Someone forwarded me this via email and it was too good not to share. I’m not sure of the original source, but if anyone can identify it for me, I’m happy to credit it.

UPDATE: Near as I can tell, the logo at the bottom appears to reference this site.

5.5 million — Number of jobs that could be lost as a result of taxes on businesses that cannot afford to provide health insurance coverage, according to a model developed by Council of Economic Advisors Chair Christina Romer

$729.5 billion — Total new taxes on small businesses, individuals who cannot afford health coverage, and employers who cannot afford to provide coverage that meet federal bureaucrats’ standards

$1.055 trillion — New federal spending on expanded health insurance coverage over the next ten years, according to a Congressional Budget Office preliminary score of the bill

0.7% — Percentage of all that new spending occurring in the bill’s first three years-representing a debt and tax “time bomb” in the program’s later years set to explode on future generations

$88,200 — Definition of “low-income” family of four for purposes of health insurance subsidies

114 million — Number of individuals who could lose their current coverage under the bill’s government-run health plan, according to non-partisan actuaries at the Lewin Group

43 — Entitlement programs the bill creates, expands, or extends-an increase from H.R. 3200

111 — Additional offices, bureaus, commissions, programs, and bureaucracies the bill creates over and above the entitlement expansions-more than double the number in H.R. 3200

3,425 — Uses of the word “shall,” representing new duties for bureaucrats and mandates on individuals, businesses, and States-also more than double the number in H.R. 3200

$60 billion — Loss sustained by taxpayers every year due to Medicare fraud, according to a recent 60 Minutes expose; the government-run health plan does not reform the ineffective anti-fraud statutes and procedures that have kept Medicare on the Government Accountability Office’s list of high-risk programs for two decades

Zero — Prohibitions on government programs like Medicare and Medicaid from using cost-effectiveness research to impose delays to or denials for access to life-saving treatments

$634 Billion — Amount that could be saved by denying individuals access to treatments that are not “cost-effective,” according to a report by the liberal Commonwealth Fund; Section 1160 of the bill gives bureaucrats in the Obama Administration virtual free rein to develop a new “high-value” reimbursement system for Medicare by May 2012

2017 — Year Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted-an entitlement crisis exacerbated by the bill, which according to the Congressional Budget Office will increase the federal budgetary commitment to health care by $598 billion in its first ten years alone

$2,500 — Promised savings for each American family from health reform, according to then-Senator Obama’s campaign pledge-savings which the Administration’s own actuaries have confirmed will not materialize, as the Pelosi health care bill would increase the growth of health care costs

Over the last few days, speculation concerning Rudy Giuliani’s plans for 2010 has run rampant.  I have seen stories variously claiming with certainty that Rudy will run for governor, that he won’t run for governor, that he hasn’t decided whether to run for governor, that he will run for Senate, and that he hasn’t decided anything yet.  Provided that Rudy hasn’t already made up his mind and is just being coy with everyone, this poll released today from Marist (.pdf) may perhaps be informing his thinking. 

It indicates, among other things, that Rudy would plaster current sitting governor David Paterson.  However, Paterson is pretty much a dead man walking at this point, and the general assumption is that Andrew Cuomo will get the D nomination.  Against, Cuomo, Rudy currently trails by 10, 53-43.  Both men are relatively widely-known quantities in New York, so it’s difficult to imagine a radical shift in either’s favor. 

On the other hand, Rudy’s path to the Senate appears substantially easier.  First, the Marist poll indicates he would easily win a hypothetical primary against Pataki (71-24), and that he holds a substantial lead (54-40) over Gillibrand. This would seem to indicate that if Rudy enters this race, it would promptly become one of the GOP’s best pickup opportunities in 2010, perhaps better than NV, AR, CT or DE. 

In talking to several New Yorkers, most of them would prefer to see Rudy run for the Governor’s mansion, where his talents would be put to a more direct use.  However, as a matter of pure political calculus, Rudy can doubtless see where the easiest path back to elective office lies. And if he has designs on a run for 2012 or beyond, the Senate might be the best place for him to mend fences with the portions of the national GOP electorate that cost him the 2008 primary, as well.

Work has intruded on my blogging more than I’d like recently, so I haven’t had the chance to revisit the issue of the mysterious explosion in twitter followers for California Senate candidates Carly Fiorina and Al Ramirez.  A couple days ago, in response to the piece I wrote on the subject, someone from the NRSC sent me a link to this article, which purported to explain the phenomenon:

Social-networking site Twitter plans to end a service that links prominent message posters with new users, a service that was criticized in California because of perceived unfairness toward GOP gubernatorial candidates.

Twitter co-founder Biz Stone said Monday the San Francisco-based company will overhaul its “suggested users” list, which links Twitter users with a pool of about 500 celebrities, sports figures and politicians they might want to follow.

***

Former eBay chief executive Meg Whitman, who led the Republican field with 4,160 Twitter followers, jumped to nearly 61,000 followers. Former Congressman Tom Campbell went from 1,660 followers to 57,500, while state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner’s nearly 2,600 followers increased to 56,500.

By comparison, Attorney General Jerry Brown, the presumed Democratic gubernatorial candidate, increased from 960,000 followers to 1 million during the same three-week period.

Twitter also added Carly Fiorina, who is seeking the Republican nomination to challenge Democratic U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer next year.

This, I suppose, is a plausible enough reason for the expansion of Fiorina’s follower list.  Fiorina is, after all, a former CEO of a major tech company and something of a political celebrity.  It is, by all accounts, the best explanation for the mechanism by which Fiorina increased the number of her twitter followers.  However, the Al Ramirez situation continues to give pause: what is the explanation for Ramirez’s massive expansion? Why did he thank the NRSC for all his new followers, only to yank his thanks back down?  Did the NRSC lobby twitter for Fiorina and Ramirez’s inclusion on the list?  I asked these questions to the person from the NRSC who sent me the article on Tuesday, and as of this moment have not received a response.

Of course, lack of response via email to me proves nothing, even if the person in question proactively sought correction of my piece.  However, I can still see no plausible reason for Ramirez’s inclusion on the list absent lobbying on the part of someone, and Ramirez himself thanked the NRSC.  If the NRSC really did lobby for Fiorina and Ramirez’s inclusion on the list, why not Chuck DeVore, who had clearly been working before this time to build an already-substantial list of twitter followers?

Let’s keep this simple.  Word got out today via Politico that the RNC’s health care package for their employees covers abortions. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, if you at any time have donated to the RNC since 1991 (when this policy apparently took place), some incremental portion of your donation went to the administrative costs of running the RNC, including employee salaries and benefits packages. Part of “benefits packages” in this context is apparently a health care package that pays for abortions.

For thirty years, we have fought tooth and nail to prevent our tax money from being used to pay for abortions. Turns out, we were apparently doing it through donating to the political party that was ostensibly on our side.  This betrayal is so fundamental to the majority of people who donate to the RNC that it’s almost unspeakable.  I have no doubt that many of the staffers there will miss the point, so allow me to make it clearly: you have caused every person who donated to support your livelihood to become involved in what they perceive to be a grave moral evil.

The RNC’s defense thus far seems to be excusable negligence; blaming it on some (surely departed) staffer who checked a box almost 20 years ago, and whoops, we weren’t careful enough. So sorry. It won’t happen again.

Not good enough.

Not even close.

Companies regularly renegotiate health contracts - every year or every two years at most. Someone, at the very least, a human resources person, looks over these contracts.  Or at least, that is their job.  If they were unclear about what it said, they have these things called lawyers who can help. 

In order for the RNC to regain the trust of their donors, they must disclose the names of all people involved in any way of the selection of their health care plan. And those people must be summarily fired. No severance packages, no golden parachutes; fired. For cause.

No pro-lifer in good conscience can give them a dime until this happens.

IF YOU HAVE DONATED TO THE RNC AT ANY TIME SINCE 1991 CALL THEM AT (202) 863-8500. GET NAMES. DEMAND REFUNDS UNLESS THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. IF THEY DON’T HEAR DIRECTLY FROM YOU THEY WILL DO NOTHING.

Right up front I want to say that unlike a lot of people, I don’t want to see the NRSC burned to the ground wholesale. They perform an important function that couldn’t  easily replaced by others at this moment in time. But they are receiving some bad advice and making some bad calls. Apparently, they did not learn from the mistakes of 2006 and the Lincoln Chafee debacle, and are determined to make these mistakes. However, the errors of this cycle will be even more egregious because this time, the NRSC does not even have defending incumbency as an excuse.

In any event, earlier this afternoon, I received a polite (if clearly frustrated) email from someone in the NRSC’s communications department. I have reproduced that email in its entirety (with one editorial note I could not resist) below the fold. We discovered later today, however, that NRSC Communcations director was responding to this story by personally attacking RedState, going on the attack on the DeVore campaign, and belittling California activists who dared to connect the dots in the same (eminently logical) way we did. A San Francisco activist sent Mr. Walsh a polite email asking for clarification of the matter, and Walsh sent this astonishing email in response:

From: Walsh, Brian [mailto:bwalsh@nrsc.org]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 4:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re: new DeVore web video and Carly’s Twitter Delight
 
it’s remarkable that you ask me if it’s true and then attack us in the last graph making clear you already believe it to be.

A few points though -

1) The allegation made in that RedState post is 100 percent false. It would be laughable if not for the fact that folks like yourself actually believe it to be true. I can assure you we have far more important things on our plate than trying to add twitter followers to one of the 30 races we have this cycle. Bottom line, it’s completely false. And btw, if we were that successful at adding twitter followers don’t you think we would start with our own @nrsc account? Like you though, we only want real followers.

2) The blogger from RedState never contacted us before posting it - presumably because facts unfortunately do not matter for some.
3) Our new media director Katie Harbath contacted this blogger when we saw it ourselves and gave him an on the record denial. Hours later, we are waiting for him to post it as he told us he would.

4) I further noted that Mr. DeVore’s surrogates spread this false attack online this afternoon over Twitter. Like RedState, they never contacted us to verify whether it was true or not. I would also note this is not the first time his campaign has spread distortions about the Committee. It’s a questionable and unfortunate political strategy to say the least.

5) I have since noted on twitter that Mr. Ramirez himself must have noticed this false rumor because he posted a tweet clarifying that he was referring to us having provided the room, tables, and chairs for his reception. That was it.

6) I agree with you that some are using “acorn-esque” tactics. I can assure you though that it’s certainly not on our end.

You ask below - “Aren’t we supposed to be focusing our energies on Barbara Boxer?”

Again, I agree - but would respectfully suggest you instead pose that question to Mr. DeVore’s campaign and to this RedState blogger.

You can believe me or not but those are the facts. Have a good weekend.

- Brian

Ladies and Gentlemen, your NRSC communications shop at work! This email deserves fisking below the fold.

Read More →

One of the things you will be immediately impressed by if you cover the campaign of Chuck DeVore is how active and engaged his online outreach team is.  If you write a blog post about DeVore or even send out a tweet about him, you promptly get a response from the campaign, and often something from the candidate himself or his wife.  It’s one of the things the Chuck DeVore campaign has done right, and as a result, Chuck DeVore has built a very respectable Twitter following, from the ground up.

It appears now that the NRSC may be attempting to fake the same level of support for their preferred candidate, Carly Fiorina.  In the last 36 hours, Fiorina has gone from having over 400 followers (less than your humble correspondent) to having over 8,000 followers; in other words, she’s added over 7,500 followers in the last day and a half. At a glance (and it’s difficult to evaluate these things), the overwhelming majority of these followers appear to be spam/porn/inactive twitterers.

Now, I suppose it is possible that a bunch of people who don’t really use twitter suddenly became interested in following Carly Fiorina’s twitter account. Evidence suggests otherwise, however.  As I noted a few days ago, the NRSC recently made a few CYA moves in support of little-known candidate Al Ramirez.  Soon after, Al Ramirez suddenly also found himself the beneificiary of thousands of twitter followers; almost the exact same number, in fact as Carly Fiorina.  Ramirez was overjoyed by this news and tweeted about it, specifically thanking the NRSC for getting him all the new followers!

I attach a screencap because since that time, this message (specifically thanking the NRSC) has been pulled down, replaced by this somewhat more innocuous tweet thanking… no one in particular for Ramirez’s bounty. It certainly seems that the NRSC has been busy boosting Al Ramirez’s twitter followers and then someone wised up and told him that he shouldn’t mention that. Because, you know, someone might notice that Carly Fiorina has also had her follower count artificially boosted by almost the exact same number and might connect some dots.

Of course, ultimately, this is somewhat of a silly and venial stunt the NRSC appears to have pulled here.  That, ultimately, is the major source of the problem.  It stinks of amateur hour astroturfing, and more importantly, it discredits the work done by Chuck DeVore and other Republican candidates who have worked hard on their outreach to the online community on the right.  This isn’t the kind of situation where I could point out that fairness demands that the NRSC do the same for DeVore, because I’m quite sure DeVore doesn’t want it.

The GOP is currently fighting a number of critical battles in the war to regain control of the Senate.  Two of those involve the battle to retain the Florida seat formerly held by the retired Mel Martinez, and the battle to unseat the increasingly unpopular Barbara Boxer.  Both races feature a Republican primary pitting a “pragmatic moderate” against a more conservative candidate.  In both races, the conservative candidate polls as well (or, in the case of Florida, better than) the moderate against the likely Democrat opponent.  For reasons understandable to no one with any principles, the NRSC has undertaken to actively support the less electable moderate in both elections.

Naturally, the NRSC has come under fire for this from those who are loyal to the conservative candidates in California and Florida (Chuck DeVore and Marco Rubio, respectively).  Both DeVore and Rubio are serious candidates who have shown fundraising ability despite total abandonment by the GOP establishment.  Both poll well in general election matchups.  These facts seem to strongly imply that John Cornyn is using the NRSC to push liberal Republicanism for the sake of liberal Republicanism, as opposed to doing so for the sake of electing Republicans in tough elections. 

In a transparent attempt to quell this criticism, The Hill reports on the NRSC’s embarrassing attempt at covering this particular problem with a fig leaf:

Read More →

So apparently the President who has received the most laudatory and fawning press coverage of any President in the modern era has decided to go to war on one of the few media outlets that does not genuflect before daring to ask his administration non-deferential questions.  This week, Obama apparently went so far as to take the insane step of trying to remove FoxNews reporters from a pool interview.  The basis for Obama’s war on FoxNews is that FoxNews isn’t really “news,” because it represents and is pushing a point of view.  So, to review the world as it appears through the lenses of Barack Obama, the Huffington Post and Tommy Christopher are objective “news” organizations that get called on respectfully at White House press conferences, and FoxNews isn’t “news” because they’re pushing a point of view.  Great.

Many people seem to be genuinely upset by this development.  I’m not; in fact, I welcome it.  After this week, no Republican administration will be so foolish as to replicate the mistakes of the past Republican administrations who felt like they had to treat DNC propaganda mouthpieces like the NYT and MSNBC like objective news organizations.  Remember when the NYT leaked the highly classified program the Bush Administration had to track the funds being used to support terrorism, even though their own legal department told them the program was almost certainly legal?  Remember how Bush took the extraordinary step of begging them not to run the story because it would shut down a completely legal program that had been very effective in combating terrorism, and they basically told him to get lost and ran it anyway, just because it would cause him political damage?  I think it was a mistake for Bush to ever allow a NYT reporter back in the White House press room again, but he clearly felt that Presidential precedent and decorum demanded it.

Now that Obama has shown the way; to wit, that a President is perfectly free to blackball any news organization that says anything he doesn’t like, the next Republican President will have a much easier time kicking MSNBC off Air Force One.  In fact, I wish we could just speed up this entire kabuki dance and develop a set of permanent political blacklists; Republicans refuse to go on MSNBC and CNN, Democrats refuse to go on FoxNews, etc. etc. At long last the media will have shed the last vestiges of being the objective arbiters of truth and reporting and it will be evident to the whole world which side a given “news” organization is a mouthpiece for based on which politicians will grant them interviews.  When that day comes, everyone will look at all news reports examining them for agendas and biases with a critical eye that has been deserved for decades.  And since the media is still overwhelmingly left-wing, the aggregate result of their collective defrocking will be a bonus for our side.

I’d like to thank President Obama for starting this process, and encourage him to see it through to its conclusion.

Erick covered the Q-Poll showing that Charlie Crist’s once-formidable lead over Marco Rubio had been more than cut in half.  Today, the bad news for the Crist Campaign continued as Rasmussen released a poll confirming that Rubio has shaved more than 20 points off Crist’s lead. The poll also confirmed that Crist’s support is very soft and that his lead is due almost entirely to unfamiliarity with Rubio:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely GOP Primary voters in the state finds Crist outdistancing Rubio 49% to 35%. Four percent (4%) like some other candidate, and 12% are undecided.

Read More →

Via USA Today, TARP IG Neil Barofsky has some harsh words for the way the TARP funds have been handled:

A Treasury Department watchdog is warning that a key $700 billion bailout program has damaged the government’s credibility, won’t earn taxpayers all their money back and has done little to change a culture of recklessness on Wall Street.

“The American people’s belief that the funds went into a black hole, or that there was a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to Wall Street, is one of the worst outcomes of this program, and that is the reputational damage to the government,” said Neil Barofsky, special inspector general of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), in an interview.

***

“We don’t even know where the money went,” says Rep. Daniel Lipinski, D-Ill., who recently called for TARP assistance to end in December, when it’s set to expire. The Treasury has the authority to extend the program until next October.

The report criticized Treasury’s implementation of the program and its lack of transparency, making 41 recommendations, 18 of which were implemented. Barofsky says it’s “extremely unlikely” that taxpayers will recover the $77 billion committed to the ailing auto industry or the $60 billion in TARP assistance to American International Group as part of a pledge of up to $180 billion in aid. An additional $50 billion to modify unaffordable home mortgages “will yield no direct return.”

I counted myself among the supporters of TARP as it was described and sold to the public; i.e., as a program whereby the government would purchase troubled assets that were causing liquidity problems that threatened economic stability.  Neither I nor anyone else I have ever met supported the way TARP has been implemented; as a massive slush fund boondoggle for corporations favored by the White House.  And now, mere months after throwing all this money around, the oversight body for the program is frankly admitting that we’re never going to see most of this money ever again (but in exchange, we did buy government control over Corvette production!). What a crock.

Democrats in Congress have a chance to end Geithner’s reckless control over billions of dollars of taxpayer money, but they must act fast.  My guess is that they’ll be too busy trying to give the Obama administration control over trillions more taxpayer dollars through his healthcare plan to even try.

Just wanted to assure you that your Senior Senator is still up and around and perfectly capable of executing the duties you elected him to perform.  Behold! I have video proof:

And now a message for the rest of America: remember when the Democrat speechwriter talking point was that we should abandon Iraq so we could focus our efforts on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? I remember, too! Apparently, the new Democrat speechwriter talking point is that we should abandon Afghanistan so we can focus our efforts on Al Qaeda in… mmmphpuddingmmmphlrg. Well, I’m sure that’s as much of a rallying call for you as it is for me!

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Having failed to prevent Rush Limbaugh from becoming a successful and wealthy entertainer, the mainstream media has apparently decided that they will attempt the next best thing; attempt to keep Rush Limbaugh from spending his money in the way he desires.  In this case, Rush apparently desires to spend his money on a portion of the controlling stock in the St. Louis Rams of the National Football League.  In the initial stages of this story, the media attempted to thwart Limbaugh’s plans by trumpeting his comments from several years ago to the effect that the media was overrating Donovan McNabb as a quarterback because they were desirous of seeing a black quarterback succeed.  One assumes that the media has at long last realized the self-evident truth that Limbaugh’s comments about McNabb could not be construed as racist by anyone not determined to find racism in any sentence containing the word “black.”  Therefore, they have set about with phase two of this story, attacking Limbaugh as racist with completely fabricated and unsourced quotes… from Wiki. 

Read More →

Via Jim Geraghty comes this reminder that Jon Corzine, who is trailing Republican Chris Christie in the hotly-contested NJ-Gov race, is no stranger to “Macaca moments.”  Most recently, Corzine decided that it would class up the debate in the governor’s race by cracking on Christie’s weight.  Get it? Vote for me, the other guy’s fat!  As Geraghty notes, this kind of “humor” is nothing new to Corzine, who was forced to admit during his 2000 Senate campaign that he had made multiple disparaging stereotypical remarks about Italian-Americans:

Jon S. Corzine, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate in a state where one of every four Democrats is Italian-American, acknowledged today that he had made disparaging remarks about Italians as recently as two weeks ago.

* * *

According to Mr. Alfano, when someone in the group introduced Mr. Corzine to a lawyer named David Stein, Mr. Corzine said: ”He’s not Italian, is he? Oh, I guess he’s your Jewish lawyer who is here to get the rest of you out of jail.”

* * *

The second time was about two weeks ago, Mr. Alfano said. He said Mr. Corzine was introduced to an Italian-American man who said he was in the construction business. As Mr. Alfano related the exchange, ”Mr. Corzine turned to the Italian-American contractor and quipped, ‘Oh, you make cement shoes!’ ”

In fairness, Corzine denied having made the “Jewish lawyer” crack, and given that Corzine is such a stand-up, honest, and classy guy, we should probably take his word that he’d never do such a thing. 

I hope New Jersey Democrats are proud of going to the booth and pulling the lever for this guy on election day.  And I hope the media, who covered Macaca into the ground and are more recently trying to do the same with Bob McDonnell’s (much older) college thesis can be bothered to point out the kind of campaign Jon Corzine is running.

Several news outlets have been making hay out of an apparent joint endorsement of Obamacare (sans public option) by Bob Dole and Tom Daschle:

Bob Dole, the one-time Republican leader in the Senate, and Tom Daschle, the one-time Democratic leader, issued a joint statement today in which they said they supported the Democrats’ attempt to overhaul the health-care system.

“The American people have waited decades, and if this moment passes us by, it may be decades more before there is another opportunity,” the two former leaders said in a joint statement.

I find the way this is being reported to be… curious.  See, the casual observer might or might not wonder exactly what Bob Dole and Tom Daschle have been doing lately to earn a living.  The answer, as most people in DC know, is that they have been paid lobbyists at the firm of Alston + Bird.  Alston + Bird, of course, is deeply involved in lobbying on behalf of the health care industry.  Thus, whether the clients Daschle and Dole are paid to lobby on behalf of are actually supporters of Obamacare is irrelevant, as they stand to benefit from Dole and Daschle ingratiating themselves to the Administration and powerful Democrat members of Congress by engaging on this crusade.

Put more simply, the real story here is that powerful paid lobbyists are doing the job for which they are well-paid to do.  And it’s dishonest for the news media to paint Dole and Daschle as disinterested observers or party statesmen here without disclosing their obvious financial self-interest in increasing their own influence in the healthcare debate.  And if I can connect the dots from all the way over here in Tennessee, there’s no excuse why these facts should have passed reporters from the New York Times by.

Political watchers have long been awaiting a decision from Mike Castle about whether he will run in 2010 for Joe Biden’s Senate seat in Delaware (currently being occupied by placeholder Ted Kaufman).  Castle has been waffling lately, and sending some indications through his staff that if State AG Beau Biden runs, he would not run, despite polling showing him with a clear early lead over Biden.  Then the rumor mill indicated that Castle would likely not even run for his own House seat again in 2010, leading to much speculation that Castle would soon announce his retirement from politics.  This morning, Castle announced that he would hold a press conference at noon to announce his intentions.  According to The Politico, “sources” indicate that Castle will announce that he plans to run for the Senate seat. 

Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) will be running for Vice President Joe Biden’s old Senate seat in Delaware, according to two GOP sources connected to the congressman, instantly giving Republicans the opportunity to flip a traditionally-Democratic seat in their column.

Castle will be making a formal announcement at noon in his hometown of Wilmington. Castle had been debating whether to run for higher office, or retire after serving nine terms in the House.

Castle’s expected entrance into the race instantly makes the race for one of the Democrats’ safest seats competitive.  It would also represent an important symbolic victory for the GOP if they can recapture the current VP’s old seat.  Given Mark Kirk’s apparent strength in Illinois, even Obama’s media could not miss the significance of the Democrats losing the seats formerly occupied by both Obama and Biden.  Furthermore, Castle would presumably caucus with the GOP for at least some portion of the 6-year term he is elected to, which is an important fact.

And with that, I have officially run out of good things to say about Castle or this news.  I shall therefore follow my parents’ sound advice and not say anything further at all.

Last week, staffers for Barbara Boxer released information indicating that expected CA GOP candidate for governor and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman had heartily endorsed Boxer in 2003:

“Whitman contributed $4,000 to Boxer in the 2004 reelection campaign — and endorsed Boxer as a part of Technology Leaders for Boxer,” confirmed Boxer aide Rose Kapolczynski today.

And, she signed an “open letter” appealing for support from the California technology executives, touting Boxer as a “dynamic and courageous leader” on the tech front.

I understand that this is California, and that it’s going to be hard to find prominent candidates who haven’t said complimentary things about Democrats.   And Whitman’s expected primary opponent certainly doesn’t have a particularly high perch from which to cast stones, having himself been a supporter of Al Gore’s recount efforts in 2000.  But what ought to be disturbing to California voters is that Whitman seems to have had literally no interest in politics at all, not even enough to cast a vote, until her endorsement of (and donations to) Barbara Boxer in 2004. 

The Whitman campaign spokescritter chalks this endorsement of one of the Senate’s most liberal members all up to Boxer’s opposition to internet sales tax.  That might be enough to perhaps explain a small donation, or for someone running for the State assembly.  It is not enough to explain a max donation and a hearty endorsement from someone running for a position as prominent as the Governor of California.  Furthermore, the gubernatorial nominee will be campaigning simultaneously with either Chuck Devore or Carly Fiorina to unseat Boxer herself - how will that look when Boxer starts running commercials using Whitman’s words?

It all adds up to one conclusion: Meg Whitman is simply not ready or deserving of carrying the party’s banner for such a prominent race.  Maybe in time she will be, but we shouldn’t run someone whose first involvement in politics was less than five years ago, and was in favor of one of the most liberal elected Democrats in the country.

UPDATE: Welcome, Hot Air commenters! Please feel free to go here for further exposition of this post.

UPDATE 2: Welcome, Ace of Spades readers! I have included a further update here.

I will keep this simple.  Here is the text of the suit, which is brought under the MD Wiretap Act. The suit alleges that Andrew Breitbart, working in concert with O’Keefe and Giles, intercepted an “oral communication” using an electronic device, which would indeed be a violation of the act.  The problem, however, is that the statute specifically defines “oral communication” in section 10-401(2)(i) as: “any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation.”

What this means, as established by the clear text of the statute (and Maryland caselaw, including Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. of Maryland, 342 Md. 363 (Md. 1996)) is that at least one of the parties to the conversation must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the conversation. In other words, if someone stands up in the town square and shouts out loud and someone else records it, that is not a violation of the act. 

The problem for ACORN is that, as a matter of law, the employees at ACORN had no reasonable expectation of privacy in what they said to members of the public who entered their offices.  As made clear by Katz v. United States and its progeny (made applicable specifically to the Maryland Wiretap Act by cases such as Malpas v. State, 695 A.2d 588, 595 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997)), “What a person exposes knowingly to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.”

Get that? The conversations in question were knowingly exposed in a place of business to two customers who walked in off the streets. There is and can be absolutely no expectation of privacy for the ACORN employees in question.  As such, the conversations are not “private conversations” under the Maryland Wiretap Act as a matter of law.  I found all this in a matter of 15 minutes on Lexis.  I’m sure another 15 (which I don’t have) will find numerous directly applicable precedents under Katz that are completely factually indistinguishable from the present case.  In other words, this case is so totally without legal merit the very filing of it is almost sanctionable.  And putting “they had a reasonable expectation of privacy” in the complaint is not enough for this claim to survive summary dismissal; the court does not have to accept conclusory statements and legal conclusions.

Furthermore, to the extent that ACORN wants to go after Breitbart (and I hear they are wanting to go after Fox next!) for publishing this information of clear public concern, they might want to check the First Amendment jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court on that question before getting themselves in further trouble.

I am not here to defend the subject of this AP piece, who by all accounts appears to be a sexually perverted serial adulterer.  I am here to note, however, that his party affiliation is in the title of the article, and is also the second word of the piece.  Additionally, a few paragraphs down, we are informed that

 Duvall, a father of two, received a 100 percent rating from Capitol Resource Institute, a conservative advocacy group, for his votes on legislation considered pro-family during the 2007-08 legislative session.

I am sure that there is some other way that the author of this piece could have gone out of their way to prominently identify Duvall as a Republican, but I’m missing what it might be.  I just want to take this opportunity to point out what I consider to be an interesting factoid about the Associated Press.

Remember Kwame Kilpatrick?  To review the bidding, Kilpatrick (a Democrat mayor of one of America’s most prominent cities) was implicated in the coverup of the murder of a stripper whose services he allegedly frequented, much to the consternation of his wife.  Kilpatrick was ultimately arrested and indicted with eight federal felonies and resigned from office in total disgrace as part of a plea bargain with prosecutors.  Did we mention that text messages obtained from the city also clearly indicated that Kilpatrick was a serial philanderer?  And also that Kilpatrick was dragged to jail for violating the terms of his bond? 

You might have guessed that these stories would be of some interest to the Associated Press, and you’d be correct! You’d be less correct if you assumed that the Associated Press showed the same vigor for disclosing Kilpatrick’s Democratic Party violation.  In fact, the AP repeatedly and continuously refused to identify Kilpatrick as a Democrat whatsoever.  Of course, the phenomenon is hardly a new one and the AP was hardly alone in refusing to identify Kilpatrick’s party affiliation.  However, they were the first ones I saw to jump on this story, and the first words out of their mouth were the Party ID of the scandal’s perpetrator.

As for the merits of the story; I suppose I should repent of my cynicism that I am no longer shocked or surprised to find politicians (who tend to be charismatic and have magnetic personalities) who can’t resist the temptations that seem to come with the trappings of power.  It is, sadly, something that happens all too often in our fallen world.  However, my observations are not nearly as cynical as those of a news media who has decided it’s only news when a Republican is doing it.

I have to take mild issue with some of the posts at this site that have criticized Senator Edward Kennedy on the day of his death.  Some conservatives I have talked to about this troubling phenomenon have suggested that there’s simply nothing positive for them to say about Kennedy, but that’s just not true.  I consulted with some fellow conservatives and we came up with a rather impressive list of charitable things that any conservative could say about Ted Kennedy, as a way to honor his memory. I hope that my fellow conservative bloggers can put aside their pettiness for this one day and follow suit.

• He was adamantly opposed to slavery.
• He was a tireless converter of oxygen into carbon dioxide.
• He knew how to make a sandwich.
• He never killed a man.
• He never spent any time in prison.
• He filled a much-needed void.
• He was always one of his State’s two most effective Senators.
• To offset his carbon footprint, he personally and regularly produced organic material that was suitable for use as plant fertilizer.
• He was a shining example of dental hygiene.
• He was an enduring supporter of the distilling industry.
• He often remembered to tip his bartenders and waitresses.
• The elevator buttons at the Senate office buildings will miss his loving jabs.
• He never shoplifted, committed insurance fraud, or rolled drunks.
• He regularly changed his socks.
• He was a consistent eyeglasses-wearer.
• He never gave substantial money to pro-Nazi organizations.
• He never used weapons of mass destruction in anger.
• It’s not said of him that he took more than one newspaper at a time from the box.
• He never threw a shoe at anyone in public.
• No one ever saw him beat a dog or a horse.
• There is no indication that he tortured mice.
• He was apparently one of the most diligent Democrats at paying his taxes.
• He refrained from taking his clothes off for money.
• He never accosted women he thought found him unattractive.
• You could count on him to give even the homeliest cocktail waitress a self-esteem boosting rear-slap.
• He rarely drank whiskey from the bottle in public.
• He was a firm believer in yachting.
• He was adamantly opposed to the genocide and/or displacement of non-Protestants.

See there? That wasn’t so hard at all.  Please feel free to drop your own favorite complimentary thought concerning Senator Kennedy into this thread.  POSITIVE COMMENTS ONLY, PLEASE.  If you can’t think of anything at least as positive as the above, maintain a respectful silence.

I have now observed two of the country’s largest media organizations turn to the wisdom of Peter Singer in order to illuminate for readers or viewers the true lineaments of “rationing” in health care. This strikes me as bordering on bizarre. Perhaps it is simply brazen. More likely it is simply stupid.

These are the same sorts of institutions — those comprising the captaincy of the media industry — that would have us believe that phrases like “death panel” are simply beyond the pale of reason; excessive, extreme, demagogic rhetoric unfit for our Republic.

Now Professor Peter Singer of Princeton, as readers may know, has over the years made some striking remarks on the subject of rationing, which I take to mean the process of rational division of effort and
resources under conditions of scarcity. You may be scarce time, or money, or materials, or expertise; but in any case you know that all instances of your problem cannot be attended to equally. You must ration.

Read More →