The Tonight Show Kerfuffle

Okay, so they've settled the Tonight Show mess at NBC by bringing back Jay Leno. Apparently, Conan O' Brien will be sent packing...

Jay Leno is set to return to "The Tonight Show," unless Conan O'Brien has a last-minute change of heart about hosting the show in a later time period, according to an NBC source.

On Tuesday, Conan announced he would refuse to host "The Tonight Show" at 12:05 a.m., which is where NBC said it's moving the franchise when its coverage of the Olympic Games concludes at the end of February.

NBC now appears willing to let Conan leave the network, said the source, who has knowledge of the situation but was not authorized to speak publicly about the fluid situation. Conan likely will be allowed to develop a show for another network before his NBC contract would have expired, and an agreement is expected to be reached soon.

But it also appears the network intends to kick Conan as he walks out the door. In an interview with the New York Times, NBC Universal Sports chairman Dick Ebersol said Leno was being returned to late night because of "an astounding failure by Conan," ratings-wise, on "The Tonight Show."

However, on Sunday, NBC Universal Television Entertainment Chairman Jeff Gaspin had told a couple hundred members of the press that the network had to move Leno out of his 10 p.m. time slot after TV station executives started threatening to preempt the show in large numbers. Their rebellion was stoked by the November sweeps ratings, which showed how much damage Leno's show had done to their late local newscasts.

...Conan joked at the top of his Thursday night show: "There's a rumor that NBC is so upset with me, they want to keep me off the air for three years. My response to that is if NBC doesn't want people to see me, just leave me on NBC."
..."I received a letter from the adult-film company Pink Visual offering me a role in one of their porn movies," Conan said Thursday in his opening monologe. "In the movie, I'd be having sex with a beautiful woman and just as we are about to climax, I get replaced by Jay Leno."

The epic failure here is with NBC, not Conan. If those 11 PM newscasts were getting killed, some of the residual effect was impacting Conan as well. More importantly, Conan was apparently winning the 28-49 demographic.

Yeah, I side with Conan here, even though I don't watch the show that often. I didn't watch often with Jay, either, and I don't watch Letterman much. As comedians go, Jay's the best at delivering a monologue, but O'Brien often stretches comedy in ways that (ironically) Letterman used to do, back in the day. NBC needed to have a lot more patience with Conan, mostly because they've now damaged the mothership of late-night TV. I'm not saying Jay is done at The Tonight Show (he's only 60 years old), but they're kidding themselves if they think Jimmy Fallon or Carson Daly will someday take the reins there and do well.

Meanwhile, if I were Conan, I'd check with Letterman and see if he plans on bailing anytime soon. Maybe Dave's show has been promised to Craig Ferguson, but he's terrible. Barring that, Fox should snap up Conan -- even if they can't use him for a while due to a non-compete, he could go back to being a writer on The Simpsons. Yeah, that won't happen, but a guy can hope.

What Can Brown Do For Massachusetts?

Four days before the special election, Martha Coakley's getting insulted by her fellow Democrats in every way possible...

Here in Massachusetts, as well as in Washington, a growing sense of gloom is setting in among Democrats about the fortunes of Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley. "I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers," says one well-connected Democratic strategist. In her own polling, Coakley is said to be around five points behind Republican Scott Brown. "If she's not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout," the Democrat says. "So right now, she is destined to lose."

Intensifying the gloom, the Democrat says, is the fact that the same polls showing Coakley falling behind also show President Obama with a healthy approval rating in the state. "With Obama at 60 percent in Massachusetts, this shouldn't be happening, but it is," the Democrat says.

Given those numbers, some Democrats, eager to distance Obama from any electoral failure, are beginning to compare Coakley to Creigh Deeds, the losing Democratic candidate in the Virginia governor's race last year. Deeds ran such a lackluster campaign, Democrats say, that his defeat could be solely attributed to his own shortcomings, and should not be seen as a referendum on President Obama's policies or those of the national Democratic party.

The same sort of thinking is emerging in Massachusetts. "This is a Creigh Deeds situation," the Democrat says. "I don't think it says that the Obama agenda is a problem. I think it says, 1) that she's a terrible candidate, 2) that she ran a terrible campaign, 3) that the climate is difficult but she should have been able to overcome it, and 4) that Democrats beware -- you better run good campaigns, or you're going to lose."

A few thoughts are in order. First, I live in Virginia, and I can confirm that Creigh Deeds ran a terrible campaign. But Coakley as a candidate makes Deeds look like Barack Obama, circa 2008. Last night, she managed to take a rather risky stand that may alienate Catholic voters, in a state with just a few Catholic voters. She also insulted shaking hands outside Fenway Park, which people in Boston probably find even more offensive. She also took a six day vacation during the holidays, which is fine as a choice, but may be a strategic misstep when the general election campaign is shorter than 60 days. Maybe I'm too far removed from Massachusetts to appreciate her better qualities as a campaigner, but I tend to doubt it.

Second, this is horribly unfair to Creigh Deeds for another reason. Virginia is, at best, a newly minted purple state state. I know we have two Democratic Senators, but both ran as moderates and won election during good years for Democrats. Deeds was running in a bad year for Dems in a state that's not pre-disposed to backing Dems reflexively. Yes, Deeds lost by 20 points, but losing itself wasn't the surprise, just the margin.

By contrast, Martha Coakley was running as a Democrat in a state that's a darker shade of blue than the Blue Man Group. She should win going away, even in a year that's bad for Democrats. The better campaign comparison to last fall might be Jon Corzine in New Jersey, except that the voters also disliked Corzine because he was the incumbent Governor. I guess they might be coming to the belated recognition that Coakley's a bad Attorney General (Dorothy Rabinowitz's piece in the Wall Street Journal is a must-read), but I doubt that's driving away Massachusetts voters like Corzine's performance as Governor did in New Jersey. And keep in mind, Coakley's managed to blow a 30 point lead. I'm not sure if Deeds ever had the lead in his race, but he certainly didn't pull a Houston Oiler gag job.

Third, that piece above is a front for the theory that it's not Obama's fault. If Coakley wins, I guarantee that the Obama White House will try to paint this as a referendum on health care and Obama's policies, and try to take credit for it. But they're now on record as assigning the blame for the loss to her and her alone. Jennifer Rubin has the counterpoint to that here...

Since September, the country has witnessed the visible battle over ObamaCare — late-night votes, Cash for Cloture deals, and a bill that offends a wide array of groups. Democrats have never looked up or paused to consider the public’s views on the matter. They tell us they will “sell it” to us later. That arrogant defiance of public opinion and the unseemly legislative process that produced a grossly unpopular bill have fueled a resurgence of anger and determination among conservatives and even usually apathetic independents. They now are anxious to send a message to Washington: stop ignoring the voters. We saw it in New Jersey and Virginia. Now we learn that even Massachusetts may not be immune.

The Democrats’ agenda, specifically a hugely unpopular health-care bill, has unified and energized not the proponents of big government but the opposition, which now is itching for the chance to exact revenge. We’ll see on Tuesday if that wave of resentment is so powerful as to extend even to a state so Blue that a little over a year ago, Obama carried it by more than 25 points.

Yes, Coakley's run a crappy campaign, but it's Massachusetts. This is a state that voted for George McGovern. You need more than just a crappy campaign as a Democrat to lose a statewide race in Massachusetts -- and one of those things you probably need is a Democratic President and Democratic Congress angering and galvanizing the opposition. And yet, she's now behind by 4 points in the most recent poll. As Ace of Spades noted, it's almost like Coakley is trying to lose, so Senate Dems can blame the loss of the 41st seat as the reason they couldn't pass Obamacare.

Which brings me to the final point here. I'm a believer in momentum in political campaigns, or the "Big Mo" as Bush 41 used to say. Forget the Big Mo -- at this point, all the momentum is on Scott Brown's side. Yes, I'm still worried about a Saturday Surprise or a Sunday Slime, but I'm guessing that if Coakley had a silver bullet, she would have used it already. She's running a crazy number of negative ads, but I've always believed those tend to depress turnout from the other side, and Brown's supporters still look like they plan to show up (while Democrats continue to appear unenthused).

I've been skeptical of Brown's chances for a long time. Perhaps I still should be. But that Suffolk poll showing him up four points, along with the signs of panic on the Democratic side, have changed the relevant question here in this race. Before, people asked, "Can he win? Can he make it close?" Now, the question is, "Will he win?" Subtle change, but now people believe he can win -- it's no longer a Hail Mary possibility. That's big -- people like supporting a winner, and I firmly believe late-deciders tend to break toward a candidate who looks like he or she will win. Brown's now in that zone. To paraphrase Jim Croce singing about another Mr. Brown, he's the baddest man in the whole damn state. Here's hoping he closes the deal.

Maybe They Should Bring Back The Pepsi Challenge, Too

I still drink Pepsi, despite their decision to adopt a new logo that looks way too much like something out of the 2008 presidential campaign. You have to wonder if this is a response to Obama's declining poll numbers (hat tip: Jay Nordlinger). Or maybe they just realized it's a crappy logo.

No Cure For Cancer... Or Stupidity

One of these days, I'll get around to blogging about SuperFreakonomics, the followup book to the best-seller from a few years ago. Lots to like in the book, and there's a particularly entertaining discussion about geo-engineering to help halt global warming (the bottom line seems to be that there are cost-effective solutions that don't involve taxing ourselves to death or killing economic growth, but politicians seem to be the ones standing in the way).

But the authors have a blog at the New York Times, and they note today that the dire health warnings on cigarette labels may actually push some people to smoke. Denis Leary was way ahead of them...

It doesn't matter how big the warnings on the cigarettes are; you could have a black pack, with a skull and crossbones on the front, called TUMORS, and smokers would be around the block going, "I can't wait to get my hands on these fucking things! I bet ya get a tumor as soon as you light up!"

Unfortunately, it's funny cause it's true.

You Stay Classy, Chuck Schumer

A sitting United States Senator just called a potential future colleague a "Teabagger", in an effort to raise money for Martha Coakley. When politicians start calling other politicians be derogatory names, it gives off a whiff of desperation.

And while I know that liberal pundits and some politicians have trotted out the term during the last year or so, they're really testing the limits of whether they can get away with saying just about anything, even if it's vaguely offensive to another group, just because they're Democrats. In other words, I guess Harry Reid really is a leader.

Maybe He Should Recommend His Advisor to Tim Geithner

If you want to know why Americans are annoyed with their government... well...

IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman does not file his own taxes in part because he believes the tax code is complex.

During an interview on C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" program that aired on Sunday, Shulman said he uses a tax preparer for his own returns.

"I've used one for years. I find it convenient. I find the tax code complex so I use a preparer," Shulman said.

Pressed on how he would make the tax code simpler, Shulman responded, "I don't write the tax laws. Congress writes the tax laws so that's a whole different discussion."

The IRS this month announced it will be scrutinizing the tax preparer industry. Shulman said the IRS is looking to set "a minimal level of competence in the preparer community."

I'm going to avoid discussing the Service's efforts to scrutinize tax preparers, since I once wrote about that back in another life. But it does say a lot that our tax code is now complex enough that the Commissioner of the agency that administers it needs an advisor to fill out his return. And none of it is good.

The TSA Has One Set Of Fans: Nudists

Should I find it surprising that nudists are okay with the new airport scanners? Probably not. They're nudists, so I tend to think this makes them rather unpredictable, even though one might expect a more libertarian take from people who would like the opportunity to stroll around in the buff.

Of course, the most important piece of information in this piece was this survey they quoted that says one in five North Americans have skinny-dipped in mixed company. I had no idea that the cast of MTV shows had grown that large.

TV Nostalgia of the Day

A new series, inspired by loyal reader ST. These are the moments of television past that YouTube was designed to bring back to us.

Beavis and Butthead appeared on TV back when I was in college. Put simply, people either hated the show or loved it. I like low-brow humor, but I also think Mike Judge and Co. were doing a pretty decent commentary on society while allowing us to laugh. But that discussion is for another time. For now, let's look back at one of their better video reviews...



You're welcome.

You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.

Somewhere in the White House in the last 24 hours, someone saw the Quinnipiac poll results and said, "Inconceivable!" At least, that's how I picture the response to this...

American voters are split 45 - 45 percent on whether Barack Obama's first year in office is a success or failure and split 35 - 37 percent on whether the U.S. would be better off if John McCain had won the 2008 election, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll released today. As he marks the first anniversary of his inauguration, President Obama's approval has slipped slightly into an even 45 - 45 percent split for the first time.

By a 43 - 30 percent margin American voters think Obama has been a better President than George W. Bush, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University survey finds. Voters blame Bush more than Obama 55 - 20 percent for the current economic conditions, but they say 35 - 24 percent that Obama's policies have made the United States less safe than those of his predecessor. Another 38 percent say safety is about the same.

(hat tip: Hot Air) I'm thinking that B+ grade looks more and more like grade inflation. Then again, the President used to be a law professor, so that's to be expected.

Remain Calm -- All Is Well

The Democrats are now seriously worried about losing Ted Kennedy's Senate seat... um, make that the people's Senate seat...

A major national union supporting Democrat Martha Coakley is taking out a massive TV ad buy that slams her Republican rival, Scott Brown, for his positions on abortion and climate change.

The ad taken out by the Service Employees International Union, will begin airing statewide tomorrow. The buy size is $685,000, one of the largest of the election.

“Before you vote for Senate, here’s a few things you should know about Scott Brown,” says a narrator in the 30-second spot. The narrator then says he “has repeatedly opposed a woman’s right to choose” and he “expresses skepticism that climate change is being caused by humans.”

“No wonder Brown’s campaign is being supported by the same extremist group that backs Sarah Palin,” the narrator says. “Martha Coakley for Senate. Massachusetts values.”

Jim Geraghty points out that in addition to the SEIU, the national Democrats have dropped over a million bucks into the race. We know the Dems are worried when their internal polls match up with what Scott Rasmussen says: that the race is within the margin of error and effectively a toss-up. I'm starting to wonder whether Chip Diller from Animal House will show up as Coakley's campaign spokesman" "Remain calm. All is well."

Of course, it doesn't help when your candidate's most memorable moment of the week is misspelling "Massachusetts" in a campaign ad as "Massachusettes". Martha Coakley's best attribute is that she's making the current crop of Congressional Democrats look competent. While Coakley's raising money from big-time lobbyists, Brown's moneybomb Monday night got $1.3 million with an average donation under $80 (by way of disclosure, I threw some cash in the pot myself).

Can Brown win? I'd quote a certain three word campaign slogan from the 2008 Presidential election campaign, but that would seem trite.

Would You Buy A Health Care Plan From This Woman?

Don't click this link. Seriously, you will regret it.

What did I tell you?

The Health Care Follies Continue

Who's Jonathan Gruber? He's a respected MIT professor, and a widely cited health-care economist. He recently penned a Washington Post op-ed defending some of the key components of the healthcare proposals pushed for by the Obama Administration and passed by Congress.

And he's been getting paid, with taxpayer dollars.

I tend to agree with Megan McArdle that this is more of a disclosure and perception issue than a real problem -- Gruber's certainly not writing something he doesn't believe. But it does leave us to wonder why one of the more influential voices in favor of Obamacare didn't reveal this potential conflict earlier on, and McArdle notes the impact...

I certainly would not have written about him the same way, even though I am sure that what Gruber is saying comports with what he believes. My guess is that like me, most journalists would have treated him as an employee of the administration, with all the constraints that implies, rather than passing along his pronouncements as the thoughts of an independent academic. Christina Romer is a very, very fine economist. But her statements about administration policy are treated differently from statements by, say, her colleague Brad De Long.

Given how influential Professor Gruber's work has been during the health care debate, that's rather a large problem.

Gruber's explanation that "he disclosed this to reporters whenever they asked" is not very compelling. I don't see how anyone even tangentially connected to policy work could fail to realize that this was a material conflict of interest that should have been disclosed, and reporters cannot take up all their interview time going through all the sources who might have been paying or otherwise influencing their interviewee.

The standard is even higher for people who are taking public funds, and not only Professor Gruber, but the administration had a responsibility to disclose the relationship. Yet a post on the OMB blog signed by Peter Orszag cited Brownstein's Gruber quotes without mentioning the relationship.

I think the real problem here is one for the Obama Administration, which has been struggling with reporters recently because of trust issues.

Allow me to illustrate by way of analogy. My daughter is two years old, and a total Daddy's girl. She trusts her Daddy on anything and everything (which will make it all the more painful come the inevitable day when she tells me she hates me, which happens to all parents). But she hates getting water in her eyes when she gets a bath, which makes it more difficult to wash her hair. Her mother is pretty good at keeping the water from getting into her eyes; her Daddy, not so good. Hence, when she gets a bath from her father, there's a lecture session where she tells me "Don't get it in my eyes!" at least three times. And because my track record isn't good, she's not inclined to trust me on this one when I ask.

Similarly, most journalists were and are predisposed to treat the Obama team well, not just because they're ideologically aligned but because they're in power. But trust, once lost, can be very difficult to regain, even from people who want to give you the benefit of the doubt. I think the press is already following one of the mantras of Reagan when it comes to dealing with the administration: Trust, but verify. For the sake of the administration, the relationship needs that -- Obama as a candidate did not get nearly enough vetting by the press, and his team came to expect kid gloves treatment. The harsher questions being asked will be good for them. The only real issue is whether they'll have answers.

No Word On Whether Bill Belichick Asked For The Tapes

Well, this is a new form of cheating in sports...

The NHL yesterday said it was investigating why the Pittsburgh Penguins' TV-rights holder withheld from replay officials a videotape that showed the Flyers' Simon Gagne scoring a shorthanded goal against the host Penguins last Thursday.

"At the heart of the matter is the integrity of the system," said Gary Meagher, the NHL's senior vice president of public relations.

Gagne appeared to score on a second-period shot that goalie Brent Johnson smothered and carried into the net. It would have given the Flyers a 6-3 lead with 2 minutes, 53 seconds left in the second period.

The play was reviewed, and officials in Toronto said replays were inconclusive and did not count the goal.

A few minutes later, FSN in Pittsburgh gave its viewers a replay that showed the puck across the goal line. The NHL said that replay was not sent to its review team in Toronto until after the puck was dropped following the review. Once the puck is dropped, the ruling cannot be reversed, the NHL said.

"The league is investigating why we didn't get all angles of the replay," Meagher said.

Meagher said FSN should have sent all of the replays, and that it does not have the right to pick and choose which replays it sends.

...Asked if a fine could be assessed, Meagher said in an e-mail last night: "It's a matter between the league, the Penguins, and FSN, and will be handled internally."

A short time after the ruling last Thursday, FSN showed the puck over the line - and one of the Penguins broadcasters told his viewers: "Oh, we saved that one [replay]!"

The Flyers' telecast was using the FSN feed, so there were no other replays that could be sent to Toronto that night.

I guarantee this would be a bigger story if Pittsburgh star and diving enthusiast Sidney Crosby had been the victim.

I Guess This Was Why He Wanted A Third Term

Mayor Bloomberg, a.k.a. New York's insufferable nanny, now wants to cut back on salt in processed foods...

On Monday, the Bloomberg administration plans to unveil a broad new health initiative aimed at encouraging food manufacturers and restaurant chains across the country to curtail the amount of salt in their products.

The plan, for which the city claims support from health agencies in other cities and states, sets a goal of reducing the amount of salt in packaged and restaurant food by 25 percent over the next five years.

Public health experts say that would reduce the incidence of high blood pressure and should help prevent some of the strokes and heart attacks associated with that condition. The plan is voluntary for food companies and involves no legislation. It allows companies to cut salt gradually over five years so the change is not so noticeable to consumers.

“We all consume way too much salt, and most of the salt we consume is in the food when we buy it,” said Dr. Thomas Farley, the city health commissioner, whose department is leading the effort. Eighty percent of the salt in Americans’ diets comes from packaged or restaurant food. Dr. Farley said reducing salt from those sources would save lives.

Since taking office, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who just began his third term, has gained a reputation as an advocate for healthy living, initiating prominent campaigns against smoking and harmful trans fats. To combat obesity, he has campaigned for calorie labeling on restaurant menus and warned consumers about sugary soft drinks.

The city’s salt campaign is in some ways more ambitious and less certain of success than the ones it waged against smoking and obesity. For one thing, the changes it prescribes require cooperation on a national scale, city officials said, because major food companies cannot be expected to alter their products for just the New York market.

And removing salt from many products can be complicated. Salt plays many roles in food, enhancing flavor, preventing spoilage and improving shelf life. It helps bread to rise and brown.

The city’s campaign against salt resembles its push to cut trans fat from restaurant foods, which began with a call for voluntary compliance. When that did not work, the city passed a law to force restaurants to eliminate trans fat.

But city officials said it would be difficult to legislate sodium reduction.

“There’s not an easy regulatory fix,” said Geoffrey Cowley, an associate health commissioner. “You would have to micromanage so many targets for so many different products.”

He said officials hoped the campaign would work through public pressure. Companies that complied would benefit from good publicity.

I know I eat some unhealthy junk, and I also know that I add way too much salt to what I eat. But it's my job to get that under control, not Michael Bloomberg's. And if it is Bloomberg's job, then he's doing really lousy work, so I'd like him fired.

If Bloomberg stops this time with just public encouragement, I don't have a huge problem with it, although if I were a NYC resident, I'd probably prefer my mayor to be doing something other than reading nutrition labels for me. But the problem with these ideas is that they rarely stop with just public encouragement, and at some point, we end up limiting freedom of choice in ways that become far too intrusive (at least for me). Will restaurants later be encouraged to remove salt shakers and salt packets from the tables and other areas, providing them only on request? Perhaps after the consumer is read a lecture about using too much salt?

Yes, slippery slope arguments are inherently weakened by the fact that most of the problems in an individual parade of horribles are inherently absurd ("We're not going to stand here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America! Gentlemen!"). But the real question is how far we really want the state to go in regulating our lives for our better good. Even if people are making foolish decisions about their diet, those are their decisions to make. Besides, it's not like our city, state, and federal governments are covering themselves in glory making intelligent decisions right now -- I'd like there to be less on their plate rather than more, in part because I don't want to cede more control to them, and in part so they can actually do the jobs they're supposed to be doing.

What Annoying Song Is Stuck In My Head Today?

If I need to suffer with a song stuck in my head, why shouldn't you have to do the same? Sometimes they're good, most times they're bad... but no matter what, they make you suffer. So I like to share the suffering whenever it happens.

I'm not sure why this song got airplay today, but I heard it on the radio today and immediately flashed back to the video. No, there was nothing special about the video itself -- the thiong was typical '80's cheese. Remember back in the '80's, when the tag for the video would appear in the corner of the screen, it would say the name of the song, the name of the artist, the name of the album, and the name of the label. For this song, it always said:

Living in a Box
Living in a Box
Living in a Box
[Record Label Name]

Couldn't they have just re-named the label?

Beyond that, this song will almost certainly get stuck in your head. Plus, the title will lead to at least one Beavis-like chuckle from someone reading this.



You're welcome.

Moneybombing Massachusetts

You gotta love a candidate who says that "It's not the Kennedy's seat... it's the people's seat." Of course, since it's Massachusetts, they'll probably take offense.



(hat tip: Instapundit) Brown is supposed to lose, because he's running in Masschusetts. But the fact that he's making the Dems play defense, has the momentum, and the fact that his one-day "Moneybomb" fundraiser topped $1.1 million (more than double the goal of $500,000) says he's got people truly excited for him. The national GOP isn't responsible for this -- it's Brown and the people who want to send a message to the establishment in D.C., which includes the GOP. I don't know if they will succeed, but it is fun to watch them try.

If Brown wins, D.C. will be turned upside down. And that's just one more reason to root for him.

Just When You Thought Politicians Couldn't Be More Shallow and Self-Serving

Game Change is promising to be the political book of the year. Of course, 60 Minutes focused its segment on Sarah Palin's alleged lack of knowledge regarding anything, as related by McCain campaign chief Steve Schmidt. But what's really hilarious is that Schmidt, after mocking Palin as an idiot, thinks she helped McCain...

And Schmidt says, on balance, Palin helped the ticket.

"I believe, had she not been on the ticket our margin of defeat would’ve been greater than it would’ve been otherwise," he said.

(hat tip: Tom Maguire) This is ridiculous. I don't believe Palin is an idiot, but I also didn't nominate her to Veep. If you did believe her to be one, then putting her in position to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency is a bad idea, even if you learn it after the fact. And before the Democrats get gleeful about that, keep in mind that they wanted to put John friggin' Edwards in the same spot four years earlier. As David Frum notes, the Dems kept their mouth shut about Edwards when he was running for President and under consideration for Veep/AG in 2008.

No wonder politics makes people cynical.

Stimulate This

Hey, that stimulus is working out great... um, okay, maybe not, but the economy and unemployment would be far worse without it.... oh, damn...

Ten months into President Barack Obama's first economic stimulus plan, a surge in spending on roads and bridges has had no effect on local unemployment and only barely helped the beleaguered construction industry, an Associated Press analysis has found.

Spend a lot or spend nothing at all, it didn't matter, the AP analysis showed: Local unemployment rates rose and fell regardless of how much stimulus money Washington poured out for transportation, raising questions about Obama's argument that more road money would address an "urgent need to accelerate job growth."

Obama wants a second stimulus bill from Congress that relies in part on more road and bridge spending, projects the president said are "at the heart of our effort to accelerate job growth."

Construction spending would be a key part of the Jobs for Main Street Act, a $75 billion second stimulus to revive the nation's lethargic unemployment rate and improve the dismal job market for construction workers. The House approved the bill 217-212 last month after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., worked the floor for an hour; the Senate is expected to consider it later in January.

AP's analysis, which was reviewed by independent economists at five universities, showed that strategy hasn't affected unemployment rates so far. And there's concern it won't work the second time. For its analysis, the AP examined the effects of road and bridge spending in communities on local unemployment; it did not try to measure results of the broader aid that also was in the first stimulus like tax cuts, unemployment benefits or money for states.

"My bottom line is, I'd be skeptical about putting too much more money into a second stimulus until we've seen broader effects from the first stimulus," said Aaron Jackson, a Bentley University economist who reviewed AP's analysis.

Even within the construction industry, which stood to benefit most from transportation money, the AP's analysis found there was nearly no connection between stimulus money and the number of construction workers hired or fired since Congress passed the recovery program. The effect was so small, one economist compared it to trying to move the Empire State Building by pushing against it.

Apparently, the only thing that's shovel-ready is the BS.

Drew over at Ace of Spades gives credit to the AP for joining the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy and becoming a non-news organization by actually reporting the problems with the stimulus. He also draws a pretty good analogy...

I used to know a guy who worked for the state DMV. He used to claim that his department 'made money' because they took in more than their budget. Try though I might, I could never quite get him to understand the difference between confiscating wealth and creating it. Now it seems people like him are running the government.

The best part about this analysis is they actually take on Obama's claim that you can't look at just the county where the money is spent because workers can come from all over. The AP looked at 700 counties that received project money and 700 that didn't. Unemployment trends were the same in both samples.

You know, I'm not having much trouble picturing Obama, or Joe Biden and Tim Geithner, running the DMV. And that's not a good thing.

Elmo Would Annoy Osama To Death

Courtesy of an email from the Lord of Truth, who wonders how long we've been at the Orange/Yellow level. Me, I'm more concerned that the highest level of security is named for Elmo.

Pictures That Will Haunt Me, Part 947

New Years Day 2000. Actually, this is what I looked like on New Year's Day 2010 as well, except I have much less hair, and a bit less weight.

Someday, my daughter's going to probably read this blog. For the record, I was just taking a nap. Everyone else is lying when they say I wasn't.

Well, if Bill Clinton Was The First Black President...

There's not even a decent lead I can come up with for this statement by Rod Blagoievich...

"It's such a cynical business, and most of the people in the business are full of s--- and phonies, but I was real, man — and am real. This guy, he was catapulted in on hope and change, what we hope the guy is. What the f---? Everything he's saying's on the teleprompter. I'm blacker than Barack Obama. I shined shoes. I grew up in a five-room apartment. My father had a little laundromat in a black community not far from where we lived.

Somewhere, Harry Reid is reading this and saying, "Hey, that explains the dialect!"

May The Evil Empire Fall

Good news, Yankee-haters -- Derek Jeter is getting married. This should kill the chances of future titles, as we all know A-Rod didn't get a title until he dumped his wife and started dating starlets. And yes, he's not married yet, but the wedding planning alone will drive him to an under .200 average during the playoffs and assist in an early exit. Jeter is still relatively young and one of the hottest bachelors in New York City -- yet he's going to get married and kill his team's future. I mean, how many titles has Tom Brady won since he got hitched?

One More Reason Al Gore Invented The Internet

Somebody has way too much time on their hands.



More great posters here.

Remember, This State Kept Re-Electing Ted Kennedy

I once received a summons for jury duty while living in Massachusetts. I remember seeing a lot of people in the courthouse that day, but no animals...

A family is trying to figure out how their pet cat was summonsed for jury duty.

“I said, Sal, what’s this? You know, I don’t believe it I was shocked,” said Guy Esposito, Sal’s owner.

Sal’s owners, Guy and Anna Esposito, think they may know the source of the mix up: Sal really is a member of the family, so on the last Census form, Anna Esposito listed him under “pets”.

“I just wrote ‘Sal Esposito’, scratched out the ‘dog,’ and wrote, ‘cat,’” said Anna.

Anna filed for Sal’s disqualification of service. However, the jury commissioner was unmoved and denied the request.

Well, it is Massachusetts. I wonder if all the registered voters in Boston who are dead are excused from jury duty.

Let's Change The Slogan In 2012 To "Hope, Change, and Stupid Gaffes"

Maybe I don't need to read Game Change, since the press is giving away the best parts...

“The relationship between Barack Obama and Joe Biden grew so strained during the 2008 campaign, according to a new book, that the two rarely spoke and aides not only kept Biden off internal conference calls but refused to even tell him they existed…

“[W]hen Biden, at an October fund-raiser in Seattle, famously predicted that Obama would be tested with an international crisis, the then-Illinois senator had had enough.

“‘How many times is Biden gonna say something stupid?’ he demanded of his advisers on a conference call, a moment at which most people on the call said the candidate was as angry as they had ever heard him…

“Speaking to his own staff, Biden insisted that it hadn’t really been a gaffe. And feeling a bit defensive, he invoked one of the worst memories of Obama’s primary campaign.

“‘I guess it’s a good thing I didn’t say anything about bitter people who cling to their guns and religion,’ Biden cracked, the authors paraphrase.”

I love that Obama quote about Biden -- I'm pretty sure the answer would have to be "Would you like that measured in times per hour or per day?"

Luke, That's A Bad Idea

Amazing how Obi's ghost managed to find time to post from the afterlife. More Star Wars-Facebook brilliance here.

He Meant To Burn the Family Jewels?

Just when you thought the stupid stuff in the blogosphere was limited to healthcare reform...

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab really mean to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 as it came in for a landing on Christmas Day over Detroit, or was the object of his terrorist plot simply to scare us? As bizarre a question as that seems to be, Atlantic blogger Andrew Sullivan indulgently quotes six paragraphs from one of his readers espousing that exact theory.

The reader’s argument seems to hinge upon the supposition that the goal of Islamic terrorists is terror for the sake of terror, and that if terrorists really wanted to bring down an airliner, Abdulmutallab would not have carried out his attack in the manner that he did.

In the linked article, Bob Owens does a decent job tearing this theory to shreds. But Vodkapundit does a pretty decent job summarizing it well...

A man does not set fire to his penis for a job he expects to botch. Period.

Now there's a sentence that's never been typed before.

John Edwards Was Who I Thought He Was

I think I will have to read Game Change, based on the New Yorker excerpt. Hell, it confirms that even John Edwards' fellow Senate Democrats thought he was a shallow show pony. Hell, even his wife thought so...

With her husband, she could be intensely affectionate or brutally dismissive. At times subtly, at times blatantly, she was forever letting John know that she regarded him as her intellectual inferior. She called her spouse a “hick” in front of other people and derided his parents as rednecks. One time, when a friend asked if John had read a certain book, Elizabeth burst out laughing. “Oh, he doesn’t read books,” she said. “I’m the one who reads books.”

And that's without considering the fact that is entire campaign staff tried to get him to stop sleeping with Rielle Hunter, and he wouldn't listen. What an intellect. Remember the next time that someone on the left rips John McCain for selecting Sarah Palin to be one heartbeat away from the Oval Office, that same person likely supported John Kerry making John Edwards his running mate in 2004. I'm pretty sure even Kerry now thinks that was a stupid idea.

For Once, I Wish I Was Still A Massachusetts Resident

During my three years in law school in land of the Red Sox, I opted not to regoister there. It seemed somewhat useless -- as the Lord of Truth once told me, it was never fun going to the polls to vote for people guaranteed to lose.

Which makes this news amazing. Public Policy Polling now has the Massachusetts special election for U.S. Senate a toss-up. This will probably just wake up the sleeping corrupt gints of the Democratic Party, but they may be getting to the scene late -- there's only ten days left for Martha Coakley to turn the tide (if she loses, I feel obligated to quote Homer Simpson to sitting Senator Paul Kirk: "Go back to Massachusetts, pinko!").

For everyone who wants to scotch health care reform, this is a chance to kick the Senate Dems collectively in the nuts. Keep in mind, they want to pass this bill as some sort of tribute to the legacy of Ted Kennedy (it's a drunken mess of big spending and big government... I guess it qualifies). But if Kennedy's seat somehow flips to the GOP... well, you'll probably hear teeth knashing everywhere. If you'd like to prevent this bill from becoming law, you could do worse than send a few bucks to Scott Brown. Hell, just for the sheer chaos this would create, we should all hope for it. I only hope Bill Jacobson's report is right, and the energy is still high for Brown. And it's nice of the Dems to make themselves look even more corrupt, by essentially saying they'll hold up getting him seated to pass healthcare.

I don't know if Brown will win -- but I'm starting to believe it. A week ago, I would have been happy if finished within 15 points. Now? I'm thinking he might be a household name ten days from now.

What Annoying Song Is Stuck In My Head Today?

If I need to suffer with a song stuck in my head, why shouldn't you have to do the same? Sometimes they're good, most times they're bad... but no matter what, they make you suffer. So I like to share the suffering whenever it happens.

I know the last song was also from South Park, but this one's an underrated classic from the movie, which I caught on late-night TV recently. There's nothing like throwing in a tribute to Le Miz that uses the words "When Canada is dead and gone, there'll be no more Celine Dion!" Besides, is there a better example of this entire series of posts than Terrance and Phillip's "Uncle F---er" song? Just hearing it briefly as part of this song stuck it in my head as well...



You're welcome.

Even Barack Obama Won't Screw With The Island

Yes, the President's State of the Union address is important -- it's a good way for Americans to learn what stupid initiatives we'll be paying for this year, and allows TV talking heads to talk over one another while pretending that most people give a rat's ass about what the President said.

But some things are more important...

The president of the United States apparently feels he needs the "Lost" voting bloc and therefore will not schedule his State of the Union address the same night that ABC had planned to air the two-hour season debut of the second-most-convoluted drama series in the history of TV.

"I don't foresee a scenario in which millions of people who hope to finally get some conclusion with 'Lost' are preempted by the president," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters at Friday's White House press briefing.

"You can quote a senior administration official," he added.

This, in response to not one, not two, but three questions about the brewing Obama/"Lost" faceoff that were asked at the briefing by various reporters in the employ of ABC who apparently lack the gene for "embarrassed."

"Lost" fanatics had their undies in a bunch Wednesday over news that the White House might push back the president's SOTU address to Feb. 2 to enable Obama to use a freshly signed health-care reform law as an audiovisual aid.

First of all, a hearty FU to the Post reporter who thinks Lost is convoluted. It's beyond convoluted. But it's also brilliant.

Second, who schedules the State of the Union for Groundhog's Day anyway? I think my new version of hell would be waking up each morning to a new Obama speech touting the health care bill. Actually, that feels like it's already happening.

More importantly, if the President had pushed back his SOTU to show off the Frankenstein's monster known as healthcare reform while also pre-empting Lost... well, I'm not sure what I might have done. Maybe call the Smoke Monster.

No One's Wild About Harry

Seeing as how I can't stand Harry Reid, I'm enjoying this thoroughly...

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) apologized today for referring to President Barack Obama as "light skinned" and "with no Negro dialect" in private conversations during the 2008 presidential campaign.
"I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words," said Reid in a statement. "I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans for my improper comments."
President Obama said in a statement that he and Reid had spoken about the matter on Saturday afternoon. "I accepted Harry's apology without question because I've known him for years, I've seen the passionate leadership he's shown on issues of social justice and I know what's in his heart," said Obama. "As far as I am concerned, the book is closed."
The Senate Majority Leader was officially neutral in the primary fight between Obama and then Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.). Reid's remarks about Obama were revealed in "Game Change", a book detailing the 2008 race penned by Time's Mark Halperin and New York magazine's John Heilemann.

Damn shame it's after Christmas, or this would be on the book list. Then again, who needs to read it? Hot Air points out that the book also has Bill Clinton pressing Ted Kennedy to endorse Hillary, while telling him that a few years ago, "this guy (Obama) would have been getting us coffee." I tend to agree with Allahpundit's take that Slick Willie didn't mean it that way, but no Republican would ever get such benefit of the doubt. Ask Trent Lott. Reid's poll numbers already stink for re-election -- if this continues, he may need to pull a Dodd and act like he meant to retire.

Ooh, Goody

Well, I guess this means a lawyer somewhere is making money, so I should probably be happy...

A federal judge has tossed out most of the government's evidence against a tarrorism detainee on grounds his confessions were coerced, allegedly by U.S. forces, before he became a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay.

In a ruling this week, U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan also said the government failed to establish that 23 statements the detainee made to interrogators at Guantanamo Bay were untainted by the earlier coerced statements made while he was held under harsh conditions in Afghanistan.

However, the judge said statements he made during two military administrative hearings at the U.S. detention center in Cuba, where he was assisted by a personal representative, were reliable and sufficient to justify holding the detainee.

Musa'ab Omar Al Madhwani allegedly engaged in a 2 1/2-hour firefight with Pakistani authorities before his capture in a Karachi apartment in 2002.

The detainee says that after five days in a Pakistani prison, he was handed over to U.S. forces and flown to a pitch-black prison he believes was in Afghanistan. He says he was suspended in his cell by his left hand and that guards blasted his cell with music 24 hours a day.

He said that he confessed to whatever allegations his interrogators made and that harassment and threats continued after he was moved to a different prison in Afghanistan.

Al Madhwani said that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay on multiple occasions threatened him when he tried to retract what he now claims was a false confession.

The judge said he was particularly concerned that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay relied on or had access to the coerced confessions from Afghanistan made by Al Madhwani.

The logical inference from the record, said the judge, is that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay reviewed Al Madhwani's coerced confessions with him and asked him to make identical confessions.

I'm not sure this is a big problem in the case at hand -- as Allahpundit notes, Obama's already acknowledged that we're playing the game with a stacked deck...

When he’s got a bunch of evidence on someone such that the confession is basically unnecessary, they go to federal court so that The One can boast about due process. When he doesn’t have much evidence besides the confession, they go to a military tribunal so that the confession can be admitted into evidence and he can boast about the eventual conviction. It’s a sham, and it’s crowned by the fact that he’s all but promised to keep dangerous detainees imprisoned even if they’re acquitted, but that’s the game he’s decided he wants to play. Frankly, we could use more of these test cases before the KSM trial gets going: If he and Holder miscalculate and end up sending some low-level jihadi to federal court on the assumption that they can get a conviction even if the confession’s thrown out, and then the defendant is freed, the uproar will be such that he’ll have to rethink his whole stupid KSM strategy.

I tend to doubt anything short of catastrophe will get them to re-think the KSM civilian trial -- they've invested too mcuh political capital in it, Holder's enjoying his chance to runa politicized Justice Department, and the Left has probably been told that this is the only way to get to a war crimes trial against the Bush Administration(one that will never occur). But the fact that we're running a system where the Attorney General has guaranteed that we will get the KSM conviction means that the trial is for show anyway -- an expensive one at that. Oh, well... it's not like it's shocking that the Obama Adminstration would spend millions and even billions on something useless.

The Health Care Follies Continue

So the public option is dead, but Frankenstein's monster continues to live on...

Senior House Democrats have largely abandoned hopes of including a government-run insurance option in the final compromise health care bill taking shape, according to several officials, and are pushing for other measures to rein in private insurers.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other senior Democrats told President Barack Obama in recent meetings they want the legislation to strip the insurance industry of a long-standing exemption from federal antitrust laws, officials said. That provision is in the House-passed measure, but was omitted from the bill that the Senate passed on Christmas Eve.

They also want the final measure to include a House-passed proposal for a nationwide insurance exchange, to be regulated by the federal government, where consumers could shop for private coverage. The Senate bill calls for a state-based system of exchanges.

Additionally, House Democrats want to require insurers to spend a minimum amount of premium income on benefits, thereby limiting what is available for salaries, bonuses, advertising and other items. The House bill sets the floor at 85 percent; the Senate-passed measure lowers it to 80 percent for policies sold to small groups and individuals.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the negotiations are private.

The reason the negotiations are private are because the public might find out about all the backroom deals being cut with thier money. It's getting so bad, even the Terminator knows it's robbery from the public trough...

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says concessions made to Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson to win his vote on the health care overhaul bill were a "rip-off" for his state and is urging California lawmakers to vote against it.

In an interview airing Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press, Schwarzenegger says giving extra Medicaid benefits to Nebraska to secure Nelson's vote, critical to Senate passage of the measure, was "like buying a vote." In Sacramento, he says, "it is illegal to do that, to buy votes."

Schwarzenegger was one of the few Republicans to express support for health care reform, but last week protested the deal that gave Nebraska more Medicaid money but not other states.

Killing this bill would probably help the Democrats right now. Then again, losing won't help either. They've done a fine job proving they shouldn't be allowed to run the country. Too bad the damage will be damn near impossible to undo.