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

UPDATE 2 by Erick: The numbers appears to come from the House Republican Conference’s policy shop, which is the group overseen by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN).

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

Mr. Walsh says:

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.

I agree! It is laughable. I would not believe it myself if I did not see the dots connected right before my eyes. As I said in my post earlier today, the error is a venial and silly one, which is part of what makes it so disturbing and unforced.

2) The blogger from RedState never contacted us before posting it - presumably because facts unfortunately do not matter for some.

The other explanation is that the blogger in question has experience working in comms himself and knows good and well that the comms shop of a political organization is not the place one goes for unvarnished “facts.” The media goes there because they feel an obligation to print the spin the political comms guys put on things in an effort to appear objective. I’m remarkably unconstrained in my profession (the one for which I am entirely unpaid) by any such need to either seek out or treat as respectable the horseapples spun by political comms people.  Again, I don’t begrudge them doing their job, it’s just that their work product is not that interesting to me.

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.

This is true, Ms. Harbarth did indeed contact me, and we had an email conversation. As Ms. Harbarth can surely verify, all of the emails ended, “Sent from my Verizon Wireless Blackberry.”  See, going along with the whole “I’m not paid to do this” thing, I have a job and a family life that sometimes take priority over promptly getting to a computer to reprint a denial which I flatly do not believe (I told Ms. Harbarth that I did not believe her denial but I would print it anyway).  When I *did* return to my computer, I was informed that Mr. Walsh was sending out emails like the one above, and I thought it was necessary to print a more complete picture of what the NRSC comms shop is up to tonight.

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.

If I understand this correctly, their complaint here is that a political campaign spread an attack against their opponent without contacting their opponent to get their side of it… in the interest of fairness, I guess? Really, I think I’m just going to let that one sink in on its own.

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.

I have since noticed that the “clarifying tweet” in question was posted almost immediately after Ms. Harbarth initially emailed me. I wonder, indeed, how he “noticed” that the rumor was spreading. Unfortunately, Mr. Ramirez’s “clarification” simply does not pass the smell test; he specifically thanked the NRSC for their help and attributed his thousands of new twitter followers to the help of the NRSC.  The “clarification” that he really was just thanking them for tables and chairs and has no idea how he got all those twitter followers is… well, frankly, it’s what I’d expect out of a political comms shop. See now why I don’t even bother to ask?

Since beginning this post, I have learned that Walsh continues to send out emails blasting RedState and DeVore! His latest offering:

From: Walsh, Brian [mailto:bwalsh@nrsc.org]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 5:45 PM
To: [redacted]

Subject: Re: new DeVore web video and Carly’s Twitter Delight
 
You cannot possibly be serious. What personal attack did I make exactly?

I’ve not only been a gentleman but I’ve been more than fair and forthcoming in taking the time to address a series of false accusations.

So I understand this though - a blogger with RedState posts a false and unsubstantiated story. With no proof and without even taking the time to ask the very party they were making the false attack about.

Surrogates for the DeVore campaign then spread that false attack - similarly, without taking the time to determine whether or not it’s actually true.

Yet, in your view, instead of questioning those tactics you instead suggest the onus is on us to disprove it? That it’s our responsibility to find out who is behind this? How do you propose we do that exactly?

Respectfully, this is ridiculous. If there are those who want to create - and spread - false rumors against fellow Republicans, they can do that. We have more important things to do though - like focusing on winning elections against the Democrats next year.

I laid out the facts for you. Like I said, whether or not you want to believe it or not is up to you. I do hope you have a good weekend though.

Brian 

Let me get this straight - my story was “false” and “unsubstantiated” and was submitted with “no proof.” I suppose, in the mind of Brian Walsh, that the open admission of one of the principals that NRSC was helping him get thousands of twitter followers constitutes “no proof.” In the land where real people live, this constitutes “dispositive proof.”

Furthermore, given that Al Ramirez attempted to blackhole the tweet in question (remember that we only have it at all due to a screencap) it doesn’t seem that it would have been very fruitful to seek a straightforward answer from Mr. Ramirez. And as far as seeking a response from the NRSC? Well, we’ve seen how they respond.

Below, I will reprint all of Katie Harbarth’s initial email to me, as I initially promised to do. But somewhere along the line it might be worthwhile for the NRSC to ask whether lashing out at honest activitsts who are volunteering their time and money for the cause of electing Republicans is a productive use of their time; And if they find themselves beseiged on all sides by people who don’t trust their word and are conspiring against them, maybe they ought to consider whether their organization has earned this distrust over the last several yaers, and whether they are engendering yet more with their interference in Florida and California now.

From: “Harbath, Katie” [redacted]
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:09:06 -0400
To: Leon Wolf [redacted]

Subject: Your post about the NRSC
 
Leon,
I wanted to respond to your post about the twitter followers in California. You are pulling this out of thin air ["thin air" being used here as a euphemism for "Al Ramirez's twitter feed" - LHW]. On the record, we had absolutely nothing to do with this. If I can answer any questions at any time please contact me day or night. All of my information is below.

Katie Harbath

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.

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:

Businessman Al Ramirez, an underdog candidate in the GOP primary to face Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), is launching his campaign today at NRSC headquarters.

Ramirez’s event could been seen as a retort to state Sen. Chuck DeVore’s contention that the committee has already chosen sides in the primary. DeVore has unleashed a series of attacks on the NRSC for allegedly choosing Carly Fiorina as its candidate.

The issue has also arisen in races in Kentucky and New Hampshire, where the NRSC has housed fundraisers for establishment-favored candidates, while their primary challengers looked on.

NRSC spokesman Brian Walsh says: “Al Ramirez is a Republican candidate, and we extend our facilities to Republican candidates. Barbara Boxer’s approval ratings are very low, and we’re excited about our prospects in California next year.”

Folks, it is technically true that Al Ramirez is running for the U.S. Senate Seat currently occupied by Barbara Boxer.  And it is technically true that he was allowed to use NRSC office space to launch his campaign.  However, the real truth is that he probably used NRSC facilities because his campaign cannot come close to affording its own.

You see, Al Ramirez announced his campaign on the same day as Chuck DeVore. According to FEC reports, since that day, Chuck DeVore has raised just over $700,000. Al Ramirez has raised $5,207 dollars (that is not a typo and there are no zeros missing), of which $5,107 was a loan to the campaign… from Al Ramirez.  In other words, in the entirety of this campaign, Al Ramirez has raised $100 in cash. It sure is a good thing the NRSC hasn’t chosen sides so that Al Ramirez has a shot in this race!

A better sign of objectivity from the NRSC would be a refusal, from now until the day after the primary, to advertise in favor of one Republican candidate over another, and a refusal, from now until the day after the primary, to handicap the race by transferring cash to either candidate.  Will the NRSC make such a commitment, or will they continue to argue, with a straight face, that allowing Al Ramirez to use their office space shows their lack of partiality?

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.

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.

***

The fact that Crist has fallen below 50% in a primary against a lesser known opponent suggests potential vulnerability.

***

Twenty-three percent (23%) of GOP Primary voters have a very favorable opinion of Crist, while 13% view him very unfavorably.

Rubio is viewed very favorably by 21% and very unfavorably by just three percent (3%). But 23% of primary voters don’t know enough about the Cuban-American politician from Miami to express even a soft opinion of him.

At this very early stage of the campaign, Rasmussen Reports considers the very favorable and very unfavorable figures more significant than the overall favorability totals. The GOP Primary is scheduled for August 24 of next year.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of GOP Primary voters at least somewhat approve of the job Crist is doing as governor, while 42% disapprove. Fourteen percent (14%) strongly approve, and 16% strongly disapprove. Those numbers are not terribly strong for an incumbent Governor in his own party.

Folks, remember two things. First, both Crist and Rubio poll equally well against the likely Democratic opponent. Second, when the pollsters first started examining this race, Crist held a lead of between 35-40 points. The conventional wisdom was that Crist would flood the state with money and Rubio’s candidacy would be suffocated and unable to get off the ground.  Five short months later, all but 15 points of that lead has evaporated and as people come to know Rubio, he continues to make inroads on Crist’s soft support.

Folks, as people come to know Marco, they become more willing to vote for him, but he needs your help to make that happen.  Send Marco a donation, whatever you can afford, to help make that happen.  Remember, if we do not defeat Charlie Crist in the primary, we will just end up sending a “Republican” who is a rubber stamp for President Obama’s economic policies to Washington:

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.

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.

I first became aware of this latest brouhaha when I opened FoxSports.com this morning as I typically do to check and see if anything interesting happened in the previous evening of sports.  I was greeted with a huge front-page box featuring this insipid column from the execrable Jason Whitlock. By way of reminder, Jason Whitlock recently wrote this ridiculous column, which somehow passes for insightful commentary while Limbaugh’s comments about McNabb are evil, thoughtless, and racist.  But I digress.  The newest basis for the assertion that Limbaugh is an eeeeeevil racist is as follows, according to Whitlock:

Here are two quotes attributed to Limbaugh in a 2006 book, “101 People Who Are Really Screwing America,” by Jack Huberman.

 

• “You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray (Dr. King’s assassin). We miss you, James. Godspeed.” 
• “Let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: Slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back. I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.”

The first of these quotes has already been debunked most thoroughly, long before Rush’s bid to buy the Rams became public news.  It is self-evidently the complete fabrication of someone with a wiki account, which was then picked up by the unscrupulous Huberman and reported as fact (with no citations at all) in his book.  The other, also attributed to Huberman, has never been sourced, and Huberman has never cited any original article, or even given any indication as to when this alleged statement was made.  Of course, these facts make it utterly impossible to refute the claim; without any date or context, Rush cannot even call witnesses who were present during the alleged confirmation to confirm or deny that he ever made such a statement.  It is literally impossible for Limbaugh (or anyone else) to offer convincing proof that they have never at any time made a given statement (other than their own denial, which Rush has already given).  It is preposterous to ask anyone to prove that they did not make a statement if you cannot even so much as offer a time and place where the statement is alleged to have occurred.

And yet, this is the position in which Limbaugh finds himself.  And worse, idiots like Whitlock seem to think that it’s entirely appropriate to believe this completely unsourced accusation:

Limbaugh claimed on his radio show Monday that his staff could not find any proof that he ever joked about slavery. I’m sorry. Limbaugh doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt on racial matters.

See? In Jason Whitlock’s world, anyone at any time can claim that some unidentified person told them that Rush Limbaugh said [X], at a time and place they can’t identify, and if it touches on anything racial, it is fair to assume that Rush really said it because he doesn’t get “the benefit of the doubt.”  This isn’t about the “benefit of the doubt,” it’s about whether the accusation is serious enough to create any doubt at all in the first place. 

I wonder if Jason Whitlock would be amused to discover the same standard applied to him.  After all, I have access to a widely-read website as well.  You know how easy it would be for me to say, on the front page of this website, that “Jason Whitlock raped a woman”?  Then do you know how easy it would be for some jerk with a vendetta against Whitlock to put that in his Wiki article and credit me as the source?  Oh, well, I suppose the rumor is out there now.  If Whitlock doesn’t like it, I guess he can prove it never happened.  He’d better get busy accounting for every 30-second segment of his life if he wants us to believe him.  We wouldn’t want to be accused of giving him “the benefit of the doubt.”

He’s earned a fortune with racial satire. He knows what he’s doing. You can argue the comments are presented out of context and were meant as jokes. Then I’d argue that Limbaugh needs to get on the comedy-club circuit and out of the business of attempting to influence presidential politics.

Or, actually, you could argue that the comments never happened.  Given the obvious fact that Huberman ripped off Wikiquote for his first alleged Limbaugh racial slur, and gives no source whatsoever for the second, we don’t need to yet even have the argument about whether they disqualify Limbaugh from owning the Rams, because we haven’t uncovered anything that would convince any serious person that the comments were ever made in the first place. 

I guess Whitlock’s piece is refreshing in one way: unlike the other alleged news outlets covering this “story,” Whitlock frankly admits that he believes these things about Limbaugh because they fit his own preconceived narrative of what Limbaugh is about, not because of the factual foundation upon which they are based.  In a sense, that’s fine; no one of even functional intelligence reads Jason Whitlock expecting to find facts, reasoned analysis, or objective reporting on the world.  That’s more and more true of news outlets like CNN as well, but they are still desperately trying to maintain the facade.  If they want to do so, they should immediately retract and apologize to Rush Limbaugh, or just take the Whitlock route and frankly admit the biases they have.  In that sense, perhaps Chris Matthews is the most honest player in this particular farce:

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.

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.

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.

“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 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.

 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.

• 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.

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.

The Professor has, for instance, taken time to consider the horrifying rationing into which a man would be forced, in the circumstance of a raging fire that at once threatens (1) a kennel full of beloved dogs, (2) a clinic full of newborns, and (3) an orphanage full of children. Singer would save the dogs. The Professor has also considered the circumstance of a couple, having recently given birth to a disabled child, who must now face the rationing of their time, their resources, and their happiness, that will attend the care of a such a child. Singer believes the couple ought to be able to kill the child.

Thus the utilitarianism of Professor Peter Singer. Thus the form of justifiable rationing as it presents itself to his reasoning mind. And thus my puzzlement at why the media would call on this man to elucidate the thorny question of rationing in health care. The Professor thinks it is inevitable; that it must happen and it happens already. “Health care,” he says, “is a scarce resource, and all scarce resources are rationed in one way or another.” Singer objects to the current form of rationing we rely on, and believes he has thought out
a better way. His proposal is here.

Taking cognizance of the Professor’s views on rationing and the dignity of human life, it seems that the media has unthinkingly given Americans a good reason to embrace rhetoric as strident as “death
panels.” For Singer, a respected authority on bioethics, would make parents the death panel for disabled infants. Their tyranny over their child would be complete.

In a similar manner, consider the deranged cogitations of President Obama’s own science adviser. Here is a man who set pen to paper to disgorge opinions that make “death panels” look very mild indeed. I urge the reader to examine Mr. Holdren’s opinions in detail — even in light of his office’s exquisitely vague repudiation of those opinions — and reflect on whether a phrase like “death panels” is indeed intolerable hyperbole and scaremongering.

The sad and pulverizing fact is that the stench of death does cling to much of what passes for bioethics today; there is a great deal to fear in how modern medicine is developing its view of the dignity of human
life. The leaders of opinion in these fields betray abominable instincts and intuitions. They write like madmen of introducing contraceptives into the water supply and other depraved methods of “coercive fertility control.” They talk blithely of terrible things: “I would hope that the doctor would do something so the [disabled] child [doesn’t] live, and maybe say to the parents, ‘Unfortunately it died.’”

I’m sorry watchdogs of the media, but evoking the specter of death panels is hardly excessive rhetoric in light of the influence wielded by Messrs. Holdren and Singer. Would that it were excessive! Jefferson
apparently spoke for Americans across the ages when he said that we tremble for our country when we reflect that God is just. But the moral imagination of these men, on the evidence of their writings, is too monstrous to trust with almost anything; so monstrous, indeed, that it taints all who might rely on them for
counsel.