Ok, I know that in the back of their minds, they think that they will be loved by all of humanity if they ram this healthcare bill through, but isn’t there anything front and center in their minds warning them that their political careers will be over if they do it?

Poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans do not want this monstrosity of a bill getting passed, but Nancy, Harry, and the President seem to be fine with ignoring that particular set of data. What they can’t ignore, however, is the fact that the 2010 mid-terms, and the 2012 national election are just over the horizon. Throw in their tanking job approval ratings, and it is not looking good for the Dems.

But hey, if they want to ram it through (with 51 votes), then who are we to stop them from hanging themselves out to dry?

Cross-posted at: TobyToons.com

Tweet This Post

Whenever the House Leadership moves a vote, it means they don’t have the votes. In Spanish, that’s mañana.

With the White House issuing a deadline and the Dem House leaders immediately and publicly saying, not so much, the White House looks silly and limp and powerless. They look even more out of touch and desperate than they did when President Obama announced that he will not quit with his self-appointed Captain Ahab role of hunting the great-health-care-white-whale.

But the best news (finally) is that a group of Democrats are willing to have News at 11 film them shooting ObamaCare in the head. They are willing to say: we take responsibility for killing it. And they are telling anyone who will listen they will kill it:

“Yes. We’re prepared to take responsibility,” Stupak said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” when asked if he and his 11 Democratic allies were willing to accept the consequences for bringing down healthcare reform over abortion.

Rep. Stupak and his gang of 12 to 20 pro-life Dems, are no doubt being encouraged by their colleagues to please kill-this-bill so we can run screaming from the room. Save us from Captain Ahab and the irrational Speaker who are hell-bent on making us walk the plank again. Please save us from the fatal political injury that will come from months more of health care as it winds it way through the House and then the Senate — where the Republicans have promised a scorched earth, time-consuming policy of death-by-amendment. Remember, Easter is too soon for the House to act — imagine how long it will take in the Senate?

I wrote earlier that I expected a block of no votes to come from the progressives. They may be starting to flex their muscles.

From ABC News:

“Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., the co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told Salon.com today with the inclusion of Republican ideas and compromises in the president’s health care proposal he is leaning now towards opposing the legislation.

“As I weigh it, I think — for me — a ‘no’ vote is something that I continue to lean toward,” Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz told Salon.com today, “Especially the last additions — that was kind of a slap in the face for all of us who fought for the public option.”

The lack of the public option in the so-called reconciliation package, contrasted with the President’s announcement that he was open to expand and leave Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) unmolested, is apparently a bridge too far for the constantly disappointed House Progressives.

On another troublesome front for the Dem Leadership, Ace of Spades posted this little tid-bit: one of the supposedly undecided no votes is now firmly decided to be still no. And from Plum Line, here is another. (Shocking, isn’t it?)

Not a single No vote has announced their switch to yes. Stupak and his gang are at no. At least one House Dem yes is now at no — U.S. Rep. Michael Arcuri, D-Utica — because he wants to have smaller, more incremental bill. And one of the co-chairs of the Progressive Caucus is leaning no. Every piece of news for the delusionals is bad, as in lose-the-vote-bad.

This is what happens when the delusionals and an irrational Speaker push a bill that is widely opposed by the public, which carries a lethal political blow-back for anyone who backs it.

And this is the really fun part. The political opposition to the bill is so great, Members of Congress can pretty much pick any single thing and use it as their excuse for voting no. Members of Congress could essentially say, I’d love to vote for ObamaCare, but I have to stay home and wash my hair. Er, I mean I’m concerned about the lack of cost control.

In fact, the political failure of the White House — lead by the President, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and their highly incapable lobbying shop — has tied a millstone around their fellow Dem Members necks. Millstone in tow, the White House is telling their House pawns to swim in the not-so-warm waters of ObamaCare — knowing some of them will drown.

Surprise, surprise, some Members are beginning to find their voice, and object.

The Dem herd is shifting their feet. They see Rep. Stupak confidently sunning himself in green pastures all over television, while they fight to stop drowning. Not surprisingly, Stupak is now saying his number has recently grown to include some others who voted Yes in November.

Simply put, for the Dems, the survival instinct is taking over. Others will start cutting the rope of the ObamaCare millstone around their neck, and head for the Stupak pro-life high ground, or the Grijalva either-put-the-public-option-in-or-I’m-moving-to-the-safe-and-sunny-pastures of No.

After all, the public hates the bill and wants Congress to stop working on it. Do nothing is their first choice. Members know, voting No will have the effect the public wants.

Even Howard Dean is giving them cover to vote no.

But the irrational and delusional will not let ObamaCare drift out into outer darkness. The irrationals and delusionals insist on having a vote. At least they are consistent.

But it turns out that the spell of the delusionals is finally wearing off, and Members of Congress are pushing back. And because the delusionals cannot understand or face the fact that all is lost, they continue to force their friends and colleagues in the House to jump off the cliff called we’re-going-to-vote-on-the-Senate-health-bill.

Not surprisingly, No-I’m-not-going-to-jump is going to be the dominant answer, because it is the answer that is rational and in their self-interest.

Tweet This Post

Tweet This Post

 I agree with Allahpundit that the ad is well done and clever.  I’m just not sure about whether it’s very smart.  As I’ve written about extensively here, Arkansas Democrats are different from most other Democrats, and there’s room for Lincoln to point out that her opponent is funded by the sort of leftist wackos you’d expect to find in Vermont.  However, Lincoln doesn’t go after “liberals” or “outside groups” – she goes after her party.  Now, in this environment, in the state of Arkansas, that’s a great general election strategy. However, I still think a lot of conservatives in Arkansas stubbornly self-identify as Democrats and are proud of that. I’m just not sure naming the party specifically is a smart move.

Meanwhile, Bill Halter continues to disown issues that are important to labor unions and online leftist activists.  Not, mind you, that they appear to have noticed whatsoever - if anything, they appear to be even more eager to throw money toward a candidate who’s just as willing to throw them under the bus as Lincoln is:

Virtually overnight, outside groups have erased the seemingly insurmountable financial advantage Lincoln brought to the contest. On Tuesday, an umbrella of four labor groups that have long been frustrated over Lincoln’s refusal to support card check legislation — the AFL-CIO, Communications Workers of America, AFSCME and United Steelworkers of America — jointly announced they were each pledging to spend $1 million in an all-out effort to dislodge Lincoln.

 

By Wednesday morning, a coalition of liberal organizations led by MoveOn.org — which blasted out a fundraising appeal calling Lincoln “one of the worst Democratic senators” — had raised an eye-popping $1.1 million for Halter, Arkansas’s lieutenant governor, who announced his candidacy Monday.

 

The Sierra Club, meanwhile, announced it was going up with a radio ad blasting Lincoln for her effort to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases.

 

The progressive Netroots, for its part, has embraced Halter, with Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas writing, “Bill Halter will rescue the Democratic establishment from itself and help us hold a seat Lincoln is guaranteed to lose.” Firedoglake blogger Jane Hamsher prominently featured Halter in fundraising appeals on her site and blasted Lincoln as a “corporatist.”

It’s a fascinating dynamic shaping up to be sure. Apparently, there’s not going to be all that many things Halter and Lincoln will differentiate from each other on, but they’ll apparently be arguing over who’s funding their opponent.  In the end, that’s still good news for the GOP in the general.

Tweet This Post

Tweet This Post

Broder believes that Emanuel is not the source for Milbank, but it is abundantly clear Rahm Emanuel either directly or indirectly is trying to cover his bottom as the Obama administration crumbles.

It started mid-February with a hagiographic tale of woe in the Obama administration and how Rahm Emanuel is the hero and adult in the room.

A week later it followed with another look into the White House with Obama as the wimp and Rahm as the muscle. Earlier this week Rahm became the voice of reason according to the Washington Post and the Politico fawned over Rahm’s bromance with Sweet Lindsey Graham.

Reading between the lines, Rahm Emanuel is dead. He may not know it, but the man has no pulse left. His ghost is now trying to defend his legacy in the White House. Chief of Staff — the real one — Valerie Jarrett killed Rahm.

How do I know? I’ve heard from multiple people who, interestingly enough, are close to the White House who tell me that David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett are calling the shots and Obama increasingly relies on Jarrett for advice because she knows the Obamas, not necessarily Washington.

Then there are all the pro-Rahm stories in the last few weeks. Those stories do not happen randomly. There is a purpose. And the prevailing message is simple — if the President would listen to Rahm Emanuel, he’d not be in the mess he presently is in. And if Rahm is not being listened to and is now leaking that he is not being listened to, the wheels on the bus will go round and round over his body.

But the stories are right. The wheels are falling off the bus. Without a good knowledge of Washington, the Chicago Way fails in the inertia. Let’s start the Official Rahm Emanuel Dead Pool. We know Valerie Jarrett already killed him. But his body has yet to emerge from the White House.

It’s only a matter of time. And it’ll happen before summer.

Tweet This Post

(Washington, DC) — A bipartisan commission in Washington D.C. has ruled Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) did not violate federal rules about postal mailings that explained his vote against the so-called “cap and trade” bill.

The mailer went out in mid-December and immediately drew fire from Democrats.  Edward Janosik of Springfield filed a complaint in late January with the Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards, questioning the use of public funds for the cost of the printing and postage.  Each member of Congress is allowed a certain amount of franking, or mailing, privileges to communicate with their constituents.

The same week the mailer went out, Missouri Democrat Party chairman Craig Hosmer held a news conference to raise questions about who was behind the piece.  “Missouri taxpayers deserve to know how many people this mailer went out to.  They need to know how much it cost Missouri taxpayers and they need to know who prepared the mailer.  Was it prepared by the lobbyists, special interest lobbyists or the oil industry or was it prepared by his political team?” Hosmer said at the time. 

Monday, the Commission replied to Janosik’s complaint, saying a bipartisan review found the mailer did not violate federal franking laws and that the mailing standards staff approved the piece before it was sent out.

Although this race has inexplicably not been polled very often, the Democrats have been able to see for some time that the trend lines, such as they are, are trending towards Blunt.  The Democrats can’t change the fact that their candidate is gaffe-prone and forced to defend an unpopular agenda and an increasingly negative national tide; so look for more of these bogus ethics charges in the future, especially as Democrats try to level the playing field with respect to their own MoCs retiring due to ethics violations right and left.

Tweet This Post

Representative William Delahunt will not seek re-election to Congress, the seven-term Democrat will announce tomorrow, ending a nearly 40-year career in elected office and giving Republicans hope of capturing the seat, which stretches from Cape Cod to the South Shore.

“It’s got nothing to do with politics,” the Quincy Democrat said today.

Nothing to do with politics, Senator Scott Brown (R, MA) dominating his district, the generally poor atmosphere for incumbent Democrats these days, his ties to Chavez, and/or Amy Bishop. So, an appropriate response:

…and a more relevant question: who should we be targeting next?

Tweet This Post

As President Obama’s approval ratings sag and the mood of voters sours, some Democratic congressional candidates are distancing themselves from the White House, with the back-channel blessing of party officials.

The candidates are positioning themselves as independent voices no less frustrated with the Obama administration than people back home.

Let’s take a look at these ‘independents’ that the article mentions specifically: Rep. Dennis Cardoza & Rep. Jim Costa of California, and Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. Plus, of course, Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland (and DCCC chair, for his sins); after all, he’s arguing for distancing, right? So let’s see how they actually distance themselves. Never mind what they say; how do they vote?

Well.

It seems that Cardoza’s opinion that the Obama administration has ‘failed miserably’ in job creation doesn’t seem to have translated into any sort of opposition to either the job-killing bill that was cap-and-trade, or the health care rationing sideshow. Jim Costa’s declaration that the President isn’t ‘listening carefully’ to his constituents seems odd, seeing as he doesn’t seem to care that 69% of Californians don’t like the way his party handled the health care rationing bill debacle. Blanche Lincoln’s campaign claim that “Lincoln challenges Obama on liberal ‘extremes.’ ” is backed by… nothing. And Chris Van Hollen’s slightly nervous bravado about the need to sometimes oppose the President isn’t even a case of ‘Do as I say, not as I do:’ it’s ‘Say as I say, while you do as I do.’

This is entirely unsolicited advice, but I’ll give it anyway.  Independent voters aren’t the netroots: they will not respond well to the mushroom treatment. And there really is a limit to how long a party can get away with saying one thing, and doing another.  In fact, we actually passed that limit last spring…

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Tweet This Post

Based on the facts, it is very clear that President Obama is our lawfully elected President and the Office of President of the United States of America requires that though we may disagree with him and oppose him, we recognize and respect his position as President — a position entrusted to him by 69,456,897 voting Americans, or 52.9% of the popular vote.

As early at 1350, the British Parliament approved statutes recognizing the rule of jus sanguinis, under which citizens may pass their citizenship by descent to their children at birth, regardless of place. Similarly, in the its first naturalization statute, Congress declared that ‘the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.’ 1 Stat. 104 (1790) . . . . Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s discussion in Wong Kim Ark (1898), a majority of commentators today argue that the Presidential Eligibility Clause incorporates both the common-law and English statutory principles, and that therefore, Michigan Governor George Romney, who was born to American parents outside of the United States, was eligible to seek the Presidency in 1968.

Meese, Edward, Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p. 190 (2005).

Even were the American public to fall under the belief that Barack Obama was born in a foreign country and 49 years ago his associates fabricated a narrative, a birth record, and placed birth announcements in both the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin on August 4, 1961, to ensure that 49 years later he could become President of the United States, it is undisputed that Barack Obama’s mother is and has always been an American citizen. Therefore Barack Obama is and has always been an American citizen.

The leaps of logic and reason to arrive at such a conspiracy are unbefitting the credibility of anyone and not worthy of further discussion. Notwithstanding the same, no American should ever sanction what would amount to a judicial coup — the removal of the President of the United States after 52.9% of the American public instructed their Electoral College representatives to place their votes for him. The time to even be willing to entertain these issues from those who claim a conspiracy has long past.

A conservative movement worthy of leading this nation must be willing to cast aside those who, for whatever reason, cannot and will not be persuaded that the President is our legitimately, constitutionally elected President.

And now, a final sampling from the mailbag. My personal favorite is the last one:

From: Linda Carlson
Subject: Banning Free Speech
Date: February 14, 2010 9:27:09 AM EST
To: contact@redstate.com

Shame on you. It’s clear now that you do not support our US Constitution any longer.

I’m a long time lurker and reader at your website, but no longer.

Right or wrong…birthers or truthers….ALL should have the ability to speak their views freely…and not be banned by a site that appears to be leaning towards a government more like those in communist nations…where if the speech is not agreeable, they are censored.

Shame on you.

Linda Carlson
Mtn. Home, AR.

———-

From: Arnie
Subject: gawwd are you dumb
Date: February 14, 2010 8:26:12 AM EST
To: contact@redstate.com

first of all, to be president, the person must be more than a citizen. he must be a naturla born citizen.
do you even know what that means, you idiot? it means, born on american, to two parents, both of whom
are citizens at the time, without being citizens to another country.

even if he was born in hawaii, that does not make him a natural born american.

would this be good enough for a law suit. the governor confirms he was born in hawaii.

she does not even say they have a birth certificate. where are the documents.

dummy

———-

From: Jimmy Simpson
Subject: You are an Idiot
Date: February 14, 2010 6:11:51 AM EST
To: contact@redstate.com

You are an idiot to equate “birthers” with “Truthers”. Good luck taking a sh*t on some of your loyal viewers. I will do whatever I can to help your website drop off the map.

———-

From: John Krider
Subject: Follow the Constitution
Date: February 13, 2010 8:27:03 PM EST
To: contact@redstate.com

To Whom it may Concern

Myself and a lot of other conservative Americans are really getting fed up with the coward’s in the media that will not stand up for the , constitution, liberty, freedom, and our American way of life. It all comes down to having a, marxist usurper in the whitehouse, one that cannot produce a birth certificate or any other credential that would make him eligible for the office. If you or your staff would have done even the most remote type of ivestigation, you would have found this buffoon to be a fraud just like the rest of us have. Did you know that he has,
#1. Spent almost 2 million dollars on legal fees to hid his birth certificate and college documents.
#2. Address on fake Hawaiian birth turns out to be a garage attached to a house.
#3. 4 Supreme Court Cases came to conclusion that “Natural Born Citizen” is by , both parents must be citizens of the U.S. and born on U.S. soil, Obama’s dad was Kenyan with British citizenship.
#4. Information is coming to light that Obama never went to Columbia University,
#5. What passport did he use to enter Pakistan.
#6. Did he attend college as a foreign student, is that why he won’t release the paperwork.

Instead of blasting the Birthers, why don’t you spend a few minutes on looking up some facts, their is an old saying, nothing that is hidden will remain hidden, find the truth and it will set you free.

———-

From: Ellen Williams
Subject: I HAD a lot of respect for you Erickson, —-but
Date: February 14, 2010 9:27:57 AM EST
To: contact@redstate.com

Some facts about myself:
71 years old
native born American – actually about 8th generation
had ancestors who fought in the Revolutionary War
Had ancestors who fought in War of 1812
Had ancestors who fought in War Between the States
Had ancestors who fought in Mexican War
Never been audited by IRA—–yet
Attend church twice on Sunday and often midweek
English is my native tongue
Have 2 Masters Degrees
Have written two books
NOW—————
A word of warning FOR YOU, MR. RED STATE:
By banning so-called “birthers,” you are telling a great number of Americans like myself, whom you call “nuts and radicals and fringe” that you don’t want “ugh us!!” in your Red State movement.
You know what you are? You are just a bonified segment of the country-club Republicans who have sold out American values and your conservative base. YOU and YOUR KIND are why Pelosi and Reid are in charge!
I take comfort in the FACT that Joseph McCarthy was once put down as “fringe, radical and nutty.” Seems history has PROVEN him right though.
Go ahead and goose step with your three-piece suits. Some of us, not many, but a few CAN STILL THINK FOR OURSELVES.
And we won’t sell our soul to be a part of your pathetic Red State.
Ellen Williams

———-

From: Grant Bratrud
Subject: Remove My Email Address
Date: February 14, 2010 8:10:37 AM EST
To: contact@redstate.com

Please remove my email address from your list. In return, I will remove your website from my Favorites.
Good luck on your next gig at MSNBC.
Sincerely,
Grant

———-

From: cadan7
Subject: THE BIRFER WAR – PEARLS BEFORE SWINE
Date: February 14, 2010 4:17:16 AM EST
To: contact@redstate.com

Hi Eric,

I want to start this email by letting you know that I am a conservative and a dedicated fan of RS and view the website daily – I don’t miss a post! I follow you daily and agree with you on nearly everthing you post. I also want to let you know upfront that I am not a “Birfer” or a “Truther”.

With this in mind, however, I am baffled by the the rationality for starting and maintaining a war of words between you and your readers that have reservations about Obama’s citizenship – or the Bush hating “Truthers”. This seems to be a real waste of time and is distracting you and, in turn, your readers from the really important topics needing our attention. Quite frankly, this whole episode is beneath you and your mission.

Your latest post titled “The Big Birfer Speaks” is really quite childish and makes you look immature. You may be accurate, but is all of this “word warfare” really worth the time and effort? I mean, the adherants of both these groups are way out there on the fringes, with very few followers and a poor ability to attract additional followers. The average thinking American doesn’t pay them any more attention than they would a misguided 4 year old trying to explain in 4 year old terms how einstein got it all wrong. I think the better response is a kind smile, a pat on the head., and a “have a nice day” vs. engagement in a very public war of words. Why give them the time and attention they don’t deserve? Besides, you are potentially alienating a group of ardhent conservative supporters. Baffling!

You have always struck me as a person that is well grounded with a high level of maturity, so it saddens me to see you stoop to this level of attack and counterattack on people who are harmless and well -meaning, although admittedly misguided. I would like to council that this is not something you should continue to do – that you should apologize to the Birfers publicly for being so forceful in your level of critizism and for stooping to such a low point – this is the behavior generally relegated to our Liberal foes. I believe that you can do this without giving ground and confirming the “Birfer’s” position. As a Christian brother, I would ask that you examine yourself to determine if your current attacks are truly being guided from On High.

I am praying that you will drop this silly escapade and move on to bigger and better things.

We are counceled by The Holy Book: ” Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under your feet, and turn and tear you in pieces”, and “Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us, is for us”. Mathew 7:6, Luke 9:50
.

Your Brother in Christ,

Dan

———-

From: George Miller
Subject: Re: RedState Morning Briefing
Date: February 14, 2010 1:55:19 AM EST
To: contact@redstate.com

Please cancel mailings to me. I have no faith in someone who would attempt to stifle discussions on what may be the biggest political scandal in history– Obama’s illegitimacy. Why would you impede efforts to clarify the situation?

Regards,
George Miller

———-

From: LNSu
Subject: On the Birthers….
Date: February 13, 2010 9:03:23 PM EST
To: contact@redstate.com, Erick

Erick I have gotten red state for a while I have really appreciated the insite you have provided, but I will not be receiving any more news from you now.

Why? Not because of “birthers” but for this real reason

“First They Came for the Jews”
By Pastor Niemoller

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

I wonder who will be left to speak for you?

LNSu
“A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.”
– Dwight D. Eisenhower

Tweet This Post

[image via AP/ABC]

ABC News endeavors to help us understand why Harry Reid is stripping down the jobs bill. The article plods along like you might expect; leading us to believe it’s just as good an idea as any other right now and that it is backed by the White House. Its price tag is dramatically lower than the bipartisan proposal from Baucus and Grassley (supported by many on both sides of the political divide), so it surely must be an attempt at some modicum of fiscal responsibility. Right?

What you won’t find in this piece is the assumption on Reid’s part that none of us dolts out here in the hinterland will actually notice that an even bigger Government takeover of the private sector lies directly behind what his bill means to accomplish; paying employers to hire unemployed workers (and paying them to retain these new hires for a year) whether there is enough work to justify expanding payroll or not, serves only the Democrats in the upcoming elections. If Reid’s calculation that Republicans can’t afford to say no to this bill is accurate and it becomes law, he will have effectively increased taxes, blocked proposed tax cuts, reduced payments into the Social Security slush fund, extended the Fed’s encroachment on the private sector, and set up an inevitable future increase in taxes and/or spending to make up the difference.

I’m on record as being no fan of the larger bill, either, but it’s incredibly cynical of Mr. Reid to assume that Americans will be more captivated by the Federal government “adding jobs” than by the fact that he has no qualms about cutting 70 billion dollars from a fairly popular proposal to do so. And this at a time when we would all like to see MORE spent on jobs than on any other issue before us right now. Remember, this is the same Harry Reid that was all-in for hundreds of billions of dollars for the stimulus, health care, and cap and trade.

It’s fascinating that Mr. Reid can hand out hundreds of millions of dollars to his colleagues in the Senate in order to buy health care votes, but now finds himself a born-again tightwad on jobs creation in the name of political expediency. Quite a gamble for a man from the gambling capitol of America. Clearly he thinks he’s holding an inside straight his own constituents appear ready to bet against.

Tweet This Post

If you vote for the Senate bill, you’re voting for something that has 35% support nationwide and probably a little less than that in your district. You will have voted for the Cornhusker Hustle and the Louisiana Purchase. Your Republican opponent will ask why you voted for something that gave taxpayers in Nebraska and Louisiana better treatment than the people you represent (there are no Democratic House members running for reelection in those two states: Nebraska has only Republican House members and the single Louisiana House Democrat is running for the Senate). The only protection you have against this is the assurance that the Senate parliamentarian and scared incumbent senators will come through for you, and that Harry Reid will pursue a steady course.

Read the whole thing, and may I offer an observation?  None of this would have happened if the Democrats had simply kept to their word and acted decently towards Republican legislators last year.  If they had involved their colleagues in the process, they would have gotten a much better bill, absolutely crucial bipartisan support, and at least some of what they ostensibly wanted.  But because they thought that they could get away with being arrogant and bullying and petty, the Democrats are now facing what could be the worst political backlash of the last thirty years.  And they’ve earned every drop of it.

Isn’t it funny how often the virtuous option turns out to be the smart one, too?

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Tweet This Post

Nye, who’s primarily known as an entertainer and producer of children’s television, was cast in the role of Official Representative of the Scientific Establishment during Ms. Maddow’s segment on Climate Change. Maddow offered several clips of conservative commentators lampooning the notion of Global Warming, while D.C. digs out of the record-breaking Blizzard of Aught-Ten.

One snowstorm, sayeth the experts Maddow and Nye, does not disprove Climate Change. Well, duh. We skeptics don’t have to disprove anything.

The recent blows to the integrity of the Climate Change community, all of which are self-inflicted, may be enough to bring down their House of Cards without much outside help.

We’re not trying disprove anything, Mr. Science Guy. Your guys are squirming. And we’re enjoying it.

Tweet This Post

Consider this an open thread.

Tweet This Post

Ladies and gentlemen, this guy is some sort of pseudo-journalist mouthpiece for that idiot lawyer from California, Orly Taitz.

These are the people we are relying on to document the eligibility of Barack Obama?!?!

Charlton writes

It appears that Eric Erickson, the Editor-in-Chief of Redstate.com, is an attorney who once practiced law in the same courthouse as the infamous Judge Clay D. Land, who sanctioned Attorney Orly Taitz for having the daring to plead the Eligibility question in the case of Captain Connie Rhodes’s deployment.

Erickson himself admits that he was an attorney with Sell & Mellon, L.L.P, of Macon, Georgia. His former law firm proudly displays an image of the William Augustus Bootle Building, where Taitz appeared before Land.

It is not known if the clients of Sell & Mellon are known political donors to the Democrat Party, but if any were, that might be a reason for Erickson’s animus.

Actually, the William Augustus Bootle Federal Courthouse is most decidedly not where Judge Clay Land presides. It is the central seat of the Middle District of Georgia, but Land presides in a courthouse in Columbus, GA. Likewise, he did not become a judge until way the heck after I left practicing law.

Additionally, the law firm’s name was Sell & Melton, not Mellon.

If the supposed chronicler of the birfer movement can look at a website and get the name of the law firm wrong and totally miss the fact that Orly Taitz’s representation of that soldier in Columbus, GA happened in Columbus, GA, what the heck sort of credibility can we trust these people to have with the actual facts?

BOLD FACT FOR THE BIRFERS: The time to raise the question was before the man got elected President and as every single court that has heard it has thrown it out, these people are insane. No federal judge would ever throw out the election of a man who was chosen by FIFTY-ONE PERCENT of the American public. Oh, and Obama was born in Hawaii.

SECOND BOLD FACT FOR THE BIRFERS: What do George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Ronald W. Reagan, Jimmy E. Carter, and Barack Obama all have in common besides being elected President? None of them had to present a birth certificate before they ran for office. Why is Obama special? You people just don’t like Hawaiians, do you?

Tweet This Post

The mutability in the public councils arising from a rapid succession of new members, however qualified they may be, points out, in the strongest manner, the necessity of some stable institution in the government. Every new election in the States is found to change one half of the representatives. From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures. But a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect of success. The remark is verified in private life, and becomes more just, as well as more important, in national transactions.

To trace the mischievous effects of a mutable government would fill a volume. I will hint a few only, each of which will be perceived to be a source of innumerable others.

In the first place, it forfeits the respect and confidence of other nations, and all the advantages connected with national character. An individual who is observed to be inconstant to his plans, or perhaps to carry on his affairs without any plan at all, is marked at once, by all prudent people, as a speedy victim to his own unsteadiness and folly. His more friendly neighbors may pity him, but all will decline to connect their fortunes with his; and not a few will seize the opportunity of making their fortunes out of his. One nation is to another what one individual is to another; with this melancholy distinction perhaps, that the former, with fewer of the benevolent emotions than the latter, are under fewer restraints also from taking undue advantage from the indiscretions of each other. Every nation, consequently, whose affairs betray a want of wisdom and stability, may calculate on every loss which can be sustained from the more systematic policy of their wiser neighbors. But the best instruction on this subject is unhappily conveyed to America by the example of her own situation. She finds that she is held in no respect by her friends; that she is the derision of her enemies; and that she is a prey to every nation which has an interest in speculating on her fluctuating councils and embarrassed affairs.

The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the few, not for the many.

In another point of view, great injury results from an unstable government. The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government? In a word, no great improvement or laudable enterprise can go forward which requires the auspices of a steady system of national policy.

But the most deplorable effect of all is that diminution of attachment and reverence which steals into the hearts of the people, towards a political system which betrays so many marks of infirmity, and disappoints so many of their flattering hopes. No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability.

The Senate is designed to ensure that no great and complex changes can come to the law, but by operation of the great majority of the people in the several states. The Framers designed it that way. We should be rightly suspicious of those who always want to change the rules when they cannot get their way.

Tweet This Post

And this is now what passes as the top Dem political advice on why Congress should pass health care:

“A PPP poll shows that by itself the act of passing the bill cuts independent support for Republicans by six points. And that’s before the law goes into effect and people figure out that there are no death-panels, rationing schemes, or cuts in Medicare benefits. If the majority party can’t figure out both the moral imperative and the electoral calculus of health care, then it doesn’t deserve to be in the majority [sniff].”

Let’s just say the poll question about a hypothetical is accurate (in a land called Candyland) — the absolute pounding the Dems would take leading up to what would be a failed attempt to pass it, would cost the Dems far more than the six points they would gain in the fantasy-land world of passing he bill.

Oh, and recent history does not support the PPP poll findings. After the Senate passed health care circa Christmas, 2009, Scott Brown’s campaign caught fire (his poll numbers spiked up and what’s-her-name’s dropped. The public, even in the Bluest States, really, really do HATE ObamaCare.)

Tweet This Post

The hackers launched a targeted phishing attack against employees of numerous companies in Europe, New Zealand and Japan, which appeared to come from the German Emissions Trading Authority. The workers were told that their companies needed to re-register their accounts with the Authority, where carbon credits and transactions are recorded.

When workers entered their credentials into a bogus web page linked in the e-mail, the hackers were able to hi-jack the credentials to access the companies’ Trading Authority accounts and transfer their carbon credits to two other accounts controlled by the hackers. …

According to the BBC, it’s estimated the hackers stole 250,000 carbon credit permits from six companies worth more than $4 million. At least seven out of 2,000 German firms that were targeted in the phishing scam fell for it. One of these unidentified firms reportedly lost $2.1 million in credits in the fraud.

Wired’s online commenters seem to get it:

Well somebody’s going to rob the taxpayers blind, it might as well be hackers….

Is it illegal to steal [a] fraudulent product?

What’s next? Possibly this:

Dear Sir or Madam.

I found your name on the email listing, I am Ngweke Ndugu, Chief Barrister of the Federal Carbon Bank in Lagos, Nigeria. Recently, I discovered twenty-two millions of U.S. dollars ($22,000,000.00 ONLY) in unclaimed Carbon Credits …

Cross-posted at VladEnBlog

Tweet This Post

There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science.

Don’t mess with this Ramesh, either.

The fraud at the IPCC is particularly relevant to India because the Himalayan glaciers are a local matter, so India is now to found its own National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology to study the matter. It will begin producing its own reports in November. Of course, those will probably be blacked out in the press because they’re not blessed by international bureaucrats and WWF reports.

Tweet This Post

No doubt.

While influential 20th Century economist John Maynard Keynes would say it’s best to increase deficit spending in tough economic times, only 11% of American adults agree and think the nation needs to increase its deficit spending at this time. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% disagree and say it would be better to cut the deficit.

In fact, 59% think Keynes had it backwards and that increasing the deficit at this time would hurt the economy rather than help.

To help the economy, most Americans (56%) believe that cutting the deficit is the way to go.

Hey! How about another speech? That might work.

Moe Lane

PS: This is a good excuse to post this.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Tweet This Post

Obama Suggests Possibility That Health Reform May Not Happen

Maybe I’m misreading this. But if you look at the transcript of Obama’s remarks at a fundraiser last night, it seems like the President was at least raising the possibility that health reform may not happen.

Gee, I wonder could have possibly caused that realization to dawn.

Hold up: let me make this more explicit.

At this rate, they’ll be noticing that the upcoming 112th Congress isn’t controlled by Democrats by at least, oh, March of 2012.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Tweet This Post

Franken was reportedly enraged by the President dictating to the Senate to finish the job of health care reform. Moe Lane has reported on this, here, with his usual wit and insight, which I recommend reading.

Franken freaked, and likely believes that the imperious Presidential dictate on health care was masking inexperience, ignorance and an inability to pass big ticket items — while at the same time shifting blame to Congress.

Neat trick by the Trillion Dollar President. Clinton tried it (Morris called it triangulation) and it worked for a while, until Congress caught on.

The recent health care pounding has probably woken Congress up, and their sensors are at maximum. Now, they have locked on to what the White House is doing to them, which will likely not at all help pass Obama’s grand schemes for health care, energy, and banks.

Tweet This Post

It’s been fun to watch the leftist bloggers lament about how their man-god has betrayed them.  Earlier this week, Robin Carnahan expressed her “disappointment” in Obama’s “lack of fiscal discipline”, and the Huffington Post was right there to document it.  HuffPo quotes Robin:

“From where I stand here in Missouri, I’m disappointed in the President’s budget recommendation. Budgets are about setting priorities and it’s time Washington started making fiscal discipline and tackling the long-term budget deficit higher priorities.

As you might expect, the HuffPo blogger was none too pleased with her newfound opposition to their Fearless Leader

But for an Obama White House that is touting the deficit reducing measures it has thrown into the budget (from spending caps, to prospective cuts in defense programs, to “restoring some balance to the tax code”) comments like Carnahan’s don’t help.

Now you might think that we fiscal conservatives might welcome statements of this kind.  If it came from someone we could trust, that might be the case.  But those of us in Missouri are accustomed to politicians who try to talk a good game, yet plant themselves firmly in Barack Obama’s lap.  Senator Claire McCaskill is a pro at trying to sound tough but she always returns to her leftist voting ways.  Claire makes statements that pretend to be “independent” or “moderate”, yet always manages to vote with the Left, displayed by her none-too-stellar 14% lifetime rating from the ACU.  And Robin Carnahan seems to be following suit – trying to sound moderate…but who believes it?  Surely not those who witnessed her speaking under the Obama Logo

Ms. Carnahan’s rebellion begs the question:  ”what exactly do you oppose from President Obama’s budget?”  She is very nondescript in her opposition. Can she identify specific areas of the budget where she’d like Obama to cut back? What does she find objectionable?  She has yet to oppose any of Obama’s initiatives, such as the failed “stimulus” spending or the near-deceased ObamaCare initiative.  And Robin, have you talked to your bro, Missouri Rep. Russ Carnahan, about this?  I fully expect Robin would be as “low maintenance” as Russ, and certainly she’ll be persuaded to change her tune once Rahm, Robert and the gang hear how she’s wandered off the ranch.

I don’t think that HuffPo’s Stein has much to worry about with respect to Robin Carnahan.  Despite her tough talk, she’ll be back in the fold eventually.  She’s terrified to tell Missourians what she believes because she knows they won’t like it.  That’s why she chooses not to talk about health care or terrorism or any of the policy positions that sunk Martha Coakley in Massachusetts.  She knows that Roy Blunt is far closer to Missourians’ attitudes about fiscal responsibility, with his support for bills such as 2005’s Deficit Reduction Act and his opposition to bloated budgets even during the Bush administration.

But most importantly, we must keep in mind this worth-1000-words picture:

It’s a reminder:  the $1.85T deficit is OBAMA’S DEFICIT and it is a sure bet that “Rubber Stamp” Robin Carnahan will support every major Obama program that is generating these massive deficits that are going to bankrupt the United States and burden your children, your grandchildren and their grandchildren for decades to come.

Tweet This Post

A veteran Democratic bundler, Purdon found a unique affinity with trial lawyer John Edwards, on whose campaign he was a state chairman. According to his firm, Purdon specializes in criminal defense and personal injury lawsuits and possesses no prosecutorial experience, for which the White House is making no bones.

It is, after all, within the purview of the President to appoint persons to fill the 93 U.S. Attorney posts, even persons politically aligned with the administration, but most have at least some prosecutorial experience.

While the White House’s website did not include Purdon’s name among other pending nominations and appointments as of Friday morning, the entire North Dakota Congressional delegation–all Democrats–issued congratulatory statements.

“Tim is an outstanding choice for U.S. Attorney. He is well respected and an example of how dedication,education, and hard work pay off. He has a distinguished record of and proven his ability to enforce the law with conviction and courage,” a joint statement read.

What they failed to mention, however, is how hard Purdon had personally worked for each of their campaigns, in varying capacities, but most notably as the North Dakota Democratic Party Treasurer brokering millions in contributions from out-of-state fellow trail attorneys.

Federal Election Commission records indicate that apart from his positions as treasurer for the state Democratic Party and candidate-associated PACs, Purdon personally donated over $12,400 since 2000, including $2,300 to then-Senator Obama’s presidential bid.

Bill Brudvik, one of a handful of disappointed contenders for the position, said in an interview with local press that Purdon’s Democratic activism and fierce political devotion is reason for concern.

“When President Obama said he wanted to restore the independence and dignity of the U.S. attorney’s office, in light of the Alberto Gonzales fiasco and then appoints a political activist and party fundraiser,” Budrik, a Democrat himself, said, “it seems a little to me more like ‘politics as usual’ than ‘change we can believe in.’”

While Democrats feverishly decried President George W. Bush for allegedly pressuring the Justice Department to pursue politically-motivated investigations into Democrats, similar Democratic charges of politicizing the legal system today, under a Democratic president, for appointing Democratic fundraisers, are hard to find.

Cross-posted to Skepticians.com.

Follow James on Twitter.

Tweet This Post

And boy, have the Dems pushed on ObamaCare.

So, when Senator Hatch makes the kind of threat he made recently, well, you’d have to be a few tacos short of the platter meal not to heed his words:

“Sen. Orrin Hatch threatened an all-out political “war” and promised a new high in partisan tensions if Democrats employ a rarely used Senate rule to win approval of their health reform bill….It is going to be outright war and it should be, because it would be such an abuse of the reconciliation rules,” Hatch said. “If they abuse those rules it is going to lead to even more heated animosities between not just the two parties, but even between individual senators.”

Troops, enjoy the R&R, weapons refits, and new ammo loads because we should all be on stand-by for another possible kamikaze attack by the desperate-Dems.

For my part, I’ve got a rail-car load of unused Claymores from the first time health care came up in the Senate.

What this really means is that the Republicans in the Senate will use every tactic at their disposal — if the Dems are crazy enough to try it.

Tweet This Post

Tweet This Post

The Obama administration has abandoned its plan to put Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, on trial in Lower Manhattan, according to administration officials.

The reversal marks the latest setback for an administration that has been buffeted at every turn as it seeks to close the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. And without the backdrop of Ground Zero for a trial, the administration will also lose some of the rich symbolism associated with its attempt to forge a new approach to handling high-value al-Qaeda detainees.

“New York is out,” said an administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the decision had not yet been officially announced. “We’re considering other options.”

Try Gitmo. The unilateralist, simplisme cowboy put them there in the first place for a reason, you know. In fact, he actually had a reason for pretty much everything he did…

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Tweet This Post

As others have noted, the speech very much seemed to be an attempt by the president to show that he is bipartisan, friendly, and open to GOP ideas – no matter how the facts might appear to you. Both sides took the opportunity to play to the cameras of course, with long questions centering on deficits and broken promises, and well-rehearsed answers about the trillions in deficits inherited from President Bush.

According to staff, the House Republicans had invited the president to attend and speak some weeks ago; the White House accepted. The GOP did not suggest that cameras be allowed for the speech because they assumed such an offer would be rejected. The White House asked (last night) to allow cameras and the Republicans eagerly agreed. So if the event seemed political, each side got what it wanted. The GOP is touting the benefits of having the president say – on the record – that they have offered substantive proposals. They also argue that this appearance puts Nancy Pelosi in a tough position: the president promised bipartisanship, and she’s delivering none. They see the chance to knock her down a few more pegs.

And while we’re talking about Nancy Pelosi, I spoke with several staffers speculating that this will be her last year in elective office. The argument goes that with significant House losses virtually certain, and relatrively little accomplished, she will face a restive caucus next year. If Democrats control the House, she may face a challenge from Steny Hoyer – who may be better positioned to manage a moderate course. And if the GOP wins the House, Pelosi will be expected to fall on her sword. Staffers said that Hoyer’s actions – and in particular his coddling of the Blue Dogs – suggests his campaign is already underway.

I’m also told to count on an updated version of the Contract With America (no surprise there). But I’m told to expect it later, rather than sooner. One staffer pointed out that a Contract which comes early will be forgotten by voters by election day. One that comes late is more likely to be remembered, and to feed some excitement about the coming agenda. Former Speaker Gingrich (I was told) had made this point in his comments.

While a session with pollsters Kellyanne Conway and David Livingston was not open to the press, Republican Members were delighted after the presentation. One told me that the pollsters stressed the importance of winning independent voters, rather than turning out the base. They said that a critical reason for the GOP landslide in 1994 was that independents favored the GOP by a 14 point margin. The latest polling – the GOP was told – puts Republicans ahead by 15 points.

Livingston and Conway also stressed that voters are not personally rejecting Barack Obama, and they cautioned against being seen as opposing the president personally. They said that it is his policies which are unpopular, and candidates should be careful to draw the distinction. They told the conference that simply opposing the Democrats will net 20 House seats or so; proposing a positive agenda of their own would net 20 more.

All-in-all, House Republicans are in a very good mood. One spoke about more Democrat retirements – and pointed to Leonard Boswell (D-IA) as a likely candidate to retire. This source told me to count on one, however: House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt. I was told that notwithstanding Spratt’s statements to the contrary, all signs point to him hanging it up.

I’ll follow with the videos of several interviews once I have them uploaded.

Tweet This Post

The Democrats are in for a bad election cycle, to the point where people are actually talking about the Democrats losing the House – and starting to hint that maybe, just maybe, it’s not entirely bizarre to suggest that the Senate might be technically in a position where the Republicans could take control of it. Long since past time that this happened to this party, to be sure: but why?

I think that it’s for a pretty simple reason: the American people subscribe to a pretty simple political mathematics.  They divide our political class into Those Idiots Running Things and Those Idiots Out Of Power.  Then they modify it with (I Hate Those Guys).  Typically speaking, election cycles depend on which party gets the modifier.  For example:

• 2002 (post-9/11): Normally a time for Those Idiots Out Of Power to win seats, but being at actual war meant that (I Hate Those Guys) continued to apply to the Democrats.
• 2004: This is where (I Hate Those Guys) began to shift away from Those Idiots Out Of Power. As I recall, House gains were largely from redistricting; if Those Idiots Out Of Power had put up somebody better than Kerry, the race would have been a heck of a lot closer.
• 2006: At this point, Those Idiots Running Things had officially gotten the (I Hate Those Guys) designation. And we got shellacked in Congress.
• 2008: Interesting case, here: the holding of the Presidency by the GOP meant that we got to be still treated as Those Idiots Running Things (I Hate Those Guys), instead of Those Idiots Out Of Power (I Hate Those Guys). The more I think of it, the more I think that maybe that saved us seats.

So now it’s 2010, and the Democrats are finally being seen as both Those Idiots Running Things and getting the (I Hate Those Guys) modifier. As witness to that latter, look at the two gubernatorial elections last year and this year’s Senatorial election. But don’t look at the win, per se: look at what the Democrats tried to do to our candidates.

• In Virginia, Bob McDonnell was subjected to a full-court smear attempt over language in a twenty year old thesis – one that was enthusiastically supported by one of the top five newspapers in the country.
• In New Jersey, no Democrat ever referred to Chris Christie in a sentence without also referring to George W Bush.
• In Massachusetts, they tried… everything, really… to torpedo Scott Brown.  Massive amounts of money, smear campaigns, personal appeals by the President, allegations of prejudice on Brown’s part, you name it, it was there in concentrated form.

All of these things were done because in 2006 and 2008 they worked.  They worked fine, as a lot of former Congressmen and Senators could tell you.  But they worked because American voters had decided that the Republicans deserved to be tagged with (I Hate Those Guys). That’s shifted… and it’ll be slow to shift back, because unless somebody waves a magic wand right now the economy and the mood of the country will still be rotten in November.  And the Republicans will profit from it… for a time.

No permanent majorities, folks.  Until one party learns how to stop having to take a turn at having to submit to being (I Hate Those Guys).

Moe Lane

PS: Actually, yes, it is fair.  The Democrats cheerfully took advantage of this situation when it was affecting the Republicans. So… karma.  It’s what’s for dinner.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Tweet This Post

Even the NYT is poking fun at the Dems: No Plan Yet, But Democrats Remain Confident on Health Care. Meanwhile, Senator-Louisiana-Purchase says ObamaCare “is on life support.”

Tweet This Post

Open thread.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Tweet This Post

More interesting to me is how many on our side raced out immediately to condemn O’Keefe without knowing any facts other than those reported by MSNBC. Even a cursory glance at the initial written charges and statements made it clear that there was no wiretapping — and those documents were released nearly at the same time as the story broke. Undeterred, many on our side and the left attacked based on mis-truths generated by the left.

While we should recognize the uniqueness of the right in its effort to maintain its righteousness (the left would never have reacted in the same way), there should have been a willingness to give James O’Keefe the benefit of the doubt. Agree or disagree with his actions, think it wise or unwise, smart or stupid, it seems now pretty clear that there was no intent to commit the crimes alleged by Senator Landrieu and MSNBC.

Below the fold is his statement.

The government has now confirmed what has always been clear: no one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu’s office. Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines. Reports to this effect over the past 48 hours are inaccurate and false.

As an investigative journalist, my goal is to expose corruption and lack of concern for citizens by government and other institutions, as I did last year when our investigations revealed the massive corruption and fraud perpetuated by ACORN. For decades, investigative journalists have used a variety of tactics to try to dig out and reveal the truth.

I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu’s constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn’t want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill. When asked about this, Senator Landrieu’s explanation was that, “Our lines have been jammed for weeks.” I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for “weeks” because her phones were broken. In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu’s district office – the people’s office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.

On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building. The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator. We video taped the entire visit, the government has those tapes, and I’m eager for them to be released because they refute the false claims being repeated by much of the mainstream media.

It has been amazing to witness the journalistic malpractice committed by many of the organizations covering this story. MSNBC falsely claimed that I violated a non-existent “gag order.” The Associated Press incorrectly reported that I “broke in” to an office which is open to the public. The Washington Post has now had to print corrections in two stories on me. And these are just a few examples of inaccurate and false reporting. The public will judge whether reporters who can’t get their facts straight have the credibility to question my integrity as a journalist.

Tweet This Post

As we learn more and more about Haiti, we know for sure that nation is truly devastated. The Salvation Army is where I always give money. The organization gives a phenomenal amount of its proceeds to the cause, not to administrative overhead.

Folks, you know I always say give to candidates. But candidates can wait. Relief cannot. Please give what you can.

We can help. Right now the people of Haiti need it.

Thanks.

Update by Jeff: There are several quality organizations working to help the people of Haiti, and your generous donation to any one of them will do immeasurable good for those affected by this horrific tragedy. If you want your personal donation to get the most possible mileage, though, you might consider looking at a smaller, more intimate, Haiti-centric nonprofit like the Haiti Foundation Against Poverty. I’ve donated to them today, as have several of my fellow Contributors.

No matter who you give to, or what you give, though, your generous donations and your efforts to spread the word about these relief organizations truly do make a difference.

Update by Erick: You can also text the word HAITI to 90999 and $10.00 will be added to your phone bill as a contribution from you to the Red Cross.

Tweet This Post

What we are witnessing here it the transformation of a state from solid blue to purple**. The numbers in the Herald article are stunning. Scott Brown has captivated the people of Massachusetts with his “happy warrior” style of campaigning, and his common man approach to people. Throughout the campaign he has stayed on point and on the issues. And he truly understands that he is applying for “the Peoples Seat“. All of these actions are beginning to pay off beyond many of our imaginations. Follow me as we walk through this meadow of awesome.

First, we have the independent voter…

Paleologos said bellweather models show high numbers of independent voters turning out on election day, which benefits Brown, who has 65 percent of that bloc compared to Coakley’s 30 percent. Kennedy earns just 3 percent of the independent vote, and 1 percent are undecided.

I will make this simple for the mathematically challenged out there, that’s just over two to one in favor of Scott Brown.

Moving on..

Yet even in the bluest state, it appears Kennedy’s quest for universal health care has fallen out of favor, with 51 percent of voters saying they oppose the “national near-universal health-care package” and 61 percent saying they believe the government cannot afford to pay for it.

It’s no wonder Obama has no intention of going to Massachusetts to campaign for Coakley, he knows he and his health care deform are politically toxic. But he can’t escape the blame he share. No, not to worry my babies, to paraphrase Dennis Miller, we already knew that the people reject Obama and his faux reform, now we know that he does too. Thanks for that Barry.

Now, some may say that this is just one poll, an out lier, nothing to hang your hat on. Well, those people do have a point, but this poll has a lot of good going for it in this group of snippets below.

The poll, conducted Monday through Wednesday, surveyed 500 registered likely voters who knew the date of Tuesday’s election. It shows Brown leading all regions of the state except Suffolk County.

*snip*

and with 99 percent having made up their minds, voters may be hard to persuade.
Brown’s popularity is solid. He enjoys a 57 percent favorability rating compared to just 19 percent unfavorable. Coakley’s favorability is 49 percent; her unfavorability, 41 percent.

*snip*

No longer does Brown suffer from a name-recognition problem, with 95 percent of voters having heard of him statewide.

DOOM DADOOM DOOM DOOOOOOOOOM

I will leave you with the words of 7News Political Editor Andy Hiller…

Voters obviously think Brown is running a better campaign than Coakley. For months, it has been Coakley’s race to lose, and now in the last days that’s exactly what she may be doing.

Oh, and….Scott Brown.

Aaron B. Gardner

* For those wondering, and you know who you are, yes Joe Kennedy was in the poll. He drew 3%.

** I will wait for Kerry to be shown the door before I even believe it can be Red.

P.S. See Mbecker’s take as well.

P.P.S. Also see a snarkier and more, hhhmm how should I say this, robust(?) take down from our friend Lori (aka snarkandboobs), over at iOWNTHEWORLD.

Tweet This Post

The most important, and telling, exchange occurred between the questioners and Hutchison on the issue of abortion. The transcript below is UNOFFICIAL, transcribed by yours truly sitting in front of the DVR. If I set out to just make up a muddled, irresponsible, dishonest and flat-out offensive answer, I doubt I could have come up with a better one than this endorsement of Roe v. Wade by Senator Hutchison (of course, it’s not the first time – see her previous vote here for language saying Roe v. Wade is Constitutional and should not be overturned, language that Democrat Leader Harry Reid voted against) .

In short – she says Roe v. Wade should not be overturned because it would turn some states into an “abortion haven…”

What?

See below – the transcript speaks for itself:

Dave Montgomery (Forth Worth Star-Telegram): Yes, Senator Hutchison, could you clarify your position on abortion tonight? Uh, specifically, do you believe that Roe v. Wade should remain in force or be reversed as the state Republican Party advocates in its platform?

Senator Hutchison: Let me say that my record is one of always coming down on the side of life. In my record in the Senate, I have voted against partial birth abortion, federal funding of abortion, parental consent restrains… I mean more parental consent restraints on abortion without parental consent… I have promoted adoption and if I am Governor of Texas, I will do everything I can to limit, lower the number of abortions in this state and promote adoption. We don’t want unwanted pregnancies, that’s not good for anyone.

If Roe, uh… Talking about the Supreme Court of the land, we have had restrictions on abortion that have become the law of the land, and I think that’s good. I don’t want abortion havens. I don’t want to have freedom so that some states would allow partial-birth abortion. And there are states that have actually had referendums that have said they would want to have partial-birth abortions. So yes, that scares me.

Dave Montgomery: Uh, but still, your position on abortion is giving some discomfort to Republican activists in your party who take a pretty strong position on reversing Roe v. Wade. Do you believe it should remain in effect or be reversed?

Hutchison: What concerns me about that is that we would then have some states that would allow abortion as the baby is coming out of the birth canal. And I would never support that. I have voted against it. I don’t want that to be in any state in our country, and that is the reason that I have stated that position.

Moderator Shelley Kofler: So you would not support the overturning of Roe v. Wade?

Hutchison: What I am saying is… [audience laughter]… if it is overturned, you are going to have abortion havens.

Kofler: Is there a yes or a no to this?

Hutchison: Look, I am just telling you why I’m concerned about, um, having it overturned and then having abortion havens all over our country.

Montgomery: Are you saying if it’s overturned it will lead to black market abortions, essentially?

Hutchison: Legal. Legal abortions. That’s what concerns me. I think you are looking at a whole… Right now we have restrictions that are quite reasonable that are the law of the land.

Montgomery: So, keep Roe v. Wade on the books.

Hutchison: Well, I think you have to look at what happens if… if it goes away. Then every state is allowed to do whatever its state legislature passes, and we know there are states that will allow abortion under any circumstances including partial-birth abortion.

Tweet This Post

I cannot tell you the number of reporters at major networks and newspapers who will, in private moments, admit there is a real bias.

In most cases it is not an intentional bias. It is a product of being largely highly educated, liberally inclined, white urbanites who live on the Upper West Side, have drivers whisk them off to their studio or out of Adams-Morgan into downtown DC where they hang out with other fashionable liberals who, unlike me, think Jimmy Choo is a shoe manufacturer and not, a I thought, a Chinese restaurant.

They talk about what’s in the New York Times Magazine and on its front page. They gossip about who isn’t sleeping with Maureen Dowd anymore. They go to wine country in France, tie the latest J. Crew sweater around their neck because Michelle does, and otherwise live in an insular world of group think.

The preconceived notions they develop in this insular world of their likeminded friends colors what gets reported and what doesn’t. The majority of Americans who realize global warming is a scam are pooh-poohed as ignorant because all the guys at Brown, Harvard, and Vassar say so.

The credible scientists who disagree with the group think are shunned as holocaust deniers. Republicans and conservatives are treated as the same creature.

David Gergen’s latest bout of conventional wisdom is serenaded on NPR and David Frum is celebrated for speaking truth to power from the renovated carriage house behind his posh home on the northwest side of Washington. The women from The View are considered intellectuals, except for that Republican one who is just on their for the affirmative action quota for wingers.

Sarah Palin is disdained because she had a Down Syndrome child and all the forty something first time moms dropping their kids off (assuming it’s not the nanny doing it) at Birch Wathen Lenox, Trinity, and Dwight before going to work at their six-figure jobs know that smart women abort Down Syndrome babies — there’s a great clinic in SoHo where you can shop fashionably after the baby is chopped up and sucked out.

Sometimes the bias is more patent, open, and intentional. After all, friends do want to help out their friends and likeminded brethren on the left. Any criticism of Obama is racist and conservatives sometimes must pay the price.

The mainstream media arising out of that culture misses stories that don’t fit the narrative or don’t make it past the New York – DC corridor echo chamber.

Right now the media is missing a really big story. It does not fit their narrative.

The narrative, of course, is that conservatives want a totalitarian pure party with a purity test for the GOP. You want gay marriage? No way. Pro-choice? No support. For government assisted health care options? We don’t recognize you. At least that is what the media claims.

So the media has and is ignoring the alliance between left and right among the GOP in Massachusetts.

Scott Brown is not a conservative. He makes no pretension of being a conservative. He defends Romneycare, which most conservative have rejected. He is pro-choice. But he is for less government interference in the free market and less spending. Like Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania, he is the perfect sort of Republican candidate for New England.

Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund is encouraging its members to support and donate to Scott Brown.. Marco Rubio is supporting Scott Brown. RedState is supporting Scott Brown. We, well . . . I, suspect he’ll give conservatives heart burn as New England Republicans do. But all of us know he is a good, pragmatic fit for Massachusetts. He’ll vote against Obamacare and he’d vote against a second stimulus. Conservatives do know, despite media and liberal Republican (called “moderate” by the media) claims to the contrary, that the GOP needs 51 seats in the Senate to have a majority.

Conservative and liberal Republicans are united behind Scott Brown. You’d think a mainstream media that has generated millions of words on television, radio, and print about conservatives demanding a pure party would take notice.

But that would shatter their whole narrative. And the last thing anyone wants to do at the next party at the Met or Sally Quinn’s house is mention the latest liberal friend in rehab or that maybe their group think on conservatives is shallow, self-serving, and vain.

Tweet This Post

Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don’t want to do that.

Martha Coakley: No we have a seperation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.

Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.

Martha Coakley: (…stammering) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.

Okay. So a private employee of a private company doesn’t want to perform a particular duty because of her religious beliefs, and her private employer has no problem accomodating that… and this somehow constitutes a violation of the First Amendment? I suppose it’s hypothetically possible that Martha Coakley is stupid enough to actually believe this manifest crap (and as this campaign goes on, it becomes more believable!), but the more likely explanation of course is that she finds the nuns icky and just wants them out of sight where she doesn’t have to look at them when she goes out in public.  And believe me?  Plenty of Massachusetts Catholics are gonna take that last sentence exactly that way.  So, to review, in the last two days, Martha Coakley has, in public interviews, dissed A) Fenway Park and B) Nuns. Like my inestimable colleague Moe Lane, I am forced to wonder whether she has any public comments she’d like to share about clam chowder?

WAIT. THIS STORY GETS WORSE.

While Nuns and Fenway Park are on Martha Coakley’s bad list, it turns out she has a good list. Know who’s on it? Pedophiles.

Read on below the fold…

When Martha Coakley was the Middlesex district attorney, her office prosecuted the Rev. John J. Geoghan based on an allegation that he squeezed the buttocks of a 10-year-old boy a single time at a public swimming pool. The highly publicized 2002 conviction won Coakley widespread praise for bringing the first successful criminal case against the widely accused pedophile, a priest many had called “Father Jack.’’

But seven years earlier, Coakley, then the head of the Middlesex child abuse unit, had Geoghan in her sights and took a dramatically different approach. Back then, three grade-school brothers told investigators that Geoghan had inappropriately touched them during numerous visits to their Waltham home, and had made lewd telephone calls to them. Rather than prosecute, Coakley agreed to grant Geoghan a year of probation in a closed-door proceeding that received no media attention at all.

Because of the deal, Geoghan faced no formal charges and no criminal record.

In sanctioning the 1995 probation agreement, Coakley, now the front-runner in a special election for the United States Senate, never pressed the Boston Archdiocese for any prior complaints against Geoghan.

Now, granted, I am not licensed to practice law in the State of Massachusetts, but down here prosecutors are not wont to grant such generous diversion for DUI tickets. Heck, I dunno, maybe up there in Massachusetts, the people don’t really care about folks getting off scot free when there are three eyewitnesses to child molestation. At the very least it suggests that a large part of Coakley’s entire narrative of a candidate – to wit, that she is “tough on crime” (and sex offenders in particular), is more or less crap. Well, at least when it comes to pedophiles. One wonders when she developed a soft spot for pedophiles, and how it can be that she harbors, at the same time, such disdain for faithful Nuns.

In any event, in less than a week, the people of Mass. will decide if this is the character of the person they want representing them in the United States Senate. It’s possible that it is; they elected Ted Kennedy for a number of years. But Scott Brown is forcing them at long last to make a meaningful choice.

UPDATE: Somehow, I missed this story all day – more Coakley being soft on pedophiles! Careful. Reading this story may turn your head into a flaming skull.

Tweet This Post

From: Glenn P. Matney, M.D. “drmatney@verizon.net”
Subject: I’m rubber, you’re glue.
Date: January 14, 2010 7:16:57 PM EST
To: contact@redstate.com

Eric,

Why don’t you put some ice on your a**hole and quit whining like a little baby. You’re pathetic.

The true sign of a little man is that he has to try to tear somebody else down to build himself up. Your own words and actions betray your conscience. If you didn’t feel guilty, you wouldn’t be acting so bloody guilty. I suggest you take a searching and fearless moral inventory, then admit to God, to yourself, and another human being the exact nature of your wrongs. It works if you work it.

Glenn P. Matney, M.D.

_____________________________________________
From: Glenn P. Matney, M.D. [mailto:drmatney@verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 11:58 AM
To: contact@redstate.com
Subject: ERIC-Why don’t you come down off the cross already your own d**n self

What Do Sarah Palin and Jesus Christ Have In Common?

Eric,

Poor baby, are the meanie Palinistas calling you names?

You and that Jonah Goldberb are d***hebag peas in the same pantiwaste pod.

If you’re going to take a shot at Palin, why don’t you just do it like a fn’man, and spare us your little pre-emptive attack of the vapors and closing off your comments. I don’t know who all these w**kers are that waste time posting comments anyway, but I just can’t resist joining their ranks on this one to tell you what a self-important p***y you are. Good luck with your TV career. I see you are already following the tried and true game plan to become a famous media conservative. Should work out great for you. Say hi to Mark McKinnon and Nicole Wallace the next time you’re on Hannity.

Go change your pad.
Glenn P. Matney, M.D.

Tweet This Post

Tweet This Post

Perhaps not surprisingly, they both think it means good things and that Ohio is well positioned in 2010:

Tweet This Post