Moe Lane

Have I used that one before?

Doesn’t matter if I had: it’s worth repeating. Via @MelissaTweets comes the wonderful news that Roland Burris is giving this ‘run for election’ thing serious consideration.  Yes, I know that the conventional wisdom is that he won’t, but Roland Burris is neither conventional, nor particularly wise – and he’s not actually ruling out a run. Admittedly, right now his major problem is that he’d need to find some surefire and very public way to appeal to the liberal faction of the Democratic party.  But how to do that?

…Sen. Roland Burris just put out a statement saying he won’t vote for a bill that doesn’t include a public option, which is not supported by many of his moderate Democratic Senate colleagues.

Yeah. Yeah, that’ll do it.

Moe Lane

PS: Just remember: if he does run, and you’re a Democrat who votes against him in the primary, it’s because you’re a racist. Just ask Jimmy Carter.

Crossposted to RedState.

…because she hadn’t a clue about the Senate ACORN defunding amendment.  Note that the New York Post is a little more forceful than me; they called Speaker Pelosi ‘clueless.’  Which is not actually unfair of them: keeping track of things like this is part of the Speaker of the House’s job.

Then again, so is paying attention to what happens on the House floor.

(Via JammieWearingFool, via Instapundit)

Crossposted to RedState.

Because if you are, here is an advisory: as of this moment, if the Right catches you or your staff within 100 yards of an ACORN office or worker we will cheerfully crucify you with that organization. And by ‘crucify’ I mean ‘take the metaphorical and rhetorical equivalent of long iron nails and permanently attach you to ACORN with them.” As the above link to Jon Stewart’s appalled reaction to all of this shows, public perceptions of the group shifted, and not to the benefit of the people that like to use ACORN. Now would be a good time for individual Democratic politicians to start publicly breaking with the group, in fact.

Seriously. The San Diego video is out, and this one involves a guy talking about why Tijuana is the best place to smuggle underage El Salvadoran hookers across the border (because he has contacts there). (more…)

Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It), Beyonce

…so, yeah, I actually sat down and watched it. Good song, good video; I can see why people liked it. Not worth Kanye West imploding his career over… actually, no, it was so totally worth Kanye West imploding his career over, but that’s because I agree with the President that Kanye West is a jackass.

Moe Lane

The arrival of the Adobe Photoshop Elements & Premiere Elements 7 was completely unexpected, and very welcome. Now I guess I don’t have an excuse anymore for producing bad videos.

Many thanks to my benefactor, and to everybody who supports this site… which should definitely be extended to Neil Stevens, who very graciously hosts it for me on what’s essentially his own dime.  That link should let you show your appreciation for the venue…

Moe Lane

Yes, I know that I’ve called it awful. Red Dawn is awful. It is also replacing On the Waterfront as Movie of the Week. Why?

Because “WOLLLLVEERRRRINNNNESSSS!!!!!,” that’s why.

Link only: it usually doesn’t matter, but RedState has the permission to reprint in this case, not MoeLane.

I will put up the Devore fundraising widget, though.

Yeah, I did this one once already. But it’s too good not to revisit, and it’s also kind of topical.

Kind of.

Amazon.com

Because, remember:

From this Politico article on recent media failures (via Hot Air Headlines):

“For Glenn Beck to devote 45 minutes of his show to ACORN and Van Jones says more about his news judgment than mine,” said Dean Baquet, Washington bureau chief of the New York Times.

Given that it can be safely assumed that Glenn Beck viewers were not surprised at either the Van Jones resignation or the Senate’s defunding of ACORN, and that it can be assumed that many New York Times readers were surprised – which, to be blunt (and cruel) about it, means that the former were better informed than the latter – well, put it any way that you like, Baquet.  You’re still suffering from the comparison.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to RedState.

But we should expect the Washington Post to be.

(Via Hot Air Headlines) In the process of reading this otherwise unsurprising WaPo article about how the President is still trying to figure out how to counter the quote-unquote “right wing noise machine*,” we’re treated to this bit from White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel:

…the John Birch Society was created in reaction to Kennedy…

Um. No. No, it wasn’t. I got no love for the Birchers, but they were formed in 1958 – and at the time, John F Kennedy was still the guy who was friends with Joe McCarthy.  Or so Wikipedia assures me here, here, and here.

I don’t blame Emanuel for making this up – he’s an administration stooge, that’s what they do – but the WaPo should have sent out a reporter with the mother-wit and education to check that out, even if it was only on Wikipedia.  Not that I really approve of that source for important things, but I understand that a good number of mainstream journalists do.  At any rate, why doesn’t the Washington Post have reporters who know enough 20th Century American history to immediately spot an iffy statement like Emauel’s?

Or editors?

Moe Lane

*Hi! How are you doing? I don’t get paid for this, darn it. So hit the tip jar!

Crossposted to RedState.

This is of note for two reasons:

Republicans in Laurens and Newberry counties will host the state’s first gubernatorial debate for the 2010 GOP nomination. The debate will be held at 7 p.m. Sept. 22 at the Newberry Opera House.

Expected to attend are all the announced and likely Republican candidates to replace term-limited Gov. Mark Sanford. They are 3rd Congressional District Rep. Gresham Barrett, Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, state Sen. Larry Grooms of Bonneau, state Rep. Nikki Haley of Columbia and S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster.

First, obviously, it’s of interest because it’ll include Rep. Nikki Haley, who was of course one of our best-received candidates at the RedState Gathering. Check out the video at the link – or check out the one below:

…and if you like that, here’s Nikki Haley’s donation page.

But the second reason why this is of interest is that the Newberry GOP is soliciting video questions for the debate.  While this is admittedly been known to produce somewhat… unusual questions in the past, it does say something about how improvements in video technology has been quietly changing the political landscape.  I mean, consider: how many breaking stories these days rely on somebody being in the right spot at the right time with a camcorder?

Moe Lane

Crossposted to RedState.

According to Charlie Cook, at least: he calls the players in the current three-way low intensity conflict in the Democratic party “Loyal Obamists,” “Purists,” and “Skeptics” (I call them “Establishment Democrats,” “Progressive Base,” and “Ordinary, Decent Democrats”).  To summarize Cook, the Loyal Obamists think that the economy will dictate the 2010 election results anyway, so they might as well protect their leader’s reputation by passing something on health care; the Purists think that the only way to ensure victory in 2010 is to go hard Left, stay there, and accept no substitutes; and the Skeptics are looking around nervously, because they’re pretty sure that they didn’t sign up for New Deal 2.0, particularly since the first two groups seem determined to do in months the sort of thing that took FDR years.  What’s interesting here is the attitudes towards the economy: the first group essentially think that it’s ultimately beyond their control, the second thinks that it’s a mess because it’s not under their control, and the third thinks that while important, it’s not as important as the rather hostile populist reaction to government expansion that the first two groups are both pushing.

If you’re wondering how you maintain a coherent party strategy and Congressional majority under these circumstances, don’t worry about it: so does Charlie Cook.  Addressing the willingness of the Loyal Obamists to sacrifice a few Congressman for the sake of their party leader’s reputation (the Purists are likewise more than happy to do this, too), Cook notes:

…the Loyalist notion that a dozen or so Blue Dogs might be expendable ignores the fact that a political environment that culls the Democratic herd in the House would very likely cost Democrats two to four senators, people whose votes are anything but expendable. Right now, seven Democratic Senate seats are vulnerable — eight if GOP Rep. Michael Castle runs for the open seat in Delaware. It is not hard to envision Democrats going 0 for 5 among the vulnerable Republican-held open seats (in Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Texas) and also not ousting any Republican incumbents. Another complicating factor for Democrats is that although Purple America holds some residual goodwill toward Obama, it has none for the Democratic Congress. When the institution is held in very low regard, plenty of well-liked and well-respected members of the majority party can simply get sucked down by the undertow. That happened to Republicans in 2006 and Democrats in 1994.

That it did, that it did.  Not that the non-Skeptics in the Democratic party want to actually hear that; one thing that unites the two factions is their shared dismissal of the ever-more-organized opposition to their government policies.  Both groups assume that a better economy will get rid of that opposition, which is in my opinion confusing trigger with cause…

Moe Lane

*Classical reference..

Crossposted to RedState.