NYC Letter: The Superlative Congress, Part VII

UPDATE 01.30.10:

WASHINGTON GONE WILD!
"Crazy Conga Lines! Pricey Booze! Imported Beef!"

PARTY ANIMAL-IN-CHIEF!
President Barack Obama Has Blown $10 Million
On Drunken White House Parties
January 26, 2010 (GLOBE)

[Hat tip: Duncan]

Oh my. This may explain this recent bad call and Mr. Obama's sottish optimism heading into November.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 374 of CHOPE

Everybody has to make a sacrifice. If you’re asking everybody else in the country...to cut back, then I think we have to subject every federal dollar to the very harshest scrutiny.

Nancy Pelos (D-CA, 8th),
Speaker of the House, arguing a spending freeze
should apply to all government spending
January 27, 2010 (Politico)

Let's take a look.

TAXPAYERS PAY $101,000
FOR PELOSI'S IN-FLIGHT 'FOOD, BOOZE'
Speaker's Trips 'Are More About Partying Than Anything Else'

January 29, 2010 (WND) - It reads like a dream order for a wild frat party: Maker's Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Johnny [sic] Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey's Irish Crème, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars [sic] scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey … and Corona beer.

But that single receipt makes up just part of the more than $101,000 taxpayers paid for "in-flight services" – including food and liquor, for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trips on Air Force jets over the last two years. That's almost $1,000 per week.

The sacrifices! Maker's Mark and Jim Beam and not Basil Hayden's; Courvoisier and not Louis XIII; Johnnie Walker Red not Johnnie Walker Blue; Grey Goose and not Cîroc; E&J not Asbach Uralt; Bailey's Irish Crème but no Amarula; Bacardi Light instead of Clément X.O.; Beefeater and not Tanqueray Ten; Dewar's not Glenfarclas 50; Bombay Sapphire and not Magellan; Jack Daniels instead of single-barrel Wild Turkey Kentucky Spirit ... Corona instead of Sam Adams, an American beer.*

Such are Ms. Pelosi's sacrifices when getting sloshed. Ever mindful of the public purse, the Speaker thoughtfully makes do with pedestrian up-scale brands for her coast-to-coast drinking parties.**

Judicial Watch said the newly obtained 2,000 pages of documentation show Pelosi's military travel cost the U.S. Air Force $2,100,744.59 over two years – including $101,429.14 for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol.

... Pelosi used Air Force aircraft to travel back to her district at an average cost of

$28,210.51 per flight.

Of 103 Pelosi-led congressional delegations (CODEL), 31 trips included members of the House speaker's family.

Pelosi's office could not be reached for comment. The answering machine said the office would be closed until Monday, and the mailbox was full, so no messages could be left.

And now a reminder.

The American people have an anger about the growth of the deficit because they're not getting anything for it.

Ms. Pelosi seems to have caught the hint, her boozy profligacy notwithstanding. Why not drop the besotted Speaker a line here -- or better yet, give her a call, 202.225.0100 -- to thank her for her contributions to the deficit. Be sure to tell her your availabiity for drinks.

CHOPE.

The Speaker is not available. Leave a message. Chump.

------------------------------------
* Perhaps Ms. Pelosi's ongoing "Lost Weekend" explains imbecilic pronouncements like this. Or this. Or this. We're not saying, we're just saying.

NYC Letter: The Superlative Congress, Part VI

Day 373 of CHOPE

"Vacation In CHOPEnhagen" Edition

(A) The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history.

(B) The American people have an anger about the growth of the deficit because they're not getting anything for it.

(C) Everybody has to make a sacrifice. If you’re asking everybody else in the country who has an interaction with the federal government — and that means our states and cities and all the rest, too — to cut back, then I think we have to subject every federal dollar to the very harshest scrutiny.

Nancy Pelos (D-CA, 8th),
(A) soon-to-be-Speaker, bragging on the Democratic majority
WASHINGTON November 7, 2006 (WaPo)
(B) Santa's little helper, assessing the outcomes
of this Congress's historical spends
November 25, 2009 (FNC)
(C) Speaker of the House, bridling at a Defense exemption
to a spending freeze
January 27, 2010 (Politico)

Assuming Ms. Pelosi is all that, we would not be expecting too much for her public statements to hang together, to share and manifest the superlatives she claims. Thus, we could expect the best Congress in history to spend the people's money wisely with an accountable purpose while sharing the same sacrifices asked of others.

What spending is more laudabale than spending to save the world's ice caps, its emerald forests, the majestic Himalayas, the very elements themselves? [Pause.] This rhetorical question requires no answer, it requires spending -- and the best Congress in history answers the call.

CONGRESS WENT TO DENMARK, YOU GOT THE BILL

January 25, 2010 (CBS News) - For 15 Democratic and 6 Republican Congressmen, food and rooms for two nights cost $4,406 tax dollars each. That's $2,200 a day - more than most Americans spend on their monthly mortgage payment.

CBS puts the American "super-sized" delegation at more than 165 carbon furnaces.*

CBS News asked members of Congress and staff about whether they're mindful that it's public tax dollars they're spending. Many said they had never even seen the bills or the expense reports. Rep. Henry Waxman is a key climate change player. He went to Copenhagen last year. Last week, we asked him about the $2,200-a-day bill for room and food. Mr. Waxman:

I can't believe that, I can't believe it, but I don't know.

But his name is in black and white in the expense reports. The group expense report was filed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. She wouldn't talk about it when our producer tried to ask.

Mr. Waxman (D-CA, 30th) doesn't know and Ms. Pelosi won't say. So much for "most honest". So much for "most open".

Pelosi's office did offer an explanation for the high room charges.

Those who stayed just two nights were charged a six-night minimum at the five-star Marriott. One staffer said, they strongly objected to no avail. You may ask how they'll negotiate a climate treaty, if they can't get a better deal on hotel rooms.

You may indeed ask. [Lugubrious pause.] It is a sad day when a reporter for CBS News steals our mock in mid story.

Total hotel, meeting rooms and "a couple" of $1,000-a-night hospitality suites topped $400,000.

Flights weren't cheap, either. Fifty-nine House and Senate staff flew commercial during the Copenhagen rush. They paid government rates -- $5-10,000 each -- totaling $408,064. Add three military jets -- $168,351 just for flight time -- and the bill tops $1.1 million dollars -- not including all the Obama administration officials who attended: well over 60.

In fairness, many attendees told us they did a lot of hard work, and the laid groundwork for a future global treaty.

The House and its representatives have no power to advise or negotiate treaties (Article II, §2.2). In fairness most attendees did no work at all and were there only to edge into photos of Mr. Obama delivering the goods.

Alas, Mr. Obama, whose "sensing achievement" proved to be so much CHOPE, did not deliver the goods. No treaty was drafted. The conference adopted no binding agreement. However, there was informal agreement among attending nations that the hyped conference was a world-class flop.

CHOPE.

Congressional vacations to save the planet.

------------------------------------
* Estimated amount of greenhouse gas emissions generated by the conference, including emissions produced by airplanes bringing delegates to Copenhagen = 40,000 metric tons.

NYC Letter: Joe Biden Is An Idiot III Redux

Day 372 of CHOPE

A blessing.

A curse.*

A burden relieved.

BIDEN: LOSING 60TH SEAT MAY BE BLESSING

January 26, 2010 (The Hill) - Democrats losing their 60-seat supermajority in the Senate may be a good thing, Vice President Joe Biden suggested Tuesday. Speaking to a meeting of the Democratic National Committee's finance committee, Biden said that the supermajority came with excessively high expectations. Mr. Biden:

Yes, it's had a practical impact, but I'm not so sure what a blessing 60 votes was. Not a joke, I mean it sincerely [scil., I am lying]. When we had 60 votes there was the expectation left, right, and center that we could do everything we wanted to do, which was never realistic. Never.

What Mr. Biden is saying is a party in control of the White House, the Senate (60-40), and the House (256-178) couldn't pass its own agenda but had no credible excuse for its ineptitude other than [Break off as we sight the distant stars.] ineptitude. [Pause.] Now it does. The obstructionist 41st Republican vote in the Senate. That's a relief. And we will be much obliged to the electorate for any additional relief afforded Mr. Biden and crew come November.

Biden tried to buck up the audience after a series of setbacks for the party. He insisted that the administration is "not backing off a single thing we believe in."

Not this or this or this or anything. Mr. Biden's is an easy boast for an administration that doesn't believe in much of anything other than its own gorgeousness.

Mr. Biden:

The reports of our demise are premature. It's time everybody take a deep breath, take a deep breath, let's put this in perspective. Yeah, we took a hit and the frustration was aggravated by the fact that Teddy's seat was lost.

But added that the emotional weight of losing Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat "makes it sound more profound than it is."

Referring to the contested Massachusetts seat as "Teddy's seat" betrays Mr. Biden's presumption of privilege.

And now a reminder.

Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there. But I do tell you that if the Democrats win and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan.

Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House and one-party party girl,
promising one-party bipartisanship
MOUNTAIN VIEW October 28, 2008 (ABC/KGO)

Yes, well, in Ms. Pelosi's defense, she is an imbecile.

CHOPE.

New lower expectations for ineptitude.

------------------------------------
* See here for background post.

NYC Letter: Connect The Dots

Day 371 of CHOPE

Often the news is bewildering. Stories seem to make no sense on their own. It is only when a story can be connected to a procession of stories does the big picture, the bigger picture, become clear. Once you get the knack, reading the news becomes intelligible and fun.

Dot one.

NAACP: OBAMA ENERGIZED 'TALIBAN WING' OF GOP

January 21, 2010 (FCN) - In a speech Wednesday, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond called on defenders of civil rights to support the country's first black president as he faces what is expected to be tough second year in office. ... Obama's historic election has ironically caused complacency among some civil rights supporters, who see it is a sign that racism in America is dead. But that same election has energized "the Taliban wing" of the Republican Party, Bond said, from anti-government groups such as the "birthers," who challenge Obama's citizenship, to "tea party" members who call for the dismantling of much of the federal government.

You are forgiven if you mistook this for simple phoned-in inflammatory spew from the left. Read on.

Dot two.

GATES SAYS TALIBAN MUST TAKE LEGITIMATE AFGHAN ROLE

ISLAMABAD January 22, 2010 (NYT) - The United States recognizes that the Taliban are now part of the political fabric of Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said here on Friday, but the group must be prepared to play a legitimate role before it can reconcile with the Afghan government.

"Huh? Aren't Afghanistan, the United States, NATO, and Pakistan all actively fighting a war against the Taliban? Against terrorism?" you may be asking yourself. Read on.

Dot three.

OBAMA STEPS UP BIPARTISAN EFFORTS --
BUT WILL REPUBLICANS ACCEPT?
WASHINGTON January 26, 2010 (AJC)

You see, it is all of a piece. Mr. Bond identifies the "Taliban wing" of the GOP. Next Mr. Gates announces that the Taliban must take its legitimate place in government. Mr. Obama then caps it with a reach out to bring Republicans back into the government.

The only question remaining, is what exactly should the Republican Taliban role be?
[Our hand sweeps the horizon] Ah, benumbed CHOPEster, having locked out and pushed out and shut out the Republicans from the processes of governance, Mr. Obama and his Democrat minions have no patsy for their failures and misrule.

Now Republicans must step up, must assume the all-important role as the minority party Mr. Obama has accommodated them -- goat.

CHOPE.

Aufklärung.

NYC Letter: The Big Difference

Day 370 of CHOPE

If Republicans want to campaign against what we've done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have. (Applause.)

... And that's why I'll be out there waging a great campaign from one end of the country to the other, telling Americans with insurance or without what they stand to gain -- (applause)...

Mr. Obama,
threatening Republicans with himself
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT THE
HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS RETREAT
WASHINGTON January 14, 2009 (White House)

Mr. Obama hasn't had to wait til November for his big fight (and this). [Pause.] Sometimes the hype isn't enough.

RED HOT!
Midterm Master Of Disaster
[Picture source: Daily Mail/White House]

BERRY: OBAMA SAID "BIG DIFFERENCE"
BETWEEN '10 AND '94 IS "ME"

January 25, 2010 (Politico) - Rep. Marion Berry's parting shot, published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette [no link, subscription only] offers a warning to moderate Democrats and border state moderates — warning of a midterm bloodbath comparable to the 54-seat D-to-R swing in 1994.

But the jaw-dropper is Berry's claim that President Obama personally dismissed any comparison between Democrats now and under Bill Clinton 16 years ago — by saying his personal popularity would bail everybody out.

The retiring Berry, who doesn't say when the remarks were made, now scoffs at Obama's 50-or-below approval rating:

Writes ADG reporter Jane Fullerton:

Berry recounted meetings with White House officials, reminiscent of some during the Clinton days, where he and others urged them not to force Blue Dogs “off into that swamp” of supporting bills that would be unpopular with voters back home. Mr. Berry:

I’ve been doing that with this White House, and they just don’t seem to give it any credibility at all. They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, "Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me."

We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.

... I began to preach last January that we had already seen this movie and we didn’t want to see it again because we know how it comes out,

We have seen that movie, too, Mr. Berry!

THE BLACK KNIGHT
"I'm Invincible!"
View Video Here
[Graphic source: youtube.com/user/MontyPython]

CHOPE.

Making the big difference.

NYC Letter: Plouffe-plouf

Day 368 of CHOPE

plouf-plouf = (Fr., "splash-splash") a method of choosing by elimination used by children; eeny-minny-miney-moe.

Democrats up for re-election in November must decide what Democrat accomplishments to brag on in their campaigns. Fiscal responsibility? The economy? Taxes? The stimulus? Employment? Transparency? Homeland security? The war on terror? Global warming? What will best help return them to office?

Enter Democrat strategist David Plouffe. Eeny-minny-miney-moe -- it's Obamacare! The only catch, Democrats must slit their throats and pass it!

PLOUFFE: DEMS NEED TO PASS HEALTH CARE REFORM;
HOUSE PASSING SENATE BILL A “SOUND OPTION”

January 20, 2010 (ABC News) - This morning [Jake Tapper] spoke with David Plouffe, the campaign manager for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, who said giving up on health care reform legislation would be a victory for the insurance companies and a disaster for Democrats.

... Plouffe said "the health care plan has become a caricature. And if we walk away from it now everyone who supported it is going to have all of the downside and none of the upside." Not passing health care reform legislation would be "the worst thing we can do as a Democratic party."

... As to what strategy Democrats should pursue in a Senate with only 59 Democratic votes, Plouffe said "the bill that was passed out of the Senate accomplishes a lot of the president’s priorities or all of them: Lowering costs, ending insurance company abuses, providing coverage in a way that’s going to strengthen our country for the long term."

Asked about plans to have House Democrats pass the Senate bill, Plouffe said, "to me, it would probably be the, you know, a sound option because I think we cannot wait in this country." Mr. Plouffe:

We were given control of the House and Senate in 2006, we won the White House in 2008, we have to deliver, we have to lead, and if we don’t I think people will rightfully question you know how well this has really turned out. So we have to really lead on this and have the courage to do so. And I think if we do that in the years to come, the country will be better off in the years to come but I think also politically we’ll be better off.

Apparently Mr. Plouffe has only just arrived on the planet earth.

61% SAY IT’S TIME FOR CONGRESS
TO DROP HEALTH CARE

January 22, 2010 (Rasmussen) - Sixty-one percent (61%) of U.S. voters say Congress should drop health care reform and focus on more immediate ways to improve the economy and create jobs.

... Fifty-nine percent (59%) say given the country’s current economic situation, the Obama administration should wait on health care reform until the economy improves. That’s a 10-point increase from March of last year. Thirty-three percent (33%) still say the White House should move forward with health care reform.

Seventy percent (70%) of voters nationwide say the health care issue was important in the special Senate election in Massachusetts. That number includes 49% who say it was very important. Only 15% think the health care issue was not very or not at all important in the Tuesday election.

47% GIVE OBAMA POOR MARKS
FOR HANDLING OF HEALTH CARE

January 20, 2010 (Rasmussen) - Forty-seven percent (47%) of U.S. voters rate President Obama’s handling of the health care issue as poor, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Only 32% say the president has done a good or excellent job on the issue that has increasingly come to dominate the national political debate as the plan proposed by Obama and congressional Democrats struggles through Congress.

... In the Republican upset victory in the Massachusetts special Senate election Tuesday, 56% of Bay State voters named health care as the most important issue.

POLL: 67 PERCENT OF AMERICANS OPPOSE
FUNDING ABORTION IN HEALTH CARE BILL

WASHINGTON January 14, 2010 (LifeNews.com) - A new Quinnipiac University poll finds 67 percent of Americans oppose funding abortions with government funds under the government-run health care bill pending in Congress. ... Even those who said they favor keeping all or most abortions legal opposed abortion funding by a 49-45 percentage point margin.

The results run similar to the December 22 Quinnipiac poll, which found Americans opposed abortion funding at a 72-23 percentage point clip.

This is the latest of several recent polls all showing a majority of Americans oppose tax-funded abortions.

A November survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found 55% majority of Americans say that abortion should not be included as a guaranteed medical benefit if the government health care reform plan passes.

That follows a CNN pollshowing 61 percent of Americans saying abortion funding should not be included.

Conducted by International Communications Research from September 16-20, another poll showed 67 percent of those surveyed opposed requiring people to pay for abortion coverage through their taxes.

Absent from the House bill, the Senate bill provides federal funding for an abortion benefit. A sure winner! [Pause.] We can only hope Mr. Plouffe will play a big role in shaping the Democrat strategy for November. [The heavens open. Celestial music. A headline appears.]

PLOUFFE TO PLAY EXPANDED ADVISORY ROLE FOR OBAMA

WASHINGTON January 23, 2010 (NYT/AP) - David Plouffe, who led Barack Obama's winning campaign for the White House, will play a larger role in advising the president as reeling Democrats try to rally in this important election year.

Plouffe's primary job on behalf of the White House will be to devise, coordinate and analyze strategies for the House, Senate and governor's races in November, according to an administration official.

Go to it, Mr. Plouffe! Buck up those cowering Democrats. Set them to quarreling over passage of the Senate bill. Keep them quarreling the rest of the year!

CHOPE.

Junkcare. Pass it. Brag on it. Exeunt.

NYC Letter: Reverse-O-Bama, Part VII

Day 367 of CHOPE

Super Special Mega Cojones Reverse Edition

IT'S DÉJÀ VU ALL OVER AGAIN
Endless 2008

So I hear her opponent is calling himself an independent. Well, you've got to look under the hood -- (laughter) -- because what you learn makes you wonder. Now, as a legislator, he voted with the Republicans 96 percent of the time -- 96 percent of the time. It's hard to suggest that he's going to be significantly independent from the Republican agenda. When you listen closely to what he’s been saying, it’s very clear that he’s going to do exactly the same thing in Washington.

... But everybody here knows that the choices that have to be made in order to get this economy moving...that those things aren’t going to happen overnight and they're not going to be easy. But we sure aren’t going to get there if we look backwards and try to reinstitute the same failed policies that we've had over the past decade.

That's not going to work. We've been there, we've done that. What Martha's opponent is preaching we've already tried. And it didn’t work.

So understand what's at stake here, Massachusetts. It's whether we're going forward, or going backwards.

Mr. Obama,
linking Mr. Brown to the Bush years
EVENT WITH MASSACHUSETTS
ATTORNEY GENERAL MARTHA COAKLEY
BOSTON January 17, 2010 (White House)

Seventy-two hours later.

Q: Robert Gibbs was saying that you were surprised and frustrated by the vote. Is that accurate?

Here's my assessment of, of, not just about Massachusetts, but the mood around the country. The, ah, the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry and they’re frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.

Mr. Obama,
linking himself to Mr. Brown
INTERVIEW
WASHINGTON January 20, 2010 (ABC News)

Amazing. Even though Mr. Brown pointedly campaigned against Mr. Obama's agenda and Mr. Obama acknowledged as much by campaigning against Mr. Brown, well, bewildered browser, the very same dynamic elected both of these men. [Pause.] Voter anger did feature in both elections, but directed at very different targets. Contrary to Mr. Obama's dopey suggestion, the voter anger that swept Mr. Brown into office is directed at Mr. Obama and his Congressional minions. This is too much for Mr. Obama to conceive. His every answer to political disappointments and miscalculations is that Mr. Bush continues to frustrate Team Barry's best efforts. Mr. Obama continues to run against Mr. Bush because he cannot run on Team Barry's accomplishments. And because he thinks you are that stupid.

As Mark Steyn remarks:

Got it. People are so angry and frustrated at George W. Bush that they’re voting for Republicans. In Massachusetts. ... Presumably, the president isn’t stupid enough actually to believe what he said. But it’s dispiriting to discover he’s stupid enough to think we’re stupid enough to believe it.*

¡Ésos son algunos cojones grandes, señor!

Bonus Reverse-O-Bamas!

Bonus Number ONE!

WHITE HOUSE SAYS OBAMA STAYING OUT OF RACE
FOR KENNEDY SEAT DESPITE HEALTH CARE STAKES

BOSTON January 11, 2010 (SFE/AP) - The White House says President Barack Obama has no plans to visit Massachusetts to campaign for the Democrat seeking the Senate seat held by the late Edward Kennedy.

... [Spokesman Robert] Gibbs says Obama isn't afraid of hurting Coakley, just that a trip is not on his agenda. A Boston Globe poll on Sunday showed Coakley leading by 15 percentage points.

Five days later. Reverse-O!

HEALTH BILL AT STAKE,
OBAMA TO STUMP IN BAY STATE

BOSTON January 16, 2010 (SPI/AP) - His health care plan in peril, President Barack Obama laid on a last-minute campaign trip to Massachusetts for Democrat Martha Coakley on Sunday with polls showing her struggling in an unexpectedly close race against Republican Scott Brown to fill the late Edward M. Kennedy's Senate seat.

Bonus Number TWO!

DEMOCRATS MAY SEEK TO PUSH
HEALTH BILL THROUGH HOUSE

WASHINGTON January 18, 2010 (NYT) - The White House and Democratic Congressional leaders, scrambling for a backup plan to rescue their health care legislation if Republicans win the special election in Massachusetts on Tuesday, have begun laying the groundwork to ask House Democrats to approve the Senate version of the bill and send it directly to President Obama for his signature.

Forty-eight hours later. Reverse-O!

OBAMA: CONGRESS SHOULDN'T "JAM" HEALTH CARE THROUGH

WASHINGTON January 20, 2010 (CBS News) - President Obama said today that Congressional Democrats shouldn't "shouldn't try to jam anything through" on health care reform before Scott Brown takes his seat in the Senate.

"The people of Massachusetts spoke," he said. "He's got to be part of that process."

CHOPE.

Reverse fortunes. Reverse positions.

------------------------------------
* Mr. Obama's speech at the Coakley rally was so larded up with implausible stretches, self-admiring congratulations, and fairy tales at several points it became obvious not even Mr. Obama believed what he was reading from the teleprompter. Again Mark Steyn:

The Barack Obama who showed up last Sunday to help out Martha Coakley was a sad and diminished figure from the colossus of a year ago. He had nothing to say, but he said it anyway. ... All those cool kids on his speechwriting team bogged him down in the usual leaden sludge. He went to the trouble of flying in to phone it in.

NYC Letter: Dead Air

Day 366 of CHOPE

Oh blue-hoo-hoo-HOO! [Cataracts of hot tears scald the cheeks.] Oh blue-hoo-HOO.

It is with the greatest regret, on behalf of our Board, that we must announce that Air America Media is ceasing its live programming operations as of this afternoon, and that the Company will file soon under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code to carry out an orderly winding-down of the business.

The very difficult economic environment has had a significant impact on Air America's business. This past year has seen a "perfect storm" in the media industry generally. National and local advertising revenues have fallen drastically, causing many media companies nationwide to fold or seek bankruptcy protection. From large to small, recent bankruptcies like Citadel Broadcasting and closures like that of the industry's long-time trade publication Radio and Records have signaled that these are very difficult and rapidly changing times.

It wasn't bad programming or poor management or criminal financing or an inability to attract an audience. [Pause.] No. It was none of these things. It was the Obamanomics of the past year wherein everyone is failing.

We are proud that Air America's mission lives on through the words and actions of so many former radio hosts who are active today in progressive causes and media nationwide.

Translation: Congratulations to everyone who had the foresight to find work elsewhere.

In the years ahead, as we look back, we should all be proud of our passionate determination to assure that our nation's progressive voice would be heard loud and clear. Through the hard work and dedication of current staff, and those who preceded you, a lasting legacy was forged which will now continue through other voices and venues.

A lasting legacy you will be hard pressed to find on the Air America site, which now consists of only the one-page closure and bankruptcy notice.

AIR AMERICA TO CEASE BROADCASTING IMMEDIATELY

January 21, 2010 (NYT) - The news did not come as a complete surprise to staff members. The company, which was founded in 2004, never found a substantial audience or sound financial footing. It filed for bankruptcy protection in 2006, but managed to stay on the air at that time. The network churned through several owners and several attempted reinventions, with little to show for it.

Sam Seder, former Air America host:

The fact of the matter was, it was always a very challenging business proposition, and it never had the right management.

Michael Harrison, editor of Talkers magazine:

It would be a shame if the world sees the failure of Air America as representing the failure of progressive talk radio.

[Hat tip: V de T]

The failure isn't a failure of progressive talk radio, it is a failure of the audience that isn't there. [Pause.] Few radio shows survive without listeners.

This poses the age-old question, which came first, liberal talk radio or no listeners? Not to get all philosophical about it.

CHOPE.

Obamanomics produces a good.

NYC Letter: The "Kennedy" Seat, Early Bird Specials

Day 365 of CHOPE

Ouch.

Tuesday The Boston Globe calls the special election for Martha Coakley at 1:00P -- seven hours before the polls closed! That's some powerful CHOPE.

BLUE BUMMER
Dead Democrats Vote Early In Massachusetts

Oh. Wait.

GLOBE JUMPS THE GUN IN ONLINE MAP GOOF

January 19, 2010 (Boston Herald) - In a Dewey beats Truman blunder, boston.com posted an online map of Massachusetts voting results declaring Attorney General Martha Coakley the winner of yesterday’s U.S. Senate election.

Whoops. There’s only one problem, guys - the polls were hours away from closing.

This might explain that.

To The Globe's dismay, counting votes after the polls closed was a different story.

RED HUMMER
The Living Prevail!

SCOTT BROWN ROARS TO SENATE UPSET WIN
Scott Heard ’Round The World

January 20, 2010 (Boston Herald) - Upstart Republican Scott Brown rocketed to victory in the race to the U.S. Senate yesterday, steamrolling Attorney General Martha Coakley’s layabout campaign in an against-all-odds triumph that sent shock waves from the Heartland to the White House.

... Demoralized Democrats were left grappling with the notion of a once-obscure GOP insurgent snatching the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s seat in the so-called bluest state, only to possibly seal the demise of the late senator’s health-care dream - and single-handedly knock President Obama’s agenda off course.

Democrat Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino last night:

I never thought I’d see the day when a Republican replaces Ted Kennedy. I think Scott Brown caught the wave of anger that’s out there, and the wave of anti-Obama.

A Rasmussen Reports poll found one in five Democrats supported Brown, who benefited from high suburban turnout to beat Coakley by 52 to 47 percent.

The Coakley campaign attributed its loss to voter fraud at the polls by the Brown campaign -- a day before the election. [Pause.] It is customary, even among Democrats, to wait till the election is held and the polls open before alleging voter fraud.

CHOPE.

Blue-hoo-hoo-hoo.

NYC Letter: The "Kennedy" Seat, The Sure Thing

Day 365 of CHOPE

Today concludes Mr. Obama's first year in office.

If Republicans want to campaign against what we've done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have. (Applause.)

Mr. Obama,
squaring off with Republicans on Obamacare
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT THE
HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS RETREAT
WASHINGTON January 14, 2009 (White House)

Massachusetts' special election became a preview of the very fight Mr. Obama wants to wage this fall. Bring it on.

REPUBLICAN SCOTT BROWN TELLS SEAN HANNITY
HE WILL BE 41ST VOTE AGAINST OBAMACARE
"I Will Stop It"
January 8, 2010 (Gateway Pundit/FCN)

Q: Barney Frank says that if Scott Brown wins on Tuesday that health care is dead. Do you agree with that?

I don't think Scott Brown is going to win on Tuesday.

Robert Gibbs,
WH spokesperson, detailing the administration's
Plan B for passage of its junk health care reform
PRESS BRIEFING
WASHINGTON January 15, 2010 (White House)

Not to worry, no need to stick our finger in the political wind. Mr. Brown won't win. Why? Because Mr. Obama needs "leaders like Martha by my side". Massachusetts will surely give Mr. Obama what he needs. Just to be sure about this sure thing, Mr. Obama travels to Massachusetts to make a personal appeal for Ms. Coakley:

If you were fired up in the last election, I need you more fired up in this election. (Applause.) I need you out there working just as hard right now in those final days. (Applause.) I need you knocking on doors. I need you making phone calls. I need you talking to your friends and your neighbors and telling them what’s at stake on Tuesday -- that every vote matters, that every voice matters. (Applause.) ... That's what Martha Coakley is about. And we need you. We need you on Tuesday. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you, Massachusetts. (Applause.)

DEMOCRATIC INTERNAL POLL: COAKLEY BY 1
January 18, 2010 (Hot Air)

MARTHA COAKLEY PREDICTS VICTORY IN TIGHT ELECTION

MEDFORD January 19, 2010 (Boston Herald) - Democrat Martha Coakley is predicting victory today in her hard-fought campaign against Republican Scott Brown. ... Coakley said she wasn’t paying attention to media or polls suggesting she might lose to Brown, who’s ridden a wave of support across the solidly Democratic state.

ZOGBY: COAKLEY WILL WIN BY LESS THAN A POINT
January 19, 2010 (Hot Air)

Luckily, the actual election still must prove out political Criswells.

BROWN SCORES UPSET VICTORY OVER COAKLEY
IN MASSACHUSETTS SENATE RACE
Republican Scott Brown's Victory Could Grind President Obama's Agenda
To A Halt And Portend Unexpected Losses For Democrats
In The November Midterms.
January 20, 2010 (FCN)

Mr. Brown (52%) comfortably defeated Ms. Coakley (47%). It was never close going in, but apparently Democrats could not admit and Republicans could not believe that Mr. Brown, a Republican, might actually win in the bluest-of-blue Massachusetts.

The president didn't expect -- I would certainly put myself in that category -- not expecting to lose that Senate race. There's no doubt we are frustrated by that. So I think everybody bears some responsibility, certainly including the White House.

Robert Gibbs,
WH spokesperson, clueless and frustrated
PRESS BRIEFING
WASHINGTON January 20, 2010 (Politico)

PRESIDENT OBAMA REACTS TO MASS LOSS:
"YOU CAN’T WIN THEM ALL"

January 19, 2010 (Gateway Pundit/AP) - Coakley addressed her supporters just before 10 p.m. Tuesday, offering "an incredibly sincere thank-you for everything that you did."

... Coakley said she received a phone call from President Barack Obama:

He actually just called me before I came onstage to say that we can’t win them all, and he knows that better than any, as he told me. But he appreciates what I did and what you did, and he said to extend his heartfelt thanks to everyone who worked on the campaign.

Mr. Obama now does not have what he needs to finish what he's started. [Pause.] That should tell him something.*

CHOPE.

Queering the sure thing.

------------------------------------
* Other missed clues: Virginia and New Jersey.

NYC Letter: Joe Biden Is An Idiot III

Day 364 of CHOPE

More Joe "Hi-Q" Biden!

He's not an economist. He's a Constitutional scholar!*

Why try it now -- for the first time in history -- to eliminate extended debate? Well, because they control every lever of the Federal Government. That is the very reason why we have the filibuster rule. So when one party, when one interest controls all levers of Government, one man or one woman can stand on the floor of the Senate and resist, if need be, the passions of the moment.

... At its core, the filibuster is not about stopping a nominee or a bill, it is about compromise and moderation. That is why the Founders put unlimited debate in. When you have to -- and I have never conducted a filibuster -- but if I did, the purpose would be that you have to deal with me as one Senator. It does not mean I get my way. It means you may have to compromise. You may have to see my side of the argument. That is what it is about, engendering compromise and moderation.

Ladies and gentlemen, the nuclear option extinguishes the power of Independents and moderates in this Senate. That is it. They are done. Moderates are important only if you need to get 60 votes to satisfy cloture. They are much less important if you need only 50 votes.

... I do not want to hear about "fair play" from my friends. Under our rules, you are required to get 2/3 of the votes to change the rules.

... It is the one thing this country stands for: Not tilting the playing field on the side of those who control and own the field. I say to my friends on the Republican side: You may own the field right now, but you won't own it forever. I pray God when the Democrats take back control, we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.

Joe Biden,
then-Senator (DE-D), huffing and puffing
about the inviolability of the filibuster
WASHINGTON May 23, 2005 (C-Span)

You see, a supermajority is good for democracy.

"At its core, the filibuster is not about stopping a nominee or a bill, it is about compromise and moderation."

BIDEN DERIDES SUPERMAJORITY RULE

January 18, 2010 (Politico) - Joe Biden, seeming to lay the groundwork for the case for moving health care legislation forward without 60 votes in the Senate, described the supermajority rule as a perversion of the Constitution. Mr. Biden at a Florida fundraiser, according to the pool report:

As long as I have served ... I've never seen, as my uncle once said, the Constitution stood on its head as they've done. This is the first time every single solitary decisions [sic] has required 60 senators. No democracy has survived needing a super majority.

You see, a supermajority is bad for democracy. [Consternated pause.] Does any of Mr. Biden's huff-and-puffery play out in Democratic practice?

"I pray God when the Democrats take back control, we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing."

DEMOCRATS MAY SEEK TO PUSH
HEALTH BILL THROUGH HOUSE

WASHINGTON January 18, 2010 (NYT) - The White House and Democratic Congressional leaders, scrambling for a backup plan to rescue their health care legislation if Republicans win the special election in Massachusetts on Tuesday, have begun laying the groundwork to ask House Democrats to approve the Senate version of the bill and send it directly to President Obama for his signature.

... But even as Democratic leaders pondered contingencies, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA, 8th), insisted that the legislation would move forward, though she acknowledged that Tuesday’s results could force a tactical shift. Ms. Pelosi in California on Monday:

Certainly the dynamic will change depending on what happens in Massachusetts. Just the question of how we would proceed. But it doesn’t mean we won’t have a health care bill. Let’s remove all doubt. We will have health care one way or another.

HEALTH CARE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER
Also Available In A Pelosi Suppository
[Graphic source: Steve Kelley, Times-Picayune]

"Moderates are important only if you need to get 60 votes to satisfy cloture."

In an interview on Monday, Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI, 1st), a Michigan Democrat who opposes the Senate bill in part because of provisions related to insurance coverage of abortions, said:

House members will not vote for the Senate bill. There’s no interest in that.

When the idea was suggested at a Democratic caucus meeting last week, Mr. Stupak said:

It went over like a lead balloon. Why would any House member vote for the Senate bill, which is loaded with special-interest provisions for certain states? That’s not health care.

In addition to his concerns on the abortion provisions, Mr. Stupak said the Senate bill did not do enough to improve the quality of health care, and it preserved the federal antitrust exemption for health insurance, which the House bill would repeal.

"It does not mean I get my way. It means you may have to compromise. You may have to see my side of the argument."

Ms. Pelosi again:

I heard the candidate in Massachusetts, the Republican candidate, say "Let’s go back to the drawing board". The drawing board for the Republican Party on health care is to tear it up and throw it away and shred it and never revisit it. Back to the drawing board means a great big zero for the American people.

QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY NATIONAL POLL FINDS
SUPPORT FOR HEALTH REFORM AT 34 PERCENT

January 14, 2009 (Quinnipiac) - Public support for health care reform continues to decline, as 34 percent mostly approve, while 54 percent mostly disapprove, compared to 53 - 36 percent disapproval December 22.

A great big zero will do nicely, thank you.

CHOPE.

The changing inviolabilities of political whoredom.

------------------------------------
* But not much of one. See "nuclear option" link above for a detailed rebuttal of Mr. Biden's misconceived objections.

NYC Letter: Joe Biden Is An Idiot Redux

Day 363 of CHOPE

Strap yourselves in.

BOOK: OBAMA, BIDEN CLASHED IN '08

January 9, 2010 (Politico) - 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.

Instead, a separate campaign call was regularly scheduled between the then-Delaware senator and two of Obama’s top campaign aides – “so that they could keep a tight rein on him,” write journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann in "Game Change," a long-awaited account of the 2008 campaign.

JO-TOX
Toxic VP Pick

The greatest mystery of Mr. Obama's nascent presidential campaign -- with polls and the press and momentum breaking for him -- why he hobbled himself with Joe Biden. Mr. Biden had a reputation for -- several reputations -- misstatement, misspeaking, embellishment, cheating, and garrulity. The received wisdom is that Mr. Obama needed to co-opt Mr. Biden's 36-year lackluster Senate resume, but this belied his deriding Mr. McCain as an entrenched Washington insider with a 22-year Senate resume. The Biden pick was the first important decision by the presumptive nominee. For anyone paying attention it was a perplexing sign of his political obtuseness.

Of all the freshly revealed anecdotes, though, none may be as eye-opening as the previously-unknown friction between the president and vice-president – which on Saturday a Biden spokesman dismissed as "rumors."

"Unknown"? [Pause.] Certainly not unascertainable. Mr. Biden's blunders began on day one and he remained a volatile liability throughout the campaign.

The tensions began in September of 2008 word got back to Obama’s campaign headquarters that Biden had told reporters on his campaign plane that he was more qualified than his running mate to be president.

This is hardly a revelation. Here is Mr. Biden during the Democratic candidate debate on August 19, 2007:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were asked: Is he [acil., Mr. Obama] ready? You said, "I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."

BIDEN: I think I stand by the statement.

Flare to Mr. Obama. That's a billboard-size prefigurement.

"A chill set in between Chicago and the Biden plane," Halperin and Heilemann write in the book. "Joe and Obama barely spoke by phone, rarely campaigned together."

Mr. Biden considered himself more qualified than the top of the ticket, but less qualified than the passed-over Hillary Clinton. That makes Mr. Obama third string.

And when Obama campaign manager David Plouffe was asked about having Biden dial into the nightly campaign conference call, he responded: “Nah.” Instead, Biden had his own call with Plouffe and senior campaign adviser David Axelrod.

Obama himself was growing increasingly frustrated with his running mate after Biden let loose with a string of gaffes [and these and these and this and this], including a statement that paying higher taxes amounted to patriotism and criticism of one of the campaign’s own ads poking fun at John McCain.

But when 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?...

...[Mr. Obama] 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.

And now, Mr. Biden's turn.

After a prep session for a “Meet the Press” appearance following the Democratic convention, Biden was incredulous when he was briefed by campaign aides about the ticket’s tax policy. He told them: "Well, it’s your campaign. I’ll say what you want me to say. But after Election Day, all bets are off."

Following his campaign plane braggadocio about being more qualified than the man who put him on the ticket, Biden’s access to the press was limited and he grilled new staffers that were assigned to him to try and determine if they were part of his team or loyal to Chicago.

When the ticketmates talked a few days after Biden’s prediction that Obama would be tested, Obama lit into his running mate. But Biden didn’t apologize – or even indicate he understood why his comments in Seattle were problematic, though McCain’s campaign had already cut an ad featuring the dark warning.

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.

Despite Mr. Biden, Mr. Obama won. [Pause.] The exaltation of winning did little to sober the boorish Mr. Biden.

BIDEN'S COMEDY BIT GETS A QUICK HOOK
FROM PRESIDENT OBAMA

WASHINGTON January 21, 2009 (NYDN) - President Obama delivered a silent but clear message Wednesday to his second banana, Jokin' Joe Biden: Shtick it.

Obama, joined by Biden at a swearing-in ceremony for White House staffers, was clearly annoyed when the vice president took a dig at Chief Justice John Roberts. On Tuesday, the nation's top jurist botched a line when he administered the oath to Obama.

"My memory is not as good as Justice Roberts'," Biden quipped after he was reminded he had to swear in a second group.

While staffers in the audience snickered and groaned, an unsmiling Obama tugged on Biden's elbow - a signal to quit the wisecracks and get the program back on track.

"Mad isn't the word I would use, but I think it's safe to say the President wouldn't have said it," a White House aide explained regarding Obama's reaction.

BOOK: OBAMA 'DISTRACTED'
BY BIDEN'S 'INDISCIPLINE'

May 21, 2009 (FCN) - President Obama is so "distracted by his vice president's indiscipline" that he has been forced to rebuke privately Vice President Joe Biden, according to a new book [scil., Renegade: The Making of a President] by Newsweek journalist Richard Wolffe, who interviewed Obama a dozen times.

"He can't keep his mouth shut," Wolffe quotes a "senior Obama aide" as saying of the gaffe-prone Biden.

As evidence, Wolffe reports that during the presidential transition period, Biden insulted Valerie Jarrett, one of Obama's closest friends and confidantes. Jarrett had been considered Obama's top choice to fill his vacated Senate seat in Illinois, but took herself out of the running just hours after Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich allegedly told a wiretapped conference call he would not heed any Obama recommendation without a payoff. "Soon after Jarrett pulled out of consideration for the Senate seat, the senior transition team met to discuss Cabinet picks," Wolffe writes.

"Biden tried to compliment Jarrett after one contribution. 'You should be in the Senate,' he quipped. After the meeting, as everyone returned to their offices, Obama stopped Biden to warn him not to say anything like that again. 'It's not funny,' he told him."

As punishment Mr. Obama has charged Mr. Biden with oversight of the administration's signature stimulus. The stimulus is a failure and a fraud (and here). Our guess is that Mr. Obama will eventually acknowledge the $787B flop and dump Joe "I'm No Economist" Biden from the 2012 ticket. We simply cannot see Mr. Obama keeping this idiot on the ticket.

CHOPE.

Bumbling. Arrogant. Not too bright. CHOPEy VP pick.

NYC Letter: Hot/Cold, Part V

Day 362 of CHOPE

The end of ice. [We dab an eye.] Again. [We blot the other eye.] It's settled science. [We swob our third eye.]

GLACIERS ARE MELTING FASTER THAN EXPECTED, UN REPORTS
March 18, 2008 (ScienceDaily)

THE HIGH STAKES OF MELTING HIMALAYAN GLACIERS

October 5, 2009 (CNN) - The glaciers in the Himalayas are receding quicker than those in other parts of the world and could disappear altogether by 2035 according to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

हिमालय
Abode Of The Snow. Victim Of Settled Science

No. Wait. Plenty of ice.

UNITED NATIONS' BLUNDER ON GLACIERS EXPOSED

January 18, 2010 (The Australian) - THE peak UN body on climate change has been dealt another humiliating blow to its credibility after it was revealed a central claim of one of its benchmark reports - that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 because of global warming - was based on a "speculative" claim by an obscure Indian scientist. The 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming, appears to have simply adopted the untested opinions of the Indian glaciologist from a magazine article published in 1999.

... But the scientists behind the warning have now admitted it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's report. It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Mr Hasnain, who was then the chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice's working group on Himalayan glaciology, has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research.

Speculation, yes, but "settled science" speculation. Please observe the difference.

Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on Himalayan glaciers in the 2007 IPCC report, said on the weekend he was considering recommending that the claim about glaciers be dropped.

... When published, the IPCC report gave its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the melting of the glaciers was "very likely". The IPCC defines "very likely" as having a probability of greater than 90 per cent.

Glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of metres thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise.

Julian Dowdeswell, director of the Scott Polar Research Institute at Cambridge University:

A small glacier such as the Dokriani glacier is up to 120m thick. A big one would be several hundred metres thick and tens of kilometres long. The average is 300m thick so to melt one at 5m a year would take 60 years.

Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print.

Professor Lal admits he knows little about glaciers.

When settling the science, gentle Gaea wastrel, speculation is more expeditious than the slog of formal research. Or doing the math.

CHOPE.

Imminent doom coming soon. Just not anytime soon.

NYC Letter: The "Kennedy" Seat

Day 360 of CHOPE

TEA PARTIERS MOBILIZE TO STEAL KENNEDY'S SEAT
January 11, 2010 (HuffPo)

Let us walk -- babysteps -- the agitated through this startling misconceived headline. Mr. Kennedy is dead. He has no Senate seat. The seat is not a bequest. It is not a liberal endowment held in perpetuity. The seat is a public office contested at the ballot. A free election is not theft, it is a democratic process.

The seat is currently held by Paul G. Kirk (D-MA), who came by it through a gamed appointment blessed by the Kennedy family, explaining the presumptions of the above headline.

A special election is being held this Tuesday the 19th to seat a Senator of the people's choosing. The candidates are Democrat Martha Coakley, Massachusetts Attorney General, and Republican Scott Brown, State Senator from Wrentham. Ms. Coakley was the done deal and nobody paid much attention to the race. Nobody, except the Massachusetts electorate, which, finally free of the Kennedy dynasty, appears awakened from a long troubled sleep, which is to say Mr. Brown is surging and Ms. Coakley is crashing.

Uh-oh.

REPUBLICAN SCOTT BROWN TELLS SEAN HANNITY
HE WILL BE 41ST VOTE AGAINST OBAMACARE
"I Will Stop It"
January 8, 2010 (Gateway Pundit/FCN)

Mr. Kirk has endorsed Ms. Coakley in defiance of "the will of the Massachusetts House and Senate [Democrat majorities in both chambers], which adopted identical non-binding resolutions in September urging any U.S. Senate appointee from Massachusetts to refrain from endorsing or actively campaigning for a successor." Having flouted the will of the General Court, Mr. Kirk used the occasion to announce he is ready to flout the will of the people too.

Speaking with reporters, Kirk also predicted that Congress would approve a national health care bill by the end of the month -- in time for the president’s State of the Union address -- and said he would vote for it even if Massachusetts voters elect Brown. Brown has said he’d be the 41st vote against the health bill, which would give Republicans a large enough margin to prevent if from moving forward.

A Brown win would be a clear indication how the people want the bill voted. Yet Mr. Kirk from his perch will do as he pleases.

The Democrats are already contemplating the the loss of their Senate supermajority and how to work around Mr. Brown's certain vote, should he win, against any final Obamacare bill.

Which brings us full circle to this exchange, where the question is loaded with the same presumption as the lead headline:

DAVID GERGEN: Mr. Brown, let me ask you this question it's on a lot of people's mind [sic]. This this, you said you're for health care reform just not this bill. We know from the Clinton experience that if this bill fails, it could well be another fifteen years, ah, before we see a health care reform efforts [sic] in Washington. Are you willing under those circumstances to say I'm going to be the person, I'm going to sit in Teddy Kennedy's seat and I'm going to be the person to block it for another fifteen years.

SCOTT BROWN: With all due respect, it's not the Kennedy's seat, it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the people's seat.

Mr. Brown may not be a conservative's Republican, but he is clearly his own man.

CHOPE.

60. 41. 51.

NYC Letter: Bring It On

Day 359 of CHOPE

Thank you. Thank you, House of Representatives. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

... Now, believe me [scil., I am about to prevaricate], I know how big a lift this has been [scil., Obamacare]. I see the polls.

... So, I know everybody in the media is all in a tizzy -- "Oh, what's this going to mean politically?" Well, let me tell you something. If Republicans want to campaign against what we've done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have. (Applause.) If their best idea is to return to the bad policies and the bad ideas of yesterday, they are going to lose that argument. What are they going to say? "Well, you know, the old system really worked well; let's go back to the way it was"?

... And that's why I'll be out there waging a great campaign from one end of the country to the other, telling Americans with insurance or without what they stand to gain -- (applause)...

Mr. Obama,
announcing another ready-to-say-anything campaign
touting his wishful partisan triumphs
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT THE
HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS RETREAT
WASHINGTON January 14, 2009 (White House)

MASTER OF DISASTER
Polls? Forget The Polls!

COST IS FOREMOST HEALTHCARE ISSUE FOR AMERICANS
But Public Largely Skeptical That
Healthcare Reform Will Bring Relief

PRINCETON September 23, 2009 (Gallup) - Americans are broadly satisfied with the quality of their own medical care and healthcare costs, but of the two, satisfaction with costs lags.

Overall, 80% are satisfied with the quality of medical care available to them, including 39% who are very satisfied. Sixty-one percent are satisfied with the cost of their medical care, including 20% who are very satisfied.

POLL: OBAMA’S RATINGS ON HEALTH CARE,
ECONOMY DROP LOWER

January 12, 2009 (NYT) - Fewer Americans now approve of the way that President Barack Obama is handling the economy and health care, pushing his overall job rating below the crucial 50 percent mark, according to the latest CBS News poll.

The poll finds 46 percent approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing as president, while 41 percent disapprove. His approval rating is down from 50 percent in a New York Times/CBS News poll last month, and 56 percent from October, to its lowest level in Times or CBS News polls to date.

The president’s marks for handling the top domestic issues are even lower, according to the poll. On the economy, 41 percent approve, down 6 points in the last month to a new low. And just 36 percent approve of the way Mr. Obama is handling health care, also down 6 points to a new low. Most, 54 percent, disapprove.

QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY NATIONAL POLL FINDS
SUPPORT FOR HEALTH REFORM AT 34 PERCENT

January 14, 2009 (Quinnipiac) - Public support for health care reform continues to decline, as 34 percent mostly approve, while 54 percent mostly disapprove, compared to 53 - 36 percent disapproval December 22. ... For the first time, voters trust congressional Republicans as much as President Obama on health care, 42 - 41 percent, compared to a 45 - 40 percent Obama edge December 22. Obama's "trust" margin July 1 was 53 - 33 percent.

And this from the most recent CNN health care poll released today:

According to the survey, only 4 in 10 support the health care bills passed by the House and Senate, with 57 percent opposed. But only 45 percent oppose the bills because they say they are too liberal. One in ten suggest they oppose the legislation because it's not liberal enough.

The poll also indicates that 28 percent say they would be angry if health care legislation passed, with another 23 percent suggesting they'd be displeased. One in three questioned say they'd be pleased, with only 14 percent saying they'd enthusiastically support the bills.

Oh yeah. Bring it on.

CHOPE.

Titanic. Iceberg. No worries.

NYC Letter: Joe On The Job X

Day 358 of CHOPE

I'm announcing today that I am asking my vice president, Joe Biden, to oversee our administration's [stimulus] implementation efforts. ... The fact that I'm asking my vice president to personally lead this effort shows how important it is for our country and our future to get this right.

...the American people are watching. They need this plan to work. And they expect to see their money spent in its intended purpose.

President Obama,
investing Joe "Hi-Q" Biden with oversight
of the $787B stimulus candy store
WASHINGTON February 23, 2009 (MSNBC)

(A) Because of the rules, the president and I can't stop you from doing some things, but I'll show up in your city and say, "This was a stupid idea." You think I'm kidding? This is the only part the president was right about: Don't mess with Joe, because I mean it.

[Untranscribed laughter.]

I'm serious, guys. I'm serious. I'm absolutely serious.

(B) But I can tell you one thing. My passion to make sure this is done right, it may exceed my abilities.

Joe "I'm No Economist" Biden,
(A) threatening visiting mayors with ridicule
to deter misspent stimulus
WASHINGTON March 18, 2009 (PBS)
(B) showing more insight than the boss
WASHINGTON March 12, 2009 (WaPo)

Mr. Biden, whose abilities are sorely tested just remembering the "number" for the stimulus report site (and this), is to be more sorely tested still. To make good his threat to the nation's mayors he must show up in places that don't exist to deride nonexistent projects funded with real stimulus money.

STIMULUS FUNDS WENT TO
NONEXISTENT ZIP CODE AREAS

January 3, 2010 (NMWD) - First it was phantom Congressional districts. ... The agency charged with tracking the stimulus funds, the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, attempted to eliminate this embarrassment by lumping all the billions reported going to nonexistent Congressional districts into a new category called the “unassigned” Congressional district.

Now it’s phantom zip codes. ... Closer examination of the latest recovery.gov report for New Mexico shows hundreds of thousands of dollars sent to and credited with creating jobs in zip codes that do not exist in New Mexico or anywhere else. Moreover, funds reported as being spent in New Mexico were given zip codes corresponding to areas in Washington and Oregon.

The recovery.gov site reports that $373,874 was spent in zip code 97052. Unfortunately, this expenditure created zip jobs. But $36,218 was credited with creating 5 jobs in zip code 87258. A cool hundred grand went into zip code 86705, but didn’t result in even one person finding work.

None of these zip codes exist in New Mexico, or anywhere else, for that matter.

The recovery.gov report also credits New Mexico with $131,139, though the zip codes receiving these funds (but creating no jobs) are in fact located in DuPont, Washington, Richland, Washington, and Gales Creek, Oregon.

... All told, we have found over $27 million dollars [for New Mexico] that has been reported as going to either nonexistent Congressional districts or nonexistent zip codes.

[Pause.] Click the headline link for updates of stimulus millions spent in other nonexistent places in Nebraska, Washington, Virginia, Minnesota, Colorado, and Oklahoma.

ALL RESULTS CERTIMAFIED BY JOE BIDEN
Certimafication Medallion Also Serves As
A Decorative Car Air Freshener

The next quarterly report tracking stimulus funds, and reporting jobs created or saved by expenditure of those funds, is scheduled to be posted by the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board on January 30, 2010. The reports are docketed for quarterly releases. The discovery of errors, raising questions about the integrity and accuracy of the data, have occurred with the release of every report.

You think. [Pause.] The recovery.gov site has been a bust from the very beginning.

THE $100K RECOVERY.GOV SITE THAT COST $18 MILLION

November 19, 2009 (PartysOver) - The Recovery.gov website produced at a contract cost of 9.5 million dollars, that came in at total cost of Stimulus dollars of 18 Million.

The contract was awarded to Smartronix Inc.: President Mohammed Arshed Javaid, Lieutenant General Robert M Shea, Strategic Advisor. Interestingly according to public documents the company only produced 22 million in total revenue.

The Website was written with Drupal a commonly used website [CMS] software and get this, it's free.

Which is to say little or no proprietary programming usually associated with big ticket sites was done.

The website offered few if any of the standard options like verifiable Congressional Districts, a pretty basic part of the scope of a project such as this.

Junk D&D for junk stimulus. Great job, Joe.

CHOPE.

Details. Details. Fraud.

Pave: French Free Practice Of Religion, Only €750

Le jour 972 de Sarko

We are a little out of practice posting on France, but we seem to recall that she prides herself as the great noise for the universal rights of man and the citizen.

Article 4: La liberté consiste à pouvoir faire tout ce qui ne nuit pas à autrui : ainsi, l'exercice des droits naturels de chaque homme n'a de bornes que celles qui assurent aux autres Membres de la Société la jouissance de ces mêmes droits. Ces bornes ne peuvent être déterminées que par la Loi.

[Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.]

Article 10: Nul ne doit être inquiété pour ses opinions, même religieuses, pourvu que leur manifestation ne trouble pas l'ordre public établi par la Loi.

[No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.].

La Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme
et du Citoyen de 1789
(translation)
(August 26, 1789 )

Alas, the French right to liberty, unlike unalienable American liberty, derives from the state. French law is anterior to French rights, rights do not frame the law. And the French state is always ready to circumscribe rights to suit its ends. To wit.

WOMEN WHO WEAR BURKAS
AND NIQABS ON THE STREET IN FRANCE
FACE FINES OF £700

January 8, 2010 (Daily Mail) - Women who wear Islamic veils in public in France face a £700 fine under strict new laws being proposed. The amount could be doubled for Muslim men who force female members of their family to cover their faces.

Forcing a woman to act against her will is already proscribed in French law with remedy in law for the victim. Fining a tyrannical Muslim husband will likely earn the wife a beating. Double fining him may prove fatal.

Jean-Francois Cope, president of Nicolas Sarkozy’s ruling UMP Party, said the legislation was intended to protect the ‘dignity’ and ‘security’ of women. He is set to file the draft law in the National Assembly after Mr Sarkozy said veils were "not welcome" because they intimidated non-Muslims.

Perhaps the weakest -- if not stupidest argument -- Sarko could advance.

"We want a ban in public areas," said Mr Cope, making it clear the veil would not be allowed in public buildings, or on the streets of France, home to five million Muslims. He added:

The wearing of the burka will be subject to a fine, probably of 750 euros.

The fine would apply to "all people on the public street whose face is entirely covered".

If Islamic veils are the intended target, already the law is busted. Neither the hijab nor the niqab* "entirely" cover the face. Both have openings for the eyes. Only the burka "entirely" covers the face.

Mr Sarkozy has called burkas "a sign of subservience that imprison women", while immigration minister Eric Besson described them as "an affront to national identity".

Perhaps M. Besson will add a codicil requiring all nationals wear striped pullovers and adorable berets in furtherance of French "national identity".

HE'S FROM THE GOVERNMENT. HE'S HERE TO HELP.
Establishing French National Identity Dress Code

This law is the natural follow-on to France's ham-fisted hijab ban. Veteran skimmers may recall our objections.**

France's "prohibited dress" law was written generally (and sloppily and confusedly) as to appear fair, but was intended to target young Muslim girls wearing prescribed Muslim dress. And young Muslim girls were targeted because the French government had no stomach for targeting young Muslim boys, who under the guise of "unidentified youths" soon put France to flame (and this), armed themselves, battled and shot police, attacked the defenseless, and destroyed public and private property (oh, and this follow-up).

The current bill being considered cannot be squared with the fond intents of Articles 4 and 10. If the practice of Islam has legal sanction, then the necessary incidentals to the practice are implicitedly sanctioned. Liberal democracy's complaint is not with the appurtenances of Islam, but with Islam itself. Islam is antithetical to liberal democracy, but liberal democracies are loathe to own up to this.*** Instead of taking Islam head on,† France chooses to bully hapless Islamic women, who then face an impossible choice between state law and Islamic culture.

A liberal democracy has no standing to tinker with religion. However, every state has the obligation to defend itself against pernicious threats to the commonweal. Veiled women pose no such threat, whereas the dynamic behind the veil very well may.

PFFT (What is this?‡): We're here to help ½ | Rayonnement français ½

------------------------------------
* Some styles of niqab do include an eye veil.

‡ This link is dead, also lost with Pave's demise. We believe the acronym stood for Pave France Franchouille Tote, which was the best we could do to force "PFFT", a French exclamation of disdain. In any future Pave posts we will let it stand without the freight.

NYC Letter: Hot/Cold, Part IV

Day 356 of CHOPE

The end of ice.

The truth is that the threat we face is not an abstract concern for the future. It is already upon us and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now. Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now.

John "Henny Penny" Kerry (D-MA),
alerting us to the end of ice
WASHINGTON August 31, 2009 (HuffPo

No. Wait. Plenty of ice.

THE MINI ICE AGE STARTS HERE

January 10, 2010 (Daily Mail) - The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists. Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise. They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’.

Ah, dear carbon furnace, that would explain how the AGW crowd got the "settled science" so wrong. They were guessing. And they guessed wrong.

Prof Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group:

I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount.

These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years.

... This challenge to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists could never be described as global warming ‘deniers’ or sceptics.

Models that are unreliable forecasting a week out, good enough for the greater challenge of forecasting twenty, thirty, one hundred years out. Quick, let's turn the economy on its head (and here). [Great excitement.] Let's further bankrupt ourselves by picking up the tab (and here) for an emergent big polluter. It is industrial social justice, practically the only justice tolerated by the emergent big polluter.

30 YEARS OF GLOBAL COOLING ARE COMING,
LEADING SCIENTIST SAYS

January 11, 2010 (FNC) - Oranges are freezing and millions of tropical fish are dying in Florida, and it could be just the beginning of a decades-long deep freeze, says Professor Mojib Latif, one of the world's leading climate modelers.

Latif thinks the cold snap Americans have been suffering through is only the beginning. He says we're in for 30 years of cooler temperatures -- a mini ice age, he calls it, basing his theory on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the world's oceans. ... Latif is a key member of the UN's climate research arm, which has long promoted the concept of global warming.

... "Has ocean variability contributed to variations in surface temperature? Absolutely, no one's denying that," said Mark Serreze, senior research scientist with NSIDC [U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center]. But the Center disagrees with Latif's conclusions, instead arguing that the cold snap is still another sign of global warming.

You see. Even a "mini ice age" is indisputable evidence of global warming.

Many parts of the world have been suffering through record-setting snowfalls and arctic temperatures. The Midwest saw wind chills as low as 49 degrees below zero last week, while Europe saw snows so heavy that Eurostar train service and air travel were canceled across much of the continent. In Asia, Beijing was hit by its heaviest snowfall in 60 years.

And as for the cold weather? Mr. Serreze:

This is just the roll of the dice, the natural variability inherent to the system," explained.

Unlike Mr. Serreze and his easy predictions, hard-to-predict nature does not load the dice.

CHOPE.

Hot. Cold. Guess again.

NYC Letter: NO-Mo (PBUH)

Day 355 of CHOPE

The Metropolitan Museum in New York has removed portraits of Mohammed by Islamic artists from an exhibition of Islamic art.

'JIHAD' JITTERS AT MET
Mohammed Art Gone

NYC January 10, 2010 (NYPost) - Is the Met afraid of Mohammed?

The Metropolitan Museum of Art quietly pulled images of the Prophet Mohammed from its Islamic collection and may not include them in a renovated exhibition area slated to open in 2011, The Post has learned.

The museum said the controversial images -- objected to by conservative Muslims who say their religion forbids images of their holy founder -- were "under review."

This is a canard. The cringing West insists on its legitimacy, while knowledgible Muslims enjoy the cringe.

Critics say the Met has a history of dodging criticism and likely wants to escape the kind of outcry that Danish cartoons of Mohammed caused in 2006.

Which continues to this day.

Three years ago, the Met changed its "Primitive Art Galleries" to the "Arts of Africa, Oceania and the Americas" for the sake of political correctness, said author Michael Gross, author of "Rogues' Gallery," a book about the Met.

Just recently, it decided its highly anticipated "Islamic Galleries" will be given an awkward new name ahead of the 2011 opening. Visitors will stroll around rooms dedicated to art from "Arab Lands, Turkey, Iran, Central Asia and Later South Asia," according to a museum press release.

[Islamic art expert Kishwar] Rizvi said it was "a shame" the museum dropped the word Islamic from the title.

It's cumbersome and problematic to base it on nationalistic boundaries.

The Met obviously hasn't gotten the memo not to worry, the "mood music" has changed.

With joblessness still plaguing the economy and health care dominating his agenda, Obama has not wanted his presidency to be defined by the war on terror, as Bush’s was. He has given relatively few public speeches on the topic and declined to discuss it for this article. Rather than seeing terrorism as the challenge of our time, Obama rejects the phrase "war on terror" altogether, hoping to recast the struggle as only one of a number of vital challenges confronting America.

And so perhaps the biggest change Obama has made is what one former adviser calls the "mood music" — choice of language, outreach to Muslims, rhetorical fidelity to the rule of law and a shift in tone from the all-or-nothing days of the Bush administration. He is committed to taking aggressive actions to disrupt terrorist cells, aides said, but he also considers his speech in Cairo to the Islamic world in June central to his efforts to combat terrorism. Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama's chief of staff:

If you asked him what are the most important things he’s done to fight terrorism in his first year, he would put Cairo in the top three.

This is not too surprising given the lack of top choices among Team Barry's missteps on terrorism. While Mr. Bush was president the Met did not feel compelled to remove the Mr. Mo (PBUH) portraits. [Pause.] But now Mr. Obama is in charge.

CHOPE.

More muzak. No war.

------------------------------------
* Or this. Or this.

NYC Letter: The N-word Of The Narcissus

Day 354 of CHOPE

It has come to this.

EASY READING
No Offense. No Joke. No Conrad.

PUBLISHER RENAMES JOSEPH CONRAD CLASSIC
'THE N-WORD OF THE NARCISSUS'

January 7, 2009 (FNC) - Joseph Conrad, whose "Heart of Darkness" and "Lord Jim" have been scrutinized by English students on multiple continents for decades, wrote a lesser known novel in 1897 called "The Nigger of the Narcissus."

Now, in what critics are calling a blatant act of politically correct censorship, a Netherlands-based publisher has reprinted the novel under a new name: "The N-word of the Narcissus."

The new version is the first installment of WordBridge Publishing's classic texts series, featuring "texts with a message for moderns, made accessible to moderns."

We are not sure Mr. Conrad's intent was to write messages at all. We are sure that if Mr. Conrad titled his work "The Nigger of the Narcissus" he intended the title to stand.

Ruben Alvarado, owner of WordBridge Publishing, said he's received just one complaint regarding the book.

"As far as [the] 'n-word' is concerned, I decided to go with it after finally reading the book, and being astounded by its message," Alvarado wrote FoxNews.com. "Although a Conrad fan, I had never read it before, frankly because I was offended by the n-word and didn't like being confronted with it at every turn. So after reading it, I thought to myself, is this aversion to that word keeping other people from reading the book as well? Is it keeping the book from being discussed in the classroom?"

According to WordBridge's Web site, the renaming of Conrad's classic is a "public service" to readers.

No doubt. A "public service" to readers of Mr. Alvarado's sensitive stripe, but a disservice to the author and readers with more robust intellects.

"This new version addresses the reason for its neglect: the profusion of the so-called n-word throughout its pages," the site reads. "Hence, the introduction of 'n-word' throughout the text, to remove this offence to modern sensibilities."

Unlike Bowlderization, where the problematic word or passage is rendered innocuous by alteration or obscuration or is excised entirely, Mr. Alvarado has not hidden the offense. Rather he painfully draws our attention to it. When the eye reads "N-word" the mind understands it to be "nigger". So where is the gain?

"The N-word Of The Narcissus" suggests a lampoon of the original, not some sensitive improvement. Had Mr. Alvarado truly wanted "to remove this offence to modern sensibilities" he might have rechristened it the less offensive "The Negro Of The Narcissus", or the lesser offensive "The Black Man Of The Narcissus", or the lesser offensive still "The Man Of Color Of The Narcissus" -- each lessening more ridiculous than the last.

A hardback version of the 170-page book — which chronicles a black man taking the crew of a British sailing ship hostage — is available for $9.99, including free shipping. It can also be found on Amazon.com, where some commenters blasted the renaming of the book as a "joke," and others claimed it represents a "transparent and pathetic attempt by conservatives" to appear politically correct.

Leave it to a liberal to fault conservatism for an embarrassment of political correctness. Political correctness is a liberal project, a project of liberal pieties and feints. Conservatives regret any contagion.*

------------------------------------
* For example, this.

NYC Letter: Hot/Cold, Part III Redux

Day 353 of CHOPE

AL "GREEN FATTY" GORE IN YOUR FACE
Feeling The Heat

EXPERTS: COLD SNAP DOESN'T DISPROVE GLOBAL WARMING

January 6, 2010 (ABC News/AP) - Beijing had its coldest morning in almost 40 years and its biggest snowfall since 1951. Britain is suffering through its longest cold snap since 1981. And freezing weather is gripping the Deep South, including Florida's orange groves and beaches.

Whatever happened to global warming?

Such weather doesn't seem to fit with warnings from scientists that the Earth is warming because of greenhouse gases. But experts say the cold snap doesn't disprove global warming at all — it's just a blip in the long-term heating trend.

Of course, record hot temperatures -- temperatures melting the ice caps -- might go a ways toward proving global warming. [Pause.] No. If experts are satisfied that record cold is consistent with their theory of global warming, well who are we to insist on any actual warming. We are not "experts" with government-funded research programs manipulating data to discover government-approved results tied to future funding.

Record cold, early and late snows, a decadal cooling trend -- none of these disprove global warming, because, dear not-an-expert, NOTHING disproves global warming.

Scientists say man-made climate change does have the potential to cause more frequent and more severe weather extremes, such as heat waves, storms, floods, droughts and even cold spells. But experts interviewed by The Associated Press did not connect the current frigid blast to climate change.

Huh? Not connected? The frigid blast is a change in climate. It is part of a prevalent trend to colder winters. If changes in climate are not connected to climate change, then what exactly is? "Climate change", of course, is only a shibboleth, the current defensible shibboleth for AGW; it displaces the disputable hot button, "global warming". AGW proponents have so twisted their positions to exclude not only science and data incompatible with the revealed truth (also this and this), they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the passing weather itself. [Pause.] Were the midwest today experiencing temperatures in the 80s, ah well, dear skimmer, you can bet that would connect.

CHOPE.

The colder it is, the worse the global warming.