Please, Just Go Away

Rod Blagojevich thinks the "Naked Rahm Emanual lobbying Eric Massa in the shower" story is true. Even though it's one more scandal for Democrats to waste time refuting, I'm wishing the story would go away, just so I don't have to think about it. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure Massa (and worse yet, John Edwards) will join Blagojevich and Tom Delay in the "Disgraced Politicians Who Become Pseudo-Celebrities" world soon. Hell, Edwards will probably do an episode of "The Marriage Ref" at some point, assuming the show survives long enough.

I'm going to regret writing that, since someone may actually read it and think it's a good idea.

Movie Scene of the Day

From the otherwise less than stellar movie "Sleep With Me." My favorite part of this scene is the line where Tarentino says "Kelly McGillis... she's, she's heterosexuality."

Album Cover Nostalgia

A new recurring series inspired by the Lord of Truth. We all remember certain album covers fondly -- here's one more.

As recommended from the Lord himself, here's Phil Collins.  After the Lord mentioned Phil's bad luck with women, I looked it up and was stunned to learn that Phil has paid £42 million in divorce settlements to his last two wives, and his first wife left him after having an affair with their painter/decorator. I give him some credit for moving out of the U.K. to a tax haven -- at least the government isn't soaking him the way his wives did.

One final bit of trivia that is tangentially related -- the Genesis song "Land of Confusion" was the theme song to Joe Biden's 1988 Presidential bid. Now, that explains a lot.

Tea For All

I'm not sure what the point was in Ben Smith's article in Politico today, where he seemed to indicate that there's a rift between social conservatives/evengelicals and the Tea Party movement.  Gateway Pundit notes that one of the evengelicals quoted in the piece is actually pro-Obama, which leads me to question his credibility in thinking there's a rift.   But I think Smith is reaching here regardless.  Even this portion struck me as a reach...

It’s easy to overstate the depth of concern on the part of social conservatives. Fischer, Perkins, and other figures were quick to add that they feel an affinity for the tea party movement.

“The reason for it is fundamentally secular, but a lot of people involved in it are not secular,” said Richard Land, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “I don’t see the tea party movement as a threat at all — I see it as additional allies and fellow travelers.”

But while Land and other Christians sympathize with the movement’s limited-government focus, they have been repelled by another aspect of the contemporary right: The vitriolic attacks on Obama.

A prominent Atlanta evangelical public relations man, Mark DeMoss, recently wrote Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele to denounce as “shameful” a fundraising presentation obtained by POLITICO that advised appealing to “fear” and portrayed Obama as the sinister Joker from Batman, over the word “Socialism” — an image drawn from a poster popular at tea party events.

Land said liberals can be equally faulted for demonizing Sarah Palin, but said that if he were an RNC donor, he’d stop giving.

“What [liberal blogs] do with Sarah is just really unacceptable and dastardly, but that doesn’t mean we should respond in kind,” he said. Obama, he said “provides a tremendously positive role model for tens of millions of African-American men” and “seems demonstrably fond of his wife and children, which is a positive role model for people of all ethnicities.”

Land is free to quit giving to the RNC, but Smith seems guilty of trying to connect the RNC fundraising piece to the Tea Party. Saying that it uses the same iconography of Obama that is popular among some Tea Partiers (pictured here at left) doesn't mean that the attack is mean-spirited, let alone an assault on Obama's character. The RNC may use it in a mean-spirited way (which is part and parcel of politics), but the RNC ain't the Tea Party. Smith himself publishes a quote on his blog from an unnamed conservative strategist who disagrees with the premise of his piece.

I think what Smith is missing (and what the mainstream media misses) is that the Tea Party movement is seperate and apart from the GOP.  It may well be more libertarian than traditionally conservative base of the GOP, but that doesn't mean it is at odds with the socially conservative right.  The large majority of those out there marcghing under the Tea Party banner are passionately opposed to bigger, more intrusive government on economic issues moreso than on social issues -- my impression overall is that they're slightly more conservative on social issues than most Americans, but they don't passionately advocate for those positions the same way that the most social conservatives do.  Just because the two groups may emphasize different issues doesn't mean they're on opposing sides of the issues.  I think the Left would love this to be the case, but right now it's pretty easy for folks in both the socially conservative camp and the Tea Party camp to find common ground -- they don't like the folks in power at present.  They can start worrying about a rift after they've got the power to actually do things in office.

The Health Care Follies Continue

Interesting nugget from a Time article that talks about Chuckles Schumer and Dick Durbin fighting over Harry Reid's position as Senate Majority Leader, even before Reid possibly loses his election this fall...

The first time leadership aides noticed something was amiss was during the health care debate last November, when Schumer made some notable overtures to the progressive wing of the party. He'd previously taken flack from progressives for his championing of Kirsten Gillibrand, a moderate Dem from upstate New York who was appointed to Hillary Clinton's seat. Just after Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus passed a bipartisan health reform bill out of his committee, Schumer demanded that the public option — a liberal provision that provided government competition to private insurers — be put back in. Reid initially bowed to Schumer's pressure but weeks later had to drop the provision in order to secure all 60 Democratic votes to overcome a Republican filibuster threat. That delay would come back to haunt the Democrats after the New Year, when Scott Brown's surprise victory in the Massachusetts Senate race cost them their critical 60th vote.

I'm thinking that if health care reform fails, the Tea Party movement should send thank you notes to Schumer for being an ambitious jerk. On more substantive matters, The Hill has another Whip count, with the expected number of no votes on health care from Dems to be 25 as of now; if my math is correct, Pelosi can't afford to lose more than 12-15 more Dems or the game is over. In other words, Bart Stupak's coalition will probably decide it. Unless, of course, more Democrats follow the lead of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which is now threatening to torpedo the bill unless their concerns over illegal immigrants get addressed as part of the package...

Since last fall, Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) members have kept quiet, at least publicly, about their objections to the immigration provisions in the Senate bill.


The Senate language would prohibit illegal immigrants’ buying healthcare coverage from the proposed health exchanges. The House-passed bill isn’t as restrictive, but it does — like the Senate bill — bar illegal immigrants from receiving federal subsidies to buy health insurance.


Hispanic Democrats say they haven’t moved from their stance that they will not vote for a healthcare bill containing the Senate’s prohibitions.


...On Wednesday, members of the CHC privately acknowledged they’ve told their leaders that anyone who is assuming they’ve backed away from their position is in for a rude awakening.


“The [Hispanic] Caucus didn’t want to raise it as an issue too early,” one Hispanic Democrat said Wednesday. “But it’s real. It’s a problem.”


Those alarm bells have apparently been heard. CHC Chairwoman Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) said she and others have, on behalf of two dozen Hispanic Democrats, been in discussions with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other leaders about how to resolve the matter.


“And we will continue having discussions,” Velazquez said.


However, it is unlikely that the Senate will be able to change the immigration provisions under reconciliation rules. And even if it is deemed possible, there may not be enough support in either chamber of Congress to do it.


Not every member of the CHC would stand in the way of healthcare over the immigration issue. As a House leader, it would be unlikely for Becerra to vote against the president’s signature domestic policy priority. And centrist Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) said the Senate language is “not a deal-killer” for him.

Somewhere, Congressman Joe Wilson is laughing.  That last statement by Cuellar probably gives away the game -- as noted by Ed Morrissey, the Caucus members probably just want an assurance from President Obama that he will indeed take up immigration reform this year, as he promised last year. But if the bill starts to look unlikely to pass, the votes against it could snowball based on people suddenly discovering "principled" reasons for opposition.

Meanwhile, perhaps we're getting closer to the final bill, or to a real end to it, as Speaker Pelosi and House Majority Leader Hoyer have now canceled all Committee hearings and gone behind closed doors with the party leadership, providing us with more of the transparent, open government promised by the President. Jake Tapper says a compromise bill is close to being complete.

Maybe they have the votes and are doing a little champagne toast in Ted Kennedy's honor or something, but I tend to think that if they had the votes, a vote would be scheduled before another Democratic congressman melts down in an ethics scandal (or worse, disclosed more details about what goes on in the House gym showers).

So do they have the votes?  My thought is that if they did, we wouldn't see ideas like this get floated...

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday. Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.


Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. "Once the CBO gives us the score we'll spring right on it, " she said.

And I thought reconciliation was a bad idea politically. By contrast, this is toxic. The Heritage Foundation refers to this nicely as "procedural fraud." Forget the optics of the issue -- this is one sure way to guarantee that we'll be debating the legitimacy of the bill as law forever. In their fervor to pass the bill, Democrats are undermining Congress and the legitimacy of the legislative process. What's really bad is that I don't think I'm exaggerating, if they pursue this latest procedural flimflam. Deeming the bill passed -- I'm sure the Democrats will be chagrined when this gets used against them some day in the future.

As to whether they have the votes, Pelosi has already indicated the White House's March 18th deadline may not be workable.  Michael Barone says the votes don't look like they are there yet. We'll see if that changes, or if the Dems merely change the rules again -- maybe the Democrats will find a way to claim that a minority is a majority.

Thursday 80's Flashback

This would normally turn into an annoying song post, but (a) this song isn't annoying, and (b) for some reason never gets stuck in my head. Hell, I can't remember the last time I heard it. But loyal reader ST sent along the video awhile back, and it's worth viewing again to remind us all of how great 1980's music videos were.

Thanks, Scottie

This is a great piece on Scottie Reynolds, whose brilliant career at Villanova will be concluding sometime in the next month (I'm personally hoping for no earlier than April 5th).  Just reading the whole thing made me feel good about my alma mater -- it's cool to know that Jay Wright's program is recruiting and graduating quality people, because that's a more important measure of success for the school (particularly a Catholic institution) than wins.  Although I won't complain if the team wins several more games this season.

And while Scottie might break the school's all-time scoring record that is heald by one of my classmates, I'd be thrilled if he did.  Based on everything we've seen and heard, the guy's the epitome of what a college athlete should be.  Go Scottie -- and Go Nova.

In The Navy

I concluded long ago that Bill Maher was either a complete idiot or the television equivalent of a shock jock (except he's not as talented as someone like Howard Stern).  But here's some proof that it's actually the latter...

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And no, you don't need to watch the whole thing, because I certainly didn't enjoy suffering through it -- the bit about the Navy is in the first couple minutes.  Maybe he's right, and the Navy is filled with repressed homosexuals (not that there's anything wrong with that).  It's not like the Simpsons hasn't covered this...

John: Homer, what have you got against gays?


Homer: You know! It's not... usual. If there was a law, it'd be against it!


Marge: Oh Homer, please! You're embarrassing yourself.


Homer: No, I'm not, Marge! They're embarrasing me. They're embarrassing America. They turned the Navy into a floating joke. They ruined all our best names like Bruce, and Lance, and Julian. Those were the toughest names we had! Now they're just, uh...


John: Queer?


Homer: Yeah, and that's another thing! I resent you people using that word. That's our word for making fun of you! We need it!!

I'll leave it to folks in the Navy to decide if they should be offended or not.  I mean, perhaps the Navy is like the steel industry...



Yes, I'm having way too much fun when I get to reference the Simpsons twice in one post. 

Truthfully, I think Maher's little schtick about not "trying to knock the Navy or any military branch" would go over better if he opted not to generalize from the actions of one former Naval officer to allege that the Navy's filled with repressed homosexuals (again, not that there's anything wrong with that).  I could conclude from the trials and tribulations of Hollywood marriages and the rampant drug use by stars who regularly check themselves into rehab that everyone who appears on-screen in a movie is a philadering, pill-popping, asshole... but that would be unfair, even if it was accurate in many cases.  Of course, perhaps Maher agrees, although saying that might get him banned from hanging out with the celebrities of the world, and leave him stuck on MSNBC.

As Long As David Hasselhoff Doesn't Show Up On The Island, This Is Okay

This would be a great way to increase interest in Lost, and even as a a diehard fan, I wouldn't object to this type of tweak to the opening credits (hat tip: Andrew Sullivan).

Album Cover Nostalgia

A new recurring series inspired by the Lord of Truth. We all remember certain album covers fondly -- here's one more.

I loved this album as a kid. Dire Straits filmed some cool videos to Money for Nothing and Walk of Life, but there's something to be said for a simple album cover, like this one.

The Health Care Follies Continue

Matt Welch says the President's pants are on fire.  Well, actually, he just calls him a liar, but they mean the same thing if I recall third grade correctly...

During the president’s nonstop gabfests before, during, and after the State of the Union speech, he kept repeating the fiction that the medical industry’s “special interests” were significantly to blame for scotching his health care legislation. In fact, the administration and Congress negotiated with those interests every step of the way, receiving crucial buy-in and millions in campaign contributions. Pro-reform lobbyists outspent anti-reform lobbyists on advertising by a factor of 5 to 1. There’s a three-letter word for blaming the defeat of his bill on health care lobbyists, and it rhymes with pie.


And yet it smacks of something worse still. When a politician cannot fathom opposition to his policies except as the manifestation of wicked manipulation by bad guys, remediable only by more thorough “explanations” from the good guys, it indicates an unseemly paternalism. And if he cannot take the hint that Bush-Obama bailout-and-spend economics are deeply and increasingly unpopular, that indicates something immovable about his core economic ideology. With those two factors as backdrop, it’s hard to say which would be worse: if the president didn’t really believe what he said, or if he did.

Welch should feel better, since Dick Durbin, Obama's former Illinois Senatorial colleague and member of the Democratic Senate leadership, seems to agree.



(hat tip: Moe Lane and Instapundit) I'm guessing Durbin might end up falling off the White House Christmas card list.

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.

Once again, I've got a defining song for this category. This is actually a pretty good song, and the fact that it's by George Harrison is another point in its favor. But it definitely gets stuck in your head. However, we'll forgive it because (a) Harrison was a member of the Beatles (b) the video's an underrated 1980's classic, and (c) he gave us a brilliant Simpsons cameo in one of the best Simpsons episodes ever. Besides, as far as we know, he has never collaborated on anything with the Scorpions.



You're welcome.

Next Year, They Should All Stay Home And Watch American Idol

I like the fact that Chief Justice Roberts finally commented on President Obama's call-out of the Justices over the Citizens United decision during the State of the Union address.  I'm of two minds baout the issue -- I think Obama's wrong on the substance, and I think his statements in the SOTU were actually incorrect as to the law.  But having thought about it for awhile, I think both he and the Court are wrong on the decorum issue.

The Supreme Court probably shouldn't attend the SOTU, because it is largely a partisan event.  And the President shouldn't directly call out the Court in this manner if they are in the chamber -- it's an insult to an invited guest, and in many ways an unnerving bit of political theater to have judges surrounded by partisan politicians raucously insulting their decision.  I do like Drew M.'s idea about having Obama debate Justice Roberts or Justice Scalia on Constitutional issues, but that's because I'm a dork.

The Health Care Follies Continue

Instapundit points out how Drudge is having fun with the so-called health care endgame.  I do think the most telling part of the continuing mess that is health care reform comes from this quote from Nancy Pelosi...

You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.


But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

(hat tip: Peter Suderman) It says a lot about the bill and/or the Democrats' communication abilities that they can spend a year or so discussing the concept, several months discussing the actual bills, and think that the key is to stop talking about it so people will understand it.

As to the actual endgame... there's multiple folks trying to figure out the voting breakdown.  Jay Cost at RCP has been running numbers, FireDogLake has a running whip count, and National Journal is keeping track as well.  I think two things are indisputable -- the fate of the bill lies with approximately 40-45 House Democrats (including Bart Stupak's crew), and Nancy Pelosi doesn't have the votes yet.  The fact that she's pushing back on the latest White House deadline says a lot...

The WH is anxious to get health care passed by Easter recess, just like they were anxious to get it finished by Aug. recess, then by Thanksgiving, then by Chirstmas. And Pelosi has had enough: She told WH CoS Rahm Emanuel to stop pressuring the House to pass the Senate bill by March 18, before Pres. Obama leaves for an overseas trip, according to Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), who sat in on the leadership meeting at the WH yesterday.


And House Maj. Leader Steny Hoyer echoed the sentiment, pushing back on a March 18 vote. House Dems have yet to schedule any votes, lending credence to the notion that they don't have the votes yet.

The problem for Pelosi and the House Dems who might be reluctant to vote on the bill boils down to three points.  First, they don't yet know what the Senate will do, even though they're getting assurances that the Senate will pass a reconciliation bill with a bare majority, but they don't know if they can trust that this will happen, especially sicne no one has seen a new reconciliation bill yet.  Second, the Stupak abortion language issue remains in flux -- one day Stupak is saying they can get a deal, another day he's saying that he won't agree to deals to fix the bill in the future, which seems to be the only way to do it (my personal belief is that Stupak and his unknown posse of approximately 12 really want to vote for the bill and may do so ultimately, but I'm sensing that this is more than just posturing on their part -- if the public opinion doesn't move toward passing this bill, they may decided that they'll vote against it on principle just to be part of the majority).

But the third issue is the one that will ultimately decide the contest -- public opinion.  Public opinion is decidedly against the the reconciliation process the Senate may use, but seemingly split on everything else...

A new Associated Press-GfK Poll finds a widespread hunger for improvements to the health care system, which suggests President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies have a political opening to push their plan. Half of all Americans say health care should be changed a lot or "a great deal," and only 4 percent say it shouldn't be changed at all.


But they don't like the way the debate is playing out in Washington, where GOP lawmakers unanimously oppose the Obama-backed legislation and Democrats are struggling to pass it by themselves with narrow House and Senate majorities.


More than four in five Americans say it's important that any health care plan have support from both parties. And 68 percent say the president and congressional Democrats should keep trying to cut a deal with Republicans rather than pass a bill with no GOP support.


Leaders of both parties in Congress say that's not how it's going to work out. After a year of off-and-on negotiations, Republicans adamantly oppose Obama's plans. The White House and Democratic leaders say it's now-or-never for a health care overhaul, which would cover an additional 30 million Americans, require almost everyone to buy health insurance and impose new restrictions on insurance companies.


The Democrats' plan relies on parliamentary rules that bar Senate filibusters. That would enable Senate Democrats to pass a companion health care bill — which House Democrats are demanding — with a simple majority. Democrats control 59 of the Senate's 100 votes, one shy of the number needed to stop GOP filibusters.


The new poll underscores Obama's struggles to wrest control of the health care debate from Republicans, who couch his efforts as a government takeover and costly intrusion into private lives.


Many of his allies are baffled, because Americans clearly want change, and some of the individual components of the Democrats' health care agenda seem popular. Moreover, the public has not embraced the Republicans' overall approach to legislating, giving lower approval ratings to GOP lawmakers than to Democrats, although both parties fare badly.


In the AP-GfK Poll, 43 percent of those surveyed said Obama and Congress should keep working to pass health care this year, while 41 percent said they should start from scratch. On Capitol Hill, the Republicans favor that new-start approach; Democrats say that's just a way to stall the effort to death.


Sandy Stemm of Springfield, Ore., would seem the ideal target for Obama's appeal. She's a Democrat and former bakery manager who recently lost her job and health insurance.


But Stemm, 47, doesn't like the idea of congressional Democrats going it alone on health care.


"I think it's important to come to an agreement," she said in a telephone interview. "We're all in this together, whether we're Democrat or Republican."


John DeHority, a Democrat from Rochester, N.Y., supports Obama's effort and thinks Republicans have "made a travesty of the process." But he suggested the GOP is winning the political battle.


"I think passing the bill in its current form would be political suicide for Democrats," said DeHority, 56, a researcher in health care imaging. He said he thinks the proposed changes would fail because they would not control costs, and "Democrats will take the fall for that."

See, that last bit is what Democrats need to worry about, unless they've now decided to accept that their political annihilation will be be okay because the bill has passed -- the downside being that unlike other entitlements, the lack of broad support for this bill might mean effects to repeal it actually gain steam.  One of the biggest problems with this bill is that the best selling point Democrats have for liberals (and it's one that some liberals, like Dennis Kucinich, aren't buying) is that it gets their foot in the door toward eventually nationalizing health care.  But passing an unpopular program that ends up being more costly rather than less costly that may be coupled with cuts and changes to people's access to health care isn't likely to drive people to want more government intervention -- it's likely to make them want less. 

And the idea that the public will forget about the crazy process used to pass the bill -- pass one bill, then use reconciliation to fix the bill -- is incredibly obtuse, even for Washington.  Part of what drives anti-incumbent and anti-Washington sentiment is the idea that politicians change the rules whenever they can't get what they want,  In this case, they'd be changing the rules to push through something that has less popularity than Tiger Woods -- even the people who like the bill aren't rushing out to passionately defend it.  Keith Hennessey summarizes my thoughts nicely...

I am struck by the enormous gap between the two parties on the strategic calculation being made by the President and Democratic Congressional leaders. If you set aside your policy views, do you think the current path makes strategic sense for the majority? Almost every Republican insider I meet shakes his or head in befuddlement and says no, I just don’t get why they’re doing this.


Dan Meyer was Speaker Gingrich’s Chief of Staff in the mid-90’s, and later served as the head of Legislative Affairs for President Bush (43). He and I survived the 95-96 government shutdown conflict between Congressional Republicans and President Clinton. I worked for Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici at the time. Dan made a comparison the other day. Imagine, he said, right after the government had reopened in January of 1996, after Republicans had been getting hammered every day for a month, if I had run up to you and said, “I’ve got a great idea! Let’s shut it down again!” You’d think I was crazy.


That’s what this feels like. The President and his allies could now quite easily enact a massive expansion of Medicaid and S-CHIP, paid for by a subset of the offsets in these bills. I would oppose such a bill, but it would be a legislative slam dunk with few political costs (for them) outside of a disappointed left wing. To my chagrin they might pick up a few Republican votes. And yet they press onward with a super-high risk strategy. This is a classic bird-in-the-hand tradeoff.


...The leaders may be narrowly self-interested and able to exert tremendous party discipline on those with different interests. Legislative failure could harm a rank-and-file Democrat from a purple district, but it would be devastating to the President and the Speaker, who are judged on their ability to lead others. We know that some Congressional Democrats don’t like this bill as a policy matter. We know that some are afraid of the political consequences of voting aye. Yet many in both groups appear willing to vote aye.

I also like William Jacobson's claim that this bill is now Obama's Stalingrad, not his Waterloo, although I guess that would make the GOP the USSR. I would say something about what that makes Obama, but I don't want to trigger Godwin's Law.

Bottom line? There are less than 240 days until the November election. That much is certain. Everything else is a guess.

Lost Boy

Unfortunately, I don't think I'm surprised that Corey Haim is dead.  His struggles with substance abuse were well-known, and the guy hit a career plateau in his late teens.  It's probably a cautionary tale that some people will likely forget.

Meanwhile, in a completely unrelated story, Lindsay Lohan has filed a silly lawsuit against E-Trade.