People have previously called the breed "Polite Company Conservatives," conservatives who the media "likes" (so long as they're attacking other Republicans).

The Rick Wilson notes we've been down this road before.

The Acela Republican is as comfortable in the green rooms of MSNBC as he is at a green energy conference. The Acela Republican isn't one of those horrible Tea Party yahoos who comes from somewhere other than a big, coastal metropolis. The Acela Republican is softer, smoother, and less confrontational...unless he's taking on his own party.

Then, he's a ferocious scold. “Taking on his own party” is the passport of the Acela Republican to hundreds of stories about how he—and only he—can save the GOP. He talks about bringing people together, working with the other party, getting things done for everyone, regardless of politics...if only his own backward, hick, red-state, cousin-kissing bumpkin party will see the light.

Right now of course, it's Governor Chris Christie. In 2012, it was Jon Huntsman. Most famous of all, of course, was John McCain. They're not entirely new, but in an age of rising conservatism, the Acela Republican is just the kind of candidate America's media class pretend they could almost possibly contemplate thinking of voting for in the general election. The Acela Republican is the one Republican who shares their contempt for the GOP broadly, and modern conservatism specifically.

...

You can understand why the Acela Republican is blinded by the adulation and praise. You can see the cycle of addiction to the cheering and the media rewards given to him every time he scolds and chastises the Republican Party and the conservative movement. It will be too late when he understands that the price of the glowing coverage is a slow accretion of betrayal and insult to the very people who are necessary to win the Republican primary.

...

Will Chris Christie survive Bridgegate? Most likely. Will he be the Republican nominee? It was unlikely before the bridge scandal.

And last time I checked, the Acela doesn't stop at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Read the whole thing.

Via @benk84.

Posted by: Ace at 10:18 AM | Comments (302)
Post contains 361 words, total size 2 kb.

A few morning quick hits:

1. Could The GOP Actually Give Up On Repealing ObamaCare?

Short answer...of course. It's the GOP for crying out loud.

Longer answer: Erick Erickson makes a strong case that the groundwork is being laid for just such a cave. The groups that are siding with the GOP establishment in the ongoing intra-party wars are accommodating themselves to "fixing" not "repealing and replacing" ObamaCare. It's not a huge stretch to expect that their allies in the GOP will follow along in due course.

Yes, most Republicans continue to say the right things, but they always say the right things before they do the wrong ones. Case in point...the sequester spending caps were supposed to be sacrosanct or traded for some big entitlement reform. How'd that work out?

This is why it's important to keep the pressure on "the establishment" from the right and not buy into their "focus on Democrats" nonsense. Left to their own devices the GOP will...go left. Every time.

We talk more about that on this week's podcast with Washington Examiner reporter Tim Carney. He covers a lot of this "establishment" vs. "tea party" stuff, so follow him on Twitter if you don't already.

2. Could The GOP Cave On Amnesty?

I'm not even sure it's a cave at this point since so much of the party leadership and donor base wants it but let's pretend for the moment it would be.

How could the GOP cave and still claim they didn't? Just get a little pregnant with amnesty.

[House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert] Goodlatte has said he would instead offer a provisional legal status to illegal immigrants, then allow those who can demonstrate they are eligible to apply for permanent residency — a document known as a green card — through the existing system, based on sponsorship by a family member or an employer. Obtaining a green card is the crucial step toward American citizenship.

The foundationÂ’s report, prepared by Stuart Anderson, its executive director, finds that even without major changes to current immigration law, 3.1 million to 4.4 million immigrants now illegally in the United States would be eligible for green cards because they are parents of American citizens. As many as 600,000 could gain green cards as spouses of citizens and legal residents, and up to 45,000 could receive green cards within two decades as low-skilled workers.

So everyone gets legalization but only those who would be eligible through the current criteria for Green Cards would be put on that path to citizenship. See, it's not a "special path to citizenship", it's just letting law breakers who aren't eligible for any legalization right now to jump on the citizenship line and the rest just get legalized. See. nothing "special" about that.

The problem with this or any half measure is the GOP will raise anger on both sides. Amnesty folks will say it's not enough and pro-current law folks will say it's a sellout.

No one will be happy and everyone will be angrier with the GOP than they were before. Brilliant!

Of course, if it does pass, the amnesty people will turn their anger into pressure to get the rest of the loaf while the rest of us will be left playing defense and hoping the best cast is maybe 5-6 million illegals get a pass on breaking our laws.

Left! Ever to the left!

Speaking of anger...if you oppose amnesty, get ready to make yours heard.

more...

Posted by: DrewM at 07:14 AM | Comments (548)
Post contains 882 words, total size 6 kb.

Sorry all, my computer decided to sh*t the bed this morning. All I've got is a video of a Husky puppy who really doesn't want to go to his kennel.

CAC should be along shortly to give his election analysis. more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:30 AM | Comments (207)
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

Good morning everybody. I just finished discussing the latest on the upcoming races with Ben Domenech and Brad Jackson on their Coffee & Markets Podcast, which you can listen to here. I focus mostly on the general elections, but the more intriguing primaries also get a mention.

Bonus drinking game: every time I say "um", take a shot.

Posted by: CAC at 06:31 AM | Comments (94)
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

Woke up this morning with a firm conviction that it was Friday. Alas.

[ RSS]

[On iTunes]

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:42 AM | Comments (323)
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Tim Blair: Hey How Come My 17 Year Old World Vision-Sponsored Child Still Draws Like a Preschooler?

So Tim Blair of the Australian Daily Telegraph has been sponsoring a boy named Obvious in Zimbabwe for over ten years but recently noticed a deterioration in the occasional drawings and letters he receives from Obvious including misspellings of his own name.

And so he's starting to ask some obvious questions about what's going on.

World Vision sends us a drawing from the boy every Christmas. Sadly, there is never any sign of improvement. In fact, lately he seems to be regressing.

He's now 17 years old. The above image is his most recent illustration.

World Vision director Matt Davis expressed concern over Tim's concern:

We share your concern about the recent report you have received from Obvious and we have requested an immediate response from our team in Zimbabwe. We are yet to hear back and will let you know as soon as we do.

I can assure you there are some really encouraging things happening in Obvious's community and we are committed to ensuring you receive an appropriate explanation as to what has been happening with his development.

And World Vision Australia CEO Tim Costello wrote an editorial personally addressed to Tim Blair and explained the Obvious mystery thusly:

I too sometimes wonder about the pictures I get from my sponsor children, which is why immediately following Mr Blair's concern regarding his sponsor child, Obvious, I rang our Zimbabwe staff to see if we could get to the bottom of the matter.

They visited Obvious and his mother where Obvious explained he decided to draw his vision of their future home, where they would have a brick house rather than a grass-thatched house. He drew a tree because of the heat and whirlwinds to provide shade and shelter from the harsh sun and winds.

And then he admitted that World Vision's individual child-sponsorship is really more of a group effort kind of thingy:

There was a time many years ago when World Vision's sponsorship program meant the child you sponsored would directly receive your monthly donation. While this model was effective for the individual child, we discovered it didn't change the poverty and situation surrounding them and instead created dissent from families who missed out.

As a result, we moved to what's called a ''community development model'' whereby your child, their family and their community benefit from your sponsorship. Working with community members and leaders, World Vision tailors programs to address varying causes of poverty and build a community's capacity to care for themselves.

Because you know sometimes it takes a village and all that. And maybe 'community development model' Obvious just sucks at drawing and writing and should focus its efforts elsewhere.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:35 PM | Comments (553)
Post contains 1318 words, total size 15 kb.

Unimpressed, is the basic tone of the piece.

I like this guy's writing. It's snarky but like ALL CAPS N EXCLAMATION POINTS DO-YOU-GET-IT?!! type snarky. I suppose "puckish" is a better word.

When the president arrived, 40 minutes later—stepping out of his SUV, smiling, with a little wave—the nerves subsided. The cafe is split into two long halves, and he first turned to visit its opposite half, smiling, shaking hands, shaking more hands.

And then—for the first time in nearly an hour—I could work. I found that I was so accustomed to his voice, how he holds his body, his aura, that ignoring him in person is as easy as ignoring a TV. Easier, in fact. He stops being the president and starts being That Guy Who You See In Tweets, That Guy Who Gives Speeches, That Guy.

That Guy shook exactly half the hands on the other side of the restaurant. He came back to our side. He addressed the five people sitting adjacent to me—who were, indeed, apparently there to talk to him.

That Guy said he would save our whole side of the restaurant for after the meal. But then, next to me, on my other side, he spotted a baby.

He apologized to the group. He could not resist, he said, a baby.

Oh, and let me post this so I can finally close the tab. I'm pretty sure this was in the sidebar and the Morning News Dump or the ONT if not all three. Still, it bears even more mention:

Philadelphia police search for 'Swiss Cheese Pervert' who offers women money to watch him touch himself with cheese

...

A number of women have reported being approached by the “white, heavy set male” who is known as the “Swiss-Cheese Pervert” in the Mayfair area of Philadelphia, US.

Every man's fantasy, you know.

Is this related? Must be, right? Everything's connected, my television told me. It also told me to kill a whore.

Thanks to @katmckinley and @doreenhdixon. I think. I don't completely remember where I saw these things.

Oh, and via @rdbrewer4, Jimmy Fallon and Chris Christie's hero Bruce Springsteen goof on Christie over Bridgegate.

Open Thread. more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:17 PM | Comments (472)
Post contains 377 words, total size 3 kb.

Remember, this is the party that doesn't want to control free speech or your own personal choices.

Except for speech and choices they don't like, of course.

Four Democratic senators are criticizing the celebrities who were shown during Sunday nightÂ’s Golden Globes Awards puffing away on e-cigarettes.

“The Golden Globes celebrates entertainers who are an influence on young fans,” wrote Sens. Dick Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Sherrod Brown and Edward Markey on Tuesday.

“Unfortunately, this year, many young viewers saw notable displays of e-cigarette use throughout the awards show, including the opening monologue and repeated shots of celebrities smoking e-cigarettes,” the letter continued. “In light of studies showing that exposure to on-screen smoking is a major contributor to smoking initiation among youth, we are troubled that these images glamorize smoking and serve as celebrity endorsements that could encourage young fans to begin smoking traditional cigarettes or e-cigarettes.”

Sunday nightÂ’s ceremony briefly showed actor Leonardo DiCaprio and actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus smoking e-cigarettes during the broadcast.

As many have noted, the party which is broadly (often covertly) in favor of drug legalization is pretty firm on the point that a harmless method of nicotine delivery should be outlawed, lest it serve as a "Gateway Drug" to the stronger stuff, such as cigarettes.

These clowns remind me of The Little Sister, from the Philip Marlowe detective novel.

"Come on up and let's have a look at you," I added. "If you're in my kind of trouble, I can give you a pretty good idea--"

"I have to know something about you," the small voice said very firmly. "This is a very delicate matter, very personal. I couldn't talk to just anybody."

"If it's that delicate," I said, "maybe you need a lady detective."

"Goodness, I didn't know there were any." Pause. "But I don't think a lady detective would do at all. You see, Orrin was living in a very tough neighborhood, Mr. Marlowe. At least I thought it was tough. The manager of the rooming house is a most unpleasant person. He smelled of liquor. Do you drink, Mr. Marlowe?"

"Well, now that you mention it--"

"I don't think I'd care to employ a detective that uses liquor in any form. I don't even approve of tobacco."

"Would it be all right if I peeled an orange?"

Spoiler alert: The Little Sister turns out to not be quite so innocent and prudish as she can pretend to be when it suits her.

Rather like the Left, which can turn on a dime from untrammeled license and hedonism to furious moral scolds depending on whether it's their own pleasures under discussion or yours.

They don't ask for much: Just for your to think, believe, speak, act and be just like them in all ways.

Posted by: Ace at 02:27 PM | Comments (211)
Post contains 488 words, total size 3 kb.

This is Gabe's favorite case, our best-and-last-hope legal challenge to Obamacare -- and a district court judge (of course) found against those seeking to derail Obamacare.

Allah's summary is very good. Here's the theory the lawsuit is predicated upon:

Section 1311 of the law authorizes the states to develop their own ObamaCare exchanges. Section 1321 says that, if a state declines, the feds can step in and develop their own exchange for consumers in that state instead. ThatÂ’s how we ended up with the technological marvel that is Healthcare.gov. The rub comes in Section 1401, which authorizes tax credits, i.e. premium subsidies, for anyone whoÂ’s in “an Exchange established by the State under 1311″. Wait a sec — does that mean that only people enrolled in state-run exchanges get subsidies? If people enrolled in the federal exchange get them too, why doesnÂ’t Section 1401 say “an Exchange established by the State under 1311 or the federal government under section 1321“?

ThereÂ’s a simple explanation, say critics like Jonathan Adler: Congress intentionally limited subsidies to state-run exchanges to give the states an incentive to set up their own exchange. The feds didnÂ’t want to build Healthcare.gov; theyÂ’d prefer that each state deal with this themselves. But since they canÂ’t force states to do the federal governmentÂ’s bidding, the best they can do is tack on monetary inducements to get them to play ball. ThatÂ’s where the subsidies come in..... Read AdlerÂ’s post about this from December 2012 citing a colloquy that Max Baucus, the so-called architect of ObamaCare, had on this subject with John Ensign while the law was still being drafted. ThatÂ’s the proof that Congress intended to distinguish between state-run exchanges and the federal exchange on subsidies. ItÂ’s not a drafting error or the result of Congress, to paraphrase Nancy Pelosi, passing the bill only to find out later whatÂ’s in it. The subsidies restriction for states was always supposed to be in there.

That's a pretty strong case. The language of the law itself limits the subsidies to state exchanges. If there is any doubt that this was intended, one can look to the legislative history: And on this point, the architect of Obamacare did indeed suggest his intent to so limit the subsidies to the state exchanges.

Jonathan Adler explains this-- and it's requires a bit of background to understand the exchange between Baucus and John Ensign. Ensign questions how the Senate Finance committee has the jurisdiction -- authority -- to demand that states change their insurance laws under Obamacare. Baucus replies the jurisdiction is afforded by the "tax credits" (subsidies) to be supplied to the states under Obamacare.

BaucusÂ’s response is hardly a model of clarity. But I can see no possible interpretation other than Baucus is admitting that (A) the statute makes tax credits conditional on states establishing an Exchange, and therefore does not authorize tax credits through federal Exchanges, and (B) that this feature was essential for the SenateÂ’s tax-writing committee to have jurisdiction to legislate in the area of health insurance.

Nevertheless, a district court decided that "duly-enacted law" is a pretty flexible thing and that it's all close enough for government work.

I hope this will be reviewed by the Supreme Court, eventually. It requires, IIRC, four votes for the court to grant certiorari (discretionary review, granted at the whim of the court). One might imagine we'll have four votes for that, as four men voted to strike down Obamacare.

However, we could lose some of those votes: Kennedy could, hypothetically, have felt that the first Obamacare challenge was strong enough to merit striking the law, but might feel this latest challenge is too weak for that, and pass on granting cert. And all it takes for this ruling to stand is the appeals court and then the Supreme Court to simply decline to review it.

Posted by: Ace at 01:39 PM | Comments (160)
Post contains 676 words, total size 5 kb.

Via Hot Air, Mollie Hemmingway remembered what critics had said about Mel Gibson's 2004 film about the suffering of Jesus on the day of his crucifixion -- left-leaning critics widely condemned it as "torture porn."

The left-leaning critics, however, don't seem to remember what they once wrote. For example, here's the same Detroit News critic discussing the violence of Passion, and then, nine years later, that of Slave:

Detroit News (same critic)
Passion: A filmed bloodletting like no other on record, essentially a terribly graphic two-hour torture sequence.

Slave: “12 Years a Slave” lays out an institution so twisted and wrong that its honest portrayal has been avoided for centuries. Yes, it’s dark and brutal. It needs to be.

Gee, what could possibly account for his dramatic shift in position as to whether "dark and brutal" violence was justified? I have no idea whatsoever, apart from the obvious which is of course the answer: Because he approves of the propagandistic value of one film's depiction of brutality and disapproves of the other's.

Or:

Los Angeles Times (same critic)

Passion: A film so narrowly focused as to be inaccessible for all but the devout.

Slave: When a director who never ever blinks takes on a horrific subject, a nightmare in broad daylight is the inevitable result. Welcome, if that is the right word, to the world of “12 Years a Slave.”

He warns away the general public from Passion, but invites them to 12 Years.

David Edelstein

Passion (at Slate): This is a two-hour-and- six-minute snuff movie — The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre — that thinks it’s an act of faith.

Slave (at New York Magazine): Twelve Years a Slave, published in 1853, is an even-toned but acid account of unimaginable horror.

And on, and on, and on and on and on.

It is difficult to divorce oneself from one's political sympathies and allegiances when critiquing a work of art with a political component. But it is clear these reviewers didn't even bother to attempt such a thing. Their reviews flow predictably and inexorably from their political beliefs. They might as well have simply reviewed "The Republican Party" and "The Democratic Party," rather than pretending they were reviewing an artistic work with a separate identity and mission from partisan politics.

David French similarly notes the left-wing critics seem to believe they are reviewing something called "George W. Bush's War on Terror" when they pretend to review the Afghanistan war film Lone Survivor.

As the war in Afghanistan winds down, and as the American public is increasingly “war weary” (a phrase I find fascinating since at any given time only 0.6 percent of Americans are in uniform, and the vast majority of Americans have endured not one single second of sacrifice for the war effort since 9/11), anti-military and anti-American sentiment may be rediscovering its Vietnam-era voice. The vehicle for the latest two minutes’ hate is a bit curious, however. Lone Survivor tells the story of a SEAL mission gone wrong and the resulting firefight where a small band of SEALs displayed remarkable courage under fire. But they showed more than courage. An act of humanity sealed their fate — the decision to free Afghan civilians that stumbled into their path. With their own lives on the line, they obeyed American rules of engagement, obeyed the laws of war, and conducted themselves with honor (with one SEAL posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor).

So how do some in the left-wing press write about this movie? HereÂ’s L.A. Weekly:

These four men were heroes. But these heroes were also men. As the film portrays them, their attitudes to the incredibly complex War on Terror, fought hillside by bloody hillside in the Afghan frontier with both U.S. and Taliban forces contributing to an unconscionably high civilian body count, were simple: Brown people bad, American people good.

Really? You say that after the film shows how Americans actually gave their lives rather than kill an innocent “brown” person? Make no mistake, this is an accusation of the most vile racism, and it slanders these SEALs. Indeed, it slanders more than the SEALs involved in that firefight. Friends of mine died in Iraq — including, and this will be a news flash to L.A. Weekly (which apparently views our forces as all-white), “brown” friends — because of their concern for and respect for the lives of local citizens. We erred on the side of saving local lives, to the point where people very dear to me paid the ultimate price.

He documents this primitive tribalism of other critics' reviews in other places, including (oh, this is far too easy) the crude-minded student newspaper Salon.

To play Mollie Hemmingway's game with Lone Survivor: You know there was another film that depicted a very simple Us Vs. Them code of morality on the advisability of killing one deemed, in primitive manner, "bad." That film was Django, and for some reason, the left-wing critics weren't all that upset at the film's literally black-and-white view on shooting Evil Doers.

Here's the LA Weekly reviewer on Django:

Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained Is Both Seriously Thoughtful and Seriously Entertaining

Watching Django Unchained, it's easy to imagine that Quentin Tarantino had such a blast making his last picture, the ebullient Holocaust fantasia Inglourious Basterds, that he decided to take his whole blood-spattered historical tent show on the road, this time putting down stakes in antebellum Dixieland....

Is it mere coincidence that Django Unchained arrives in the same season as Steven Spielberg's Lincoln, the second of two Spielberg films about slavery (after 1997's Amistad) that never expose audiences to the harsh realities of plantation life?

I myself found the various head-shots very thoughtful.

Not the same reviewer, incidentally.

We keep seeing that: Praise for the depiction of the "harsh realities" of the subject matter under consideration... at least when it appears in a film which the left perceives as advancing its own ball.

When Lone Survivor depicts a jihadist decapitation of an innocent -- also a "harsh reality" of jihadism, as a search on Ogrish.com can confirm for you, as could Daniel Pearl, if he hadn't been beheaded -- it's derided as racial jingoism and "war propaganda."

Posted by: Ace at 12:41 PM | Comments (287)
Post contains 1094 words, total size 7 kb.