Expectations game

The Washington Post hails the GOP failure to "pin down" Sotomayor in testimony.



What a lose-lose situation for Republicans... nail her and be tarred as grumpy old racists. Let her skate, and you're a failure.

But if Republican Senators made her lie through her teeth, did they really fail to pin her down?

Lindsay Graham actually did pretty well with his questioning, as opposed to Franken (asking about Perry Mason) and Klobuchar (asking about the All Star game).

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

In plain sight

Congressional Dems aren't even bothering to hide their attempts to destroy private insurance.

IBD editorial, via Todd Herman

Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So, "you'll be allowed to keep your existing coverage" is pretty weak soup. As if the private market wouldn't be undermined enough by the tax-supported government plan, they're going to make it illegal for the market to function at all, even for those who don't want the subsidized government plan and are willing to pay up for it.

Guys, "Orwellian" is not a compliment.

Mister Franken

Just think, this guy has been seated as a Senator.

added - video from the Soto hearings:

Reason Number Ten - Uncertainty

Pethokoukis lists "9 reasons Pelosi's healthcare surtax is disastrous".

Here's reason number ten: The proposal not only raises taxes, but introduces uncertainty about how high they could go in the future. Uncertainty is toxic to markets.

Where has this John McCain been?

My love-hate assessment of John McCain shifts to love this week on his Meet the Press appearance. Where was this McCain last October?

Defending Palin:

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

On the stimulus and Obama's straw man crutch:

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

Cutting through the rhetoric

Here's the set-up:
Republicans complain that the stimulus wasn't focused on tax cuts, Democrats complain that the Republican philosophy got us in the hole the last eight years (or more).

(The "or more" is something I heard recently, though it's not in wide circulation yet.)

The problem is that tax cuts are not a part of anybody's story about the housing bubble. We hear stories about the easy money Fed (i.e. "the Greenspan put"), Fannie and Freddie and the implied federal guarantee, the SEC rule about debt-to-capital ratios, the Community Reinvestment Act, lack of regulation, the wrong kind of regulation, the mortgage interest deduction, the orgy of credit default swaps, etc.

Most of those things contributed to some extent, with a horrendous cumulative effect --which items contributed in what proportions will be argued until the end of time--, but tax cuts aren't anywhere on the list. And yet, the Bush tax cuts are still a rhetorical bludgeon Democrats routinely use to skate by on the deeply flawed stimulus. Congressional Democrats seem immune to the idea that incentives matter in the economy. How can having the highest corporate tax rate among major economies be a good thing?

I don't know how Republicans can encapsulate all of the above into a pithy sound bite, but they'd better get cracking. The Dems' only defense of the failing stimulus is that our way supposedly didn't work. Destroying that defense is an important step towards regaining a coherent economic message.

Speaking of Miguel Estrada

The Honduran native explains why a coup d'etat did NOT occur in Honduras, but a perfectly Constitutional ousting of the President:

What you'll learn is that the Honduran Constitution may be amended in any way except three. No amendment can ever change (1) the country's borders, (2) the rules that limit a president to a single four-year term and (3) the requirement that presidential administrations must "succeed one another" in a "republican form of government."

In addition, Article 239 specifically states that any president who so much as proposes the permissibility of reelection "shall cease forthwith" in his duties, and Article 4 provides that any "infraction" of the succession rules constitutes treason. The rules are so tight because these are terribly serious issues for Honduras, which lived under decades of military rule.

I've been aware of this for maybe a week or so, but just today I read AP reports referring to a "military coup".

And I still haven't heard President Obama acknowledge his error in supporting Zelaya. Funny how pronouncing "Pakistan" with a near-native inflection shows Obama's incredible attention to detail, yet supporting a would-be Chavez style Honduran President despite his Constitutionally defined treason is no big deal.

To paraphrase some recent criticism of the supposedly terminally unqualified Sarah Palin, it's almost like Obama is proud of his ignorance of the Honduran Constitution.

Estrada:

It cannot be right to call this a "coup." Micheletti was lawfully made president by the country's elected Congress. The president is a civilian. The Honduran Congress and courts continue to function as before. The armed forces are under civilian control. The elections scheduled for November are still scheduled for November.

President Obama, please acknowledge your error and support the lawful President of Honduras. As I recall from your campaign, Presidents are supposed to admit their mistakes, no?

(via NRO)

Quote of the Day: Palin Two-fer

A double dose of QOTD, both in a deliciously sarcastic Politico column by Roger Simon, The Sins of Sarah Palin.

Simon responding to CNN's Rick Sanchez' speculation on a Palin pregnancy:

Could be, Rick. Or maybe it was just her time of month, because, hey, that’s why woman politicians make the decisions they do, right?

The second shot:

She is a dumb hick, a nobody from nowhere. She hunts moose with a chainsaw from the back of a snowmobile or something.

What problems with the stimulus?

Despite increasing evidence that the stimulus isn't working (either because it can't work or isn't being spent fast enough to work -- take your pick), Obama sez: "There’s nothing that we would have done differently".

Really? Nothing? Not one project in that $787 billion?

I understand he needs to talk a good game, but to pretend that the stimulus was immaculate is more than I can handle.

Wouldn't shift more to tax cuts? Wouldn't make it spend faster? Wouldn't have given it a couple more days to work out a better plan? Wouldn't have had fewer strings attached to state funding? (I could keep going here...)

Who's disconnected from reality now?

Unremarkable

We heard quite a bit today about Obama and the START negotiations. I heard the word "breakthrough" used a lot. Not really.

Some other things that happened in Moscow were indeed notable, like Obama calling out Russia on the Georgia/Ossetia issue (finally), and the negotiation for use of Russian airspace in missions related to Afghanistan, and probably one or two other things I can't recall right now. Just not the nuclear disarmament issue. That was a complete no-brainer.

A nuclear stockpile costs a lot of money to maintain. Old missiles must be decommissioned and new ones built to replace them. Our own stockpile has been gradually diminishing as we replace fewer than we retire. And basically everybody is cool with that because we have more than enough nukes for a sufficient deterrent. Also, the Russians are in exactly the same position.

Everybody saves money, nobody loses any real military standing in the world, leaders smile on camera, dutiful media reports on non-event.

This was the easiest arms agreement EVAH.

RIP Mollie Sugden

a.k.a. Mrs. Slocombe



1922-2009

Thanks for the laughs.

Sending a Message

Some Palin-ites say the media fears her. I don't think that's it at all. They mostly just hate her -- hate her with the burning heat of a thousand suns. If they have any "fear", it's about future candidates who happen to stray from the white male Republican archetype. No prominent minority or woman Republican is going to get anything less than the full media work-up. The recent Vanity Fair hit piece against Sarah Palin, "It Came from Wasilla", is only the latest instance of this.

White male Republicans, of course, are guilty of being white and male. Anybody else though, must be treated as some exotic creature to be probed, dissected, and ultimately destroyed -- like cattle mutilated by extraterrestrials.

I stopped reading the Vanity Fair piece after this, found in the third paragraph:

What does it say about the nature of modern American politics that a public official who often seems proud of what she does not know is not only accepted but applauded? What does her prominence say about the importance of having (or lacking) a record of achievement in public life? Why did so many skilled veterans of the Republican Party—long regarded as the more adroit team in presidential politics—keep loyally working for her election even after they privately realized she was casual about the truth and totally unfit for the vice-presidency? Perhaps most painful, how could John McCain, one of the cagiest survivors in contemporary politics—with a fine appreciation of life’s injustices and absurdities, a love for the sweep of history, and an overdeveloped sense of his own integrity and honor—ever have picked a person whose utter shortage of qualification for her proposed job all but disqualified him for his?

Though I stopped after this, others didn't, and from what I've read second-hand it seems I chose wisely.

I don't even know where to start on that, so I won't bother. It's not worth my effort. There's just no rational reason for this level of vile, feverish hatred to be displayed so prominently nearly eight months post-election. (Five months and some days, Anno Obama.)

My take-away is that the prevalence of such naked character assassination like that found in VF and elsewhere sends a message to anybody who isn't a white male -- Don't be a Republican, you traitorous garbage, and particularly not a conservative one.

Clarence Thomas anyone?

How much flak did Chuck Schumer catch for saying that Miguel Estrada was, "like a stealth missile — with a nose cone — coming out of the right wing’s deepest silo"? Schumer's vehemence surely had nothing to do with the observation by Senate Democratic Judiciary Staff that "he is Latino".

Let the message be sent to all women and minorities -- your life will be ruined if you dare gain prominence as a conservative Republican.

----

Addendum: Jim Gerhaghty has the "low-lights" --

[T]here’s room in this world for a profile that is critical of Palin, but that preferably didn’t begin with the supposition that she is the root of all evil in the political world.

72 Hours

The most open, transparent, and ethical government in the history of the universe talks a good game, but really isn't delivering on the promise that the American people (and, incidentally, members of Congress) ought to have enough time to read legislation before it's voted on.

LetFreedomRing is promoting a pledge for MOC's on any future health insurance bill, asking (1) That the member read the bill, and (2) that the bill be available for 72 hours before voting.



It's a pretty simple pledge. I don't know how long it's been up, but as of right now there are only three legislators who have agreed.

But this goes way beyond a health insurance scheme, or the stimulus, or the cap & trade bill. And though Democrats have been particularly egregious offenders as of late, it goes beyond party and administration.

READ THE BILL

All bills should be out for 72 hours before voting. The only reason to avoid doing so is obfuscation and deceit.




Is it not a member's Constitutional duty to know what exactly it is he's voting on?

The Enduring Tragedy of Michael Jackson - The Kids

This piece is a little bit out of my comfort zone as somebody who is neither a celebrity-watcher nor a Catholic. Here, I cite the Vatican against Michael Jackson and ex-wife Debbie Rowe. Consider yourself warned.

I found myself disgusted with one-time Michael Jackson wife Debbie Rowe after reading the News of the World interview (since removed from the website, summary here) in which she stated her complete disregard for the children she bore. According to the NOTW interview, Rowe claims Jackson wasn’t the biological father of her children, that she was artificially inseminated through an anonymous donor, that their marriage was a loveless, sexless facade, and that the children were “gifts” to Michael Jackson.

The AceShowBiz blog, citing NOTW:

"Michael was divorced, lonely and wanted children. I was the one who said to him, 'I will have your babies'," she testifies. "I offered him my womb - it was a gift. It was something I did to keep him happy." Debbie opens up further, "I was just the vessel. It wasn't Michael's sperm. I got paid for it, and I've moved on. I know I will never see my children again."

"But after the second birth had so many problems, he knew I couldn't have kids any more. He didn't want anything to do with me. He took the kids," she goes on revealing. "The settlement was written up, and he just wanted me to be quiet."

Rowe further stated, “I know I will never see them again. I was never cut out to be a mother - I was no good. I don't want these children in my life.”

Now, regardless of one’s view of the Catholic church or any specific teaching of the Vatican, the Church has established the grounds for debate on any number of theological and moral issues. It is simply impossible to discuss certain topics without bumping into arguments established by the Catholic framework.

And so I find myself reading Humanae Vitae (regarding contraception), and then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s Instruction on Respect for Human Life, in which in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination are argued against.

Humanae Vitae, Section 17:

Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

“...a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires...” - Though in a clearly different context, this is exactly what Rowe was for Jackson. And certainly without any “care and affection”.

In his Instruction, Ratzinger laid out a number of situational categories of fertility treatments for analysis. Though he ultimately bars any IVF, he is not unaware of the noble desire of loving, “conjugal” married couples to have children. Nevertheless, the prohibition is absolute.

Ratzinger (Section II-4(c)):

Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person. In his unique and irrepeatable origin, the child must be respected and recognized as equal in personal dignity to those who give him life. The human person must be accepted in his parents' act of union and love; the generation of a child must therefore be the fruit of that mutual giving (45) which is realized in the conjugal act wherein the spouses cooperate as servants and not as masters in the work of the Creator who is Love. In reality, the origin of a human person is the result of an act of giving. The one conceived must be the fruit of his parents' love. He cannot be desired or conceived as the product of an intervention of medical or biological techniques; that would be equivalent to reducing him to an object of scientific technology. No one may subject the coming of a child into the world to conditions of technical efficiency which are to be evaluated according to standards of control and dominion. The moral relevance of the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and between the goods of marriage, as well as the unity of the human being and the dignity of his origin, demand that the procreation of a human person be brought about as the fruit of the conjugal act specific to the love between spouses... [italics in original]

As stated before, I’m not Catholic. I’m not even necessarily opposed to IVF or artificial insemination. But I do find the Church’s moral framework to be informative, if perhaps not definitive.

As a recently disgraced Governor has learned, “God’s law is indeed there to protect you from yourself, and there are consequences if you breach that.” Cavalier relativists often say rules are meant to be broken. For those of us trying to live somewhere between absolutism and chaos, I prefer the maxim “know why you are breaking the rule.”

In analyzing the Jackson-Rowe union, it seems they broke all the rules for all the wrong reasons. We are confronted with the fact that their relationship was neither loving nor conjugal. It had no apparent redeeming moral value. Both Jackson and Rowe blithely violated Kant’s categorical imperative against using other people as mere means. They each used each other, and they used Rowe’s children. And indeed, there are consequences for that.

Rowe has no interest in her own children. Words cannot express my disgust, but there should be little wonder about how everything turned out so wrong.

Quote of the Day: New York

From the NY Post's "I can't believe I'm sitting next to a Republican!: How to survive as a conservative in New York City":

My own little town, Hastings-on-Hudson, is in most ways as attractive as the name suggests, a leafy suburban enclave for the most part populated with kind-hearted and generous souls. But a word of warning: Don't get into politics. To say Hastings is liberal is like saying Saudi Arabia is Muslim.

We are the transparency we've been waiting for

The most ethical, transparent government in the history of the universe dropped a 310 page amendment to the Cap&Trade bill at 1:34am today (Friday), the day it is intended to be voted on. (PDF)

This sort of thing has been done in Washington for years, but on a monster job-killing bill like this, this is a very dangerous intersection of arrogance and abuse of power.

I saw an administration lackey on the boob-tube this morning and she claimed she "didn't understand" the objections to the bill. Yeah, I can see how it would be hard to understand how taxing virtually every good and service in the nation might lead to some economic concerns. Good Lord, we're screwed.

Is this what the American people voted for?

EDIT - Apparently there wasn't even an official physical copy of the bill in the House chamber, and the bill itself had a placeholder in it. It was literally impossible to know what they were voting on because it was going to change after passage.

EDIT 2 - I find it interesting that the high volume of "no" calls actually crashed the House's phone system, yet they still passed it.

Andy Richter doesn't control the universe

With the recent passing of Ed McMahon, it occurred to me that Andy Richter could have had a sweet gig by now had he not bailed out on Conan.

Father's Day

I'm not a father, but I did get a gift of sorts today.

My grandfather has advanced Alzheimer's disease and is barely verbal. Ask him a question and you'll likely get a "yes". Did you like that ice cream? Yeah. Would you like to stick a cockroach in your nose? Yeah. There was a time when it seemed like he recognized me, but those times seem to be gone now.

Dad and I went to visit him today, and I got a whole sentence out of him. He grabbed my hand, looked at me, smiled, and asked "How ya doin', old buddy?"

Awesome Father's Day.

Round-up: #CNNFail edition

a.k.a. stuff I saw on the internet today

(1) Is Charlie Dent squishy on the supplemental? RedState thinks he might be.

(2) #CnnFail - Didja notice the utter lack of coverage this weekend about the Iranian election? (I guess that should be "election".) Twitter has finally found an honest-to-goodness use in propagating information on Iran. Find out how to get more timely info here and read about the pros and cons of Twitter as a news source on the HotAir blog.

(3) DDOS is evil. "Don't" DDOS any of the Iranian establishment websites.

(4) I'm pretty sure this is a sign of the apocalypse, the "anti-stab" knife goes on sale in Britain. (H/t to Eddie at DPUD) Good grief.

(5) The Northeastern sub-species of Republican may not be dead after all, or so says some poli-sci prof.

(6) Tea party organizer launches Senate bid in Arkansas.

Quote of the Day: The Godfather

Robert "The Other" McCain gives us this insightful and amusing Godfather-inspired look at the Crist/Rubio NRSC dust-up:

The desire of leading Republicans to recover their power -- their influence, their prestige in Washington -- is perfectly understandable. Like Fredo, however, the Beltway GOP leadership is weak, stupid and cowardly, seeking to curry favor with an implacable enemy by disrespecting their own family.

(h/t Nate Benefield)

Katharine Zaleski is reprehensible

Katharine Zaleski is a Senior Editor at the Huffington Post, and a very evil and deranged person.

She and Amanda Carpenter of the Washington Times were on MSNBC to discuss the Palin/Letterman imbroglio when Zaleski went full-moonbat crazy.

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

This garbage about Palin and other conservatives inciting the von Brunn shooting at the Holocaust museum goes way beyond any lines of decency. This is over and above Letterman's ill-considered jokes.

Zaleski isn't the only one to blindly insinuate von Brunn was a "right wing" extremist -- an idea that is totally absurd given Brunn's background as a 9/11 Truther, Christian-hating, anti-Semitic, anti-Bush, anti-neo-conservative, neo-Nazi who may have been gunning for The Weekly Standard -- but this banshee, Zaleski, has sunk to unfathomable depths of depravity with these accusations of incitement.

Zaleski represents the most repugnant aspects of the activist Leftist shout-down shut-up "journalism", and she should never work at any respectable media outlet. Fortunately neither the Huffington Post nor MSNBC qualifies.

I should probably stop writing now before I get accused of saying something incitive.

Round-up: Coke Zero Edition

(1) Fight socialism, drink Coke Zero! Hugo Chavez has banned the tasty beverage from Venezuela for "health" reasons.

(2) Obama is going to take away your gun knife! "They are saying that any knife that you can open quickly or any knife that you can open with one hand is therefore a switchblade."

(3) The obligatory mention.... The AMA has come out against the public health plan option:

"The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans."

(4) Obama is Mirandizing terror suspects. This used to be a punch line, now it's real.


We're shifting back to a law-enforcement model for terrorism. Awesome. That worked out so well before...

(5) Oh noes! Not a non-binding shareholder vote on compensation!

What a joke! How about fixing corporate governance laws so shareholders can decide this or any other issue without special say-so from the government? This is a band-aid on the gunshot wound of shareholder rights.

Intertubes Mini Round-up

Just three items (so far) today...

(1) Rasmussen - "62% Say Obama Should Not Meet With Iran Until It Stops Nuclear Weapons Program"

I'm sorry, what?! That necessarily includes a lot of Obama voters.

Let's see what happens in the upcoming Iranian elections and ask the question later.

(2) Bob Smith, go home. Nobody cares about you, you gasbag.

(3) New source of amusement and/or fear for the future of the nation: "Spotted: DC Summer Interns".

I don't want to believe these interns are that stupid, but I do believe it.

Added --- Be sure to check out Ed-vs-Ted and the Ed/Ted redux posts, if nothing else.

Quote of the Day: Obamaesque

From a conservative who infiltrated a myBO health plan meeting:

As the discussion began, the meetings participants immediately began firing off questions about the details of the health care plan to Sandra and the other woman who was leading the event. For all of their enthusiasm these group leaders were completely incapable of describing the particulars of the Obama plan in any coherent way. What they did understand however was that Obama’s “public option”, the government run insurance program that Obama wants to create to compete with the private insurance companies, was the first step towards the entitlement that almost everyone in that room (based on the raising of hands at the beginning of the meeting) was really longing for. That being a European style “single payer” health care system. They also understood that part of their job as grassroots activist promoting the plan was to ensure people that the plan was not going to result in “single payer”. How Obamaesque.

Social issues hurt party

... the Democrats in NY, that is, who lost back the NY State Senate to the Republicans, who for some bizarre reason have traditionally controlled the body in recent years.

When will the Democrats learn to be less radical and more moderate in their social stances?</snark>