Kagan vs. Miers

I've become curious about how Harriet Miers was covered, as opposed to how Kagan is being covered.
With that in mind, here is my thumbnail research.

You might wonder what Think Progress said about Miers. Well, I did:

Harriet Miers, Bush’s next pick for the Supreme Court, is currently White House Counsel and once served as Bush’s personal lawyer. She has never been a judge.

Now what do you suppose they said about Kagan?

Another criticism conservatives are throwing at Kagan is over the fact that she has never been a judge. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said that she was "a surprising choice because she lacks judicial experience." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called her "the least qualified [nominee] in terms of judicial experience in 38 years." Of course, during the Bush administration, these same conservatives were saying that having experiences outside of the judicial monastery were a plus. "[R]ight now you have people who've been federal judges, circuit judges most of their lives, or academicians," said Cornyn in 2005. "And what you see is a lack of grounding in reality and common sense that I think would be very beneficial." Kagan would be in good company. Louis Brandeis, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, William Rehnquist, and others all served as justices without lower federal court experience. "Of the 111 justices who have served on the Supreme Court, 41 came in without judicial experience."

Hilarious. Now, not being a judge is not a big deal... and how dare Republicans bring it up when they were suggesting that nominees didn't need to be one years ago. (Neglecting to mention that Harriet Miers nomination was shot down.)

What did HuffPo say about Miers? Well, they hated her so very much, that they compared Sarah Palin to her!

As you all probably remember, in 2005, George W. Bush nominated his White House Counsel, Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court despite the fact that she had no judicial experience whatsoever and seemed completely wrong for the part in every other way but her gender.

Wow! That's pretty brutal. Oh wait. Uhmmm... Kagan has no judicial experience whatsoever too. I wonder what HuffPo says about that? Let's start with this interesting primer:

For decades, Republicans have been the party of coordinated talking points and overwhelming organization with respect to judicial nominations.

Really? Huh. Well, I'm glad that the left hadn't all talked about how Miers had no judicial experience then.
Back to HuffPo:

As Darling and others sees it, the message discipline will come with time, mainly because the attacks on Kagan -- both for lacking adequate judicial experience and, more specifically, her decision as Dean of Harvard Law to bar military recruiters from the school's campus (in protest of the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy) -- are natural and effective. Whether one group or several drive them is of secondary importance, so long as they are driven.

Okay... so according to HuffPo, the 'attacks' are 'natural and effective'.
Rather then, you know... true.
Here's another HuffPo article that sidesteps the issue as a Republican attack tactic:

It won't be all about Obama. Kagan's resume has particular areas that Republicans view as vulnerable. Her refusal to allow military recruiters on Harvard's campus (in protest of Don't Ask Don't Tell) is one. The dearth of judicial experience is another.

Uh huh. By the way, that article suggests that opposition to Kagan is just because Republicans hate Obama.


A lot of blogs have used the White House talking point about there being 40 Supreme Court justices that have had no bench experience. In case you were wondering, this list gives the complete run down. You'll note that Renquist was the last one nominated without bench experience, and that it was Nixon who did it in 1972, in the same year that he nominated another man without experience to the bench.
You won't find very many Democrats arguing that Obama is being Nixonian in his nomination.

The New York Times said this about Miers at the time:

Ms. Miers, 60, a longtime confidante of the president's, has never been a judge, and therefore lacks a long history of judicial rulings that could reveal ideological tendencies. Her positions on such ideologically charged issues as abortion and affirmative action are unclear.

Interesting. What did they say about Kagan? The Times starts her bio with all of her other credits:

In settling on Ms. Kagan, the president chose a well-regarded 50-year-old lawyer who served as a staff member in all three branches of government and was the first woman to be dean of Harvard Law School. If confirmed, she would be the youngest member and the third woman on the current court, but the first justice in nearly four decades without any prior judicial experience.

That lack of time on the bench may both help and hurt her confirmation prospects, allowing critics to question whether she is truly qualified while denying them a lengthy judicial paper trail filled with ammunition for attacks. As solicitor general, Ms. Kagan has represented the government before the Supreme Court for the past year, but her own views are to a large extent a matter of supposition.

To their credit, they at least mention that she was never a judge... but they say it might 'help' her nomination.

How to make bad news seem positive

Someone at AP practically went down on the administration in this article:

The economy got what it needed in April: A burst of hiring that added a net 290,000 jobs, the biggest monthly total in four years. It showed employers are gaining confidence as the recovery takes deeper root.

But people who had given up on finding jobs are gaining confidence, too, and are now looking for work. That's why the unemployment rate rose from 9.7 percent to 9.9 percent and will likely go higher.

Now in the world can you report that unemployment is going up to 9.9%, and make it sound like things are getting better?

You need to work for AP in order to do that.

Redacted material seems to connect Obama to Blago

Its been a few days, and this story isn't getting any traction. That bothers me, because the story would seem to connect the president to the scandal with Blagojevich.

Yes, I understand that is exactly what Blago is trying to do. But what the article suggests is that Blago is not entirely wrong... that there were efforts made by the Obama administration to deal with Blago in his effort to sell a senate seat.

I hope the media will follow up on this soon.

The GAO warning us of financial disaster

The GAO isn't exactly a radical organization. They are one of the few parts of government that I tend to trust, because their entire job is to keep an eye on the rest of government.
They recently wrote this, with my emphasis in red:

The economic recession and the federal government’s unprecedented actions intended to stabilize the financial markets and to promote economic recovery have significantly affected the federal government’s financial condition. The resulting substantial investments and increases in liabilities, net operating cost, the unified budget deficit, and debt held by the public are reported in the U.S. government’s consolidated financial statements for fiscal year 2009. Because the valuation of these assets and liabilities is based on assumptions and estimates that are inherently subject to substantial uncertainty arising from the uniqueness of certain transactions and the likelihood of future changes in general economic, regulatory, and market conditions, actual results may be materially different from the reported amounts. Further, the ultimate cost of these actions and their impact on the federal government’s financial condition will not be known for some time.
More significantly, the federal government faces long-term challenges resulting from
large and growing structural deficits that are driven primarily by rising health care costs and known demographic trends. This unsustainable path must be addressed soon by policymakers. The longer actions are delayed, the more difficult adjustments are likely to become.

Its really important that we listen to what they are saying. This is the treasury department sending up a flare. Please don't ignore it.

Why is our president such an asshole?

Real Clear Politics has a video from CNN, of Obama saying this.

"I do believe, at a certain point, you've made enough money"

What a complete jag.

More Tea Party Polls

What would happen to the earth if the NY Times suggested that Tea Party members were, you know, smart?

I'm just suggesting that maybe that volcano wasn't about to erupt on its own:

A New York Times/CBS News poll of backers of the emerging Tea Party movement shows that its supporters are more affluent and better educated than the general public.

What?
Better educated?
How'd that happen?

Tea Party members tend to be married more often, retired, and are conservative. They are more likely to vote and own guns. They prefer civil unions over gay marriage. A clear majority like Glenn Beck and GWB. They think that the economy is very bad and getting worse.

76% want congress to work on reducing the deficit.
85% do not believe that the government should require everyone to have health insurance.
88% disapprove of the job that Obama is doing.
91% disapprove of the way that he's handling the economy.
93% disapprove of how he's handling health care.

...and 92% of Tea Party members believe that we are headed towards socialism.

Read the full report. Its pretty comprehensive.

"Proud" taxpayer?

Have you ever been "proud" to pay your car payments?
How about when your mortgage comes due? Do you feel "proud" then?

Say Hello to Gail Collins, who thinks that we need to be "proud" every time we pay taxes:

Paying a lot of taxes should be a badge of honor. It proves you made it into the league of big money-makers, not to mention the fact that you’re supporting the upkeep of the Grand Canyon. If the I.R.S. had been doing its marketing properly, little kids would dream of growing up to become really big taxpayers.

Gail is clearly the type of person who claps every time after signing a check and cheers "Yay!" Her entire column is about how we don't realize how little taxes we are paying, and how if we knew how little we were paying, we'd be happy.

Gail is in that rare, bold category of denial where she should be wearing a helmet. She believes that if she doesn't see the tax, then it doesn't exist or affect her. I'm sure Gail wonders, quietly, what all of those extra charges are on her cell phone bill. Or why she has to pay extra fees on her electric bill. I'm pretty sure she doesn't grasp how many invisible taxes we all pay.

Because if she did... she would be cheering and clapping constantly.

Tea Party Activists, and race

I was at the Tea Party in Chicago.

One of the more fascinating things to me was walking around and listening to what the press was asking Tea Party members. One lady was interviewing a couple when she tried to get them to 'admit' that race was a factor in the protests. She started out by asking them if they thought that race was a factor. They shook their head 'no' and looked confused. The reporter pointed to the crowd around them, and said "look around, you don't think that there is a racial aspect at work here?"

Sidenote: I took journalism classes in college. I know the difference between finding the story and creating one. Finding the story is when you ask the right questions and get to the heart of the matter. Creating a story is when you ask leading questions to get the answer you want, that will match your storyline.
When you create a story, you'll use phrases like "Don't you think..." or "Wouldn't you agree..."
Finding a story involves open ended questions like "What do you think?", or even "Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?"

Anyway, with all of this in mind, I saw this story in Reason, and I had to link to it. Its about the Tea Party and race.

More "extremist" painting

This time, it was former president Clinton trying to do it... making allusions that compared the Tea Party movement with Tim McVeigh:

"What we learned from Oklahoma City is not that we should gag each other or that we should reduce our passion for the positions we hold - but that the words we use really do matter, because there's this vast echo chamber, and they go across space and they fall on the serious and the delirious alike. They fall on the connected and the unhinged alike," he said.

"One of the things that the conservatives have always brought to the table in America is a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility. And the more power you have and the more influence you have, the more responsibility you have."

Clinton made the remarks at events sponsored by the Center for American Progress Action Fund on the upcoming anniversary of the bombing.

He mentioned the rancorous fight over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Passage of the law elicited threats against some lawmakers.

Words have meaning.
Check.
The more influence you have, the more responsibility you have.
Check.
Of course, you were the same guy who used a 22 year old intern to cheat on his wife when he was President of the United States. I still remember how you let your entire staff call her nutty and tell us that Monica was obsessed with you. That wasn't irresponsible of you in the slightest.
But thanks for reminding us that "words have meaning", guy who the phrase "it all depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". Because when you used that phrase, it felt to me like you were trying to make sure that words didn't mean anything.

I'm sure that you no longer cheat on your wife, and that you have given your daughter the best example of what kind of a husband she should be looking for.

Look, this is simple: you don't take responsibility lectures from a guy who basically defined irresponsible behavior in the 90s.
There's a simple reason that the left is trying to paint the Tea Party movement as extremist: they are getting clobbered in the polls by the criticism that is hitting the mark.

When the LA Times headlines a story "Myth Busting Polls", and gives the following information:

The Tea Party adherents broke down 28% independent, 17% Democrat and only 57% Republican.

Then you are in trouble. That means that almost a fifth of your base is joining the tea party movement. That's huge. And its why Markos and the president are trying to discredit it.

Markos continues to be an asshat

In the running for asshat of the week, DailyKos founder and rabble rouser Markos Moulitsas. Markos was being interviewed by lord God king asshat and recent defender of everything government, Keith Olbermann, when he said this.

Just a week or two ago, Democrats said that it was Republicans who were throwing around the Hitler comparisons. But this week, there is no doubt that its Democrats who are accusing Republicans of being genocidal.

I guess that post-health-care-bill polling hit that they are taking is getting to them. The only way that democrats know how to react to being called an extremist is to say, "no, you're an extremist!"

The asshat who created "Crash The Tea Party"

I'm completely for counter protesting.

I think when its done well, its one of the finest art forms around. No one in the world has done this better then the Protest Warriors. What they did was brilliant. They would go into left-wing protests with signs that would take their dumb ideas to the logical extreme to show how dumb they were.

Here is a sampling of their signs.
The big thing about Protest Warriors that I loved was that it was always clear who they were. It was brilliant satire, and not at all subtle.

Compare that to Jason Levin.
Jason is a media teacher at Conestoga Middle School in Beaverton. Big surprise there. Jason is the guy who started crashtheteaparty.org
Now as I said, I'm big on counter protesting. But this is what he wanted to do, according to the Fox News story:

Levin has said he would seek to embarrass Tea Partiers by attending their rallies dressed as Adolf Hitler, carrying signs bearing racist, sexist and anti-gay epithets and acting as offensively as possible -- anything short of throwing punches.

Embarrass them how???

Jason, let's just see if I can follow your hypothetical Ralph Wiggum choo-choo train of thought here. You felt so strongly that the Tea Party was racist, sexist, and homophobe, that you wanted to be as offensive as possible to embarrass them...?

But... if they are racist and sexist... why would they be embarrassed?
Wouldn't they just be, you know, happy to see a racist sign? Heck, if they were racist, would you have to bring signs that were racist? Would you have to bring your own signs? Couldn't you just borrow one of theirs?
Its this type of 'logic' that drives me nuts about the left. In absence of racism, the left decided to bring racism along to... paint... the... Tea Party members... as... racist.

Uh huh.
Jason, at any time did you stop to think about what you were doing? Did it ever occur to you that if you needed to bring racist signs, then maybe you were wrong about the Tea Party members? That maybe, possibly, bringing racist signs said more about you then about them?

Congratulations, Jason. You get my asshat award for the week.

Americans prefer Hillary to Barack

You have to lean pretty far left in order to get this to happen. According to the LA Times , via CNN:

And a new CNN/Opinion Research Poll has just revealed that even today Americans like that other Democrat more and dislike that other Democrat less than they do the incumbent Democratic president.

Click here if you want to see the complete breakdown.

Florida doctor 'refuses' Obama patients

I'm writing this to make sure people get the story right.
On the door of his office, Jack Cassell, a urologist, put this sign:

If you voted for Obama, seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years.

The left has since gone nuts about this one doctor putting that sign on his door. So its important to note what the original article said about the doctor:

Cassell told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday he wasn't questioning patients or refusing care, because that would be unethical.

If you notice that a member of the left calls him names, and accuses him of violating his oath, please point that out to them.

A round up of polls on Health Care and the Tea Party

According to CBS news, most Americans are still against the health care bill:

More Americans now disapprove of the legislation, and many expect their costs to rise and the quality of their care to worsen; few expect the reforms to help them.

I guess when you shove a bill through, it makes people skeptical.

Fifty-three percent of Americans say they disapprove of the new reforms, including 39 percent who say they disapprove strongly. In the days before the bill passed the House, 37 percent said they approved and 48 percent disapproved.

I think this is great. It means that people are paying attention. Now we need to get more people to pay attention.
Most important to me about the poll:

Even though the president and Democratic leaders have repeatedly pointed out that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office called the reform package a deficit-reducer, six in 10 Americans still think the new health care reforms will increase the budget deficit. Just 13 percent think the reforms will decrease the deficit and another 15 percent expect no effect.

I believe that means that pretty much the only people who don't believe that the health care bill will add to the deficit are democrats.
Which would explain this poll by Rasmussen:

Following the passage of the health care bill, 53% now say they trust Republicans on the issue of health care. Thirty-seven percent (37%) place their trust in Democrats.

Again... that just might have something to do with the democrats pushing the bill through so hard. It might also explain why in a generic poll, Republicans have gained considerably:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 47% would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate, up from 46% last week, while 38% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent, down a point from the previous survey.

The news gets even better.
Gallup recently did a profile to find out who Tea Party members were. They found out that they were more likely to be male, and slightly less likely to be lower income. But then the real news comes out:

In several other respects, however -- their age, educational background, employment status, and race -- Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large.

Please go to the Gallup site for their breakdown. Its worth reading if you want to see who Tea Party members are. The most interesting fact for me is that while 40% of the general population has an unfavorable view of Tea Party members, 63% of liberals have an unfavorable opinion.

Finally, the one poll that puts it all in perspective. The best poll, ever, from Rasmussen:

On major issues, 48% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is closer to their views than President Barack Obama. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 44% hold the opposite view and believe the president’s views are closer to their own.

Not surprisingly, Republicans overwhelmingly feel closer to the Tea Party and most Democrats say that their views are more like Obama’s. Among voters not affiliated with either major political party, 50% say they’re closer to the Tea Party while 38% side with the President.

This isn't the way that the president thought it would be, I'm certain.

Representative Cleaver refuses to discuss "spitting" incident

You may remember Emanuel Cleaver. He's the representative who claimed that someone spit on him the day that the Democrats shoved the Health Care takeover through the house.

Well, now it appears as though Cleaver doesn't want to talk about the incident.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that they can't find videos of anyone yelling racial epithets?

Howard Dean, on redistributing wealth with health care bill

I don't know what is more frightening. When they deny it, or when they admit it.
Howard Dean admits that the health care bill is about redistributing wealth.

He's a big fucking deal among Democrats

Whenever democrats tell me that we 'narrowly' averted VP Palin, I remind them that we currently have VP Biden.

However, Democrats seem to love having incompetent gaffe-laden people on their side. So much so, that they sell t-shirts with their gaffes on them as fund raising devices.

Health Insurance companies make bad victims

I can't take credit for that statement. Its the theme of an article by Rick Neuman, in a brilliantly written article:

Overall, the profit margin for health insurance companies was a modest 3.4 percent over the past year, according to data provided by Morningstar. That ranks 87th out of 215 industries and slightly above the median of 2.2 percent. By this measure, the most profitable industry over the past year has been beverages, with a 25.9 percent profit margin. Right behind that were healthcare real-estate trusts (firms that are basically the landlords for hospitals and healthcare facilities) and application-software (think Windows). The worst performer was copper, with a profit margin of minus 56.6 percent.

What I love about it is that Rick lets the air out of the whole idea that heatlh insurance companies are robbing us blind compared to other companies.
Unfortunately, this article (written in August of 2009) did not fall neatly into the narrative, so it was blithely ignored by the administration and the democrats following it.

Honest, I love D & D, which is why I posted this

I'm a huge fan of the game Dungeons and Dragons. I lived it from pretty much 15 years of my life.
I also like porn. Really, no kidding.

Anyway, despite that, I still think that this is a bad idea. Getting porn stars to play D&D.

Forget for a second that D&D is only entertaining for those who are playing it. Watching it, is like watching golf on television. Its dull and pointless.

What this idea is missing is the reason why we watch porn stars.
-And it isn't because we think that they are fascinating people.
Having said that, I'd still love to meet Sasha some day.

Paul Krugman makes fun of death panels, then explains why they are needed

I'm sure that if you hear the extended interview, this would make a lot more sense.
Right?

Obama extends Patriot Act/ wiretapping

Its almost comical. From the LA Times:

Three sections of the Patriot Act that stay in force will:

* Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.

* Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.

* Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

This is bipartisanship, right? When he accepts the things that Democrats hated... up until he got into office?

Wouldn't it be weird if Obama broke another promise?

Like if he decided to drill for oil?

No. That wouldn't happen. He wouldn't do something like that.

Oh brother:

On Wednesday morning at Joint Base Andrews Naval Air Facility in Washington, DC, President Obama will announce that his administration will allow the lease sale to go forward for oil and gas exploration 50 miles off of the Virginia coast -- the first new sales of offshore oil and gas in the Atlantic in more than two decades.

Scott Brown: "The Healthcare Fight Is Not Over"

Scott Brown tries to remind the Democrats, gently, how he got elected:

Everywhere I go, people ask me what can be done about this now — after the president has signed it into law, and Nancy Pelosi and others are taking their victory laps.

I don't think he's lying about that. I know that there are a bunch of Republicans in my life who are trying to figure out ways to dodge this craptastic bill. Its what happens when people who hate business try to take over businesses.

Heritage: 10 disasters of Obamacare

This is what the Heritage Foundation is great at... math.
One example:

2. Bending the Cost Curve in the Wrong Direction.
The provisions of the legislation aimed at reducing health care spending are reactionary, addressing the symptoms rather than the root causes of growth in spending.[3] Instead of reducing spending in health care, the bill will increase overall health spending in the U.S. by $222 billion between now and 2019.[4]

Read the full thing. Its full of some common sense.

2/3rd of the US thinks that the health care takeover is too costly

From USA Today:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the health care overhaul signed into law last week costs too much and expands the government's role in health care too far, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, underscoring an uphill selling job ahead for President Obama and congressional Democrats.

Apparently, math scores in the US are better then what I thought.

Obama decides to be more confrontational

Because, apparently, he thinks that he hasn't been confrontational enough.
According to the Wall Street Journal:

President Barack Obama, after a year of fitfully searching for compromise, is taking a more aggressive tack with his Republican adversaries, hoping to energize Democratic voters and possibly muscle in some Republican support in Congress.

He tried searching for compromise.
Does anyone remember any point where Obama suggested a middle point that he could meet the Republicans on? Just saying that you want to compromise isn't the same as compromising.

Will health care costs go up?

USA Today asks this question:

The White House has long argued that pilot projects and demonstration programs stuffed into the legislation will produce far more in long-term savings than anyone can promise today. The Congressional Budget Office can't prove much of those savings will materialize, so it doesn't count them in its balance sheets.

Talking Points Memo on Democratic Talking Points

TPM is one of those groups who thinks that the only reason why Obamacare has a bad rap is because they aren't pushing the message right.
They say:

Last summer, members were caught unprepared and were faced with angry voters, loud protests and televised meetings that portrayed them in many cases as fumbling and unsure of how to talk about a bill that didn't actually exist yet.

Its kind of a blunt assessment from a blog that before blamed the chaos on Tea Party members yelling. Now they admit that congress critters didn't know what they were saying.

The Democrats actually put out a whole set of Talking Points for their lemmings... er.. congresspeople, to mimic. If you want to ask them a question, be prepared to hear a pre-recorded message.

A sample of what is on the web page:

CBO Score:

• Four Key Points You Need To Know About the CBO Score
• Full CBO Score

Never let it be said that I won't publish the same crap the Democrats are pushing.
Let's take one talking point, from 'four key points':

Is fully paid for – costs $940 billion over a decade. (Americans spend nearly $2.5 trillion each year on health care now and nearly two-thirds of the bill is paid for by reducing health care costs).

It is not fully paid for. The only way it could possibly be paid for is if they reduce medicare by $500 billion over ten years. Who believes that they would do that? They also pay for it by taxing anyone who doesn't get health care insurance.

Frank Rich: World Class Asshat

There are a lot of clueless journalists out there. A lot of columnists who never get out of their home offices enough to talk to real people and find out what real people think.

But when those particular asshats work for the New York Times, they seem to take on a whole new dimension of asshattedness.

Frank Rich believes that the opposition that the president and congress has run into over the past week has nothing to do with health care. Frank wrote:

How curious that a mob fond of likening President Obama to Hitler knows so little about history that it doesn’t recognize its own small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht. The weapon of choice for vigilante violence at Congressional offices has been a brick hurled through a window. So far.

Let's put aside the fact that Tea Party members do not liken Obama to Hitler. As most of us know, there were LaRouche protesters who showed up at Tea Party rallies with [insert current president here] being compared to Hitler. They used to do it with Bush. Now they do it with Obama. Let's also forget for a moment that it was the left who came up with the term BushHitler.

The question is: how fucking offensive can you get in comparing 4 broken windows across a country of 300 million with the destruction of 7500 Jewish businesses, during a period where 200 synagogues were damaged or destroyed? The only thing missing from Frank Rich's comparison, outside of it being approximately 7496 windows short, is the fact that the Jewish people were being attacked for being Jewish. Whereas the democrats were apparently targeted for voting for a bill that was unpopular with the majority of the country.

Rich moves on:

No less curious is how disproportionate this red-hot anger is to its proximate cause

This just shows how clueless Rich is, that we 'shouldn't' be angry that our health care is being taken over by the government which should result in higher premiums and health care of a lower quality. Not to mention the loss of liberty: for the first time in the history of the US, the US government is requiring us to buy a private product.
If losing my liberty isn't a good reason to be upset... what is?

Now let me make this clear, in case anyone is a little fuzzy on this. I believe in non-violent protest. There is no place for vandalism. But freaking out over the 4 broken windows in the entire US and making it sound like all hell is breaking loose is obscene.
Frank didn't stop there:

If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play.

Frank is old. I'm not saying that to make light of his age. I'm saying that to point out that he's old enough to remember Bill Clinton pushing his health care bill. Back then, people like Frank Rich blamed opposition to the bill on Hillary Clinton's involvement. Not much has changed since then. They are still blaming opposition on everything except the bill itself.

Its like he literally can't figure out why anyone would be opposed to it. His brain can't handle the idea of people taking care of their own health insurance. He doesn't know why anyone would be opposed to more government intervention in our lives.
That's how much of a democrat he is. Its what makes him almost dangerously dumb.
And for the record, when I say that he's dangerously dumb, it doesn't mean that I want to shoot him or slash his tires.
I do, however, hope that the New York Times continues its slow and eventual decline into bankruptcy.

The Tea Party in Searchlight, Nevada

Eric Odom took some video going down the road that leads to the event.
Watch it and tell me that the Tea Party does not still have momentum.

Catching up with some links.

Investor's .com came up with a list of 20 ways that the health care bill will take away our freedom. My 'favorite';

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
You're a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You're a woman who can't have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You're a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former CBO director, explains the faulty math in the CBO's 'costs' of health care in the NY Times:

Gimmick No. 1 is the way the bill front-loads revenues and backloads spending. That is, the taxes and fees it calls for are set to begin immediately, but its new subsidies would be deferred so that the first 10 years of revenue would be used to pay for only 6 years of spending.

Even worse, some costs are left out entirely. To operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending. But this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the Congressional Budget Office’s tabulation.

The worst part about it is that in Douglas' opinion, the CBO should have been more critical of the spending.

Speaking of spending, Social Security finally hit the point of no return... where outlays are more then revenue. We are now also running a Social Security deficit:

This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

But we need to spend more on social programs. Right.

Did you know that as part of the health care bill takeover, from now on, the federal government will be in charge of student loans? That should bring down the cost of tuition...

Ending one of the fiercest lobbying fights in Washington, Congress voted Thursday to force commercial banks out of the federal student loan market, cutting off billions of dollars in profits in a sweeping restructuring of financial-aid programs and redirecting most of the money to new education initiatives.

This is like taking the car keys away from the guy who is stumbling drunk and giving them to the guy who is passed out, and telling him, "Here... you look responsible!"

A week after the health care takeover was passed, Rasmussen did a poll. They found out the following:

One week after the House of Representatives passed the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats, 54% of the nation's likely voters still favor repealing the new law. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 42% oppose repeal.

The only people who didn't see that coming were hard core democrats.

Organizing For America aims at propaganda move

As soon as I heard about Organizing For America, it reminded me of the old soviet groups that were formed to make sure that everyone in the communist party was on the same page. We can't have people, you know, thinking too much on their own. You need just the right amount of government pez-disepensed propaganda out there.

Politico writes about their latest effort. This one is to flood talk radio with OFA members:

The online tool presents users with a radio show discussing political topics, to which supporters can listen live, and the phone number for that station, for when health care comes up. It also offers tips for callers and talking points on the issue.

On the plus side, it doesn't implant a chip directly into their brain. It just, uh, tells them, uh, what to say, and how to say it right.
Uh huh.

More lies spread by the left on health care reform

Someone told me the other day that tort reform was in the health care bill, which literally made me say "What the fuck?", since I hadn't heard a damn thing about it.

So I researched it.
And guess what... it never happened.
From Politifact:

So, Democrats have not included medical malpractice limits in either the House or Senate version of the bills. Instead, the administration has said it will give some states $3 million grants to test new approaches for limiting lawsuits.

Where is the left getting their info from? Its like these factoids just spontaneously show up, and they repeat them verbatim.

CNN: Majority find government a great threat to liberty

The other day, a very liberal friend of mine was suggesting that I was paranoid for not trusting my government. (I wanted to point out to him that a couple of years ago, he was the one who didn't trust his government... but nevermind.)
CNN just did a poll, and found out the following:

Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government's become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.

Are you paranoid if the majority of Americans agree with you? Or are we all just tightly wound?

Barack calling the use of the 51 majority in the senate Unconstitutional

Way back... I dunno... a few years ago... Obama felt that using a simple majority in the Senate to get something passed was unconstitutional.


I guess its not really hypocritical that he changed his mind since then... since Democrats always feel differently when they are in the majority.

The Health Care Summit Was A Stunt

This time, its not me saying so:

Murakami added that the summit is a "big PR stunt" where "nothing is going to be decided."

No kidding Murakami.

How unpoplar is the health care bill?

Ask CNN:

Twenty-five percent of people questioned in the poll say Congress should pass legislation similar to the bills passed by both chambers, with 48 percent saying lawmakers should work on an entirely new bill and a quarter saying Congress should stop all work on health care reform.
CNN then goes on to point out that 'portions' of the bill are 'very popular'.

Its pretty simple.
I like cheese.
I love chocolate.
I do not want cheese on my chocolate.

Similarly, the public likes some of the basic thoughts of the health care bill. But they really don't like what it all means as a package.

The video of Obama talking about ACORN

All credit to the Gateway Pundit for finding this video of Obama talking about ACORN.
Watch the full thing.

Is Roger Ebert Stealing from Thomas Friedman?

When I read this article by Thomas Friedman, it seemed pretty bizarre.
He starts out by talking about how the government was charging for 911 phone calls, drags the Greatest Generation into his argument, and talks about how maybe Obama can't get health care passed because Republicans don't understand how he's trying to rebuild. He has the audacity to blame the current deficit on Republicans and suggests that the health care bill will REDUCE the deficit. He ends the commentary by suggesting that if "Obama fails" to pass his agenda, we all fail.

I thought it was a rambling and bizarre train of thought.

Then I read Eberts column a week later. At first, I zipped past him referencing Friendman, because he did it in one small aside. But his column is almost a repeat of exactly what Friedman said.
I wonder if Ebert even knew he was doing it.

Quotes and full quotes

There's nothing that annoys me more then when something is pulled out of context to make it sound more inflammatory then what it already is. Particularly when someone says something controversial in the first place.
Here's an example.

You probably found this quote somewhere recently:

"And I believe 2010 is it. All right? And we can do it with our vote. And we can get new faces in, whether it's my face or not, I pray to God that I see new faces. And if we don't see new faces, I'm cleaning my guns and getting ready for the big show. And I'm serious about that, and I bet you are, too."

Sounds pretty nasty, right?

Someone linked me to that quote. Then I read the full thing:

"That's the beauty of this, folks. We can do it before it gets to guns," said Behney, in praise of the electoral process. "All right, our founders brought out the guns. When they showed up at Lexington and Concord, regular folks, farm boys, doctors, merchant men, and they said you ain't taking our stuff. They stood up to the most powerful army in the world, and they bought our freedom, literally with their blood. And we don't have to do that yet.

"I believe personally, we're at a crossroads. We have one last opportunity. And I believe 2010 is it. All right? And we can do it with our vote. And we can get new faces in, whether it's my face or not, I pray to God that I see new faces. And if we don't see new faces, I'm cleaning my guns and getting ready for the big show. And I'm serious about that, and I bet you are, too. But I know none of us want to go that far yet, and we can do it with our vote."

It reads a little differently that way, doesn't it? I mean, his whole focus is on the vote.

Look, I understand that its still a little inflammatory. But given that, why wasn't it quoted in full? Well, I think that the answer is obvious. The left has no interest in portraying Tea Party members accurately. Not when they've already drawn their cartoons.

"That's the beauty of this, folks. We can do it before it gets to guns," said Behney, in praise of the electoral process. "All right, our founders brought out the guns. When they showed up at Lexington and Concord, regular folks, farm boys, doctors, merchant men, and they said you ain't taking our stuff. They stood up to the most powerful army in the world, and they bought our freedom, literally with their blood. And we don't have to do that yet.

"I believe personally, we're at a crossroads. We have one last opportunity. And I believe 2010 is it. All right? And we can do it with our vote. And we can get new faces in, whether it's my face or not, I pray to God that I see new faces. And if we don't see new faces, I'm cleaning my guns and getting ready for the big show. And I'm serious about that, and I bet you are, too. But I know none of us want to go that far yet, and we can do it with our vote."

Remember how the "Republicans have no plan"? Well, the WH is linking to those non-existent plans now.

If you go to the White House, you'll find a link to both the Senate and House Republican plans.

Wait: I thought that they didn't have one?
Huh. I guess that they not only do, but the Republicans had plans going back months into May and June.
Weird how that happened to get ignored by the press, eh? Weirder still that the White House is linking to it today.

Americans Reject Keynesian Economics - Rasmussen Reports™

I took economics in college. I love my economics instructor, because he was not a capitalist by nature. However, he understood the capitalist system, and clearly illustrated the fundamentals of math behind economics.

With that in mind, I'm glad to see that the American public is becoming educated in Keynesian Economics, and even rejecting:
Americans Reject Keynesian Economics

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.

Thank you. Thank you for 'getting it'.

Gibbs is getting less laughs then usual

Politico did some unusual analysis of the press briefings of Robert Gibbs. This is what they found out:

But the laughter has been reduced by half in recent months: In the first six months of the Obama administration, briefings produced an average of 179 laughs per month. Over the past six months, the average has dropped down to 89.

The point of all of this?
That the press may be getting tired of the same old excuses and 'aw shucks' 'did we do that?' attitude of the White House.

Congressional Job Approval is now at 18%

Gallup just recently gave congress a historic negative approval rating.
According to this poll:

Congress' job approval rating from Americans fell six points in the past month, from 24% to 18% -- the lowest reading in more than a year. Nearly 8 in 10 (78%) now disapprove.

Go congress!

AP Considers Tea Party

According to the AP article:

No doubt this is democracy at work, a quintessential part of America.

Whew!
Finally... someone gets it!
Thanks AP.

Phil Jones, the Scientist caught in e-mail scandal

I want to feel sorry for the guy.
Its true what he says. He wasn't ready for the criticism that he recieved when it was revealed that he was one of the scientists at the center of a global warming scandal. It must have been hard to have all of those people criticize him just because they felt that he...
... wait a minute.

What exactly was Jones accused of doing again?

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

So Jones tries to discredit other scientists, and he thinks its part of his job.

When someone tries to discredit Jones, they are... they are what?

In my opinion, they are trying to reveal the truth?

Rahm tells democrats that he's sorry

How is it that Obama knows so many bigoted people.

Remember Wright, the racist mayor?
Or Reid, who 'complimented' Obama on his lack of a negro dialect?
Or his VP Biden, who said that he was a "clean, articulate black man"?

How about Rahm Emmanuel?
He said that Democrats were retarded. Retarded. Neat.
Well, at least he apologized for it. Not to Democrats. To the people who have mental conditions that are not politically related. According to Poitico:

The Special Olympics is disputing the White House claim that its chairman, Tim Shriver, accepted Rahm Emanuel's apology for calling liberals "retarded."

Yowsa.

Canadian premier to get healthy in US

This is for anyone who thinks that Canada is the model to follow in health care.
Honest?

From a reporter, in the article:

Then there is the fact that Williams is worth close to a quarter of a billion dollars, and can afford to buy the best care in the world.

The reaction here is very mixed. Many people said it shows a lack of confidence in the health care system. But that was before the explanation that the procedure can't be done here. An equal number say it is Williams' own business, and how he manages his health is none of our business. Many say if they had the cash, they would do the same thing.

Of course they would.

Look, I've been holding back, but I'm going to go full bore now. We're the fucking US of A. When Haiti fell to an earthquake, what was the big news? What made the Haitian people rejoice?
When they found out that doctors from the US were coming.
It makes sense. I mean, cool... so all of these other countries sent their doctors. But what made the Haitians feel as though they were about to receive the best health care in the world? Was it when the German doctors arrived? The French?
Of course not. You heard it as well as I did. They were actually chanting USA in some parts.

Just like the premier of Canada. I'm positive he loves everything about his country. Its a beautiful place. But does he want to get health care there? No fucking way. He wants the best. So where did he go?

I know... its jingoism, right? When you believe that you are the best?
But I have to say, that if everyone was coming to my particular store when they had the choice of every store on the block... then maybe my store is doing something correct. Wouldn't you say?

Joe Klein, the president, and racism

This is why Joe Klein is an asshat.

1) Joe Klein uses the term 'teabaggers' to describe Tea Party members
2) Joe argues that the stimulus package was needed to stave off an economic collapse. Are we there yet?
3) Joe argues that it isn't Obama's policies that we hate, but that, In that sense,

Barack Obama is the apotheosis of all they fear. He is a child of what used to be called miscegenation--a mixed marriage.

Apparently, I'd be cool with the stimulus plan of $787 Billion if Obama were white. Go figure, I never realized that.
Moreover, I hate anyone who comes from a mixed marriage. Its 'what I fear', rather then a deficit that is ballooning up so quickly that everyone is looking for the boy who is reportedly hiding in it.

Joe Klein, you get my asshat award for 2009 for that column. And trust me, we had a lot of them in 2009.

Lobbyists & the WH

God, I love this article.
Kudos to the Hill for reporting this the day after the president repeated his promise about keeping lobbyists out:

The Hill on Thursday morning reported that lobbyists, as well as other stakeholders, were invited by the White House for policy discussions on a range of issues with senior administration officials.

Who is Ellie Light?

I'm still curious as to who she is.

The rewriting of history: DOMA and DADT

I need to start by saying that I didn't know what the initials DADT stood for. But I ended up in an online discussion about the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) when someone started to mention DADT; Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

You may have heard Bill Clinton say, recently, that he "didn't want" to pass don't ask, don't tell... but that he was forced to. He implied heavily that it was conservatives who made him do it. So lets start there.

Don't ask don't tell was passed into law in 1993. Since then, Obama has repeatedly said that he was going to repeal it. Let's go back in time.

1993 was the 102nd/103rd, congress in the house of representatives.
The 102nd congress was made up of 267 democrats and 167 republicans.
The 103rd congress was made up of 258 democrats and 176 republicans.
It would have been statistically impossible for Republicans to not only get a bill passed on their own, but steamroll it through.
The process started in the house, as the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy was put into a congressional defense spending bill.

In the Senate, 22 members voted "No" on Don't ask, Don't tell. 18 of those members were Republicans. 4 senators who voted "No" were Democrats.

Here's the vote in the House for DOMA:
As expected, all but one Republican voted Yes.
Not expected? 118 Democrats voted yes, while only 65 voted no.

The next time someone tells you that Republicans made it impossible for the Democrats to oppose DOMA or DADT, please send them those links.

Brown is the new Red White & Blue

I didn't cry when Brown was elected, but I did get very very emotional.

Its funny, because I realize that my emotions were a mirror of what the left felt when Obama was elected. For a long time, the left felt as if no one was listening to them. They thought that the right was able to do 'whatever they wanted', unfettered, and that they had no voice.

Which is pretty much how the right has felt about the democrats in charge for the past year.

If you had told me 5 years ago that some day a democrat politician would get into office and

• spend $787 Billion for a 'stimulus' bill
• take control of some banks and part of the auto industry
• actually pay consumers if they destroyed their old gas-hogging cars to buy new 'green' cars
• attempt to take over the health care insurance industry which was making 4% profits, and call them greedy

I'd call you a victim of right wing paranoid conspiracy theories.
Yet, here we are.

So I realize that here I am, the mirror image of where the left was a year ago. Except, I don't get to say that my election was historic because a black man was not elected into office. It was just another 'old white guy'. But considering how much the left has been pushing the takeover of health care, and how most of the country opposes it... I can't help but feel relieved. It was a loud message to Democrats. Here's hoping that they actually hear that message, instead of trying to re-define it into something that they want it to be.

That hissing sound is the deflating of Air America

Usually, the hissing sound from Air America is its radio personalities. Not tonight.

Tonight, that sound is the air going out of Air America.
Now to be fair, the economy has sucked despite that stimulus plan last year.

Huh. Who does Air America blame for that?

The very difficult economic environment has had a significant impact on Air America's business. This past year has seen a "perfect storm" in the media industry generally. National and local advertising revenues have fallen drastically, causing many media companies nationwide to fold or seek bankruptcy protection. From large to small, recent bankruptcies like Citadel Broadcasting and closures like that of the industry's long-time trade publication Radio and Records have signaled that these are very difficult and rapidly changing times.

But... I thought it was great when corporations fail?
Wasn't that pretty much Air America's theme song?

Anyway... the company that spawned Rachel Maddow, and sent her to another failing broadcast company, has finally gone under. Let's hope that Rachel can continue her magic where she currently resides.

Krugman's nose unexpectedly visits Los Angelos

I presume that's what happens when you live in New York, and you say a lie so gigantic that your nose grows across the Continental Divide?
From his column (my emphasis added)

The stimulus was too small; policy toward the banks wasn’t tough enough; and Mr. Obama didn’t do what Ronald Reagan, who also faced a poor economy early in his administration, did — namely, shelter himself from criticism with a narrative that placed the blame on previous administrations.

I read it over and over, thinking that I had misread it. Or that maybe Krugman was being sly and ironic. But he wasn't . He actually believes it.
He didn't even stop there.
Not content with arguing that Obama should have placed some of the blame on the Bush administration for his failures....

Mr. Obama could have done the same — with, I’d argue, considerably more justice. He could have pointed out, repeatedly, that the continuing troubles of America’s economy are the result of a financial crisis that developed under the Bush administration, and was at least in part the result of the Bush administration’s refusal to regulate the banks.

But he didn’t. Maybe he still dreams of bridging the partisan divide; maybe he fears the ire of pundits who consider blaming your predecessor for current problems uncouth — if you’re a Democrat. (It’s O.K. if you’re a Republican.) Whatever the reason, Mr. Obama has allowed the public to forget, with remarkable speed, that the economy’s troubles didn’t start on his watch.

Wow.
Any cursory look into any of Obama's speeches, and you find that he does actually place blame on the previous administration.

Here's from the first page of a Google search:

From February 22nd, 2009, Politico:

Obama blames financial woes on Bush

From March 14th, Washington Post:

Obama's New Tack: Blaming Bush
President Points to 'Inherited' Economy

Apparently, The Washington Post thought it was a new strategy then.
From July, 29th, 2009, AP:

Obama blames Bush, Wall Street
Says economic woes caused by bad decisions

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama yesterday blamed "irresponsible decisions" by the Bush administration and Wall Street for the country's economic woes as government officials said the budget deficit would soar to record heights next year.

Hmmm. Sounds like he's blaming Bush to me?
Let's keep going.


Maybe Krugman meant that he hadn't heard anything recently from Obama blaming Bush?
From AP, January 9th, 2010:

He says "the buck stops with me," but nearly a year into office, President Barack Obama is still blaming a lot of the nation's troubles — the economy, terrorism, health care — on George W. Bush.

The list goes on. You can do your own search. But you get the idea. To say that Obama hasn't blamed Bush for the economy is a complete fallacy. Its a fantasy. A denial of reality.
There are many things that Krugman has said that has led me to believe that he is not dealing with reality. That his sole job on earth is to protect democrats from criticism.

But this tops them all.

The walking disaster known as Coakley

How did someone in her campaign ad misspell Massachusetts?

Martha Coakley's first attack ad in the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat had an embarrassing mistake in it.

Massachusetts was misspelled at the end.

I understand that its a hard state to spell... but if you're running for senator in the state... shouldn't the people in your campaign spell it right?

Those Republicans who invoke Jesus

I get into arguments with other people online.
I know. Unbelievable. Right?

Anyway, one of those people talked about how 'nutty' Palin was for believing in that old religion called Christianity. Having watched television, I know that Palin isn't the only person bragging about her Christianity. The current POTUS happened to have mentioned his religion a little bit.

So I did some research... and sure enough, POTUS is a Jesus Freak. Even more then Bush. From Politico:

As president, Barack Obama has mentioned Jesus Christ in a number of high-profile public speeches — something his predecessor George W. Bush rarely did in such settings, even though Bush’s Christian faith was at the core of his political identity.

A sweetheart deal for the unions

If you want to pass a wide-ranging bill that will take over health care, its only expected that you'd give away billions of perks. Right?

So who should be surprised at the lastest slap in the face that Obama's team has committed to the American public?

You know how they decided that really wealthy people would pay extra taxes if they had really nice health care plans? Well, it just so happens that union-paying people were in that category. And we couldn't have Obama taxing his own people, now could we?
So naturally, a deal was cut, and people who were in unions were exempted from the plan.

Is there any doubt anymore that this was a bad bill?
That it was merely a way to put more money and power in the hands of the weasels in Washington?

Remember when Trig wasn't Sarah Palin's baby?

I find it really, really hard to take Sarah Palin critics seriously.
These were the same people who said that Sarah Palin couldn't have had Trig, because she didn't look pregnant enough.

So as long as we're going back in time, I want to remind people about the idiocy that existed on the left before Sarah Palin had even addressed the Republican Convention.

This guy is one of the many who fell for the conspiracy theory that Trig couldn't be Sarah's baby. Here is a sample of the logic that was being scratched:
In addition to the facts mentioned above, I want to point out how unlikely it is for a 43-year-old woman to accidentally get pregnant.
Neat.

Then there was the time when a photo of Sarah Palin in a bikini, carrying a rifle, was so much fun that the entertainment reporter for CNN decided it was true.

The thing is that the left has a hard-on for Sarah, and not the friendly kind.
Remember how the AP assigned eleven reporters to "Fact Check" her book? Do you remember what they actually came up with?

Anyway, my point is pretty simple. When you read something about Sarah Palin, double check the facts. Chances are, its not true.

Who said "Teabaggers" first?

Every once in a while I get into an argument with someone who tells me, with a straight face, that it was the Tea Party Protestors who came up with the term "Teabaggers"... and that its not their fault that they call Tea Party protestors Teabaggers.

Most recently, I got into this argument with an earnest member of the left who insisted it was because of protestors who, on April 15th, wore Teabags on their hat.
Forgetting for a moment that putting teabags on your hat is not the same as being asked to be called a Teabagger, I did my research.

Predictably, it turns out that a member of the left who started using the term.

Rachel Maddow went on the air April 9th (6 days before the protest), and in giddy glee, she played a few tapes in a row of guys holding up tea bags who said that we should tea bag the White House.
This, of course, sent Rachel into schoolgirl convulsions. More over, it gave her the presumed license to use the term "Teabaggers" as much as humanly possible.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

So let's get this clear: the first person to use the term was Rachel Maddow.
Which couldn't be more ironic,
If you have a differing opinion, or believe me to be in error, please post to me and I'll make the correction or add your counter argument to the mix.

Transcript of Palin on Fox

Raw Story is becoming such a propaganda website that they are giving Media Matters a run for their money. So let's start with what Raw Story said about Palin's first commentator spot on Fox.

In first appearance as Fox News ‘analyst’, Palin dodges O’Reilly’s questions

I'd just watched her appearance online, so I wondered what Raw Story meant. As usual, they start by picking out parts of the conversation to give one appearance of what she said, and then stop right before they ruin their premise.
In this case, they wanted to say that Palin was dodging questions. So they quote Politico:

Interviewed by Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly on his show “The O’Reilly Factor,” Palin trashed many of the critical accounts of her candidacy in the new book “Game Change.” But one story from the book that Palin did not say was “made up” or “a lie” was the description of her uncertainty as to whether Iraq had a hand in the planning of the September 11 attacks.

“I did talk a lot to [campaign strategist] Steve Schmidt about the history of the war and where the attackers could have come from,” Palin said of her debate prep during the fall of 2008 – more than five years after the start of the war in Iraq and seven years after the terrorist attacks that hit New York and Washington.

“I do admit to asking questions about that,” she said.

Of course, they could have just quoted the actual Fox News website. That would have been easy enough. But then they couldn't say, in their headline, that she had dodged questions.

This is from that transcript:

O'REILLY: That's pretty nasty, isn't it?

PALIN: Well, it's pretty made up, too. I — I think that these reporters — who were not in any part of what I was doing there as a VP candidate, I think I explained a lot of this in "Going Rogue," in my book.

O'REILLY: Is he...

PALIN: I was there...

O'REILLY: Is he lying?

PALIN: They were not there.

O'REILLY: Is this guy lying? He says you don't know the difference between North and South Korea.

PALIN: Yes, that surprised me. I hadn't seen the "60 Minutes" and I — I had been warned, you know, don't — don't watch. It's a bunch of BS from Schmidt (INAUDIBLE) and those guys...

O'REILLY: Is that a lie though?

PALIN: Yes, that is a lie.

O'REILLY: OK.

PALIN: That is a lie.

Go to Raw Story and see what they say. Then go to the transcript, and see if its accurate.
Raw Story is quickly becoming one of the least accurate websites that people send me to. When someone heads me in that direction, the first thing that I do is check the original material to see how they misrepresent it.

This time its no different.

$135,294 Per Job

Some facts need little introduction.
For instance... let's say that you found out that a politician had a 'jobs' program that cost more then, I dunno... $50,000 per job. Would that be too much?
Okay, how about $70,000 per job? Too much?
Wait... what if it cost $100,000 per job?

Still not enough?

Obama's Green Jobs Program: $135,294 Per Job

You're wasting a ton of cash once you get up to an amount that high. Heck, you start getting into the category of what the left considers wealthy when you get to that amount.
Anyway... further proof that the government knows how to waste money faster then any other entity.

-John

Who's more racist? Biden Or Reid?

Okay everyone, its time to play my favorite game of "Who's more racist?"

Would it be Harry Reid:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada described in private then-Sen. Barack Obama as "light skinned" and "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." Obama is the nation's first African-American president.

Or Joe Biden:

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

I'm going with answer #3. They can't be racist... because they aren't Republicans!
If they were Republican, they should have left office. But since they aren't, they get the buddy pass.

Obama's 8 time lie, promising to show health care debates on CSPAN

If I could, I'd have every American watch this video, and then tell me what they think of Obama now.

A deficit projection from March 2009

I just wanted to remind everyone about this chart provided by the Washington Post:
The next time that someone tells you that GWB blew up the deficit, take a look at what happened up until 2007... the year that a democrat congress took over.

Noonan: The Risk of Catastrophic Victory

I don't read Peggy Noonan very often. but this is a great editorial about how tone deaf the Obama administration has been:

At the exact moment the public was announcing it worried about jobs first and debt and deficits second, the administration decided to devote its first year to health care, which no one was talking about.

When your government pays someone to tell you how great government health care would be

Would it surprise you to find out that one of the 'expert' economists that the government bought forward to push their health care takeover was actually under contract with the government?
No?
According to FoxNews:

Gruber, according to federal government documents, is under a $297,600 contract until next month to provide "technical assistance" in evaluating health care reform proposals.

Who would have figured that the government would have paid for someone to tell us about how great the government would be at taking over our health care? Huh.

All props to CSPAN

You have to give them credit.
The president promised to make the health care debates open, and of course they are not.

So CSPAN called them out on it.
You can read the complete PDF file here.

It took balls. They could have just stayed quiet, and pretended like no one had said anything. But they held him accountable.
Good for them.

Breitbart.tv » Top Obama Aide Blasts Fox News While Ducking MSNBC Question

The headline kinda speaks for itself.

Breitbart.tv » Top Obama Aide Blasts Fox News While Ducking MSNBC Question

Cash for Clunkers: $24,000 per vehicle

There was a study done on Edmunds.com on the Cash For Clunkers program. According to CNN, what they found is that a lot of the people who bought into the program were going to buy cars anyway.
By figuring out what it cost for people who were not going to buy a car, but were probably swayed by the program, Edmunds figured out the actual cost of every new car bought (that wouldn't have been) at about $24,000.

CBO: Public plan premiums will be more expensive then the 'health exchange' premiums by private insurers

Thanks again to the Politico for reporting this:

The public insurance option would typically charge higher premiums than private plans available in the exchange, according to the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House bill.

Again, completely predictable. The government plans to take over the insurance... and it costs more.

What are health insurance profits?

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you AP for actually fact checking this:

Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Who woulda thought?
Oh yeah... Republicans, who have been pointing this out for a month now.

My president, the asshat

Explaining that unlike Democrats, Republicans do what they are told to do...


Mr. President: no one had to tell me to call you an asshat.
I figured that out on my own.

Barney Frank admits trying to increase the role of government in everything

This video, from Real Clear Politics, needs to be seen to be believed.

What if Bush had done that?

Politico has a great article titled:
What if Bush had done that?

Its a good read. Here's a short section.

A four-hour stop in New Orleans, on his way to a $3 million fundraiser.

Snubbing the Dalai Lama.

Signing off on a secret deal with drug makers.

Freezing out a TV network.

Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf, too.

Liveblogging; I'm going through bill H.R. 3962

Bill H.R. 3962 is the latest health care bill introduced to congress.

You can download it at that link. Its 1,990 pages of regulations.

I'll be going through it over the next few days. Forgive me for not printing this one out, since it would literally take 4 REAMS OF PAPER to print it. Just to give you an idea of how much paper that is... my toner cartridge is good for about 3,000 pages.
2/3rds of my toner cartridge would be used if I printed the full thing.

If you're reading it with me, the first few pages are the table of contents.
Up until page 16, its page after page of definitions that they are using for the sake of the bill.

I'm now on the first page of actual bill, which is entitled:
SEC. 101. NATIONAL HIGH-RISK POOL PROGRAM.

This is a pool that would be established Jan. 1st, 2010; or about two months from now.
I presume that this is to placate the people on the left who were complaining that the health care bill wasn't even going to cover anyone for two years.

Van Jones Resigns!!!

Fox News has a copy of the resignation.
Since its a WH document, I presume I can quote it in full:

"I am resigning my post at the Council on Environmental Quality, effective today.

On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide.

I have been inundated with calls - from across the political spectrum - urging me to "stay and fight."

But I came here to fight for others, not for myself. I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future.

It has been a great honor to serve my country and my President in this capacity. I thank everyone who has offered support and encouragement. I am proud to have been able to make a contribution to the clean energy future. I will continue to do so, in the months and years ahead."

Lies and distortions?
Yeah. Right.
It seems as though the real reason that Van Jones is resigning is because his balls are so big that they take up too much valuable space in the White House.