Hilarious -- Obama plans to "reward" cooperative House members with a campaign visit! Jim Geraghty wonders if this might be more effective as a stick than a carrot, and lists possible recipients in descending order of Obama's approval rating.
Also see Democrats flee as Obama approaches Missouri and Michelle's Endless 'Time for talk is over' tour hits Cleveland, Ohio, on Monday.
Most recent posts here.
The House "ethics" committee has closed its investigation on swamp monster/poor baby (!) Eric Massa, just as the scandal is starting to gather steam, causing some to wonder what the Democratic leadership is afraid of. The question of the hour -- What did Nancy know and when did she know it? From this morning's WaPo:
Perspective from Mark Impomeni of RedState:Joe Racalto, Massa's chief of staff, was uneasy that Massa, 50, was living with several young, unmarried male staffers and using sexually explicit language with them, one source said. But what finally prompted him to call Pelosi's director of member services, the source said, was a lunch date that Massa made with a congressional aide in his 20s who worked in the office of Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).
According to a person briefed on the call, Racalto was concerned that the lunch followed a pattern by Massa -- who is married and has two children -- of trying to spend time alone with young gay men with no ostensible work purpose. Racalto, according to this person, also alerted Frank's chief of staff. The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the matter. [. . .]
Republicans signaled Wednesday that they wanted the inquiry to continue, despite Massa's departure. Senior Republicans in the House said the public deserves to know whether Democratic leaders were aware of the allegations of Massa's misconduct longer than they have acknowledged and whether they failed to act to protect junior staffers.
In other words, even if there's no more to it than what Massa has already admitted, these weren't victimless acts. (How did this creep get elected, anyway? Oh, never mind.)Many junior staffers in congressional offices are young people, fresh out of college. Although they are not children, they are deserving of protection from sex starved congressmen who seek to use their high position to score a bit more than campaign contributions.
With ObamaCare struggling to survive, Barack Obama has two messages for the American people. First, the time for talk is over. Second … he’s coming to every town he can to talk about how the time for talk is over. Not that this is a new message, mind you; whether the subject is energy independence, global warming, health care, Porkulus, or Porkulus again, Obama wants us to know that the time for talk is over.Okay, not really a mixed message. He means the time for disagreeing with him is over, though there never really was a time for that. And the time for him to stop talking is, apparently, never.
There's been a lot of discussion about government over the last several months, and let's face it: people have lost faith in government. They had lost faith in government before I ran and its been getting worse. President Lincoln said that the legitimate object of government is to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they cannot do at all or do so well by themselves. That pretty much sums up my attitude: you let people do for themselves what they can do for themselves, and then if there's some things we do better together, we should do 'em together.Emphasis added.
So her plan is to what, sit around and give nervous House Democrats a lot of time to change their minds? Give those House offices more time to be inundated with calls from irate constituents? Give those Blue Dogs and red-district Democrats more time to think about how they're effectively ending their careers?Betsy wonders:
If you were a Democratic House member and you heard Pelosi's total lie or Slaughter's extra-constitutional daydreams, would you be encouraged to believe in any promise this bunch gave you about anything?
Courtland Milloy takes the president to task for his failure to quit smoking:
It's a good thing Rush Limbaugh didn't say that; certain liberal media types would find racism in there somewhere.By the way, I've never heard of doctors giving such cavalier advice to a smoker as yours did recently: "Continue smoking cessation efforts." My doctor would have said: "Why the hell are you trying to kill yourself? Quit. Now."
I'll bet that none of those doctors mentioned your lips. Allow me: Mr. President, you appear to be wearing purple lipstick. Could it be a brand known as Smoky Residue, that fatally attractive blend of tar, ammonia, arsenic, formaldehyde, carbon monoxide and other carcinogenic chemicals that are so thoroughly absorbed into your porous lips that it becomes a virtual second skin? [. . .]
Keep smoking, sir, and that caricature of you as the Joker on those tea-party posters won't be a caricature for long. I'm just saying. That's what smoking did to my lips, turned them a deep magenta.
So just put down the cancer sticks and let the presidential chips fall where they may. Lose your temper, say a dirty word. Make offers that your political opponents can't refuse for a change. Kick the habit and kick some butts.Read the rest.
Click for the pic.Mattel plans to bring out versions of Barbie and Ken styled after four “Mad Men” characters. . . .
The characters to become dolls are Don Draper, the show’s leading man; his wife, Betty; his colleague at the Sterling Cooper agency, Roger Sterling; and Joan Holloway, the agency’s office manager who was Roger’s mistress.
That two dolls represent a relationship outside wedlock, and Don Draper’s propensity for adultery, may be firsts for the Barbie world since the brand’s introduction five decades ago. But for the sake of the Barbie image, her immersion in the “Mad Men” era will go only so far: The dolls come with period accessories like hats, overcoats, pearls and padded undergarments, but no cigarettes, ashtrays, martini glasses or cocktail shakers.
30 Rock has been-there-done-that.In other news, a South Korean man has married his pillow.
Don’t judge.
I think some intrepid reporter should ask President Obama just where he stands on the man-bedding marriage issue. I mean, it’s 2010 already. Free your mind! Is the love that dare not speak its name to be kept in the linen closet forever?
Many thanks to Tom for his invaluable insights!
Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?Big Hollywood's
No matter how many times you read this passage the context is clear. By “different” Hanks is clearly referring to race, culture and religion, not ideology.Please read the rest.Really, we wanted to annihilate the Japanese because they were different, because we saw them as “yellow, slant-eyed dogs that believed in different gods?” I thought it was due to the fact that “we viewed them” as barbaric imperialists who had attacked us first and wanted to enslave the world.
But there’s no reason to speculate about America’s motivations during WWII because history has proven Hanks wrong. We had every opportunity to annihilate these “different” people. Instead we chose, at great expense, to rebuild Japan and return the sovereignty of that nation over to the “yellow, slant-eyed dogs who believed in different gods.” Or, as most people prefer to call them: our newly liberated allies.
And to answer Hanks’s question: No — annihilating people who are different sounds NOTHING like what’s going on today.
Michael Gerson writes on where Obama went wrong on healthcare reform. One particularly good point:
In fact, these structural obstacles were increased by a major strategic miscalculation. Obama clearly believed that the economic crisis was fully fungible -- that a turn to government activism in one policy area would translate into support in other areas. So he attempted a rhetorical sleight of hand, arguing that economic recovery required health reform and a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions. Few bought it. To the contrary, the massive -- and, in my view, necessary -- bank bailout only increased public skepticism about government and congressional concerns about spending. [emphasis added]He overestimated the credulity, and therefore the manipulability, of Americans in this case. They weren't willing to swallow, uncritically, the nonsense (still being pushed by the Dems) that healthcare reform will create jobs and boost the economy. Read the rest.
Thus, in a sense, the president’s spinners are right when they say the president has a “communications” problem. In spite of — or is it because of ? — his incessant hammering at the same points, the public doesn’t buy what he’s selling. It sounds better to call it a communications problem, as if there were a technical problem with the microphones and satellite dishes at the White House. But it’s more properly thought of as a credibility problem. Obama says X; the public thinks X isn’t true. The numbers don’t move.That's even worse than the dogs not liking the dogfood. The majority of dogs now suspect their master is deliberately spiking their food with something that smells really wrong.
Overall, 43% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That, too matches the lowest level yet recorded for this President. Fifty-six percent (56%) disapprove.Given all that, guess what the president is doing today? But of course! He's hitting the road for another I'll-make-them-like-it-or-else rally. This time it's in St. Louis and it's for the children, big and small.
But the way to "compromise" is not at all clear, and may be impossible. The Senate bill can't be amended before a House vote, and any "fixes" would require a childlike trust on the part of House members. John McCormack follows up on Stupak's recent compromise-is-possible remarks:
It's not clear, but it sounds as though the idea is to use the president's eleven-page "plan" (remember that?) as the "fix" come reconciliation time. Or maybe not. If you're confused, you're not alone."Everyone’s going around saying there’s a compromise—there’s no such thing," Stupak said. What's changed between this week and last, Stupak went on, is that he had his first real conversation with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Congressman Henry Waxman about fixing the bill.
But Stupak made one thing very clear: While he's optimistic, there's a lot of confusion about how the House would structure a bill that he could vote for. Stupak says "the majority party can get it done. Where there’s a will there’s a way." But: "No one has said here's how you do it, here's the legislative scheme."
Stupak affirmed that he will not settle for an agreement to pass the bill now and fix the bill's problems on abortion later: "If they say 'we’ll give you a letter saying we'll take care of this later,' that’s not acceptable because later never comes." [. . .]
"The president still hasn’t put forth his proposal. I mean, other than the 11 pages [of changes], we’ve seen nothing in writing. It’s different than what the Senate did. So do they take three [measures] and merge it into one and stick it in a bill called reconciliation, or just do the Senate bill as a stand alone?" [. . .]
Stupak says that congressional leaders are "going back and forth in different ways" to find a compromise. But again, "it is so confusing," he said, "on what the parliamentary procedures are going to be" to make the fixes.
Stupak emphasized that his coalition of pro-life Democrats is sticking together: "My numbers remain firm at 12. These are 12 who voted for it [in November] who will not vote for it unless we resolve this issue."Here's hoping that's true.
Michelle Malkin has a well-developed and accurate sense of smell:
What she said early on about Massa:Just a reminder that I took a lot of crap from my friends on the Right for coming out early against GOP predator Mark Foley.
I know a creep-o-crat when I smell one.
Dem. Eric Massa is trying to save his sorry hide. Strikes me as pathological. Desperate pols should never be trusted.Nice Deb called him a dirtbag. Here's the latest:
The House ethics committee has received allegations that former Rep. Eric Massa groped at least three male staffers and conducted himself improperly with interns as well as full-time aides, a source familiar with the matter tells POLITICO. [emphasis added]His own version of events doesn't help him much:
Good grief. Molesters love to tickle. Judging by his own admissions thus far this guy is a creep of the first order and shouldn't be running around loose.“Now they’re saying I groped a male staffer,” he told Beck. “Yeah, I did. Not only did I grope him, I tickled him until he couldn’t breathe and then four guys jumped on top of me. It was my 50th birthday. It was ‘kill the old guy.’”
Massa said he did “nothing sexual” with staff but acknowledged that he’s done “things that were wrong.”
“I should not have allowed myself to be that familiar with my staff," Massa insisted.
He added: “If somebody on my staff was offended, was uncomfortable, thought I was inappropriate, I own that. It’s why I resigned.”
*Scroll down for Mark Steyn's response to the first item below.
Did Glenn Beck call Geert Wilders a fascist? I think he did, by implication. Jihad Watch has the video.
So now standing up for the rights of women and non-Muslims, the freedom of speech (yes -- here is a post on those who claim that he opposes it), and the freedom of conscience is fascist. [. . .]
What on earth has gotten into Beck? Is he getting his talking points from Ibrahim Hooper? As Pamela Geller says, "Why would he stigmatize Wilders this way? Wilders is the embodiment of what our founding fathers extolled. Individual rights. Freedom of speech. Not sharia law." There is much more over at Atlas Shrugs -- read it all.
No love for Wilders from Fox's Special Report panel, either. I'm waiting to hear from Mark Steyn. Speaking of whom, this bit of logic from RS McCain:
If the protesters against Wilders are “anti-fascist,” then what does that make Wilders? He’s a “fascist” in the same sense that Mark Steyn is a fascist — which is to say, someone the Left hates.Mr. McCain suspects that "some of these people at Fox are getting their 'facts' about Wilders from liberal news outlets." Disappointing but it makes sense.
Read the rest.These aren't words one has cause to type terribly often, but I think Charles Krauthammer is being deeply naïve in his observations on Geert Wilders (as, reportedly, was Glenn Beck, to whom I am otherwise well disposed, not least because he liked my Christmas single).
Wilders does not need to be lectured condescendingly about distinctions within Islam, because he lives with them every day. And he has concluded, notwithstanding Dr. Krauthammer's views on the precise "minority" that identifies as "Islamist," that Islam itself is the issue — and that, therefore, notwithstanding the "moderation" of the "overwhelming majority" of Muslims, the more Islam the less Netherlands in any recognizable sense. Are the gangs of gay bashers on the streets of Amsterdam "Islamist" by Krauthammer's definition? Maybe, maybe not. But, either way, they make the running, and the rest of the community is either indifferent or quiescent.
Nancy Pelosi is a little bit like a Forest Service warden during a particularly dry summer in which there are little blazes springing up all over the place. Some of them can be easily contained, and others could grow into pretty serious forest fires,” said Ross Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey.
The disparate-impact approach will also pressure school systems who are not engaged in actual discrimination to get their numbers right, so they won’t be investigated. And how will they do that? There are two ways: Either they will start to discipline, say, Asian students who are not really deserving of such discipline, or they will forego disciplining, say, black students who really ought to be disciplined. The former is merely unfair; the latter, which is the more likely outcome, will be disastrous for all children in the school system, of whatever color.
Neil Cavuto has a fascinating interview with Gianni Russo, who played Carlo Rizzi in The Godfather. When asked about the shower summit, Russo laughed and said "that's an old Capone tactic". You can't wear a wire or a gun.More time in the shower is unlikely to clean these guys up much.
Cavuto asks how come Charlie Rangel is still there with all his ethics problems. Is it because Massa is a no vote against health care? Russo says well Massa is not welcome. It's the Mafia style, they "dug up a bunch of stuff" on Massa. "It's like watching the Sopranos".
Question 9 on the census form. Join us. [More on that here.]My favorite quote of the day:
Obama loses the support of Christopher Buckley. Apparently ObamaCare is not elegant enough or something.How he deserved that.
