President considers a decision deferred to be a decision made. In reality, he has consistently pushed off the tough choices so that his successors face the consequences. We must begin to rebuild our Navy today and reject empty “out year” procrastination when it comes to shipbuilding.

Right now Obama's shipbuilding plan calls for adding 8 ships a year (even though he doesn't fully fund that plan) but he'll be retiring other ships faster. Romney, according to Lehman, would plan for 15 ships per year.

Advantage: Romney (with a caveat...What kind of ships does Mitt want to see us increase in numbers? Subs and amphibious assault ships or the useless LCSs? If they are real ships, then it's unquestionably advantage Mitt.)

If the strategy is to be leaner and smarter (liberal code words for smaller) the Navy is still the best bang for the buck.

The simple fact is, the world isn't getting any safer and it's still covered mostly by water. The Navy is strained as it is, Obama's plans will only make things worse. As covered in this post at ID, you can't just decide one day to build more ships and expect to have them in reasonable time horizon. You have to invest now for what you're going to need 5, 10, 20 years down the road.

Almost no one is going to make their mind up about Obama v. Romney based on ship building plans but it's an important issue and it gets to the larger question of how each candidate approaches national defense. It's well worth your time to read the whole piece and see just how bad Obama is on this stuff.

Congratulations to Ray and his gang on 5 years of blogging, they provide a great service to those of us novices with an interest in this area.

Bellow the fold...a brilliant US Navy commercial that lays out in 30 seconds the basics of sea power. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 09:29 AM | Comments (213)
Post contains 651 words, total size 4 kb.

Dylan Byers at liberal Politico decides that both MSNBC and Fox embarrassed themselves with their partisan cheerleading.

I didn't watch Fox -- when Republicans are about to win, I switch over to MSNBC, to watch the bitter tears and dubious spin -- but I would note this difference:

Assuming this quote describes the tenor of Hannity's coverage...

eanwhile, Fox News was blatantly rooting for Gov. Walker, and the moment it became clear that Walker might win, host Sean Hannity called it "a repudiation of big unions," which did "everything they could do to demonize Scott Walker."

... it appears FoxNews was accurately describing the race.

The race was a repudiation of unions (at least of the public-employee sort). Polls show that a majority of Wisconsinites now support the reforms -- a stark reversal from their original unpopularity.

And given the late "revelation" of the Scott Walker Love Baby (which doesn't exist) and liberal partisans openly calling for the assassination of Walker (and death by colon cancer for Lt. Governor Kleefish), yes, I would say it's accurate that they did "everything they could to demonize Scott Walker."

Confirmation of this can be had from MSNBC's own coverage, where a bitter, sour Ed Schultz sagely informed viewers that Walker might be indicted "in a matter of days."

A liberal may not like the tone of Fox, but nothing that Dylan Byers quotes is actually debatable.

On the other hand, MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell proclaimed that "the big winner" of the night was... Barack Obama.

Now, that is not just partisan cheerleading. That is partisan distortion of the actual facts of the evening for purposes of keeping activists engaged and hopeful.

And there's nothing wrong with activists doing that.

But do actual journalists pretend the news is other than it is for purposes of partisan excitement?

So no, Dylan Byers, I do not concede the two were equal-but-opposite. I didn't see Fox's coverage, but I did read your quote, which apparently was among the worst you could find.

And what I find is that while FoxNews might have expressed its rooting interest -- something the networks broadcast every election day, with all Republican victories described as "tempter tantrums" and such -- MSNBC both expressed its rooting interest and presented a palpably false take on the election, deciding partisan grievance-stoking was more important than a dispassionate and accurate account of the evening's news.

Question for Dylan Byers: Some commenters note they were annoyed by the lefty guests on FoxNews, talking their talking points.

I watched some CNN, too (wanted to see Wolf Blitzer cry) and I saw they had guests from both sides of the aisle. They had, I think, Ari Fleisher and Dana Loesch on the right, but also Paul Begala and David Gergen on the left.

So FoxNews had guests of both political leanings, as did CNN.

The one network that was stuffed keel to topspirit with only liberal guests was MSNBC. I watched MSNBC and saw nothing but left-wing "analysts."

Is that news? Or simply activism?

As one commenter writes, accurately, I think, "MSNBC tries to be what liberals imagine FoxNews is."

Update: Dylan Byers says he considers the statement that unions were "repudiated" to be "debatable," and reaffirms that the statement "unions did everything they could to demonize Scott Walker" is a "partisan" interpretation.

In related news, fficial&client=firefox-beta&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=D5PPT4WTE9KB0QGEz5D5Bw&biw=960&bih=452&sei=FJPPT-qkEcLY0QGdu4j7Bw">it turns out Scott Walker is Hitler.

In other related news, Democracy Died Last Night.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:34 AM | Comments (275)
Post contains 585 words, total size 4 kb.

First he calls it an "expansion, as weak as it is," but then later, Allah catches, he says spending levels "look high, because it's a recession."

Allah's suggestion that Romney's ad man clip it won't happen, because the entire sentence argues that Obama's spending merely "looks high."

No, it's high. It's not "quite low," Mr. President.

Still, it seems to undercut Obama. If Clinton's right, and higher taxes on the rich will dampen an economy in the doldrums -- why should it not be expected that higher taxes will have this same effect in a growing economy?

Posted by: Ace at 08:10 AM | Comments (101)
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.

I live in Rancho Cucamonga. Our congressman, for years, was David Dreier, who decided to retire after redistricting. The "nonpartisan" team assembled for redistricting in my state decided that Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, and San Bernardino have a whole lot in common, so the overall district moved several points leftwards. So much so that prognosticators changed the status of my district to "lean Democrat".

But a funny thing happened yesterday. See, Democrats attempting to consolidate power with ball-less moderate Republicans pushed a "top two" open primary to the voters two years ago. All candidates from all political parties compete in the same primary for all state and local races. The incumbent Republican, Gary Miller (moved from another district thanks to the clowns who shook up the map), won 26.7% of the vote with all precincts in. The Democrat expected to finish as the contender for November, Pete Aguilar, won 22.82%.

But Bob Dutton, who I voted for, finished with 24.86% of the total vote, bumping Aguilar out of the top two, and giving us a choice between a Republican and a Republican for November. This was supposed to be a prime pickup for the Democrats this year, and it blew up (so far) gloriously in their faces.

I had to screencap, for my personal enjoyment, the fail here. CA31 was supposed to become Democrat-leaning, and the jungle primary sent that idea off to Failtown:

Pension reform measures in both San Diego and San Jose passed, focusing on cutting pensions for you-know-who. Walker was only the beginning, it seems. Taxpayers like keeping more of their money instead of flushing it away on the overpaid and the bloated. Who knew?

Speaking of pension-busters and spending slashers, Carl DeMaio won the jungle primary in San Diego, and will face off against Democrat Bob Filner in November. While his lead was only by about 2% over Filner in the primary, almost 70% of the overall vote was divided amongst three Republicans, so barring a scandal DeMaio looks favored to become the next mayor.

Since the Senate race here is a dud and we aren't going to beat Obama in my state, I'll take great news where I can get it.

Posted by: CAC at 07:54 AM | Comments (105)
Post contains 373 words, total size 3 kb.

Can you stand a little more Wisconsinfreude (Cuffy's term)? I'm sure you can.

Chuck Todd was a little touchy this morning when I called him out for relying on the "but the exit polls show Obama winning WI" garbage.

@DrewMTips learn how exit polls work... Then criticize.

again, it was weighted incorrectly... The raw data is reliable. All exit polls get weighted to actual results.

Tell you what Team Exit Polls...show me what a voter who supports Obama and Scott Walker looks like and then I'll take you seriously (actually, I'll laugh at them but close enough).

I'd love to see a Venn Diagram of people who believe exit poll data over actual votes and people who believe climate models over observable climate data. I bet there's a big overlap.

And don't buy the "Walker and the Koch brothers bought the election" spin. The left spent plenty of money on this. Besides, when did the left start caring about outspending opponents? I seem to recall (SWIDT) a guy named Barack Obama promising to take public funding and abide by equal spending limits only to change his mind and outspend John McCain 3-1.

One final thought, a lot of the lefty whining over Wisconsin and Walker is that by preventing the state from collecting dues for unions Walker is destroying the Democratic party's main funding and organizing sources. Think about that for a second, liberals think they have an inherent right to have the state subsidize and compel financing for their political operations.

Today we are all Cheeseheads!

Added: The saddest spin...Wisconsin Democrats didn't want Obama's help anyway and besides Obama wanted them to show how awesome they are without his help.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:21 AM | Comments (121)
Post contains 295 words, total size 3 kb.

Posted by: andy at 06:47 AM | Comments (89)
Post contains 10 words, total size 2 kb.

With bonus analogy of Tom Barrett's campaign below the fold.
more...

Posted by: CAC at 06:00 AM | Comments (140)
Post contains 646 words, total size 5 kb.

After the 7 point drubbing, team Obama wanted to talk about the "message" sent to Scott Walker by the public. Corrected from the earlier 9 point figure.

The message was apparently "Stop your right-wingnuttery or we'll vote for you in higher proportions than in 2010."

But no, that's not what Obama campaign says the message is.

"While tonight’s outcome was not what we had hoped for – no one can dispute the strong message sent to Governor Walker. Hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites from all walks of life took a stand against the politics of division and against the flood of secret and corporate money spent on behalf of Scott Walker..."

And 1.2 or .3 million voted for Walker.

"It is a testament to all of those individuals who talked to their friends, neighbors, and colleagues about the stakes in this election of how close this contest was."

And yet, not close.

The power of WisconsinÂ’s progressive, grassroots tradition was clearly on display throughout the run up to this election and we will continue to work together to ensure a brighter future for WisconsinÂ’s middle class," Wellde said.

A tradition on display, but which lost at the polls. Partly because of the display they made of themselves.

The campaign also said that the exit polling data showing Obama pulling ahead of Romney was an ominous sign for the GOP nominee.

Earlier, David Axelrod tweeted that same lame spin: "Bad night in Boston...WI raises big questions for Mitt."

Yeah, about those. They show Obama ahead, 53-46. But then, the exits showed Walker ahead only by 51-48, and yet he won by 9 points.

So the exit polls have around a six point skew -- like they did in 2004, and John Kerry's "Four Hour Presidency." These daffy hippie college kids they get to do the exit polls seem to gravitate towards fellow liberals, or fellow liberals gravitate towards them.

Either way, they're off, by around six, and Obama's Big Scary Lead is seven.

If it's a bad night for Romney, he doesn't seem aware of it. He proclaimed that Walker's win would "echo" beyond Wisconsin.

It's also news to Star Khan Reince Priebus.

The GOP victory in Wisconsin's gubernatorial recall election was an "absolute disaster for President Obama" and represents a clear sign of Republican momentum heading into the fall presidential election campaign, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus argues in a memo set for release Wednesday.

Is Romney right that Wisconsin will "echo" in the nation? Well, two California cities have actually enacted pension reform for city employees.

On Twitter, the left once again exemplified the "new tone" they called for, by repeatedly calling for Scott Walker's death.

Tammy Baldwin is meanwhile running as the Democratic candidate for Senate from Wisconsin. The NRSC is already tying the recall around her neck, and her proclamation that "This is what democracy looks like."

They also note she's to the left of Obama and Barrett. Which she does seem to be. Seems like an unreconstructed Yippie radical.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 05:15 AM | Comments (266)
Post contains 680 words, total size 5 kb.

President Obama is a selfish, faithless, and soon-to-be friendless embarrassment. Tom Barrett was one of Obama's earliest, most prominent supporters in the Democratic primaries during 2008 cycle. In fact, Barrett presaged Obama's eventual 2008 slogan by declaring in 2007 that Obama was the candidate who would "create hope in this country."

Obama repaid Barrett's early, crucial support by virtually ignoring him during the recall election. Obama made eight visits to Wisconsin after he was elected, and then abruptly stopped visiting once Barrett's campaign to defeat Gov. Walker began and despite repeated overtures from Barrett to come to Wisconsin. The president actually played hopscotch to avoid Barrett last week, hitting both Minnesota and Illinois, but jumping twice over Wisconsin.

At the very last hour, perhaps embarrassed by all the Democrats asking why he had hung Barrett out to dry, Obama tweeted and then emailed some supporters that he was "standing up" for Barrett. He meant he was standing in Illinois, looking vaguely in the direction of Wisconsin and thanking his lucky stars he hadn't associated himself with a losing campaign, I think. Because Obama certainly didn't lend his support---or any campaign money---to Barrett, no matter his late-offered digital protestations otherwise.

As a result of Obama's abandonment of Barrett, Wisconsin Democrats have realized something that we could have told them years ago: Obama is in it for himself and he doesn't really care about anyone else. Wisconsin Democrats are angry and demoralized. Wisconsin Republicans, by contrast, are enthusiastic about beating Obama in a state he took by 14 points in 2008. And the Obama campaign is now saying that Wisconsin is a "toss-up" state. Everyone, Democrats and Republicans, should note that trend.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:41 AM | Comments (212)
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.