From a March 2 post on BigGovernment.com:
Last week, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a crime syndicate dedicated to tightening the Democratic Party's grip on America, dissolved its national structure. Too much of ACORN's corruption had been exposed to public scrutiny for it to run its vote fraud and extortion rackets effectively. So, ACORN activists will have to soldier on in state-level organizations, such as New York Communities for Change and New England United for Justice in Massachusetts.
ACORN does indeed operate like the Mafia, but it more closely resembles another organization that began as an affiliate of the Democratic Party, the Ku Klux Klan. Aside from intimidating some bank executives, ACORN does not engage in violence, but like the KKK it has vote fraud as a top priority.
This morning, in a post titled, "It's Not a Filibuster You Freaking Idiots," RedState writer Hogan slammed the media for referring to Sen. Jim Bunning's (R-KY) move to block legislation that would extend unemployment benefits as a "filibuster." Hogan wrote [emphasis added]:
As I noted in a previous post, and as is increasingly well known to those who actually are capable of comprehension, Senator Jim Bunning - for the simple reason he wishes it to be paid for - is objecting to a repeated unanimous consent request by Senate Democrats to call up and pass a bill that would temporarily extend unemployment benefits, transportation funding, medicare reimbursement, COBRA subsidies and other expenditures to the tune of another $10 billion or so.
Yet, news account after news account of his continued objection to this unanimous consent request report his actions as a filibuster. Politico, Roll Call, Fox News, CNN, and the list goes on and on. And the accusation of filibustering is even worse among Senators and Congressmen, as exemplified by the DCCC Chair, Chris Van Hollen and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. But it simply is not the case that what Mr. Bunning is doing is a filibuster under the rules, as anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the U.S. Senate fully comprehends.
Before attacking media outlets as "freaking idiots" not "capable of comprehension" and lacking "rudimentary understanding of the U.S. Senate," perhaps Hogan should have run a quick search to see if anyone at RedState had called Bunning's actions a "filibuster." Turns out Hogan's boss, Erick Erickson, has done so at least twice. Here's Erickson yesterday [emphasis added]:
The point of supporting Rand Paul was driven home to me last Thursday night as Senator Bunning launched a one man filibuster against the Democrats. He came under relentless attack and even his own Republican Party would barely come to his aid (kudos to Bob Corker (R-TN)).
And on Twitter last week:
God bless Senator Bunning. His filibuster is going to put government bureaucrats out of jobs! Hallelujah.
You might think this would have upset Erickson, but he's now promoting Hogan's post on Twitter:
Yeah! You tell 'em, Erick.
In a Daily Caller column, John Feehery complains about Barack Obama addressing members of Congress by their first names:
He called the Speaker "Nancy," the Senate Majority Leader "Harry," the Senate Republican Leader "Mitch," and his vanquished opponent "John."
When "Mitch" complained that the president and the Democrats had hogged most of the time, Mr. Obama said, with studied insouciance, "That's right Mitch, I am the president," implying that because he is the president that he can do whatever he wants to do.
That statement should set off alarm bells among the president's advisers. Actually, presidents can't do whatever they want to do. Richard Nixon proved that point.
Yeah, calling Mitch McConnell "Mitch" is just like Watergate. One day you're calling someone named "Mitch" "Mitch," and the next you're talking about fire-bombing Brookings. Happens every time.
President Bill Clinton never used to refer to Representative George Miller, a rather bulky Democrat from California, as Big George.
But there is a new tenant in the Oval Office these days, and President Bush has brought with him his own signature style. That means nicknames, even for a liberal Democrat like Mr. Miller. It means levity. It means bipartisan backslapping and Texas-style folksiness.
the dozens of lawmakers who have paraded up the White House driveway this week for small-group meetings with Mr. Bush are beginning to get a taste of his legendary charm.
''Hey, Big George,'' Mr. Bush said to Mr. Miller when the congressman joined other lawmakers in Austin before the inauguration to discuss educational policy. Mr. Miller returned to the White House this week and learned that the nickname had stuck.
Mr. Bush now refers to Representative Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican, as Freddy Boy. Other such monikers are sure to follow.
Of course, it is nothing new for new presidents to stroke Congressional egos. Lyndon B. Johnson and Gerald R. Ford, two Congressional graduates who made it to the White House, engaged in their own unique versions of it. And Mr. Bush's father, a former member of Congress himself, used to call lawmakers by their first names and insist that they call him George.
Fox Nation touts a scoop:
Now, let's translate Fox's "fair and balanced" headline into an actual fair and balanced headline, shall we?
By "plot," Fox Nation means "plan."
By "ram through," Fox Nation means "pass via majority vote after more than a year of discussion and debate."
By "revealed," Fox Nation means "speculated about."
Put it all together, and you have "Speculation about Obama's plan to pass health care."
But that wouldn't whip readers into an anti-government, anti-Obama frenzy, so ...
(Oh, and that Commie-red next to Obama's face? Total coincidence.)
From a March 2 post on Andrew Breitbart's Twitter feed:
The Washington Post's opinion pages keep getting worse, every day. Today, the Post handed over a valuable chunk of opinion real estate to Sen. Orrin Hatch, who the Post allowed to make several misleading claims about reconciliation -- some of which were in conflict with the Post's own reporting.
Broadly, Hatch's op-ed is fundamentally misleading in that it repeatedly conflates passing health care reform via reconciliation with passing tweaks to health care reform via reconciliation. The former is not under discussion; indeed, the Senate has already passed health care reform. As the Post's own Ezra Klein explained yesterday, "Democrats are not proposing to create the health-care reform bill in reconciliation. Rather, they're using the process for a much more limited purpose: passing the 11 pages of modifications that President Obama proposed to reconcile the House and Senate bills with each other."
Still, Post op-ed editors allowed Hatch to suggest that reconciliation is being considered as a means of passing the entire reform package. Hatch writes:
Some of my colleagues, and others, have wrongly argued that using reconciliation to change only parts of this enormously unpopular bill would not be an abuse of the process. But if the only way to pass this $2.5 trillion bill is through reconciliation, then this continues to be an abuse that stifles dissent and badly undermines our constitutional checks and balances.
Of course, reconciliation isn't the only way to pass the bill, because the Senate has already passed the bill. Reconciliation is begin considered as a means of amending the bill. (That $2.5 trillion figure, by the way, is much larger than the CBO's estimate, but the Post didn't make Hatch explain where it came from.)
Worse, the Post allowed Hatch to misleadingly suggest that Sen. Kent Conrad shares his opposition to using reconciliation:
This use of reconciliation to jam through this legislation, against the will of the American people, would be unprecedented in scope. And the havoc wrought would threaten our system of checks and balances, corrode the legislative process, degrade our system of government and damage the prospects of bipartisanship.
Less than a year ago, the longest-serving member of the Senate, West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd, said, "I was one of the authors of the legislation that created the budget 'reconciliation' process in 1974, and I am certain that putting health-care reform . . . legislation on a freight train through Congress is an outrage that must be resisted." Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, also a Democrat, said last March, "I don't believe reconciliation was ever intended for the purpose of writing this kind of substantive reform legislation." They are both right.
But Conrad was "speaking generally of the idea of moving major legislative priorities under reconciliation," according to the New York Times article in which that quote originally appeared. He wasn't speaking in opposition to using reconciliation to tweak legislation that has already passed, which is the current debate. (Note, again, that the Post allows Hatch to refer to "the use of reconciliation to jam through this legislation," which falsely suggests the entire reform package would be passed via reconciliation.) In fact, Conrad said just yesterday that reconciliation can be used for such fixes:
But Conrad patiently explained that the media interpretation of his comments is wrong. He was merely saying reconciliation would not be used to pass a comprehensive bill, and would only be used to pass the sidecar fix, which he said is workable, depending on what's in it.
"Reporters don't seem to be able to get this straight," Conrad said, hitting the "misreporting" he said is widespread. "Comprehensive health care reform will not work through reconciliation. But if the House passes the Senate bill, and wants certain things improved on, like affordability, the Medicaid provisions, how much of Medicaid expenses are paid for by the Federal government, that is something that could be done through reconciliation."
Surely the Post knows about that; Conrad said it to a Post reporter.
The Post also allowed Hatch to assert "Reconciliation was designed to balance the federal budget. Both parties have used the process, but only when the bills in question stuck close to dealing with the budget. In instances in which other substantive legislation was included, the legislation had significant bipartisan support."
But just yesterday, the Post's Greg Sargent detailed several reconciliation votes cast by Republicans during the Bush presidency, including:
McConnell, Hatch, NRSC chief John Cornyn and 21 other current GOP Senators voted for the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, which accelerated the Bush tax cuts and added new ones. This passed by a simple majority via reconciliation - 50-50 in the Senate with Dick Cheney casting the tiebreaking vote.
That wasn't an attempt to "balance the federal budget," and that wasn't something that passed with "significant bipartisan support." So not only was Hatch's suggestion that reconciliation has only been used to to pass measures "to balance the federal budget" or those with "significant bipartisan support" false, he himself has supported reconciliation in situations that met neither of those conditions. Yet the Post let him mislead their readers.
If 2009 was the year of the ACORN scandal, then 2010 is shaping up as the year it all comes apart.
And yes, I think the stress is getting to right-wing activist, and ACORN crusader, Andrew Breitbart whose undercover crew not only faces mounting legal battles surrounding their possibly illegal sting, but is now forced to stand by and watch the entire ACORN attack crumble in plain sight.
And that raises an interesting question: If you're a one-hit wonder, like Breitbart is with ACORN, what happens when your one hit turns out to be not such a wonder?
This news from yesterday afternoon must have gone over like a lead zeppelin inside Big Government offices:
Brooklyn prosecutors on Monday cleared ACORN of criminal wrongdoing after a four-month probe that began when undercover conservative activists filmed workers giving what appeared to be illegal advice on how to hide money.
The money quote on why no charges were filed after investigators looked at Breitbart's ACORN sting videos:
"They edited the tape to meet their agenda," said the source.
Gee, you think there's any connection between that and why Breitbart refuses to release all the unedited ACORN tapes? And BTW, for a such supposedly massive criminal enterprise, ACORN sure has a knack for avoiding prosecution. (Must be a conspiracy, right Andrew?)
UPDATED: Did I mention Breitbart seems to be cracking under the scrutiny?
After deciding that AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka is "ruining the economy," Fox & Friends displayed the following on-screen graphics:
From the March 2 Politico article, titled, "Fox platform gives Kasich a boost":
John Kasich, who served nine terms in the House before becoming a Fox News host, is now testing whether the revolving door between politics and the media works in both directions.
It clearly goes one way, with many former elected officials having followed a path into cable news. Recently ousted New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine is now reportedly in talks with CNBC, while former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer has become an MSNBC regular. And Fox now has a trio of prominent former Republican officials: Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich.
It's quite possible that one of those three could run for president in 2012. But in the meantime, it is Kasich, host of "Heartland With John Kasich" from 2001 to 2007 and guest host on Fox's "The O'Reilly Factor," who is running against Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio and finding that the old ties to Fox can be very handy.
Since first talking publicly about running for governor in February 2008, Kasich has made more than 25 appearances on Fox News, five of them since formally announcing his candidacy last June. O'Reilly has introduced him as "John Kasich, our man in Ohio," while Fox's Sean Hannity talks up the "future governor of the great state of Ohio." Gingrich spoke favorably of Kasich as a candidate while appearing on "The O'Reilly Factor," the night before Ohio newspapers reported that Kasich was filing papers to raise money.
But it remains to be seen how his national cable news presence plays out locally. Former Fox News analyst Angela McGlowan, now running for Congress in Mississippi, recently told POLITICO that her on-air time could be an asset in the primary. "It helps me with the conservative base," said McGlowan. "But being associated with Fox News will not win me the election."
In addition to actively using social networking, Kasich has courted the Republican base beyond "Hannity": He recently made a minute-long video for RedState that addressed readers of the influential conservative blog.