Month: March 2009

Hey, remember Jeffrey Toobin?

Sure you do!

[UPDATE]: Welcome, Ace of Spades readers.

He’s the guy that said this, back in the day:

You know, Jeff, I understand that you had some… issues… with the Governor of Alaska. That’s fine; nobody’s perfect, of course. But for the items that you packed into your negative assessment of her moral character, I can’t help but notice something: not once were you even able to imply that she was out shtupping the kid of one of her professional colleagues.

What’s that like, by the way*? Continue reading Hey, remember Jeffrey Toobin?

Le Affaire Ron Kirk: ANDREW MALCOLM FTW!

Glenn Reynolds may love the title (“Another Obama pick owes back taxes, but it’s OK because, now caught, he’ll pay up”), but the first quoted line (“Oh, Sergei, you mean you’ve lost another submarine?“) is what won me over. References to The Hunt for Red October usually do.

But there was one line in there:

(BTW, has anyone checked the tax returns of the Obama vetters who are supposed to be checking the tax returns?)

Yeah. About that, Andrew…

Crossposted to RedState.

AIG To Sue Federal Government.

(Via AoSHQ) I have a suggestion for the Federal government. Find whoever it is that made this decision:

In Twist, AIG Sues Its Benefactor Over Taxes

In the midst of its negotiation with the federal government over revised terms of its bailout, American International Group Inc. sued the U.S. on Friday over a disputed $306 million in taxes, interest and penalties.

The suit steps up a battle with the Internal Revenue Service largely over AIG’s use of a controversial type of “tax arbitrage” transaction that authorities are challenging across the world.

With the company essentially suing its owner, the suit highlights the awkwardness of national control of AIG, which the government rescued from potential bankruptcy in September. If through litigation “you’re moving money from one pocket to another, why should we be paying lawyers to do that?” says David Weisbach, a tax law professor at the University of Chicago.

“AIG is taking this action to ensure that it is not required to pay more than its fair share of taxes,” said a company spokeswoman. An IRS spokesman declined to comment.

Continue reading AIG To Sue Federal Government.

Democrats in Congress: Carbon neutrality for you; not for us.

While it’s really, really easy to laugh at the fact that the environmentalists’ march on the Capitol Power Plant is being hampered by a heavy snowstorm – to blatantly steal from one of my cobloggers, I’ve just come in from shoveling eight inches of global warming off of my front walkway – it’s…

Hold on. I’m actually still laughing.

OK. Continue reading Democrats in Congress: Carbon neutrality for you; not for us.

Controlling the debate.

Dan Riehl makes an excellent point here:

I know what both Steele and Cantor are trying to do below. But they and other GOP members continue to fall into the trap of having a debate on the opposition’s terms. No matter how you slice it, you end up giving them the quotes they want. That isn’t how you win debates in sound bite politics today. You control the debate, or you lose.

Never concede a point. You can agree with one, but never concede it. If conceding it is the price you pay for having the discussion, let the whiny so-and-so pack up his ball and leave. It’s not your job to make the other guy’s job easier by letting him frame the debate in terms that he likes.

Moe Lane

PS: And don’t be shy about rudely interrupting somebody when they try to brazen an everybody-knows past you, too. If he respected you, he wouldn’t have tried it in the first place.

Crossposted at RedState.

See, this is why I read Order of the Stick.

It isn’t because of the D&D jokes, although those are fun.  It’s because it’s clever.

And because Rich Burlew actually takes moral questions seriously.

Moe Lane

PS: I’d also like to note for the record that this is exceptionally self-referential:

…but it sounds really cool.

Lee Stranahan wishes to justify his antiwar position…

…and he thinks that Rush Limbaugh will help him with that.

By now, you’ve probably read Stranahan’s little attempt at self-justification for cheering on the death of American troops (you can read it via Glenn Reynolds, if you must: it’s not worth the direct link to a pro-torture site*) by seeking to associate it to Limbaugh’s often-repeated observation that he wants Obama’s economic plans to fail.

I’d just like to establish this point for the record: no, Stranahan can’t actually do that, and for a very simple reason. Our military personnel have voluntarily given up some of their right to choose their own actions in order to serve the country.  That gives us the collective responsibility to ensure that the choices that we make for them are the right one. It is perfectly acceptable to think that our collective choice was wrong; not so much to work to minimize the chance of it being the right one after all. The antiwar movement chose to do the latter… and those miserable wretches lost anyway, which is why they’re trying to avoid the consequences of their moral failure. Limbaugh and Obama (to use the usual examples), on the other hand, are merely having a policy dispute… and the Right swore no oath signing over our right to choose. We recognize and respect the authority of the President of the United States, but he does not command us in the same way that he commands the troops – and we will not concede the difference.

Particularly when doing so will give cover to people like Stranahan.

Moe Lane

*Repudiated Obama yet, HuffPo? No? Going to support him in 2012? Yes? Then that’s what you are. Deal.

Crossposted to RedState.

Advice for the President: how to handle the antiwar Democrats.

No, really.

I read with some interest this article which describes a supposed Blue-on-Blue fight looming over the upcoming reduction of troops:

Congressional Democrats’ misgivings about President Barack Obama’s plan to reduce troop levels in Iraq has set the stage for potentially major conflicts between Capitol Hill and the White House in the months ahead.

Obama’s announcement Friday that he will leave between 35,000 and 50,000 troops in Iraq after August 2010 brought lukewarm responses from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Both leaders have publicly questioned the decision to leave that many troops there indefinitely.

Also causing consternation is the president’s decision to finish the drawdown in 18 months. As a candidate, Obama had promised a complete withdrawal within 16 months.

Being a kind and generous soul who understands that we’re all in this together, on behalf of the neoconservative movement I am here to offer the President a little advice on how to keep antiwar legislators in line. We did it for eight years, after all; two of which were years where our party was ostensibly not the one running Congress. Heck, our best work was done between 2006-2008. So you can believe that we know that we’re talking about. Continue reading Advice for the President: how to handle the antiwar Democrats.