As Seen On Twitter

You could watch this forever and never stop smiling. pic.twitter.com/MRT9t3uWRB

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) February 2, 2018

Toons

Via-

Toon

The Pelosi Minority

Via-WSJ

The Speaker decides to reward herself for an epic defeat..

 We're beginning to wonder if any Democrats take responsibility for this week's election rout. President Obama blamed it Wednesday on a failure to communicate rather than substance, and now Speaker Nancy Pelosi is making a bid to keep her job as House Democratic leader. Lose 61 seats? Whatever.

As an historical matter, Mrs. Pelosi's announcement yesterday was almost as extraordinary as the election itself, which saw the largest turnover of House seats since 1938. Speakers almost always resign after an electoral repudiation—even Newt Gingrich, who stepped down after the GOP lost a handful of seats in 1998 while retaining the majority. The last Speaker who accepted a demotion to minority leader was Democrat Sam Rayburn in 1946, who reclaimed the gavel two years later on Harry Truman's coattails.

Presumably Mrs. Pelosi is entertaining similar hopes, which suggests that Democrats really do believe their own post-election spin. How else to explain her bid as a matter of political logic?

Remaining in power deprives her party of one of its better opportunities to show the public that Tuesday's message was received. Even if Democrats have no plans for a policy turn, sacrificing the unpopular Mrs. Pelosi might stand as a down payment on winning back the trust of the independent and suburban voters who fled Democrats this year. Something like a dozen House Democrats ran against her as much as they did against their GOP opponents.

Nonetheless, in her letter to the Democratic caucus, Mrs. Pelosi eulogized "the most productive Congress in a half century," adding that "Our work is far from finished." (Cue the string section.) "We have no intention of allowing our great achievements to be rolled back," she continued, citing ObamaCare, financial reregulation and job noncreation programs like the stimulus, with unspecified threats to Social Security and Medicare thrown in at no extra charge.

In other words, Mrs. Pelosi thinks she should remain in power to preserve the agenda that forfeited the House. And she may well succeed, not least because of her fund-raising and proven log-rolling skills that were necessary to pass some of the worst legislation in generations.

The Democrats who lost in 2010 were in the swing seats that matter for controlling the House, and now that the caucus is leaner its political wavelength is more in sync with Mrs. Pelosi's San Francisco liberalism than with the rare Blue Dog survivors like Heath Shuler of North Carolina or Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania. Lucky for them the vote for minority leader, as opposed to Speaker, is a secret ballot.

Mrs. Pelosi's run also puts her chief lieutenants in a squeeze play. Current Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland was expected to sidle into the top slot but said yesterday he's weighing a run for whip, the No. 2 in the minority leadership. But current whip James Clyburn is a liberal Pelosi loyalist closer to the rump caucus mood than is a moderate like Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Clyburn also enjoys support from his colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, most of whom come from safe or gerrymandered districts.

In Mr. Clyburn's whip letter, he too writes that "we should have no regrets about the achievements of the last two years," though he was willing to concede "general acknowledgement that we lost the communications battle on too many fronts." Mr. Obama echoed that sentiment in an interview due to air Sunday on CBS's "60 Minutes," claiming that "over the course of two years we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn't just legislation. That it's a matter of persuading people . . . and making an argument that people can understand."

All of which explains how the Democrats made themselves a House minority in a modern record of a mere four years. In his Weekend Interview with the Journal last week, retiring Democrat Brian Baird of Washington state described what he called the "authoritarian, closed leadership" and "general groupthink" that has prevailed under Speaker Pelosi. Nothing confirms Mr. Baird's judgment more than her decision to reward herself for an epic defeat by once again vouchsafing her leadership upon her Members.

Pelosi’s Cannon Fodder

Via-NRO

To the speaker, health-care reform was a hill worth letting her members die for.

Rich Lowry

After ordering Pickett’s charge, Robert E. Lee reputedly mingled on the Gettysburg battlefield with his soldiers fortunate enough to have survived the debacle. “It’s all my fault,” he said.

Will Nancy Pelosi have a similar moment of regret after next Tuesday, when — whether Republicans take the House or not — many of her troops won’t be coming back?

For now, she maintains that “we haven’t really gotten credit for what we have done,” which is axiomatic as far as it goes. “Credit” is not typically what a party gets for passing signature legislation consistently opposed by the public, as Pelosi did with malice aforethought on health care. She considered a few of her members expendable in the glorious cause, but appears to have gone overboard with the expending.

Pelosi needed to flip key moderate Democrats who initially voted “no” on the health bill to “yes.” She might as well have asked them to quit on the spot. The Washington Post finds that in the eight districts where a Democrat switched from “no” to “yes,” a Democrat is favored to win in only one. In the five districts where a Democrat switched the other way, the Democrats look stronger.

If Pelosi had the political interest of her embattled members at heart, she should have brought health care up only as a vehicle for as many as possible to vote “no.” Since Labor Day, the Democrats who have included health care in their advertisements have tended to be the “nay” votes touting their opposition.

Rep. Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota briefly was an exception. Now, he’s up with an ad saying, “I know I’ve disappointed you with a vote here or there.” As if to say congressmen occasionally slip up and vote to create a disruptive, $1 trillion new entitlement program sold under brazenly false pretenses.

West Virginia governor Joe Manchin, running for Senate, has cut a winding path. He supported the law earlier this year. When it began to drag him down in his Senate race, he talked of repeal. Now, he says he regrets supporting it at all. The logical endpoint of this progression is shooting a hole through the law, as he did with the cap-and-trade bill in a famous TV ad. He might want to bring a howitzer.

Democrats insisting the health-care bill is on the cusp of popularity strike the same note of wistful hopefulness as Brooklyn Dodgers fans of old waiting for next year. Its imminent embrace by the public is always just over the horizon. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found the law “is particularly unpopular in the districts that matter most in the Republicans’ effort to retake the House.”

The desperate Pomeroy is telling voters “I’m not Nancy Pelosi,” an ingenious defense but one not available to Nancy Pelosi. A New York Times poll finds 43 percent of voters have an unfavorable view of her and 15 percent a favorable view. Her numbers nationally are arguably worse than Christine O’Donnell’s in Delaware, and she’s a seasoned leader who is the face of the entire congressional wing of her party.

Vulnerable Democrats can’t run away fast enough. Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi says he won’t vote for Pelosi for speaker again. Neither will Rep. Jim Marshall from Georgia. Even Bill Keating, a Democrat running in a heretofore safe district in Massachusetts, doesn’t want to say whether he supports her or not.

Taylor complains that the speaker “veered” to the left, but if Pelosi were really to veer to the left, she’d end up in the Socialist Workers party. She’s been the kind of speaker you’d have expected — indomitably and heedlessly progressive. Moderate and conservative Democrats were her enablers, and she returned the favor by making them cannon fodder.

Pickett’s charge reached the Union lines on Cemetery Ridge before falling back. It’s called the high-water mark of the Confederacy. Pelosi’s charge established the high-water mark of progressivism, and she’ll have the bodies to prove it.

There They Went Again

Via-WSJ

The 111th Congress fits a familiar Democratic pattern..

Democrats and their allies are already rationalizing their likely defeat next Tuesday, variously blaming the economy, GOP obstructionism, corporate money, or an inexplicable collapse in President Obama's communications skills. Whatever minor truth lies in these excuses, they obscure the larger reality: Americans appear ready to repudiate Democratic governance for the fourth consecutive time

Far from being a unique historical event, a GOP victory on Tuesday will repeat the pattern we have seen since the 1960s. Four times Democrats have won control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, and four times they have attempted to govern from the left. Each time Americans saw that agenda and its results, and they rejected it at an early opportunity. Maybe there's a lesson here.

***
We cite the 1960s as a watershed because it marked the creation of the modern Democratic Party. The Southern conservatives who had checked the left since the de facto end of the New Deal in 1938 were swept away by LBJ's 1964 landslide. Democrats implemented their fondest ambitions—the Great Society, Medicare and Medicaid—only to lose 47 House seats in 1966 and the White House two years later, as the Democratic coalition split over Vietnam and flower power.

Thanks to Watergate, Democrats returned to overwhelming dominance in 1976. Jimmy Carter had run as a centrist—he favored regulatory reform and sun-setting programs—but he quickly ran afoul of young liberals on Capitol Hill who had flooded into the House in 1974. They overrode Mr. Carter's spending vetoes and ran his budget director out of town. Democrats avoided major losses in 1978 only to lose both the Senate and White House in the first Reagan landslide amid inflation and gasoline lines.

Their next chance to govern came in 1992, as Bill Clinton won the Presidency after 12 years of GOP dominance. Mr. Clinton ran as a New Democrat, but there were few of those in Congress. Democrats imposed a huge tax increase, put off welfare reform and tried to pass HillaryCare. They lost both houses in 1994, and they wouldn't reclaim the House for 12 years, amid the near-defeat in Iraq and GOP corruption of 2006. For his part, Mr. Clinton saved his Presidency by moving back to the center.

The fourth great Democratic governing opportunity arrived two years ago as Barack Obama rode his post-partisan rhetoric and the financial panic to the largest win by a Democrat since LBJ. Their House majority swelled to 39 seats, and in the Senate they achieved a filibuster-proof 60 seats. The Republican "brand" was badly tarnished, and pundits heralded a new Democratic era. Amid the Democratic euphoria, New York Senator Chuck Schumer visited our offices and told us to cooperate with this new agenda or we would be irrelevant.

Whatever voters thought they were getting in Mr. Obama, in practice they had elected governance by Congressional Democrats. These are the 1960s liberals whom Mr. Obama has empowered and who have run Washington the last two years:

• David Obey, first elected in 1969, wrote the $814 billion stimulus and directed it toward transfer payments rather than job-producing public works.

• Barney Frank, class of '80 and patron of Fannie Mae, wrote the financial reform bill with its 243 new rule-makings and enshrinement of too big to fail.

• Henry Waxman, class of '74, and Ed Markey '76 wrote the cap-and-tax bill that passed the House but failed when Democrats revolted in the Senate. That vote is now punishing Democrats across the U.S.

• Pete Stark, class of '72, drove ObamaCare as far left as it could go in the House, insisting on a new payroll tax. This vote will also end many Democratic careers next week.

• George Miller, class of '74, wrote the federal takeover of the student loan industry and is Speaker Nancy Pelosi's chief enforcer.

• And of course the Speaker herself, first elected in 1987, who famously told Mr. Obama not to compromise on ObamaCare after the Senate election of Scott Brown in January. She would jam the bill through no matter the opposition.

Perhaps Mr. Obama could have imposed more discipline on this crowd, and we advised him early to do so. He chose not to. We suspect he never wanted to, and multiple reports say he overruled then White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to side with Mrs. Pelosi on health care. Mr. Obama is responsible for lashing his Presidency to the Speaker's mast.

It's especially amusing to hear liberal complaints about the 111th Congress, because the reality is that Democrats have achieved most of what they set out to do. With only 40 Senate votes, Republicans couldn't stop a whisper until Mr. Brown arrived, and even then they let through financial reform and another round of stimulus spending. From her liberal perch, Mrs. Pelosi has a point when she laments that Democrats aren't getting credit for their legislative achievements. And our guess is that soon after November 2 the lads at MSNBC and the New York Times will speak of this as a liberal Golden Age and defend its every act.

Mrs. Pelosi's real problem is with the American people. They understand what Democrats have achieved, and they dislike it. They thought they had elected a President who would focus on the economy, but instead they got the most far-reaching liberal social policies since the 1960s. Those policies have frightened business and produced a capital and hiring strike.

Americans were told the $814 billion stimulus would hold the jobless rate below 8%, but two years later it is 9.6% and the economic recovery has stalled. They were promised fiscal restraint, and instead they got spending at a postwar high of 25% of GDP. They were told ObamaCare would lower insurance costs, but so far it has produced only higher costs and fewer health-care choices. They were promised a tax cut, but they can see tax increases coming next year, in 2013, and later to pay for all the spending. This is what has driven the electorate to the verdict it will render on Tuesday.

***
The irony is that the Democrats most likely to lose next week are centrists and Blue Dogs in the most competitive election districts. Most liberals hold relatively safe seats, and their worst fear is that they'll lose their chairmanships. The exception is Mrs. Pelosi, who would lose her speakership and perhaps resign if Democrats lose their majority. But we suspect she has long believed that losing was possible but worth the risk to pass ObamaCare. You have to break a few careers to make a European entitlement state.

The larger lesson is that we are learning for the fourth time in 45 years that America can't be governed from the left. Democrats exploited the recession and the accident of 60 Senate seats to push the agenda of their dreams, and the American public has recoiled at the effrontery and the results. Repairing the damage of the 111th Congress will take years, and perhaps decades, but the first step is ousting the liberals who once again drove their party off a cliff.

Animal Farm 2.0

Via-Big Peace

by Monica Crowley

First, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg stepped in it over the proposed Ground Zero mosque by sanctimoniously declaring his support for freedom of religion. That was a real profile in courage, since he knew very well the issue had nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of religion. No one was telling the mosque developers that they couldn’t build the mosque. We were asking politely for them not to build it where jihadists incinerated nearly 3000 Americans on September 11—in the name of Islam. That point was clearly lost on the Mayor, who was lost in his own arrogance, ignorance, and foolishness.

Then, President Obama stepped in it, by first being for the mosque before he was against it, while being for it the whole time. Instead of providing clarity and calm, he muddied and inflamed the issue. Heckuva job, Barry!

Next, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stepped in it, by breaking from Obama’s support of the mosque and stating that it should be built “somewhere else.” This led the Far-Left to call him a coward and other epithets while sparking a major division in the Democrat party.

And last (at least for now), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stepped in it by calling for an investigation into the 70% of Americans who oppose the mosque being built at Ground Zero. “I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,” she told KCBS radio.

A few questions for Dear Speaker:

1. Whom, exactly, is calling for an investigation into mosque opponents? I haven’t heard anyone seriously suggest that, except for Pelosi right there.

2. Would these dark forces driving the opposition to the mosque be the same evil forces that began the Tea Party movement, which Pelosi so hilariously referred to as “Astroturf?”

3. Note that she wants to investigate how the opposition is being funded but is apparently unconcerned with how the actual mosque is being funded.

Meet your leaders, America.

With the exception of Reid (who only made his opposition clear because he’s locked in a tight race with Sharron Angle), these people are completely disconnected from the American people they lead. Nearly 70% of us want this mosque placed somewhere else out of respect for the souls who were murdered there by Islamists. And yet, our “leaders” think it’s a swell idea, are passionately defending it when they rarely get passionate about anything else, and are looking to investigate us for having an opposing point of view. The opposition to the mosque isn’t coming out of some dark, shadowy conspiracy. It’s the majority opinion. This is so typical of the elites — they simply cannot understand middle America and how we think. The minority in the leadership is now exerting a tyranny of power and opinion over the majority.

This is Obama’s America. It’s Animal Farm, isn’t it?

And it ends in November.

Toon

Via-Washington Examiner

Puerto Rico, Guam Kneecap Gulf Coast

Now here is something I bet few people knew about. Actually this is pretty outrageous, giving territories this power is ridiculous.

Via-Human Events

by Connie Hair

In a stunning turn of events late last week, a five-vote bloc of U.S. “non-voting” territorial delegates were the deciding votes blocking an amendment to kill the Obama administration’s moratorium on offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) offered an amendment in the House Natural Resources Committee markup of the CLEAR Act that would have banned the moratorium that has already been thrown out twice by a U.S. federal court. The Obama administration has ignored the court orders issuing an additional ban.


The moratorium is currently wreaking havoc on the Gulf Coast economy.

The CLEAR Act is another of the myriad energy bills Democrats seek to ram through Congress as a result of the oil spill aftermath that have little to do with the spill and everything to do with their faux green energy power grab.

Cassidy’s amendment was killed by the “non-voting” members of the U.S. territories who have been granted the right to vote by the majority in any committee on which they serve.

These delegates represent territories of the United States whose constituencies are not U.S. citizens: Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands. Natives of these territories pay no U.S. federal income taxes.

In 2007, Democrats granted these delegates the ability to vote on amendments on the floor of the House with the concession that the vote will be done over if their votes are the deciding factor.

During the fierce 2007 debate, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) called granting these delegates floor voting rights, “An outrageous grab of power by the majority.”

Then Republican Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said allowing these “non-voting” delegates a House Congressional floor vote amounted to, “Representation without taxation.”

Delegates are not allowed to vote on final passage of a bill and deciding votes on amendments cause a second round of voting without their participation. That only pertains to the House floor. In committee, their amendment votes are binding.

All of the House delegates caucus with the Democrats. The Senate does not have territorial delegates.

The drilling moratorium ban amendment was killed by these House U.S. territorial votes. The committee vote tally sheet is posted here on local Louisiana blog The Hayride.

Cassidy told HUMAN EVENTS in an interview post-vote that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has stacked the committee with votes against domestic energy development on the whole.

“There is an ideological bias in this Congress starting at the top against domestic energy production unless it is the ephemeral promise of windmills and solar panels,” Cassidy said. “If it were not for the representatives of the territories, she would have stacked it with someone else. There are only three Democrats on that committee who represent areas that produce energy: the Chairman [Nick Rahall (W.V.)], Jim Costa (Calif.) and Dan Boren (Okla.). Those are the three that voted for my amendment to end the moratorium.”

Cassidy said there's a great sense of relief that no new oil is currently leaking into the Gulf but there's a sense of impending doom in Louisiana over the drilling moratorium.

“There’s just a sense here that Obama hates Louisiana,” Cassidy said. “This moratorium is not hurting Tony Heyward or BP. They’re just going to move their rigs to Libya and start drilling there. The people it is hurting are families. Imagine the typical middle class family if you interrupt their income for six months what that would do to their finances. This is a people moratorium.”

For more on the Cassidy amendment and the vote, read it here on The Hayride.

Pelosi: Ethics Are Overrated

Via-WSJ

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is sending private signals that she is willing to support watering down the powers of the Office of Congressional Ethics.

By JOHN FUND
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is sending private signals that she is willing to support watering down the powers of the Office of Congressional Ethics, the panel she and fellow Democrats created last year to serve as a new watchdog on congressional misconduct.

Susan Crabtree of The Hill newspaper reports on a meeting late in May between members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Speaker Pelosi. The Speaker heard a litany of complaints about the OCE's aggressiveness and its public release of documents that reflected badly on the reputations of members. Both Ms. Pelosi and House Whip Jim Clyburn indicated sympathy with the complaints, agreeing that the ethics office's operations had resulted in unintended consequences.

Shortly after the meeting, Ohio Democrat Marcia Fudge and 19 other members of the Congressional Black Caucus introduced legislation to reduce the office's powers to investigate wrongdoing. No one expects the legislation to go anywhere, but it may be a stalking horse for an attempt to change the House's rules late this year should Democrats retain control after November.

The Office of Congressional Ethics, which is largely composed of former members, was created in 2008 by Democrats who vowed to establish a more ethical Congress. As Speaker Pelosi said at the time: "We have come here to drain the swamp. The New Direction Congress will for the first time open the ethics process up to the participation of our fellow citizens, which will make this institution more accountable." Now it would appear that the OCE has become an inconvenience or threat to some Members.

Rep. Artur Davis, an Alabama Democrat who is leaving Congress at the end of this year, is one member of the Congressional Black Caucus who thinks his colleagues are making a mistake. "There was a problem a few years ago with corruption in this institution, and that's why [the OCE] was created," he says. "I would hate to see the leadership walk away from this commitment."

Other Members are even more pointed in their criticism of those who would water down the powers of the OCE.

"The cynical among us would assert that the people crying the loudest have the most to hide," Rep. Tim Johnson, an Illinois Republican, said in a statement. "Perhaps the OCE is a victim of its own success. If it weren't making a difference, we wouldn't be having this conversation."

Can Nancy Pelosi Get the Votes?

The Senate bill's abortion language is not the House Speaker's only problem.
Via-WSJ

By MICHAEL BARONE

Are there enough votes in the House to pass the Senate's health-care bill? As of today, it's clear there aren't. House Democratic leaders have brushed aside White House calls to bring the bill forward by March 18, when President Barack Obama heads to Asia. Nevertheless, analysts close to the Democratic leadership tell me they're confident the leadership will find some way to squeeze out the 216 votes needed for a majority.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indeed shown mastery at amassing majorities. But it's hard to see how she'll do so on this one. The arithmetic as I see it doesn't add up.

The House passed its version of the health bill in November by 220-215. Of those 220, one was a Republican who now is a no. One Democrat who voted yes has died, two Democrats who voted yes have resigned, and one Democrat who voted no has resigned as well. So if everyone but the Republican votes the way they did four months ago, the score would be 216-215.


But not everyone is ready to vote that way. The House bill included an amendment prohibiting funding of abortions sponsored by Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak. The Senate bill did not. Mr. Stupak says he and 10 to 12 other members won't vote for the Senate bill for that reason. Others have said the same, including Minnesota's James Oberstar, chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Dan Lipinski, a product of the Chicago Democratic machine.

Mrs. Pelosi may have some votes in reserve—members who would have voted yes if she needed them in November and would do so again. But we can be pretty sure she doesn't have more than 10, or she wouldn't have allowed the Stupak amendment to come forward at the last minute the first time. She also might get one or two votes from members who voted no and later announced they were retiring.

But that's not enough—and there are other complications. Voting for the Senate bill means voting for the Cornhusker kickback and the Louisiana purchase—the price Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid paid for the votes of Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu. It's not hard to imagine the ads Republicans could run attacking House members for sending money to Nebraska and Louisiana but not their home states.

To be sure, Democratic leaders say they want to repair the Senate bill by subsequent legislation that could be passed with 51 votes in the Senate under the reconciliation process. But they have yet to produce such a bill. It can't include the Stupak amendment, which experts say doesn't qualify for the reconciliation process. And there's no way they can credibly promise the Senate will pass it. Senate rules allow many forms of obstruction. The reconciliation process is littered with traps.

There is also the House's historic lack of trust in the Senate, which is on display by Democrats who voted yes in November. "No, I don't trust the U.S. Senate," Wisconsin's Steve Kagen told WLUK-TV in Green Bay, this week. New York's Dan Maffei was quoted in the Syracuse Post-Standard on Monday that "I will trust the president, but I will not trust the Senate."

"I am not inclined to support the Senate version," Nevada's Shelley Berkley told the New York Times last week. "I would like something more than a promise. The Senate cannot promise its way out of a paper bag." Her district voted 64% for Barack Obama.

Other Democrats who voted yes seem to be wavering. "I don't think reconciliation is a good idea," Indiana's Baron Hill was quoted recently in Bloomberg News. New York's Michael Arcuri says he's a no for now. "There would have to be some dramatic changes in it for me to change my position," he recently told the Utica Observer-Dispatch.

"I think we can do better," California's Dennis Cardoza told the New York Times last week. "If the Senate bill is not fixed, that"—voting no—"is not a flip-flop," Nevada's Dina Titus told the Las Vegas Review-Journal last week. "I see that as standing by your convictions." Most of these members represent districts which went Republican some time in the past decade—and could easily do so again if national polls are an indicator.

There's a more fundamental problem for the Democratic leadership: Their majority is not as strong as their 253-178 margin suggests.

A Democratic House majority tends to have fewer members with safe seats than a Republican majority. Consider that in 2005 Speaker Dennis Hastert had 214 Republican members elected in districts Mr. Bush carried, just four seats short of a majority. Today Speaker Nancy Pelosi has 208 Democratic members elected in districts Mr. Obama carried, eight seats short of a majority.

The Democratic bedrock is actually slightly smaller than the Republican bedrock was four years ago, even though the Democrats have 31 more members. That's partly because of Republican gerrymandering earlier in the decade, but it's more because Democratic voters tend to be bunched in relatively few districts. Mr. Obama carried 28 districts with 80% or more; John McCain didn't reach that percentage in any district.

A lot of Democrats—most Black Caucus members and many "gentry liberals" (to use urban scholar Joel Kotkin's term) like Mrs. Pelosi—are elected in overwhelmingly Democratic districts. This means there aren't that many faithful Democratic voters to spread around to other seats.

As a result, more than 40 House Democrats represent districts which John McCain carried. Most voted no in November and would presumably be hurt by switching to yes now. Moreover, Mr. Obama's job approval now hovers around 48%, five points lower than his winning percentage in 2008. His approval on health care is even lower.


Another 32 House Democrats represent districts where Mr. Obama won between 50% and 54% of the vote, and where his approval is likely to be running under 50% now. That leaves just 176 House Democrats from districts where Mr. Obama's approval rating is not, to borrow a real-estate term, under water. That's 40 votes less than the 216 needed.

"If there is a path to 216 votes, I am confident the Speaker will find it," writes Bush White House legislative strategy analyst Keith Hennessey on his blog. "She has a remarkable ability to bend her colleagues to her will." True, but perhaps that ability has led Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill to embark on what will be remembered as a mission impossible.

Mrs. Pelosi, whom I have known for almost 30 years, may turn out to be even shrewder than I think. But she may be facing a moment as flummoxing as the one when Democratic Speaker Thomas Foley lost the vote on the rule to consider the crime and gun control bill in August 1994, or when Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert saw the Mark Foley scandal explode on the last day of the session in September 2006. Both were moments when highly competent and dedicated House speakers saw their majorities shattered beyond repair.

That moment, if it comes, will occur some time between now and the Easter recess. The Democrats' struggle to get 216 votes is high stakes poker.


More...

Pelosi's tortured press performance

"Troubling new questions" about the Speaker's credibility.Via-OC Register
by Mark Steyn

Uh-oh. Nancy Pelosi's performance at her press conference re: waterboarding has raised, according to The Washington Post, "troubling new questions about the Speaker's credibility." The dreaded T-word: "troubling."

I doubt it will "trouble" the media for long, or at least not to the extent of bringing the Pelosi Speakership to a sudden end – and needless to say I'm all in favor of Nancy remaining the face of Congressional Democrats until November 2010. But her inconsistent statements do suggest a useful way of looking at America's tortured "torture" debate:

Question: What does Dick Cheney think of waterboarding?

He's in favor of it. He was in favor of it then, he's in favor of it now. He doesn't think it's torture, and he supports having it on the books as a vital option. On his recent TV appearances, he sometimes gives the impression he would not be entirely averse to performing a demonstration on his interviewers, but generally he believes its use should be a tad more circumscribed. He is entirely consistent.

Question: What does Nancy Pelosi think of waterboarding?

No, I mean really. Away from the cameras, away from the Capitol, in the deepest recesses of her (if she'll forgive my naïveté) soul. Sitting on a mountaintop, contemplating the distant horizon, chewing thoughtfully on a cranberry-almond granola bar, what does she truly believe about waterboarding?

Does she support it? Well, according to the CIA, she did way back when, over six years ago.

Does she oppose it? According to Speaker Pelosi, yes. In her varying accounts, she's (a) accused the CIA of consciously "misleading the Congress of the United States" as to what they were doing; (b) admitted to having been briefed that waterboarding was in the playbook but that "we were not – I repeat – were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used"; (c) belatedly conceded that she'd known back in February 2003 that waterboarding was being used but had been apprised of the fact by "a member of my staff". As she said on Thursday, instead of doing anything about it, she decided to focus on getting more Democrats elected to the House.

It's worth noting that, by most if not all of her multiple accounts, Nancy Pelosi is as guilty of torture as anybody else. That's not an airy rhetorical flourish but a statement of law. As National Review's Andy McCarthy points out, under Section 2340A(c) of the relevant statute, a person who conspires to torture is subject to the same penalties as the actual torturer. Once Speaker Pelosi was informed that waterboarding was part of the plan and that it was actually being used, she was in on the conspiracy, and as up to her neck in it as whoever it was who was actually sticking it to poor old Abu Zubaydah and the other blameless lads.

That is, if you believe waterboarding is "torture."

I don't believe it's torture. Nor does Dick Cheney. But Nancy Pelosi does. Or so she has said, latterly.

Alarmed by her erratic public performance, the Speaker's fellow San Francisco Democrat Dianne Feinstein attempted to put an end to Nancy's self-torture session. "I don't want to make an apology for anybody," said Senator Feinstein, "but in 2002, it wasn't 2006, '07, '08 or '09. It was right after 9/11, and there were in fact discussions about a second wave of attacks."

Indeed. In effect, the senator is saying waterboarding was acceptable in 2002, but not by 2009. The waterboarding didn't change, but the country did. It was no longer America's war but Bush's war. And it was no longer a bipartisan interrogation technique that enjoyed the explicit approval of both parties' leaderships, but a grubby Bush-Cheney-Rummy war crime.

Dianne Feinstein has provided the least worst explanation for her colleague's behavior. The alternative – that Speaker Pelosi is a contemptible opportunist hack playing the cheapest but most destructive kind of politics with key elements of national security – is, of course, unthinkable. Senator Feinstein says airily that no reasonable person would hold dear Nancy to account for what she supported all those years ago. But it's OK to hold Cheney or some no-name Justice Department backroom boy to account?

Well, sure. It's the Miss USA standard of political integrity: Carrie Prejean and Barack Obama have the same publicly stated views on gay marriage. But the politically correct enforcers know that Barack doesn't mean it, so that's okay, whereas Carrie does, so that's a hate crime. In the torture debate, Pelosi is Obama and Dick Cheney is Carrie Prejean. Dick means it, because to him this is an issue of national security. Nancy doesn't, because to her it's about the shifting breezes of political viability.

But it does make you wonder whether a superpower with this kind of leadership class should really be going to war at all. Over at The New York Times, the elderly schoolgirl Maureen Dowd riffed off Cheney's defense of waterboarding and argued that, no matter when the next terrorist attack comes, the former vice-president would be the one primarily responsible. He is, she said, "a force multiplier for Muslims who hate America".

Really? Last week, while Speaker Pelosi was preoccupied with her what-did-I-know-and-when-did-I-know-that-I-knew-it routine,The Daily Telegraph in London reported what is believed to be the second mass poisoning of Afghan schoolgirls, this time at Ura Jalili High School for Girls in Charikar. Fifty students had to be hospitalized after a mysterious "poison gas" infected the classrooms. As you may recall, under the Taliban it was illegal for girls to attend school, and Afghan insurgents have made a sustained effort to make the price of female education too high. So, in an effort to identify the poison, blood samples have been taken to Bagram air base to be analyzed by the U.S. military, taking time off its hectic schedule of mass torture.

Does waterboarding so outrage the Muslim world that it drives millions of young men into the dark embrace of al-Qaida? No. But the media fetishization of U.S. "torture" is certainly "a force multiplier" for Muslims who don't so much "hate" as despise America, not least for its self-loathing.

One of the few U.S. commentators to pick up on the Afghan schoolgirls story was Phyllis Chesler, who wrote about it under the headline "The High Cost Of Western Idealism." America and its few real allies fight under the most constrained and self-imposed rules of engagement ever devised, and against an enemy that rejects every basic element of the Geneva Conventions. Perhaps we are so rich, so smart, so advanced that we can fight with one arm and both legs tied behind out back and still win – eventually. Along the way many innocents will suffer. But better that than that a Gitmo detainee with a fear of insects should have a caterpillar put in his cell.

Watching the Democrats champing at the bit last week, I thought perhaps we could cut to the chase and handcuff Cheney and Pelosi to a radiator in the basement of a CIA safe house somewhere. But on reflection this would be an unacceptable level of torture. It would be ungallant to say for whom.

More...

Cooper: Obama staff encouraged defiance of Pelosi

Now this would be both interesting and funny if true, I am reasonably sure it is too. I think we'll see Nancy either replaced as SOH or severely marginalized in the next few years.-Jer

Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) -- one of the lead Blue Dogs -- made a startling admission to lefty Liberadio today, suggesting the White House quietly encouraged him to buck House leadership on the stimulus.

Cooper was one of 11 Dems to vote no -- joining every GOP House member.

"Well, I probably shouldn’t tell you this, but I actually got some quiet encouragement from the Obama folks for what I’m doing," said Cooper, one of about 55 House Democrats to sign a letter criticizing Speaker Nancy Pelosi for suspending normal debate and committee rules on the $819 billion package.

He went on -- and on:

"They know its a messy bill and they wanted a clean bill. Now, I got in terrible trouble with our leadership because they don’t care what’s in the bill, they just want it pass and they want it to be unanimous. They don’t mind the partisan fighting cause that’s what they are used to. In fact, they’re really good at it. And they’re a little bit worried about what a post-partisan future might look like. If members actually had to read the bills and figure out whether they are any good or not. We’re just told how to vote. We’re treated like mushrooms most of the time."


More...

Complete Original Article

Mark Steyn: Stimulated right into being another Europe

Plan also could trigger protectionist backlash, just like during the Depression.

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, is on TV explaining the (at this point the congregation shall fall to its knees and prostrate itself) "stimulus." "How," asks the lady from CBS, "does $335 million in STD prevention stimulate the economy?"

"I'll tell you how," says Speaker Pelosi. "I'm a big believer in prevention. And we have, er… there is a part of the bill on the House side that is about prevention. It's about it being less expensive to the states to do these measures."

Makes a lot of sense. If we have more STD prevention, it will be safer for loose women to go into bars and pick up feckless men, thus stimulating the critical beer and nuts and jukebox industries. To do this, we need trillion-dollar deficits, which our children and grandchildren will have to pay off, but, with sufficient investment in prevention measures, there won't be any children or grandchildren, so there's that problem solved.

More...
The more interviews Speaker Pelosi gives explaining how vital the STD industry is to restarting the U.S. economy, the more I find myself hearing "syphilis" every time she says "stimulus." In late September, America was showing the first signs of "primary stimulus" – a few billion lesions popping up on the rarely glimpsed naughty bits of the economy: the subprime mortgage racket, the leverage kings. Now, the condition has metastasized in a mere four months into the advanced stages of "tertiary stimulus," with trillions of hideous, ever more inflamed pustules sprouting in every nook and cranny as the central nervous system of the body politic crumbles into total insanity – until it seems entirely normal for the second in line of presidential succession to be on TV gibbering away about how vital the federalization of condom distribution is to economic recovery.

The rules in this new "post-partisan" era are pretty simple: If the Democratic Party wants it, it's "stimulus." If the Republican Party opposes it, it's "politics" – as in headlines like this: "Obama Urges GOP To Keep Politics To A Minimum On Stimulus." These are serious times: As the president says, it's the worst economic crisis since the Thirties. So politicians need to put politics behind them and immediately lavish $4.19 billion on his community-organizing pals at the highly inventive "voter registration" group ACORN for "neighborhood stabilization activities."

"Neighborhood stabilization activities." That sounds like a line item from the Baath Party budget when Saddam sends the lads in to gas the Kurds. What does it mean in a nontotalitarian sense? Do you need a federally subsidized condom to do it? If so, will a pathetic $4.19 billion be enough?

"Stimulus" comes from the verb "stimulare," which is Latin for "transfer massive sums of money from what remains of the dynamic sector of the economy to the special interests of the Democratic Party." No, hang on, my mistake. "Stimulare" means "to goad." And, on that front, the Democrats are doing an excellent job. They've managed to goad 58 percent of the American people into opposing the "stimulus" package. They've managed to goad all 117 Republicans in the House into unpacking their mothballed cojonesand voting against the bill. And they've managed to goad the rest of the world into ending the Obama honeymoon in nothing flat. Headline from the London Daily Telegraph:

"U.S.-EU Trade War Looms As Barack Obama Bill Urges 'Buy American.'"

That would be the provision in the Senate bill prohibiting any foreign-made goods from being used in "stimulus" projects. So, if you own a rubber plantation in Malaysia, and you're hoping for a piece of Nancy Pelosi's condom action, forget it. The EU Trade Commissioner is outraged at the swaggering cowboy Obama shooting from the hip and unilaterally banning European goods from American soil. But so are American companies such as General Electric. Bill Lane, an executive honcho with Caterpillar (the 10th-biggest U.S. investor in the United Kingdom), says, "We are students of history. A major reason a very deep recession turned into the Great Depression was the fact that countries turned inward." Ah, yes. The Buy American Act of 1933. How'd that work out?

Even without Speaker Pelosi talking STDs on the evening news, there is danger here for the new administration. Setting aside the more messianic effusions ("We needed him. And out of that great need," gushed Maya Angelou, "Barack Obama came") as unbecoming to the freeborn citizens of a constitutional republic, it seems clear that large numbers of people voted for this president because they wanted something different, something other than "politics as usual." Not just something pseudo-different like the dreary maverickiness of John McCain "reaching across the aisle" (one of those dead phrases no one outside the Beltway gives a hoot about), but something really different. But the "stimulus" package is just politics as usual with a few extra zeros on the end. Will you notice anything? No. Don't get your hopes up. If you're broke now, you'll be broke in October. The Congressional Budget Office estimates only 25 percent of it will be spent by early next year. The other 75 percent is as stimulating as the gal in the Nancy Pelosi Pussycat Lounge telling you she had such a good time she's penciled in a second date for spring 2010. A third of all the spending won't come until after 2011.

In a media age, politics is a battle of language, and "stimulus" is too good a word to cede to porked-up statist hacks. "Stimulus" has to stimulate – i.e., it's short-term, like, say, an immediate cut in payroll taxes that will put real actual money in your pocket in next month's paycheck. That way, you don't need to wait for ACORN: You can start "stabilizing" your own "neighborhood" right now.

But, if this fraudulent "stimulus" does pass, it will, in fact, destimulate, and much more than the disastrous protectionist measures of the Thirties did: Back then, America was dealing with a far less globalized economy, and with far fewer competitors. "In the long run, we are all dead," Lord Keynes, the newly fashionable economist, famously said. But, if this bill passes, in the medium term we're all dead. It's a massive expansion of the state in the same direction that has brought sclerosis to Europe. A report issued last week in London found that government spending now accounts for 49 percent of the UK economy – and in the Celtic corners of the kingdom the state's share of the economy is way higher, from 71.6 percent in Wales to 77.6 percent in Northern Ireland. In the Western world, countries that were once the crucible of freedom are slipping remorselessly into a thinly disguised serfdom in which an ever higher proportion of your assets are annexed by the state as superlandlord. Big government is where nations go to die – not in Keynes' "long run," but sooner than you think.


Complete Original Article

More...

Complete Original Article

More...

Complete Original Article

Rangel ethics inquiries vex House leaders

Democrat chairs committee writing key rescue, tax bills



The never ending saga of Charles Rangel. I have written about this extensively but it will continue for months as Charlie is an important part of The Ruling Class. This is beyond hypocrisy on the part of the Democratic Party, it is out and out arrogance to the American People and this is becoming more and more common.-Jer



A renewed ethics probe of Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York poses an embarrassing distraction for House Democrats, as the Ways and Means Committee that he leads will oversee House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plans for an $825 billion economic rescue and a tax increase on wealthy Americans.

The slow-moving investigation of Mr. Rangel's home finances, unpaid taxes and dodgy fundraising is now in the hands of Rep. Zoe Lofgren, California Democrat and the new chairman of the Committee on Standards and Ethical Conduct.

She has not signaled whether the committee will take up the probe begun last year or start anew. Either way, the inquiry overshadows Mr. Rangel as he takes a key position, as head of the House's tax-writing panel, in tackling the recession and a looming battle over tax increases.

"It is more of a distraction because of the economic shape we are in, and so much of it is before his committee," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

GETTY IMAGES Rep. Zoe Lofgren, California Democrat and chairman of the House Committee on Standards and Ethical Conduct, is in charge of the probe of Rep. Charles B. Rangel, New York Democrat, but hasn't signaled how that probe will be handled.

Miss Sloan said the speaker and other Democratic leaders shrugged off Mr. Rangel's problems and left the issue to the ethics committee, which rarely takes tough action against fellow members of Congress. Yet it persists as a "nagging thing," she said.

The episode is especially nagging for Mrs. Pelosi, who pledged during the 2006 campaign to "drain the swamp" of corruption in Congress when Democrats won the majority.

Mrs. Pelosi resisted calls for the long-serving New York Democrat to give up the chairmanship, despite revelations that Mr. Rangel failed to pay more than $10,000 in taxes on rental income from his villa in the Dominican Republic and may have received an improper financial benefit from leasing four rent-stabilized New York apartments for use as a residence and a campaign office.

The ethics committee also is investigating whether Mr. Rangel abused the power of his office in soliciting donations for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York.

Mrs. Pelosi has said little more than she "looks forward to seeing the report" from the ethics committee.

She expected the committee to wrap up the probe by the end of last session. But the case was prolonged, likely because of its growing complexity, particularly reports that Mr. Rangel switched his position on tax legislation to help a donor to the college center that bears his name. More...

Complete Original Article from Washington Times

ACORN Could Get Billions from Democrats' Trillion Dollar Spending Plan

"Job Creation" Bill Offers Taxpayer-Funded Bonanza for Organization Reportedly Under Federal Investigation

Washington, Jan 23 - The House Democrats’ trillion dollar spending bill, approved on January 21 by the Appropriations Committee and headed to the House floor next week for a vote, could open billions of taxpayer dollars to left-wing groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). ACORN has been accused of perpetrating voter registration fraud numerous times in the last several elections; is reportedly under federal investigation; and played a key role in the irresponsible schemes that caused a financial meltdown that has cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars since last fall.

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and other Republicans are asking a simple question: what does this have to do with job creation? Are Congressional Democrats really going to borrow money from our children and grandchildren to give handouts to ACORN in the name of economic “stimulus?”

Incredibly, the Democrats’ bill makes groups like ACORN eligible for a $4.19 billion pot of money for “neighborhood stabilization activities.” Funds for this purpose were authorized in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, signed into law in 2008. However, these funds were limited to state and local governments. Now House Democrats are taking the unprecedented step of making ACORN and other groups eligible for these funds:

“For a further additional amount for ‘Community Development Fund,’ $4,190,000,000, to be used for neighborhood stabilization activities related to emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes as authorized under division B, title III of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–289), of which—

“(1) not less than $3,440,000,000 shall be allocated by a competition for which eligible entities shall be States, units of general local government, and nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities[.]”

“(2) up to $750,000,000 shall be awarded by competition to nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities to provide community stabilization assistance […]”

More...


The House Democrats’ trillion dollar spending bill also includes $1 billion for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. CDBG funds are given by the federal government to state and local governments which often contract with nonprofits for services related to the purpose of the grant.



ACORN knows how to secure CDBG funds. Audit reports filed by ACORN’s headquarters with the Office of Management and Budget show that ACORN spent $1,588,599 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program funds from FY 2003 through FY 2007. It is not clear from these records when or from what source the funds were awarded to ACORN. It is also not clear whether ACORN chapters or affiliates have received CDBG grants on their own.



House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) repeatedly urged President George W. Bush and other federal officials to withhold taxpayer funds from ACORN, including $17.2 million in federal grants awarded in December 2008 after numerous allegations of wrongdoing in connection with ACORN’s election activities were reported by the news media.


Leader Boehner also released a study of federal records in October 2008 listing tens of millions in federal grants received by ACORN. A new updated and more expansive study reveals that ACORN has actually received millions more than first thought. A review of the Federal Register and news releases issued by federal agencies showed that ACORN was awarded more than $53 million in taxpayer dollars. This amount does not reflect the millions more ACORN has received in federal block grant funds awarded to state and local agencies which passed them on to ACORN.

Complete Original Article from John Boehner site H/T Michelle Malkin

More...

Complete Original Article