Sunday Morning Open Thread

Away we go.

Comments

[Sandy Daze]

Good Morning one and all !

[pagar]

Good Morning, Sandy! A Good Morning to all.
Have you read Clarice's Great Pieces yet?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/obamamandias.html

Best Sunday Morning read in America.

[Clarice]

Thanks,pagar.

[Gmax]

A glorious day to be alive, dont forget to thank the Lord for your many blessings.

[centralcal]

I agree Pagar - best Sunday morning read ever - thanks to Clarice.

[centralcal]

Coming across Twitter now via breaking news: Pawlenty quitting Presidential race.

[pagar]

Great news, Centralcal!
Anyone ever done a study on who gets the money spent on political campaigns? My guess is most of it goes to the MSM, which is the bought and paid for propaganda arm of the Democrats. How can this be good for conservatives?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Anyone ever done a study on who gets the money spent on political campaigns? My guess is most of it goes to the MSM,

Pagar, my Grandfather once told me "woman can be a pain in the ass, but who else are you gonna" erm, sleep with?

I suspect you're absolutely right, but who else are you gonna buy air time from?

[narciso]

Great pieces, Clarice, of course one of those who recommended the God King, renders his judgement at Perry, setting aflame an army of strawmen, in the process:

He's too mean. He'll have a hard time pretending he's any kind of compassionate conservative, and outside of Texas you still need a bit of that. Aside from being politically ruthless and famous for holding grudges, Perry's the kind of guy who almost certainly executed an innocent man, never pretended to care about it, and brazenly disbanded a commission investigating it. This famously produced the following quote in a 2010 focus group: “It takes balls to execute an innocent man.” In Texas, maybe that works. In the rest of the country, not so much.
He's too dumb. Go ahead, call me an elitist. I'm keenly aware that Americans don't vote for presidents based on their SAT scores, but everything I've read about Perry suggests that he's a genuinely dim kind of guy. Not just incurious or too sure about his gut feelings, like George Bush, but simply not bright enough to handle the demands of the Oval Office. Americans might not care if their presidents are geniuses, but there's a limit to how doltish they can be too.

[Gmax]

Narciso not sure who wrote that but they seem to have dumb in gallon jars stored up for the right occasion. Have they seen the idiot and current occupant of the the Oval Office?

[narciso]

Kevin Drum, one of our favorite 'fish in the barrel'

[Captain Hate]

He'll have a hard time pretending he's any kind of compassionate conservative, and outside of Texas you still need a bit of that.

LOL; the Duke & Duke motto.

[Jack is Back!]

Go to the comments in the online Washington Times article on Perry's announcement and you will find the Paulista Brigade in full frontal attack. One guy in particular replies to all with a positive on Perry. I still believe that Paul will run a 3rd party campaign if Perry is the nominee (perhaps he will do the same if it is anyone but him). If you think Odummy is dangerous, what the hell do you call Ron Paul?

[peter]

Well, give credit to T-Paw for being able to make a quick decision.

[Tonto]

PO & Henry

I've been in Madison the last week (family medical crisis) and have the following observations: (1) The gloom and despair I saw around State street and the square on Wednesday morning made my heart soar (h/t Dot); (2) Outstanding farmer's market, but those singing grannies could have ruined it for me, and; (3) Meriter Hospital is outstanding, and its ICU team incomparable. The care here is better than anything I've seen at NYC's top hospitals.

[Danube of Thought]

"...what the hell do you call Ron Paul."

A damn fool who has the power to re-elect Obama.

Minus 22 at Raz today.

[pagar]

Charlie, I have no idea who else you would buy air time from. But I really wish there was a way to keep conservative money from aiding the Democrats.

[henry]

Tonto, thanks for the update. I'm not familiar with Madison, but my brother has good things to say about medicine at UW (he's at Johns Hopkins). I hope the medical emergency has a happy outcome.

[narciso]

I would say a Huntsman, a Bloomberg is more likely to be a third party spoiler

[Captain Hate]

A third party run by Crazy Uncle makes no sense in 2012 compared to 2008. With McCain vs El JEFe, RON PAUL could've provided a huge contrast to those economic illiterates. Now not so much to whoever comes out of the Repubs; and on the remaining issues he's extremely unappealing.

[Mark Folkestad]

CC, thanks for the update on T-Paw possibly dropping out. The shame is that he could have easily won a third term as governor and spared us the crazy, cowardly drunk Dayton as our chief executive here in Minnesota. But the burning ambition to be president, which seems to clash with his boring personality, led him down the garden path.

[hit and run]

DoT:
Minus 22 at Raz today.

Following up on yesterday's commentary: Obama has now been minus 20 or lower for six days.

And those six days?

Index has been either -21 or -22

Strong Approval has been either 20 or 21

Strong Disapproval has been either 42 or 43

Overall Approval has been 43-45

Overall Disapproval has been 54-56

At least over the past week,politically Obama has reached a Yassir-Arafat-like . . . stable condition.

[Mark Folkestad]

ChaCo: Pagar, my Grandfather once told me "woman can be a pain in the ass, but who else are you gonna" erm, sleep with?

Wow. With all the current controversy on gay rights, your grandfather's bit of wisdom now has an unintended degree of hilarious irony.

[narciso]

the Norwegian blue is 'pining for the fjords,
beautiful plumage,' hit.

[Clarice]

Heh, hit. Thanks for the rundown.

[MayBee]

I would be surprised if Ron Paul actually attempted a 3rd party run. That would hurt Rand's standing. I do think Rand could have a viable run in the future.

[narciso]

The problem with Journolists like Tomasky, is that they really believe their own
shovelings:

The problem rests in the realm of political philosophy. Obama has beliefs about democratic governance, and about himself as president, that dictate his behavior in battles like the debt-ceiling brawl. These beliefs were a big part of what made him so inspirational to so many people before he won the 2008 election, but they have served him--and his voters, and the country--poorly since he took office, and especially since the Republicans won control of the House of Representatives.

[Porchlight]

Do you think Pawlenty could have beat Dayton, Mark? It was close with Emmer but I would have thought Pawlenty had worn out his welcome either way.

[Porchlight]

...which is not to denigrate Pawlenty as a governor, just that, well, it's Minnesota.

[Porchlight]

I would be surprised if Ron Paul actually attempted a 3rd party run. That would hurt Rand's standing.

Hadn't thought of it that way, MayBee. Dr. Ron seems to not give that sort of thing much consideration, but I could be wrong. I like Rand and would like to see his influence in the party continue to grow.

[Army of Davids]

Another day and The Incompetent One is a little weaker.

InTrades....Obama 49% to win.

Down from 60% 6 weeks ago.

[Mark Folkestad]

Porchlight, I am certain about Pawlenty's chances for a third term. Polling supported that. And it was only smears against Emmer and illegal voting that won the election for Dayton, who was once called the worst senator.

[Porchlight]

Yes, it was close and the Dayton win was dirty. He is such a creep - I hope MN comes to its senses and kicks him out when the time comes. Maybe Pawlenty will run again.

[Captain Hate]

A few months ago the Weekly Standard ran a profile on T-Paw in which he came off as a very good governor and person that had zero chance of ever being elected President. I'm sorry for him that he wasted time and money on something that never was in the cards. I'm sure he'll do fine going forward though.

[Janet]

A leading House Democrat is hoping to use his prestigious seat on the deficit-cutting supercommittee to close the growing gully that divides the rich and the poor in America.

Wealth redistribution from Rep. James Clyburn.

He was one of the liars in the March 20th Tea Party story. He is a liar. An unprincipled d#^n liar.

[Captain Hate]

I've got a question for Janet: Last week Tammy Bruce had an interview, which is available on her website for everybody, with Tea Party candidate for Janet's favorite large-domed Senator's soon to be vacant seat, Jamie Radtke. Are you leaning to supporting her over Macaca?

[Ranger]

Americans might not care if their presidents are geniuses, but there's a limit to how doltish they can be too.

Hmmm... Obama would seem to disprove that argument.

[peter]

"...what the hell do you call Ron Paul."

Ross Perot Redux

[Ignatz]

--I still believe that Paul will run a 3rd party campaign if Perry is the nominee (perhaps he will do the same if it is anyone but him).--

Despite his many faults Ron Paul has proven himself [so far] a more loyal Republican than many another more mainstream figure.
IIRC he has never pulled any of that, will he-won't he, hint, hint baloney.

[Janet]

I haven't looked at the Senate race, Captain. Allen is plenty conservative for me. Maybe a choice between 2 good candidates. I really don't know.

[boris]

"The problem rests in the realm of political philosophy ..."

In promoting their shovel ready beliefs they cast their philosophy adrift from a fundamental reality: making the more productive segment of society provide for the less productive requires a more productive segment of society prosperous enough to do that.

Liberals of old knew that. This new batch seems to consider reducing the wealth of the most productive to be a desirable end in itself.

Which BTW is not meant to be constructive criticism. Public recognition that neo-progressive philosophy can't possibly work would be small compensation for the mess they have inflicted on Americe but welcome nevertheless. Better yet would be awareness that even the old liberal philosophy was wrong.

[Janet]

Instapundit has a post about Going Galt. It tells about some guy living down in Costa Rica by collecting unemployment.
He should be ashamed. I consider that stealing.

[Jim Ryan]

OT trivia: I met a smart gal, an elementary school teacher. She got her Ed grad degree at Columbia. She said only one of the courses in the program was remotely difficult or intellectually challenging in any way (and she is by no means an egghead or snob.) It was the one offered in another department (philosophy.) There's cultural decay for you: when the best of the best - Ivy League - is garbage and we're feeding it to our kids.

On the other hand, Georgia State was better in my experience than Swarthmore, so perhaps some of the crummy schools have better Ed degree programs than Columbia.

[Jim Ryan]

Neuchterlein calls for raising taxes in his column this morning - an end to Bush tax cuts and a VAT. And since Congress is incompetent, he calls for granting extraordinary powers to the POTUS to do all this. Who is Don Neuchterlein? Why, he's generic columnist and political scientist #345236.

[Ranger]

Liberals of old knew that. This new batch seems to consider reducing the wealth of the most productive to be a desirable end in itself.

This was made very clear by Obama during the last debate with Hillary, when asked why he would raise taxes even if it reduced the amount a revenue... His response was, "its a issue of fairness."

[Thomas Collins]

Great Sunday morning. Clarice's grand jury duties didn't get in the way of her penning (or is it pixelling) another great Pieces, and H&R seems to be easing out of his JOM sabbatical!

[mikey]

Something about Mike Murphy is unlikable.

[Jim Ryan]

Liberals (Rawls, etc.) see economic justice in terms of the size of the gap between rich and poor and the maximization of the wealth of the poor. Ordinary people see it in terms of not having their private property stolen.

[Ben Franklin]

Is the Super Committee Constitutional?

Let me stick my neck out and venture an opinion.....

Both Houses can make their own rules, and, at first glance, this appears to be a rule created to bypass the dysfunctional bodies who seem ham-strung in efforts to get the Budget and Deficit under control.

Moreover, it seems a capitulation designed to take voter anger away from the elected representative, and place it onto an 'UNelected' body, whose position is not assailable by unhappy voters. Let me explain in a minute

Further, it is an 'end-run' around the Senate rules re; Filibuster, and cloture vote which are not Constitutional provisions, but rules adapted later.

The problem, as I see it, is the voter is being co-opted without the possibility of redress and accountability from their chosen representative.

Article I Section 2

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."

The Super Committee will be composed of 6 Dems and 6 Republicans. Based upon past behaviors, it is likely both will vote Party line.
There's the rub. There will be no 'debate' nor amendments, and the accountability for anyone, will be a vapor that escapes the room clean.

If(when) the 12 member committee are deadlocked at 6/6 the cuts already agreed to will begin in 2013, AUTOMATICALly

That is an end-run around the voter. Perhaps not the strongest case for
declaring the process unconstitutional, but it is worth considering, or do you like being co-opted?

[Thomas Collins]

Jim Ryan, is that Donald Nuerchterlein? Do you have a link to the column?

[Janet]

When Obama gets back from his vacation do ya think some "reporter" could ask him about the droughts in East Africa?
Could they even hold him to account for things that libs SAY they care about?

[Threadkiller]

Chris Wallace appears as though he won't ask Michelle if she is looney anymore. It was a civil interview and when she dropped her Bach-ing points and answered with solid numbers, I was very impressed.

[Ranger]

There's the rub. There will be no 'debate' nor amendments, and the accountability for anyone, will be a vapor that escapes the room clean.

Except that, what ever the "super-committee" comes up with has to pass both houses of congress and be signed by the president to become law. Every member will still have to make an on the record vote on the final result.

This is no different than the BRAC system that was used to close military bases. No one seemed to have an issue with the constitutionality of the BRAC process.

[Ben Franklin]

Answer to Tomaskey.....

http://brothersjuddblog.com/archives/2011/08/mr_tomasky_misses_an_important.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BrothersjuddBlog+%28BrothersJudd+Blog%29

"George W. Bush believed in exactly the same civic republicanism and hoped to transcend the partisan politics of the Beltway as he had in Texas. But, the partisan lunacy of folks just like Mr. Tomasky prevented him form being able to do so. Indeed, in the wake of Florida no Democrat would join the Administration, leaving poor Norm Minetta in a token role as a cabinet holdover.
Of course, the big difference is that W was so adept a politician that even after Jim Jeffords decided to switch parties he still managed to pass his tax package, NCLB, and a slew of other major reforms, leading not only to the GOP retaking the Senate but to his own re-election. Sadly, 9-11 and the War on Terror so poisoned the well that Democrats could never be reconciled to the most progressive president of the modern era and the partisanship, after a brief lull, returned to levels that were certainly no better than those Mr. Obama faces and probably worse."

Even Bush was better than Obama at getting things done....

[Captain Hate]

perhaps some of the crummy schools have better Ed degree programs than Columbia.

I'm not exactly sure what my youngest Hatette's major was at Columbia (probably something like Earth Science; she spent at least two times in the Biosphere and also spent time in the crater at Mt. St. Helens collecting data on the regrowth of plants post eruption while boulders were still rolling around) but more than once she said that based on the lack of academic rigor that we weren't getting our money's worth.

[Jim Ryan]

Liberals don't mind if, in order to execute their plan for economic justice, the party elite have to be very, very wealthy. They can tolerate that. And so can the party elite.

[DebinNC]

Ordinary people see it in terms of not having their private property stolen.

This week's Obama Midwest bus tour is all about nightly news pics showing Obama with ordinary people. Not just any ordinary people, but "rural" people, i.e. whites, to whom Obama will pretend to listen and learn. Then the get-those-campaign-ad pics-mission accomplished, the Obamas are off to MV, to vacation with the wealthy, not-ordinary people among whom they're most comfortable.

[Captain Hate]

TK, I was impressed as well at how Michele came off.

[Jim Ryan]

TC, it's in my local paper on dead tree. I don't have a link handy. I think I went to grad school with his son, because there can't be too many Neuchterleins.

[sbw]

Rawls is so yesterday.

[Cecil Turner]

The problem with the process is not constitutionality: it's that the proposed cuts are ridiculously insufficient. Like most governmental half-measures, it gives the illusion of addressing the problem whilst accomplishing little of real import (and besides, much of the cutting is from the wrong part of the budget).

[Thomas Collins]

If the Super Committee recommendations have to be approved by both the Senate and House and signed into law by POTUS, there is no end run around the voters. If without additional legislation there are additional across the board cuts, the cuts will have been made pursuant to legislation already enacted. Once again, there is no end run. Let's say Congress passes legislation providing for a spending program with an expiration date unless a subsequent law extends it. No constitutional problem. I don't see where there becomes a constitutional problem if a so-called super committee can make a recommendation to extend the program and cut other programs, as long as the super committee's power does not include the power to enact into law those changes.

I have not read the budget control act, so I can't say with certainty whether the Super Committee's power is limited to recommendations. Has any JOMer read the law, and if he or she has read it, is my understanding of the Super Committee (power to recommend only) correct?

[Thomas Collins]

Is the son the WilmerHale partner, Jim Ryan?

[Janet]

I'm reading Steyn's "After America"...& I'm thinkin' maybe squaredance is Mark Steyn.

[Chubby]

((I still believe that Paul will run a 3rd party campaign if Perry is the nominee (perhaps he will do the same if it is anyone but him). ))

being in politics as long as he has, he can't be so stupid to think he will win. if he goes 3rd party, it will be because he wants obama to win. and why would he want that? so his personal goldbug horde of gold will keep going up in value?? just wondering, and that is a possiblity

[Ben Franklin]

"what ever the "super-committee" comes up with has to pass both houses of congress and be signed by the president to become law."

Nope. If Congress rejects, the cuts are 'automatic'..........

[Chubby]

*hoard* not *horde*

[Ranger]

Even Bush was much better than Obama at getting things done....

Fixed that for you.

[mikey]

Iowa Governor smacks down Eugene Robinson on oil.

[Captain Hate]

I'm thinkin' maybe squaredance is Mark Steyn.

Really? squaredance sounds soooo much more relentlessly negative than the cheery person who sits in for Rush imo.

[centralcal]

I admit that right now my GOP candidate choices are Palin, Perry, in that order.

I am not a big Bachmann supporter for anything but the position she now holds. Yes, if she gets the nod, I would vote for her, but I am not finding that very likely to happen.

Legal Insurrection blogger William Jacobsen has a thought provoking piece:

Anyone but Bachmann

I have to admit that while not a big fan of Bachmann from the get go, the hiring of Ed Rollins confirmed by lack of enthusiasm for her.

[Thomas Collins]

BFF, if I understand what you are saying, there is no constitutional problem. Congress could have passed, and POTUS could have signed, legislation mandating cuts in the future. I don't think the fact that subsequent legislation (enacted in accordance with the usual constitutionally mandated approval process) is necessary to avoid those cuts creates a problem. No unlawful delegation of authority to the Super Committee has occurred. For example, Congress could pass, and the POTUS could sign, subsequent legislation with cuts and increases in spending without reference to the Super Committee, and could disband the Super Committee. This is not an end run around anything.

[Jack is Back!]

BF,

According to The Judge the constitutionality is not in the super committee itself. It is in the triggers (if the super committee is hung) that allow a faceless, nameless bureaucrat in the OMB or Treasury to determine what gets cut and by how much. This is a subrogation of Congressional authority to the Executive. I think it is article 8 that is the governing authority:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States; etc."

[Ranger]

Nope. If Congress rejects, the cuts are 'automatic'..........

The cuts themselves were already passed by congress in the original bill. Those votes and Obama's signature are on record already.

The cuts only come into effect if either a) the super committee can't pass a plan, or b) the super committee plan fails to pass the full congress or is vetoed by the president.

Sounds like lots of accountabilty there to me.

[Gmax]

Ron Paul is a loyal Republican? Please.

Forgive if you wish the fact that he votes with the Democrats more than any other Republican House member, but lets hark back to the last time he ran for President in 2008. First off he stayed in the race long pasted the time it was obvious to everyone including himself, that he could not win. And then his parting act of "loyalty" was to endorse an triumvirate of third party candidates including none other than Cynthia McKinney! The man is a dangerous loon and is not a loyal anything and definitely not a Republican as I understand the word. The communist McKinney! Look it up.

[Thomas Collins]

BFF, it doesn't matter that the cuts are automatic. Congress could have enacted, and POTUS could have signed, a law mandating across the board cuts in six months. Congress could subsequently amend or repeal that legislation. The fact that there is a body with budgetary advisory powers only doesn't impinge on the enactment of subsequent legislation.

Now, politically, the Super Committee's recommendations may be viewed as having some extra weight. That is irrelevant to the constitutional analysis.

[Ben Franklin]

" It is in the triggers (if the super committee is hung) that allow a faceless, nameless bureaucrat in the OMB or Treasury to determine what gets cut and by how much."

I thought the figures, unless amended by the SC, were fixed an immutable. I find it hard to believe the control exercised over this process would allow hated bureaucrats to determine how much and where to cut.....

[narciso]

There will be a legal challenge, to the Super Committee, it's meager offerings are still considered too draconian, for some.

[Rick Ballard]

Ranger,

Agreed. I don't believe that those opposed to the Stupor Committee have bothered to read the actual authorizing legislation. IMO, the most interesting aspect is the very strict limitations regarding amendment and debate when and if recommendations actually reach the legislative bodies, along with the production deadlines. My bet is that there will be an impasse and the mandated cuts will be enforced until the GOP majority acts in '13. There's a possibility that Baucus will provide the seventh vote on the Stupor Committee and move something to the House and Senate for consideration but there would have to be an additional three Dem Senators willing to cross to assure passage.

I hope Clyburn retains a firm grip on his megaphone and keeps his voice. He's not as good an asset for the GOP as the President but every little bit helps.

[Ignatz]

Thanks for that link to the brothers judd, Ben. Don't know that I've seen their site before and they make a very persuasive case, even if a fairly obvious one for those not blinkered, that W was a better politician than Barry, which in many cases is unfortunate considering some of the stuff W got passed.

--Nope. If Congress rejects, the cuts are 'automatic'..........--

Yes but those "cuts" were also voted on and approved in a bill duly signed by the pres.
Most of the federal government is composed of departments and areas of interest vastly less constitutionally supported than the super committee; doesn't seem like much to get excited about.

[Army of Davids]

Ron Paul and Herman Cain.

Neither likely to win nomination. But GOP would be smart to let both carry more political water.

[Threadkiller]

Ed Rollins. I forgot about Rollins. She should donate him to the less fortunate.

[Ben Franklin]

." For example, Congress could pass, and the POTUS could sign, subsequent legislation with cuts and increases in spending without reference to the Super Committee"

They could vote on Bowles SImpson, tomorrow....

The question is what happens if they vote down the SC?

[Ignatz]

--Ron Paul is a loyal Republican? Please.--

I was merely referencing his refusal to run as a third party candidate.

[Ben Franklin]

"doesn't seem like much to get excited about."

I'm not that excited about the performance of the Executive and Legislative.............

and...you're welcome

[Captain Hate]

Thanks for that link, cc; I don't think I've ever read a more compelling case against Bachmann. Lying about your friendship with somebody that your campaign manager is actively trashing; game over. That sounds like something Meathead Whipple would do.

[Thomas Collins]

BFF, I think JiB has touched upon the real constitutional issue, namely, the extent to which an agency such as OMB has the discretion to make cuts. However, this is an issue whether or not there is a Super Committee/automatic cuts mechanism. In addition, this touches upon the whole delegation doctrine and how courts have allowed more and more of essentially political decisions to be made by supposedly expert bureaucrats.

[Gmax]

Well OK then. That is not my definition of loyal or Mr. Webster's.

[Cecil Turner]

It's a poorly-written excuse for a law, but what's new about that? Whatever "cuts" are made will have been voted on by both houses and signed by the Pres . . . because they already have been.

(And they still amount to chump change: even under ridiculously optimistic assumptions, the projected debt rises to $23 trillion in ten years vice $25 trillion. Big whoop.)

[Gmax]

The refusal is more likely about the hassle and effort and money it takes to wage a third party campaign. No loyalty involved with that one.

[narciso]

Why what have they done to deserve him. I have to second Prof. Jacobson, under Rollin's tutelage, Bachmann has become more shrill and
unspecific, yet the NewsCorp umbrella and a fair portion of the MSM, yes the Beast and
RS, are outliers, close ranks around her.

[Thomas Collins]

It is interesting to me that progressives have been questioning the constitutionality of spending cut mechanisms giving agencies discretion. The development of the administrative state is in itself largely a creation of the progressive movement to put the power where progs think it belongs, namely, in "experts" as opposed to individuals directly accountable to the people (Senators and Congressmen).

[Janet]

That LI linked story quotes a lot of unnamed people.
I would vote for Perry or Palin over Bachmann too, but Palin isn't in the race & the Bachmann trashing is getting old. Does someone WANT Palin loyalists to hate Bachmann? That seems just as likely from the MFM.

[Jim Ryan]

TC, I don't know. It sounds like you know your Neuchterleins better than I do. John was in the Ph.D. program at Miami with me. He and I were the only fellows (no TA work required, full free ride.) I don't know what happened to him after 1995. I have a vague memory that his dad was a political scientist, so I assumed Don was the dad when I started seeing the column here in Charlottesville's local rag.

[narciso]

Ed Rollins made it a point to attack her from
the get go, Janet, I know people who have been
been on the ground in Iowa, and South Carolina, for months who have been hearing this.

[Jim Ryan]

TC, do you know John Neuchterlein (about my age, mid-40's)?

[Rick Ballard]

"And they still amount to chump change: even under ridiculously optimistic assumptions, the projected debt rises to $23 trillion in ten years vice $25 trillion. Big whoop."

Cecil,

Correct. Sift the blah blah and the amount "cut" will be determined by the economic assumptions underlying the utterly fantastic CBO revenue and economic projection models. The "power" rests with the CBO illusionists, the OMB is just the bureaucracy charged with maladministering the misdistribution of rainbows and unicorn farts.

[Cecil Turner]

If you ask me, the standout lesson in Iowa was that Bachmann and Paul are the only two in the race who wanted to make real budget cuts. And both are obviously unqualified to be president.

With Perry's entry into the race, I'd expect him to quickly siphon off the vast majority of practical voters looking for a fiscal conservative. (Excluding most die-hard Ronulans, of course, who are mostly from a galaxy far far away.)

[Thomas Collins]

Not directly, JR. I think I was on a couple of deals in which the younger one showed up on the email chain. The older one I know of simply because I am a poly sci junkie.

By the way, do you mind being referred to as JR?

[Janet]

Well Palin isn't in the race. If she wants to run then she needs to run. To draw the spotlight away from ANY Republicans that are actually running seems kinda lousy.