If You Thought the MSM Was in the Tank for Obama Before...

Can the G.O.P. Succeed by Running Against Health Care?

The President, however, may be indifferent to the acrid fussing of his Republican foes. He will be able to bask once again in the glow of positive press coverage (accented by a momentous signing ceremony), which will focus on four areas helpful to the Democrats' prospects in November: the masterful display of White House patience and competence that got the job done; the elements of the legislation that are in fact consistently popular with large numbers of Americans, such as its insurance-company crackdowns; the return of the meme that Republicans are the party of No; and the accompanying rising poll numbers for the Administration and the new law...

Democrats will be joined in the fray by much of the press. For Republicans, this will seem like familiar ground, since generations of conservatives have complained that the so-called mainstream media have been biased against them. Well, get ready, Republicans, for déjà vu all over again. The coverage through November likely will highlight the most extreme attacks on the President and his law and spotlight stories of real Americans whose lives have been improved by access to health care (pushed, no doubt, by Democrats from every competitive congressional district and state). The louder Republicans yell, the more they will be characterized and caricatured as sore losers infuriated by the first major delivery of candidate Obama's promise of "change." The focus on the weekend's alleged racial and gay-bashing verbal attacks by opponents of the Democrats' plan should be a caution to Republican strategists trying to figure out how to manage the media this year.

...just watch them now. Story after story about cherubic kiddies whose shining faces were scrubbed clean because of Obamacare will be SOP. It will be difficult to find stories about the mounting debt and higher taxes we will all face.

Finally, here's Reverend Wright saying Americans voted for socialism, so why be surprised?



Excellent stuff from Megan McArdle.

Good News on a Bad Day

ACORN Folds

But like a vampire, is it gone for good?

What Mattered in Yesterday's Vote Most...

Was if Obama helped the Democrat and if s/he supported socialized medicine.

Obamacare: Reducing America's Military Ability

In this post at National Review Online, Mark Steyn makes a point that could almost get lost in concerns over the monstrous infringement on personal liberties in Obamacare:

(I)t's also unaffordable. That's why one of the first things that middle-rank powers abandon once they go down this road is a global military capability. If you take the view that the U.S. is an imperialist aggressor, congratulations: You can cease worrying. But, if you think that America has been the ultimate guarantor of the post-war global order, it's less cheery. Five years from now, just as in Canada and Europe two generations ago, we'll be getting used to announcements of defense cuts to prop up the unsustainable costs of big government at home. And, as the superpower retrenches, America's enemies will be quick to scent opportunity.

Bill Clinton was at least honest when he admitted he loathed the military, but that sentiment can be attached to virtually every liberal. Barack Obama made no bones about his desire to scale back American hegemony around the world, and burdening successive generations with this debt may be his best way to do it.

David Frum: Obamacare is Your Fault!

David Frum is already rewriting the history of the last 1 1/2 years to be the fault of conservatives who didn't want to give cover to the leftwing of the Democratic party.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Frum then goes on to admit that there is no way of knowing whether Republican input would have changed the monstrosity set to change the lives of every man, woman and child in America. And, honestly, that's a stupid point.

The facts are, this administration hasn't wanted to work with Republicans except when it thought doing so would advance some point or other of the moonbat agenda. Obama met with Republicans in April of last year and then didn't talk to them for months. This from the President of All of Us--Mr. "I Won."

If you think the bill would have been more to Republicans' liking if House and Senate leadership had brought the K-Y and bent over for Teh One, you are delusional. Like William Jacobson, I know that the abomination known as Obamacare wouldn't have been better with Republican cooperation, largely because Democrats think they know more than you do.

There are issues I agree with Frum on, when he argues that Republicans need new ideas and approaches to issues and need to show flexibility for those with whom they disagree. But to loftily argue that Obamacare is the fault of Republicans is nonsense.

Is It Constitutional?

Interesting arguments about the legal challenges Obamacare will face.

Not That Democrats Care About the Costs...

But the bill will add $562 billion to the deficit.

Produce the Evidence

Liberals are claiming Tea Party Protests: 'Ni**er,' 'Fa**ot' Shouted At Members Of Congress. But apparently, they can't produce the video showing this. We do have video that doesn't show what they claim:



If they were shouting the N-word all over the place, there should be plenty of video to back up the claim that the Tea Party protesters are a bunch of racists. But there isn't.

Democrats Under Seige: Now, It's Harassment to Contact Your Representatives

Because they don't care what you think:

Yesterday, I decided to call Rep. John Garamendi’s (CA-10) office in Washington, D.C. He’s my representative and I wanted to voice my opposition to the Senate Health Care Bill. I spoke with a female staffer and politely told her that, while I support health care reform, I oppose the Senate Bill because it wasn’t true “reform.” She said the Congressman thinks it’s a good bill and that he campaigned on health care reform. I told her I knew that. I also mentioned that I voted for him. When I tried to give her specific reasons why the Senate Bill would harm our system rather than reform it, she refused to listen. She said she was very busy and hung up on me. Being the persistent person that I am, I kept calling back. Each time I tried to finish my point, she hung up.

I called one more time. This time she said, “If you call one more time, we will notify Capital Police.” I asked why my conduct warranted involving federal law enforcement agents. She said I was “harassing” her. I tried to explain that trying to convince a representative to change his or her vote didn’t constitute “harassment.” Before I could fully explain, she hung up again.

I called back. This time, I asked to speak to her supervisor in order to report her repeated hanging up as well as the threat she made. I was placed on hold. Thinking I was holding for her supervisor, I was shocked when a Federal Agent with the Capital Police picked-up the telephone.

At first, the Agent was curt with me. He claimed I was harassing Mr. Garamendi’s staff by continually calling after being told to stop calling. I asked him when it became a federal crime to lobby a congressman. He said that it wasn’t but it was a crime to “harass” congressional members and staff pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 223. I told him I was an attorney (which I am) and that I would research the statute he had cited.

After researching 47 U.S.C. 223, I called Mr. Garamendi’s office again and asked to be transferred back to the Capital Police Agent. The Agent picked up the phone and I explained to him that the statute he cited was not controlling since it only prohibits people from calling with the specific intent to harass. I further explained that I was simply trying to voice my concerns with the intent of getting Mr. Garamendi to change his mind, not to harass his staff. The Agent eventually agreed with my position and said he would call Mr. Garamendi’s office and instruct his staff that I was within my rights to call my congressman and voice my concerns.

Corrupt regimes always end up trying to use the police to silence the peons.

Humor of the Day

Only, it isn't really funny...

Scoring--Or Misscoring--the Health Care Bill

Six Ways the Senate Health Care Bill Raises Health Care Costs, Kills Jobs, and Weakens the Economy

1. The President claims the health care proposals would reduce health care spending. The reality is health care spending would increase. According to the latest Congressional Budget Office report of the Senate bill, health care spending under the Senate bill would increase by $210 billion over the next 10 years...

2. The President claims the health care proposals would reduce premiums. The reality is premiums will go up for many under the Senate bill. The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation have estimated premiums in the non-group market would be 10 to 13 percent higher in 2016 than they would be with no bill and cost would likely fall higher on young and healthy families...

3. The President claims the health care proposals would cost under a trillion. But, that figure excludes major health care provisions – like filling the Medicare “donut hole”, fixing Medicare reimbursement to physicians, and creating a new long-term entitlement program – pushing the price tag to over $2 trillion...

4. The President claims the health care proposals would reduce the deficit. Unlike CBO’s restricted scope of analysis, the independent analysis by the Lewin Group estimates that when taken in its entirety, which means accounting for the expected $200 billion plus boost in Medicare reimbursement for physicians, the proposal would actually add to the deficit, not reduce it.

5. The President claims he is committed to improving jobs and the economy. Based on his own policies, the opposite is true. The Senate bill would result in 620,000 fewer job opportunities and would increase the national debt by $755 billion through its lethal combination of mandates, taxes, and government spending...

6. The President claims he will “fix” the bill. Although he promised to ensure no federal funding would be used for abortions and eliminate the repugnant special deals, House passage of the Senate bill would lock these into place, and they could only be undone through a highly uncertain reconciliation process to “fix” the bill in the Senate. Not only is taxpayer funding of abortion not fixed, it is expanded under the Senate bill. Moreover, the ugly special state deals at the expense of the taxpayers still remain.

More:
CBO Score Hides the Big Picture

Unintentional Humor in the Texas Textbook Debate

Liberals are appoplectic that the Texas Board of Education has made changes to the textbooks the state will purchase. But it would probably help if their organizations hired a few copy editors.

The unintended humor came in a couple of posts on the Southern Poverty Law Center's Teaching Tolerance site (see here and here):

Democratic board member Mary Helen Berlanga made the common sense observation that these men died at the Alamo just the same (sic) Jim Bowie and Davy Crockett, yet they are almost completely ignored in Texas classrooms.

Then there was this:

The Texas State Board of Education has made nationwide headlines in recent weeks by rewriting the curriculum standards for its k-12 textbooks. Texas is the 500-pound guerilla (sic) in textbook publishing.

Maybe if the Southern Poverty Law Center was as concerned with teaching students spelling and grammar as they are about including Cesar Chavez in history books, their ideas might be met with less ridicule.

And You Thought Wait Times Were Long Now

Survey Reveals Potential Impact of Health Reform on Physician Supply

In a physician survey conducted December 2009 by The Medicus Firm, a national physician search firm, 24.7% of physicians stated that they would "retire early" if a public option is implemented, and an additional 21.0% of respondents stated that they would quit practicing medicine, even though they are nowhere near retirement. This brings the amount of physicians who would leave medicine to a total of 45.7%...

"Many physicians feel that they cannot continue to practice if patient loads increase while pay decreases. The overwhelming prediction from physicians is that health reform, if implemented inappropriately, could create a detrimental combination of circumstances, and result in an environment in which it is not possible for most physicians to continue practicing medicine," states Kevin Perpetua, Managing Partner for The Medicus Firm's Atlanta division. "With an average debt of $140,000, and many graduates approaching a quarter of a million dollars in school loans, being a doctor is becoming less and less feasible. Health reform, and increasing government control of medicine may be the final straw that causes the physician workforce to break down."

Democrats and liberals (not always the same group) are banking on the idea that doctors won't drop out of the system, and that plenty of people will still want to be doctors after Obamacare passes. That's not what doctors are saying, and certainly hasn't been the trend for several years (more people are going to law school than med school, for example). Why would a person go into extreme debt only to have the government dictate how much s/he could make and how many patients one was forced to see? Countries with socialized medicine deal with this crisis by importing doctors from countries like India and Pakistan. If you want a doctor you can't understand and who doesn't understand you, then Obamacare seems to be the way to go.

Most Transparent President. Ever

PROMISES, PROMISES: Records not so open with Obama

President Obama's administration has rejected nearly twice as many Freedom of Information requests in the first year than President Bush did in 2008. This comes, of course, after Obama campaigned on having the most open, most transparent presidency ever.

UPDATE: House Dems are celebrating Transparency Week by avoiding taking an up-or-down vote on Obamacare. Gotta love it.

Democrats Were Against the Slaughter Rule...Before They Were For It

Gotta love this:

Dial the date selector back to 2005 when the Republican majority in Congress approved a national debt limit increase using a self-executing rule similar to the Slaughter Solution.

Guess who went to federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the move? The Ralph Nader-backed Public Citizen legal activists...

It's important to be clear that the issue before the court was whether a minor text correction was sufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirement that both chambers of Congress must pass the exact same bill. In this 2005 case, the court ruled the minor correction was acceptable.

The deeming of an entire bill to have been passed without a prior recorded vote goes far beyond a minor text correction, so the constitutional principle clearly would be violated by the Slaughter Solution.

And now for the kicker, guess who joined Public Citizen in that suit with amicus briefs:

Nancy Pelosi

Henry Waxman

Louise Slaughter

Deficit increases are different from taking over 1/6 of the economy.

Taking Over the Health Care System Is Only the Beginning

From Allahpundit:

I’ve said it before but it bears repeating: Their candor about O-Care being a starting, not an ending, point for “fixing” American health care is simply astounding. Given public angst about the on cost and effect on quality of care and conservative objections to the bill as an irreversible, transformational lurch towards statism, you would think Obama and Pelosi would be scrupulous about selling the bill — even privately within the caucus lest their comments leak out — as something self-contained and modest in scope. Instead we’ve seen The One winking at House progressives about a public option down the line and now Madam Speaker hinting at god knows what to come. If you want to reach for that brass ring of single-payer eventually, you have to start the socialist carousel turning.

I'm not sure how anyone could be shocked that the whole idea is to lead to a single payer plan or, as Matthew Yglesias has put it, creation of the American welfare state. Democrats have been fairly honest for a generation that they want as many people dependent on the government as possible and screw that whole independence and liberty crap. Allahpundit ponders if the centrist Democrats should see this willingness to sell them down the river as incentive to vote against this monstrosity, but you do have to wonder if they're smart enough to see that.

Pelosi and Reid remind me a bit of those who know they're going to lose the war, so they just start burning everything in sight, hoping to make changes to their insanity too costly. I don't want Obamacare to pass, but it seems to me like the funniest thing would be for Dems to pass this horror, Obama to sign it, then the new Republican Congress to override his veto and repeal the whole damn thing.

Howell Raines: Wah, Wah, Wah, Fox News Is Mean

With Democrats set to ram through health care legislation that Americans don't want, Howell Raines asks the important question: why does Fox News get to keep telling the truth?

Through clever use of the Fox News Channel and its cadre of raucous commentators, Ailes has overturned standards of fairness and objectivity that have guided American print and broadcast journalists since World War II. Yet, many members of my profession seem to stand by in silence as Ailes tears up the rulebook that served this country well as we covered the major stories of the past three generations, from the civil rights revolution to Watergate to the Wall Street scandals. This is not a liberal-versus-conservative issue. It is a matter of Fox turning reality on its head with, among other tactics, its endless repetition of its uber-lie: "The American people do not want health-care reform."

Translation: Wah, wah, wah! How dare somebody not tell the same lies, fibs and provarications that the rest of us have for 50 years!

Yeah, that supposed system of objectivity worked really well when we had journalists reporting objectively on American victories in war. Oh, and let's not forget the objectivity shown by news outlets over, say Abu Ghraib, where we had the New York Times running endless page 1 stories designed to gin up opposition to the war in Iraq. This isn't even talking about the liars associated with these objective news outlets where fake but accurate is good enough to go to press.


Let's be blunt here: as someone who worked in the news business for years, I saw firsthand what goes into "objective" journalism. Some journalists do try very hard to give just the facts of a story. But don't think for a moment that reporters and editors check their biases at the door and don't ever allow their own opinions to slip into their writing. Just ask the restaurant owner who happened to piss off a reviewer somehow. Or the politician who doesn't lean left.

And Howell Raines, the former editor of the New York Times, knows about the power of the press. Journalists crowed about "bringing down" the presidency of Richard Nixon. They constantly sneered and slimed Ronald Reagan and showed nothing but contempt for any Republican president who actually tried to abide by the Constitution, as opposed to expanding the liberal welfare state as Democrats have done for nearly a century. Raines' bitter tears about the popularity and power of Fox News would be touching if it weren't so self-serving. If Raines' brand of journalism were winning their war, there would be little whinging about how one cable news outlet runs circles around every establishment journalistic network.

Raines complains that Fox cherry-picks its polls, yet does exactly the same thing. In choosing this Gallup poll over my previously linked Rasmussen poll, Raines is engaging in exactly the bad behavior he accuses Fox News of doing. The laughable part of Raines' complaint is that he is only unhappy because a different brand, a different look at news is using the same techniques he and his cohorts have used for half a century...and beating him at it.

There's never been anything objective in "objective" news, and every Journalism 101 student knows it. They recognize that the choice of words, pictures, headlines and placement all affect readership and the opinions that readers form about a subject. This is why the New York Times ran stories on Abu Ghraib on page 1 34 out of 37 days. It wasn't simply to inform viewers; it was to shape what they thought about that prison and also about our conduct of the war in Iraq. When journalists talk about comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, they're not talking about merely covering events. They're talking about shaping policy.

Fox News understands this and so does Howell Raines and the grousers he represents. Americans also understand that journalists have biases, and they don't really mind. What they mind is when journalists like Raines lie about it.

UPDATE: More at Newsbusters.

No Hypocrisy Here: Patrick Kennedy Really Hates Bad Press Aimed at Democrat Misbehavior

But he wasn't crying when the press went after Mark Foley in 2006 rather than focusing on Iraq. That was sooo four years ago. From Hot Air:

Go figure that a scion of Camelot, who’s lived up to the family legacy in so many ways, would look dimly upon press coverage of politicians’ misbehavior. Funny, but I don’t remember many Democratic complaints about the sustained media swarm over Mark Foley in fall 2006 while Iraq was falling apart. I’m sure there’s an explanation for the difference somewhere.

Hey, when Dems get into tickle fights with staffers, that's no news. When Republicans send questionable texts to underage staffers, that's big news.

Things You Can't Say on WGN

Funny list that could have been compiled by any copy editor or micromanaging jerk. Is "killing spree" really the worst thing a news caster can say on WGN? He didn't even include my personal pet peeve: using "entitled" for "titled," as in "The book is entitled Making Money."

You Can Only Fool Some of the People Some of the Time or All of the People Some of the Time

Why Obama Can't Move the Health-Care Numbers

One reason may be that he keeps talking about details of the proposal while voters are looking at the issue in a broader context. Polling conducted earlier this week shows that 57% of voters believe that passage of the legislation would hurt the economy, while only 25% believe it would help...

When the president responds that the plan is deficit neutral, he runs into a pair of basic problems. The first is that voters think reducing spending is more important than reducing the deficit. So a plan that is deficit neutral with a big spending hike is not going to be well received.

But the bigger problem is that people simply don't trust the official projections. People in Washington may live and die by the pronouncements of the Congressional Budget Office, but 81% of voters say it's likely the plan will end up costing more than projected. Only 10% say the official numbers are likely to be on target.

As a result, 66% of voters believe passage of the president's plan will lead to higher deficits and 78% say it's at least somewhat likely to mean higher middle-class taxes. Even within the president's own political party there are concerns on these fronts.

Americans already watch commercials that tell the people they can eat all the ice cream they want without gaining any weight. Why should politicians think the People are stupid enough to believe you can have everything for nothing? It works in election years but not the rest of the time.

How News Is Made

Breaking News: Some Bullshit Happening Somewhere

Don't Talk to Me About the Crusades

Nigerian Muslims Hack 500 Christian Villagers to Death With Machetes – Babies Scalped
When you want to claim that all religions are the same, try to find an example of Christian atrocity more recent than 1200.

I Know Where They Went

Asia 'missing' 96 million women: UN

Asia is "missing" about 96 million women -- the vast majority in China and India -- who died from discriminatory health care and neglect or who were never born at all, the UN estimated on Monday.

Female infanticide and sex-selective abortion have caused a severe gender imbalance in Asia, and the problem is worsening despite rapid economic growth in the region, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) report said.

"The old mindset with its preference for male children has now combined with modern medical technology" that makes it easier to predict and abort unborn girls, said Anuradha Rajivan, the report's lead author.

"It is not just female infanticide but sex-selective abortion of unborn girls that cause so-called 'missing' females," she said, contrasting the issue with recent improvements in female life expectancy and education.

Pro-choicers can't even bring themselves to decry sex-selective abortion. After all, that's a "choice," too.

Falling Further Behind

Poll shows Obama, Dems losing ground

A majority of Americans say the United States is less respected in the world than it was two years ago and think President Obama and other Democrats fall short of Republicans on the issue of national security, a new poll finds.

The Democracy Corps-Third Way survey released Monday finds that by a 10-point margin -- 51 percent to 41 percent -- Americans think the standing of the U.S. dropped during the first 13 months of Mr. Obama's presidency.

Remember when Barack Obama was going to make America more--not less--respected? World opinion isn't worth chasing.

LOL of the Day

Pot-Smoking, 9/11 Truth Lovin' Registered Democrat Pentagon Shooter...Must've Been a "Rightwing Extremist"

If there was ever any doubt about the current meme regarding violence, the story of John Patrick Bedell should lay them to rest.

John Patrick Bedell: Did right-wing extremism lead to shooting? screams the Christian Science Monitor. Pentagon Shooter Was Right-Wing, Anti-Government Terrorist soberly reports Think Progress. And both links talk about Bedell as an anti-government guy who was a 9/11 Truther.

Of course, as Newsbusters notes, 9/11 Truthers are leftwingers, not rightwingers. And given that Bedell was a registered Democrat, the liberal bullshit about rightwing extremism looks even more self-serving.

But that doesn't stop nuts like Jesse Taylor from blaming Tea Partiers and trying to equate Debra Medina with John Patrick Bedell. Taylor must be a yoga master to twist around to draw that comparison.

Bunning Was Right

And Republicans should be ashamed they didn't support him. Andy McCarthy has a wonderful column chockful of unpleasant truths about Republicans, Democrats, PAYGO and Obamacare, such as this on what Bunning was protesting:

The stimulus — which is a redistribution of wealth from the private to the public sector, and from people who work to people who don’t — extended unemployment benefits for 53 weeks. Another extension in November added 20 more weeks. Cato’s Alan Reynolds reports that this brings the total to 99 weeks of benefits in high-unemployment states. The measure on which Bunning has relented adds another month. And having browbeaten him into withdrawing his objection, Democrats will now seek an extension through the end of this year, i.e., another 36 weeks or so.

None of this is paid for. Instead, the government borrows ever more money, incurring ever more debt and ever more interest on that debt. The price tag on the relatively modest, stopgap measure Bunning was blocking is put at $10 billion, but that does not count the interest that will be paid on the money borrowed to fund the bill. To count the interest would be to highlight the fact that we are filching the money from our children and their children rather than paying for spending today by cutting something else. Bunning wasn’t even against spending the money; he just wanted the something else identified and cut.

Then there's this on PAYGO and Obamacare:

Here’s the sad truth: For all the shining they did at last week’s White House “summit” on health care, when it gets down to actually putting the brakes on the Big Gummint Express, most of today’s Republicans are AWOL. They’re great at the debate society. But making the fight on something concrete, really saying no when it means grinding redistribution to a halt, means taking the slings and arrows. No thanks, they say, let’s just make the whole thing go away on a voice vote, the sooner the better.

Finally, there's this, the saddest truth of all, about why Democrats are willing to lose it all to pass Obamacare.

Democrats know the electoral setbacks will only be temporary. They are banking on the assurance that Republicans merely want to win elections and have no intention of rolling back Obamacare, much less of dismantling Leviathan...

Even if the GOP gets a majority for a couple of cycles, even if President Obama is defeated in his 2012 reelection bid, Obamacare will be forever. And once the public sees that the GOP won’t try to dismantle Obamacare, it will lose any enthusiasm for Republicans. Democrats will eventually return to power, and it will be power over a much bigger, much more intrusive government.

It's sadly true that Republicans are only thinking about the next election cycle, which promises to be good for them. But Democrats are thinking long-term: they know that repealing Obamacare will be nearly impossible and, just as the lobster doesn't mind the boiling water if the heat's been turned up slowly, voters will accept all the restrictions and rationing of Obamacare once it's in place. This is why all the mandates of Obamacare don't kick in until after Barack Obama's re-election. Disgusting.

Howard Dean Speaks The Truth

Hard to believe that Howard Dean tells the truth about what will happen to Democrats if Obamacare passes:

Passing the healthcare proposals before Congress will "hang out to dry" every Democratic incumbent running for reelection this fall, Howard Dean said Thursday.

Dean, a physician by training who's a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), said that Democrats in Congress -- and President Barack Obama -- would do themselves more harm than good by passing the current healthcare bill.

"The plan, as it comes from the Senate, hangs out every Democrat who's running for office to dry -- including the president, in 2012, because it makes him defend a plan that isn't in effect essentially yet," Dean said during an appearance on the liberal Bill Press Radio Show.

Apparently, the Democratic leadership doesn't care if they lose every seat in the House and Senate as long as they saddle the American people with this albatross.

Who Are the Tea Partiers?

Contrary to liberal popular opinion, Tea Partiers aren't extremists wanting to blow up the government, which, sadly, we can't say about much of the Left.

The information we now are getting on the Tea Partiers is reassuring, at least to me. It comes from Eric O'Keefe, the head of a Chicago-based organization devoted to free markets and limited government, the Sam Adams Alliance. O'Keefe has surveyed 49 Tea Party leaders in 38 states and found that what angers these Tea Partiers' harbor is mostly benign. "They want to make a difference," as good-government types are wont to say. Seventy percent of them told O'Keefe they hope to "have a positive impact on the country." According to O'Keefe, they are neither "political junkies nor crusty right-wing extremists." Nearly half never have been involved in politics before. What angers them is the reckless federal spending of the Democrats in 2009.

Don't tell the leftwing media, the moonbatosphere or any of the liberals you know. To them, Tea Party goers are racist, violent crackpots who want to assassinate President Obama and overthrow the peaceful government. Or something.

Quote of the Day

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." --James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, 1792

Quote of the Day

"The irony of using a deficit reduction tool to cram through a highly controversial bill, that spends $1 trillion+ and adds to our federal debt, is pretty thick. Previously, the President himself even said it would be wrong to pass health care using a 50-plus-1 reconciliation strategy. Every member of the House and Senate who votes for this ... See Morehealth care mess is going to be held accountable by their constituents – it is truly a sad day for democracy when the President of the United States blatantly ignores the will of the people.”
Congressman John Sullivan (R) Oklahoma

President Obama: To Hell With Democracy

That's the conclusion one can draw from today's endorsement of reconciliation as the way to create legislation that Americans don't want (i.e., Obamacare). If ever there was a time to consider endless foot-dragging, it's now.

But it's still the abortion, stupid, and let's hope pro-life Democrats (such an oxymoron!) will vote no on this monstrosity. Voting them out in November isn't good enough; once it's passed, it will be nearly impossible to repeal, which is precisely why Nancy Pelosi doesn't give a shit if Democrats lose in November. Because it's for your own good. It's what we would want if we knew what was good for us.

And Here I Thought the Second Amendment Was A National Right

Justices signal they're ready to make gun ownership a national right

Wanted: New Pandagon Watcher

Friend Chuck Serio has suffered the Gold-Plated Witch on Wheels' fate and been banned from Pandagon for being "boring as f*ck" (i.e., intelligent). I'm now looking for a new watcher. If interested, send me an e-mail. Thanks!

A Ratings Booster

Pole dancers seek Olympic recognition

Health Care Shocker!

Individual Mandate in President’s Health Care Plan Apparently Violates Obama’s Tax Pledge

We knew it was just a matter of time before this promise expired as all the rest.

Debunking Liberal Lies Myths About ACORN

Here.

As Patterico notes, most are promulgated by Eric Boehlert of Media Matters. Just another reason to deride anyone who uses MM as a source of information.

Obama's Idea of Bipartisanship

President Obama's dog and pony show, a.k.a. "health care summit," is the latest example of Democrat "bipartisanship."

Obama listened politely for six hours, with occasional flashes of temper, but in the end, the message was clear: It’s over. We’re moving forward without Republicans.

Whether Obama and Dems will succeed in passing reform on their own is anything but assured, to put it mildly. But there’s virtually no doubt anymore that they are going to try — starting as early as tomorrow.

That was the subtle but unmistakable message of Obama’s closing argument. After hours of hearing Republicans repeat again and again that only an incremental approach to reform is acceptable to them, Obama rejected that out of hand.

Emphasis mine.

For the record, bipartisanship would be for Democrats to scale back their ideas to a place where Republicans (and the American people) would agree. But Democrats think bipartisanship is holding a talk fest where they don't listen, then doing what they want to do anyway. And voters will reward them for it in November with a nice, long vacation.

UPDATE: Dems are already giving up on 2010, and arguing that the "real referendum" on Obama and the Democrats won't come till 2012. Of course, by that point, Republicans will have forced Obama to the center, making him look far less radical--and assholish--than he does today.

The PC Police Strike the Canadian Women's Hockey Team

This story is ridiculous.

The International Olympic Committee will investigate the actions of Canadian women's hockey players who celebrated their gold medal victory Thursday night by swigging beer and smoking cigars on the ice in Vancouver.

A number of players, including 18-year-old superstar Marie-Philip Poulin, were drinking alcohol on the ice following the team's 2-0 defeat of the United States. (The legal drinking age in British Columbia is 19.) Players lingered for more than 70 minutes after the awards ceremony reveling in the arena, which was empty except for media and arena staff.

Gilbert Felli, the IOC's executive director of the Olympic Games, said that drinking in public was "not what we want to see" from athletes at an Olympic venue. The organization will investigate the actions and will speak with the international hockey federation and Canadian Olympic Committee and ask them to "act accordingly."

Horrors! Beer and cigars! By women! And one is 12 months underage! We can't have that! Apparently, some are calling for punishment, but what would be appropriate? Spanking?

I'm all for enforcing the law, but this sort of heavy-handed scolding doesn't protect anyone or help anyone. Eighteen-year-olds watching the Canadian women's hockey team celebrate are no more or less likely to drink just because a peer drank a beer.

Waterboarding Is Not Torture

And we have the provisions to prove it.

While the country and the Congress have their eyes on today’s dog-and-pony show on socialized medicine, House Democrats last night stashed a new provision in the intelligence bill which is to be voted on today. It is an attack on the CIA: the enactment of a criminal statute that would ban “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.”...

“Waterboarding” is specified. In one sense, I’m glad they’ve done this because it proves a point I’ve been making all along. Waterboarding, as it was practiced by the CIA, is not torture and was never illegal under U.S. law. The reason the Democrats are reduced to doing this is: what they’ve been saying is not true — waterboarding was not a crime and it was fully supported by congressional leaders of both parties, who were told about it while it was being done. On that score, it is interesting to note that while Democrats secretly tucked this provision into an important bill, hoping no one would notice until it was too late, they failed to include in the bill a proposed Republican amendment that would have required full and complete disclosure of records describing the briefings members of Congress received about the Bush CIA’s enhanced interrogation program. Those briefings, of course, would establish that Speaker Pelosi and others knew all about the program and lodged no objections. Naturally, members of Congress are not targeted by this criminal statute — only the CIA.

More to the point, this shows how politicized law-enforcement has become under the Obama Democrats. They could have criminalized waterboarding at any time since Jan. 20, 2009. But they waited until now. Why? Because if they had tried to do it before now, it would have been a tacit admission that waterboarding was not illegal when the Bush CIA was using it. That would have harmed the politicized witch-hunt against John Yoo and Jay Bybee, a key component of which was the assumption that waterboarding and the other tactics they authorizied were illegal. Only now, when that witch-hunt has collapsed, have the Democrats moved to criminalize these tactics. It is transparently partisan.

We've been told for years that waterboarding is torture. But once the Democrats got through using it for political theater, they are now forced to admit it wasn't and isn't.

UPDATE: Thank God for sunlight...and Republicans. The bill has been pulled. For now.

Rethinking Miranda

'Miranda' Dealt One-Two Punch by High Court

In decisions issued on Tuesday and Wednesday, the Court ruled that confessions should be admitted at trial even when police interviewed suspects in circumstances that lower courts viewed as Miranda violations.

The Court on Wednesday issued Maryland v. Shatzer (pdf), establishing new, more permissive rules for police who want to question a suspect for a second time after the suspect invokes Miranda's right to remain silent.

The Maryland case came down a day after the justices decided Florida v. Powell (pdf), in which a 7-2 majority Court said that Florida's alternative wording of the Miranda warning is acceptable, even though it does not explicitly state that a suspect has a right to have a lawyer present during questioning.

The idea of "once Mirandized, always Mirandized" was insane to begin with. And any expression of the Miranda warnings that gets the point across shouldn't be thrown out just because it doesn't follow Joe Friday's exact wording.

How Can They Claim They Weren't Informed?

CIA briefed 68 lawmakers on torture program, documents reveal

CIA officials briefed at least 68 U.S. lawmakers between 2001 and 2007 on enhanced interrogation methods like simulated drowning that were being considered or used against captured al Qaeda members, according to declassified documents released on Tuesday...

The CIA briefed lawmakers as it began seeking expanded authority for the interrogation program. Current House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then minority whip, attended a briefing on Abu Zubaydah's interrogation April 24, 2002, along with seven other members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the documents show.

The CIA did not begin using the interrogation techniques until after receiving legal guidance from the Department of Justice in August 2002.

In 2005, President Obama and the Democrats Thought Reconciliation Was 'Arrogant'

Here is the video. But really, that was soooo 2005. Everything with Obama has an expiration date.

Leftwingers Make Big Deal Out of Fox News Not Pointing Out More Domestic Terrorism

You have to wonder sometimes what is it the Left actually wants. Now we have moonbats complaining that the guy flying a plane into an IRS building in Austin yesterday isn't being classified as terrorism by either the FBI or Fox News.

You'd think they'd be happy that Fox News isn't pointing out yet another act of terrorism on Obama's watch, but, somehow, they're cranky because Fox News accepted the FBI explanation that this guy isn't a terrorist.

I'm really surprised you have to sift through the comments to find the typical, "It's not terrorism cuz he's a white guy" crap because at least that sounds like something lefties say. Instead, we're treated to leftwingers smacking Fox News for not getting hysterical about this when, usually, the leftwingers smack Fox News around for getting hysterical. More of that damned if you do, damned if you don't thing, I suppose.

UPDATE(s): Thank God CAIR knows a terrorist when it sees one.

And while Scott Brown "yawns" (according to Think Progress) about the attack, if you read the guy's statements, he's clearly on the left. Nonetheless, leftwing media sycophants say they guy "sounds like a Tea Partier." Yeah, there have been so many violent acts come out of the tea party movement.

Did You Know...

Soviet spy Alger Hiss was readmitted to the Massachusetts bar within days of his conviction of perjury because Hiss "had demonstrated the "moral and intellectual fitness" required to be an attorney"?

Scalia: "There Is No Right to Secede"

On Facebook, I was involved in a thread where the idea of the United States as a voluntary union was brought up (the main argument was that the Civil War was "about slavery." I argued that the war was actually about whether states had the right to leave the union, slavery being only the impetus for the action). The owner of the thread quoted Texas v. White as supporting the idea that the union was never voluntary and that no one had thought it was.

But this argument was a bit self-serving. To start with, the case was determined in 1869, four years after the Civil War actually determined whether or not states could leave the U.S. But also, the case concerned a state's ability to recover bonds that had been sold by the Confederate government. The court went through a convoluted process to allow the state to recover the bond money.

Well, Justice Antonin Scalia has weighed in on the issue.

I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.

Read the post for background, but this should change Ricky Perry's mind.

Reporter Fired for Being Too Objective

From where else? A "progressive" newspaper.

Atlanta Progressive News fires reporter for trying to be objective

Atlanta Progressive News has parted ways with long-serving senior staff writer Jonathan Springston. Apparently, Springston’s affinity for fact-based reporting clashed with Cardinale’s vision.

And, no, that’s not sarcasm.

In an e-mail statement, editor Matthew Cardinale says Springston was asked to leave APN last week “because he held on to the notion that there was an objective reality that could be reported objectively, despite the fact that that was not our editorial policy at Atlanta Progressive News.”

At least the editor was honest.

Quote of the Day

"Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual -- or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country." --Samuel Adams

I've Been Telling You This

U.S. has the best health care.

As recently published by Investor Business Daily, a survey by the U.N. International Health Organization has reported:

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis: U.S. 65 percent, Eng-land 46 percent, Canada 42 percent.

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months: U.S. 93 percent, England 15 percent, Canada 43 percent.

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months: U.S. 90 percent, England 15 percent, Canada 43 percent.

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month: U.S. 77 percent, England 40 percent, Canada 43 percent.

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people: U.S. 71, England 14, Canada 18.

Percentage of seniors (65 and older) with low income who say they are in “excellent health”: U.S. 12 percent, England 2 percent, Canada 6 percent.
The initial conclusion from this report is that the U.S. has the best health care in the world.

Well, duh.

History Will Thank Him

Cheney: Obama should thank George W. Bush

If [the administration is] going to take credit for [Iraq's success], fair enough ... but it ought to come with a healthy dose of 'Thank you, George Bush' up front and a recognition that some of their early recommendations with respect to prosecuting that war were just dead wrong," Cheney told ABC News' Jonathan Karl.

Bill Clinton Just Got 2 Stents...Will You?

Bill Clinton had two stents put in his coronary artery today because he was feeling discomfort in his chest. Clinton had a quadruple bypass in 2004. We wish him the best for a quick recovery.

But Michelle Malkin notes that stents don't grow on trees. Boston Scientific, the maker of the stents, says the taxes Democrats are proposing could have dire effects on that manufacturer.

Boston Scientific Corp (BSX.N) warned on Tuesday that a proposed tax in the U.S. health care reform bill that cleared the Senate Finance Committee last week could have serious consequences for the company, including job losses.

"The bill that came out of the committee last week makes absolutely no sense and would be very damaging to Boston Scientific, and the medical device industry as a whole," Boston Scientific Chief Executive Ray Elliott said during a post-earnings conference call.

"In a nutshell, it would raise costs and lead to significant job losses. It does not address the quality of care but the political scorecard of savings."

Elliott said that the company's tax liability would be doubled, adding $150 million to $200 million a year, and it would be forced to make substantial cuts in research and development spending, which could result in 1,000 to 2,000 jobs being lost at Boston Scientific.

Elliott said that the company's tax liability would be doubled, adding $150 million to $200 million a year, and it would be forced to make substantial cuts in research and development spending, which could result in 1,000 to 2,000 jobs being lost at Boston Scientific...

The Senate bill in its current form contains $4 billion in annual fees on medical device makers beginning in 2010 to pay for health care reform. The device industry is fighting to remove or reduce the fees...

In addition to direct fees on device makers, the industry faces a double tax because hospitals, which have agreed to accept $155 billion in cuts in government payments over 10 years, will pass on part of that burden to device makers, said Elliott.

Clinton got his needed stents. But will you?

Medina Is a Truther?

Interesting watching the third place GOP candidate in the Texas governor's race trying to have it both ways when Glenn Beck asks her if she thinks the government was involved in 9/11.

Ok, her politician answer was that she didn’t have enough proof to take a side on whether or not the government had anything to do with causing the twin towers to fall. Really? How in the hell do you not take a side on that issue? I mean, you are running for the governor of Texas, and you still don’t know whether or not Osama Bin Laden ordered the attack on the twin towers? You don’t have all of the evidence?

This isn't even a good politician's answer. Everybody with two brain cells has enough information to recognize that 9/11 was not, in fact, an inside job. Yet Medina must be concerned about insulting her Truth base. Sadly, I have friends who are committed to Medina and this information must be embarrassing to them.

From Hot Air:

Any candidate who thinks that a nutcase conspiracy theory about the US government destroying the WTC is within the realm of reasonable speculation is a candidate that richly deserves the obscurity she will shortly enter.

Well said.

How's that Government Health Care Working for Ya, Massachusetts?

Put health costs on a diet

Not only does Massachusetts have the highest health costs in the country, but according to the report the higher-cost hospitals do not necessarily provide the best care or treat the most complicated cases. Instead, the high rates often reflect the special advantage of a hospital’s brand name, its inclusion in a large provider network, or its location in an isolated geographic area.

If patients were treated like health care consumers, knowing how much treatments cost and making decisions accordingly, costs would come down.

Shocker! Iran Now Capable of Making Weapons Grade Uranium

Congratulations, Barack Obama and Democrats. This morning, Ahmadinejad announced Iran can make weapons grade uranium.

e said it had produced its first batch of 20 per cent enriched uranium - and had the capability to enrich to far higher levels at its Natanz plant.

But not to worry. The international community is really coming down on Mahmoud for the announcement.

The international community has warned Iran against further enrichment activities, threatening new UN sanctions.

That'll stop 'em!

GOP Valentine's Day Cards

Just for fun, send a bunch to your favorite moonbats as well as your conservative buddies.

In Texas, We're Just Talking about Bad Weather

It's supposed to be rainy/snowy here for the next day or so, but we haven't seen any precip at all yet. The cold weather we've had the last few days has been playing havoc with my arthritis, unfortunately, but at least we're not facing Dana Pico weather (or Chuck Serio in Maryland weather, either). I had to steal this pic from Yorkshire:












UPDATE: Well, it did decide to snow here!



I'm not going to tell you this is anything like they are having on the East Coast; the schools here are still open, after all, and our officials will close school at the first sign of snow, usually. But it is significant for north Texas!

Obama, Leadership and the Filibuster

Nothing pisses off the Left more these days than the filibuster. Or, at least, the threat of a filibuster. As Hugh Hewitt has noted, for all the hoopla from the moonbatosphere about filibuster abuse, the Republicans mounted not one filibuster in 2009. Not one.

What Democrats are complaining about is the use of calls for cloture, which Republicans have used effectively. Now, Democrats want to make the filibuster a campaign issue. Which, of course, would be smart if Americans actually wanted the legislation that has gotten bottled up with cloture votes. They don't and, in fact, applaud the idea of Democrats losing their supermajority. Even Barack Obama is pretending he favors bipartisanship (even as his press secretary mocks a private citizen. Nice bipartisanship!). But that doesn't stop the lemmings in the Democratic Party from claiming that the filibuster is being abused and stopping them from doing the People's Business.

Wonder of wonders, we even have Ezra Klein saying Obama should be more like George W. Bush.

George W. Bush had recess appointed 10 nominees, including one to the National Labor Relations Board in August of his first year. We're in February of Obama's second, he has more than twice as many nominees held up as Bush did, and he's only threatening his first recess appointment.

Bush had this right. In his first year in office, he was using recess appointments and running major legislation through the reconciliation process. That normalized those moves for the rest of his administration. Using those tools wasn't a story. The Obama White House, by contrast, is holding those moves in reserve, which has allowed Republicans to paint them as extraordinary measures. But they're not extraordinary measures. They're basic elements of governance in an era of polarization and procedural obstructionism, and the White House should treat them that way.

Ah, what convenient memories liberals have. Yes, George W. Bush used recess appointments in his first year in office. But Democrats vehemently opposed those appointments and put blanket holds on GWB's nominees. Moreover, President Bush quit using them after Democrats retook Congress in 2006.

What Klein should be complaining about is the rampant hypocrisy of Democrats complaining about procedural foot-dragging now when they applauded it less than four years ago. If the filibuster was good and recess appointments were bad in 2004, then Democrats should accept the consequences of those positions now.

Crib Notes vs. Teleprompter

Sometimes, the moonbats get bent about the weirdest things. The latest? Sarah Palin's crib notes on her hand.

Just to be clear: The notes most likely weren't for her speech, for which she used prepared remarks, but for the Q&A session that followed, during which she glanced at the hand in question.

But in my opinion that's even worse.

There were no specifics on there, just general concepts and things she supports.

The takeaway is that this presidential contender apparently can't remember her supposed core principles and needs a cheat-sheet when simply asked about her beliefs.

Wait. She makes notes to herself to make sure she covers some essentials, and that, seemingly, makes her dumber than the president who needs a teleprompter to talk to sixth graders? Seems like stretching to me.

Andrew Sullivan is stretching to show that this makes her dumb, but Ann Althouse brings back a little sanity.

But what the hell? Make stuff up. Like the theory that she was told "the questions" in advance. And she had the answer to one question written on her hand? Of course, she had the words on her hand for some reason. I think the most obvious theory is that these were themes she could always find a way to, whatever the question. When in doubt, bring it around to your specialty, energy, go with the main theme tax cuts, or fall back on lifting America's spirits — some of that good old Morning-in-America/Hope-and-Change inspiration that people lap up so gratefully.

You know, I write stuff on my hand sometimes to remind myself of important stuff I want to make sure I don't forget. I have a hard time figuring out how the Left can embrace the president who can't memorize his speeches but come unglued because someone left five words on her hand.

Liberal Smugness

Why are liberals so condescending?

It's an odd time for liberals to feel smug. But even with Democratic fortunes on the wane, leading liberals insist that they have almost nothing to learn from conservatives. Many Democrats describe their troubles simply as a PR challenge, a combination of conservative misinformation -- as when Obama charges that critics of health-care reform are peddling fake fears of a "Bolshevik plot" -- and the country's failure to grasp great liberal accomplishments. "We were so busy just getting stuff done . . . that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are," the president told ABC's George Stephanopoulos in a recent interview. The benighted public is either uncomprehending or deliberately misinformed (by conservatives).

This condescension is part of a liberal tradition that for generations has impoverished American debates over the economy, society and the functions of government -- and threatens to do so again today, when dialogue would be more valuable than ever.

A recent comment from Perry accused me of a simplistic thought process: conservative = good, liberal = bad. But, in fact, liberals tend to be the ones who think their ideological counterparts aren't simply misinformed or misguided but downright evil. Spend some time at Pandagon, Delaware Liberal, or reading the latest rant at Daily KOS and you'll see what I mean.

When KOS commissioned a poll, rather than reading the results, the KOS kids used it to provide more sound for the echo chamber that conservatives want to impeach Barack Obama, don't think he's American and are generally racist, homophobic, narrow-minded bigots. Never mind that the only way to come up with those results was to lump every "don't know" response in with the most negative one available.

As is a liberal's wont, Matthew Yglesias uses Gerard Alexander's observation for an "everybody's doing it" response.

have a condescending attitude toward this op-ed. Of course I think my views are correct and based on fact and reason. If I thought my views weren’t correct and based on fact and reason, I would adopt different views—correct fact-and-reason based ones. Does Alexander really think that conservatives don’t think their views are correct? Does Alexander not think his own views are correct? Not based on fact? Not based on reason? I’m not sure it’s possible to be condescending enough to this op-ed.

Of course, "believing one is right" doesn't necessarily equate with condescension, but how delicious is it that Yglesias displays the very attitude about which Alexander wrote in an attempt to be oh-so-clever?

Alexander's point (also expressed in today's Charles Krauthammer column is that liberals are incredibly condescending to their political opponents...and they have absolutely no reason to do so.

Let's face it. To liberals, voters are either evil or dupes. They are evil if they "manipulate" others to vote for Republican candidates and they are dupes if they actually do the voting. It's impossible for a smart person to actually believe any of the tenets of conservatism without being a heartless bastard bent on the destruction of women, homosexuals, black people, America and, quite possibly, the Constitution, law and order and apple pie.

The big difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives might consider liberals misguided, but at least they want to do the right thing. Liberals think no such thing. Well, except when President Barack Obama thinks he needs to talk down to the American people to make them understand why taking over 1/6 of the economy is for their own good. Whether they want him to or not.

We heard a lot last year about elections having consequences. This was supposed to be an explanation for the Democrat power-grab and determination to use a recession to cram through a lot of unpleasant (and unwanted) regulations, policies and liberal goals. Bizarrely, when people reject Democrats at the polls as they have for months, we aren't hearing anything at all about elections having consequences. Instead, all we hear is that Americans are just too stupid to know what's in their best interest. Condescension, indeed.

Andrew Sullivan Apologizes for Not Commenting on John Edwards' Love Child Hypocrisy

But, you see, he was too busy pursuing the "Trig Palin is the product of aliens" story to be bothered.

Sullivan's explanation for ignoring Edwards' infidelity is pathetic.

So why did I let it go? My first reason is my leeriness of investigating people's sex lives. I had my own ransacked a decade ago and it was a brutalizing experience. The exposure of such intimate thing coarsens our discourse, violates human dignity and should, in my view, be done only if massive hypocrisy is on the table and the person is more than just a minor public figure. That's why I've long opposed outing people.

So I steered clear out of this sensitivity. I barely covered the Tiger Woods stuff for those reasons, and even came to defend Clinton in the end because of the callousness and fanaticism of Ken Starr. But there was something else at work here in the case of Edwards, I suspect.

It just seemed too awful for me to believe. I mean his wife, whom I took to be a very decent person, had terminal cancer. Although adultery is extremely common - especially among people disturbed enough to seek political office - I dismissed it too easily. I mean his wife was confronting death on a daily basis. I just couldn't believe a husband could do that to his wife then. I also felt protective toward Elizabeth, feeling that investigating this would be deeply hurtful to a woman faced with mortality. Maybe my own brushes with mortality affected me in this as well.

In all this, of course, I was wrong. It really was that bad, and if Game Change is to be believed (and I think it broadly is), it was even worse. My mistake as a journalist was in making an assumption of a baseline of decency in public officials that it is not my job to make. My job is to assume nothing and to trust nothing until verified. One doesn't have to pry; but when rumors emerge, we should not be deferent with public officials. We should ask questions.

See, Sullivan just couldn't believe a guy whose wife has cancer would actually cheat on her. Cuz that's way harder to believe than that a 40-odd year-old woman who says she is the mother of a Downs Syndrome child would actually be that baby's mother. But fear not! Sullivan' hasn't given up on proving Sarah Palin isn't Trig's mom.

o, I'm not backtracking on Palin: all I regret is not being able to expose her for real yet.

Because it's way more important to pursue the "aliens produced Trig Palin" story almost as long as Truthers protest that fire doesn't melt steel.

Tom MaGuire has one glaringly obvious explanation for Sullivan's double standard:

For myself, I am stuck on the simpler theory that Andrew wants to bash what he sees as homophobic Republicans, not seemingly sympathetic Dems.

But I think there's, at least, another explanation for Sullivan's obsession with Sarah Palin's maternity and that is misogyny. Oh, I know feminists are always claiming misogyny whenever there is opposition to something they endorse, but it's hard to argue the woman-hatred involved in Sullivan's absolute obsession with Palin while, at the same time, ignoring a sex scandal from a Democrat presidential candidate.

To this day, I can't understand why who the mother of Trig Palin is was more important than anything else going on in the 2008 presidential campaign cycle, yet Sullivan harangued about it incessantly, as though Trig's parentage had some deeper symbolism for what was "wrong with Sarah Palin. Sullivan's endless, juvenile nit-picking about Palin nearly puts Amanda Marcotte, queen of the nit-picking liberal shills, to shame.

So, while I believe Maguire is right to some extent--that Andrew Sullivan's blind spot is Democrat hypocrisy--there is most certainly more at work than simply that.

A Victim of The Economy He Isn't Responsible For

Obama store closes.

The Obama Store was capitalism at its most brilliant rawness; find a market and exploit it quickly. The store made possible one-stop shopping for all of your tacky Obama merchandise needs. T-shirts! Hats! Calendars! Hand-warmers! Keychains! It was like something out of Spaceballs (“Obama: The Flame Thrower! The kids love this one.”). The store carried every imaginable product with the words “Obama” and “Commemorative,” except, notably, the Obama Chia Pet.

Of course, the closing of the Obama Store may not be due solely to Obama’s falling popularity. Perhaps the faltering economy (which Obama has nothing to do with, he keeps telling us) played a role. Regardless, the store was ideally situated to make big profits. Not only was it in the District of Columbia, where Obama won 93 percent of the vote, but Union Station is swarmed by the most wallet-opening demographic of them all—tourists!

...or maybe people are suffering from overexposure to the Obamessiah.

Obama's Apology Tour: Who He Really Owes Apologies To

Top 10 apologies Obama should make to the world

Apology to the British people: Obama’s treatment of US’ closest ally has been little short of appalling. It started off badly when he threw a bust of Churchill out of the Oval Office. He humiliated the British PM during his visit to Washington last March, treating him like the leader of a Third World country, and sent him packing with a gift of 25 DVDs. A senior state department official put it — “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.”

Apology to allies in Eastern and Central Europe: The Obama administration’s decision to appease Moscow by pulling out of an agreement to install missile interceptors and radars in Poland and the Czech Republic was an appalling betrayal of allies who had faced up to intimidation from Russia.

Apology to Iranian dissidents: Barack Obama’s appeasement of the brutal Iranian regime in the name of ‘engagement’ has not only emboldened Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, but has also undercut the Iranians who have bravely protested against the theocracy. Obama’s refusal to take a strong stand is a disgrace, and a damning indictment of his world leadership.

Apology to the victims of communism: Obama made Berlin a central stage of his election campaign when he addressed a huge crowd of Germans in July 2008. He could not be bothered to fly to Berlin to attend the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Hillary Clinton stood in for him and delivered an speech that was more about Obama than American leadership in the Cold War. The White House decision to snub the Berlin ceremony was an insult to the memory of the tens of millions who perished at the hands of communism in Europe.

More at the link.

A Pro-Choicer Agrees With Tim Tebow

Sally Jenkins has an incredible column up about the flap over Tim Tebow's pro-life Super Bowl ad.

Jenkins is pro-choice but makes the argument that Tebow's ad is, in fact, pro-choice, because Pam Tebow had the choice to have an abortion and chose not to. As a pro-lifer, I think this is the uncomfortable stretch those who support abortion on demand have to make, but I'm even willing to accept it, provided those calling themselves pro-choice decide to support all women's choices, including the choice to have children others think they shouldn't.

Jenkins is one of them.

She also goes on to make excellent points about why NOW, Amanda Marcotte and the hysterical feminists are flat out wrong about Tebow.

Here's what we do need a lot more of: Tebows. Collegians who are selfless enough to choose not to spend summers poolside, but travel to impoverished countries to dispense medical care to children, as Tebow has every summer of his career. Athletes who believe in something other than themselves, and are willing to put their backbone where their mouth is. Celebrities who are self-possessed and self-controlled enough to use their wattage to advertise commitment over decadence.

You know what we really need more of? Famous guys who aren't embarrassed to practice sexual restraint, and to say it out loud. If we had more of those, women might have fewer abortions. See, the best way to deal with unwanted pregnancy is to not get the sperm in the egg and the egg implanted to begin with, and that is an issue for men, too -- and they should step up to that.

Emphasis mine.

Feminists hate talking about abstinence, whether it's simply telling people to keep their pants zipped till they are prepared to be parents or supporting abstinence education, which works better than comprehensive sex ed. This is because expecting people to show self-restraint is, somehow, the same as forcing women to wear burqas or chastity belts. The argument is that telling people not to act on every urge is evil or means you hate sex (quite the opposite, actually).

We need more feminists making the argument for abstinence because it creates fewer unwanted pregnancies. That means not hopping into bed with the guy you met tonight just because you're horny, but recognizing that if things go awry, you, as a woman, are the one left holding the bag, so to speak. This isn't "slut shaming," just biology.

Obama's Backdoor Taxes

Reuters has since yanked the story, but fortunately, Dump the Democrats managed to snag an extended comment from it before its trip down the memory hole.

The point is that Barack Obama, who famously promised not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250k per year, and the Democrats running Congress have loaded up on backdoor taxes on the middle class to pay for his budget-busting budget. This will largely be done by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. Our friend Dana at Common Sense Political Thought has chronicled how Obama is flatout lying when he says he won't raise taxes on middle class folk precisely because of this tax cut expiration. I fully expect Democrats to tapdance around this and argue that letting tax cuts expire isn't the same as raising taxes, but your wallet won't know the difference.

UPDATE: In support of free speech, the White House asked Reuters to pull the story.

Obama administration aides appealed to the Reuters White House reporting team to kill a story by another reporter of the news service that suggested the president's new budget blueprint included "backdoor" tax hikes.

Ahh, can you imagine the howls had George W. Bush leaned on a news outlet to quell a story?

Reading a Poll For the Results You Want

Read this post on a new Daily KOS poll of Republicans to see what I mean.

The KOS king makes a lot of grand generalizations from the results, lumping in "not sure" with "no" where convenient and not bothering to think about what "not sure" actually means (such as, "I don't know the arguments on both sides, so I'm not sure how to answer"). Hey, dumbass KOS jerk, if 42% of Republicans think Obama was born in the U.S., that means most do, not that "over half think he wasn't born in the U.S. or that it's open for debate." It also means that this is a strawman liberals use to prop up their "Republicans iz nutz" meme. Just like the question on whether Jesus Christ is the only way to go to heaven (in a political poll, yet!) explains why Republicans support a strong defense. I'm all for theological discussions, but leaping from basic tenets of Christianity to "they hate brown people" is Guiness world record size jumping.

The post and poll are worth a laugh, if nothing else. It helps liberals insulate themselves from the truth that the Democrats are tanking horribly and their policies have been rejected in virtually every political race since Obama's inauguration. They need a blankey and some thumb-sucking and this provides it for them.

Rahm Emmanuel Was Right

Liberal activists are retarded. Unfortunately, he apologized.

IT'S A WAR, NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENSE

Sorry for the caps, but I'm becoming so exasperated with the Obama administration, that caps seem perfectly appropriate for talking about their complete idiocy in handling terrorists. This Charles Krauthammer piece is excellent in its analysis.

The real scandal surrounding the failed Christmas Day airline bombing was not the fact that a terrorist got on a plane -- that can happen to any administration, as it surely did to the Bush administration -- but what happened afterward when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was captured and came under the full control of the U.S. government.

After 50 minutes of questioning him, the Obama administration chose, reflexively and mindlessly, to give the chatty terrorist the right to remain silent. Which he immediately did, undoubtedly denying us crucial information about al-Qaeda in Yemen, which had trained, armed and dispatched him.

We have since learned that the decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab had been made without the knowledge of or consultation with (1) the secretary of defense, (2) the secretary of homeland security, (3) the director of the FBI, (4) the director of the National Counterterrorism Center or (5) the director of national intelligence (DNI).

The Justice Department acted not just unilaterally but unaccountably. Obama's own DNI said that Abdulmutallab should have been interrogated by the HIG, the administration's new High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group.

Perhaps you hadn't heard the term. Well, in the very first week of his presidency, Obama abolished by executive order the Bush-Cheney interrogation procedures and pledged to study a substitute mechanism. In August, the administration announced the establishment of the HIG, housed in the FBI but overseen by the National Security Council.

Where was it during the Abdulmutallab case? Not available, admitted National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, because it had been conceived for use only abroad. Had not one person in this vast administration of highly nuanced sophisticates considered the possibility of a terror attack on American soil?

It gets worse. Blair later had to explain that the HIG was not deployed because it does not yet exist. After a year! I suppose this administration was so busy deploying scores of the country's best lawyerly minds on finding the most rapid way to release Gitmo miscreants that it could not be bothered to establish a single operational HIG team to interrogate at-large miscreants with actionable intelligence that might save American lives.

People need to remember that George W. Bush was not elected in 2000 as a war president. He had promised to be the Education President and offered a softer, more compassionate conservatism to handle domestic issues. What changed GWB was 9/11, when he realized that the jihadis were freakin' serious about killing as many Americans as possible whenever possible.

Will it take another 9/11 to change Obama's course? Unfortunately, I don't think losing 3,000 Americans would be enough to change Barack Obama from an advocate of criminalization to a president who recognizes war when he sees it. And that's what scares the frilly panties off me.