Today's most entertaining line: "It takes a lot of chutzpah for Obama to say he wants to help re­build the Demo­crat­ic Party when he’s busy burn­ing it down"

From Josh Kraushaar here in

"Obama’s Parting Shot Against His Party: By thumbing his nose at Israel as he leaves office, the president shows he didn’t learn anything from this year’s election".

He's burned everything else down, might as well burn his own house.

Remind you of anyone?

FOX's Frank Luntz was paid over $345,000 by Florida's Republican Party when Marco Rubio was Speaker of the Florida House

Story here, questioning Luntz's objectivity in his current role praising Rubio in the debates.

Luntz was caught in an audio recording in 2013 complaining that conservative radio talkers Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin were destroying Rubio over the Gang of Eight immigration amnesty bill which Rubio co-sponsored.

It's safe to say that Luntz has been loyal to Rubio for a long time for a reason.

Gov. Scott Walker has large personal debt problems, consistent with reports of his negative net worth

Reported here:

"The Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­en­tial can­did­ate has cast him­self as both a fisc­al con­ser­vat­ive lead­er and a penny-pinch­ing every­man on the cam­paign trail, of­ten tout­ing his love of Kohl’s, the dis­count de­part­ment store. His newly pub­lished fin­an­cial dis­clos­ure shows that, like many Amer­ic­ans, Walk­er has few as­sets, some ma­jor debts (in­clud­ing more than $100,000 for stu­dent loans for his chil­dren), and a pun­ish­ing in­terest rate on his cred­it-card ob­lig­a­tions. Walk­er in­curred one cred­it-card debt with Barclays in 2014, ac­cord­ing to the fin­an­cial dis­clos­ure form, and owed between $10,000 and $15,000 at a 27.24 per­cent in­terest rate as of Ju­ly 2015. ... One of Walk­er’s cred­it-card debts, to Bank of Amer­ica, dates back to 2011, his first year as gov­ernor, ac­cord­ing to the dis­clos­ure form. Walk­er cur­rently owes between $10,000 and $15,000 on that one, with an in­terest rate of 11.99 per­cent."

When it comes to third party candidacies, what party does Bernie Sanders represent, and why doesn't anybody talk about it?

Self-described Socialist polls 17.5% for Democrat nomination.

Seen here:

"[W]hat happens if the USS HRod begins taking on water. What would Democrats do? Is there an emergency "break the glass" option if real questions of Clinton's electability arise? It seems extremely unlikely that any one issue could bring Clinton down, but what if she begins to suffer 'death by a thousand cuts'?

"Would Vice President Joe Biden and/or Sen. Elizabeth Warren jump in? Or would/could someone not being currently mentioned throw a hat into the ring, like say, Sen. Sherrod Brown or former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg? Presumably Bloomberg would need to join the Democratic Party, but then again, has Sanders joined yet?'"

Trump pulls the trigger, runs for president as a Republican

[H]e said he'll be "the greatest jobs-president that God ever created" . . ..

He said he will: "repeal and replace the Big Lie, Obamacare";

"build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will have Mexico pay for that wall" ("nobody builds walls better than me");

and "find the General Patton or … General MacArthur" in the U.S. military to fight the Islamic State.

More here.

Rand Paul steals Joe Biden's thunder, supports the creation of a Kurdish state

December 1, 2011

Rand Paul, quoted here:

"I think they would fight like hell if we promised them a country. It’s a little easier to say than it is to actually make it happen, because in order to actually draw a new country you’d have to have the complicity of Turkey and probably Iraq a little bit as well. There really is no Syria to be complicit with, but there is just a little piece of Syria—Kobani and in there is predominantly Kurdish. I think if you did that and could get piece peace between the Kurds and the Turks, and then the Turks would actually fight if the Kurds would give up any claim to Turkish territory."

Joe Biden, discussed here in early 2014:

Although Biden denied it at the time [of the 2007 troop surge], his proposal would almost certainly have led to the de facto soft partition of Iraq into three autonomous regions dominated by Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. A similar approach in the 1990s patched together Bosnia out of the detritus of the Balkans civil war between Serbs, Croats, and Muslims. In a 2007 op-ed, Biden warned, "If the United States can't put this federalism idea on track, we will have no chance for a political settlement in Iraq and, without that, no chance for leaving Iraq without leaving chaos behind."

Ron Fournier: The rest of us are required to play by the rules. Why does Hillary think she's above them?

Because liberals think the rules don't apply to them, dummy.

From the story here about the discovery that Hillary Clinton used a personal email account for government business while Secretary of State, a violation of federal requirements:

Many senior Democrats are angry, though not yet mad enough to publicly confront the Clintons. "This story has legs as long as the election," said a Democrat who has worked on Capitol Hill and as a presidential campaign manager. "She will be tripping over this crap until the cows come home."

Liberal National Journal runs time clock counting down to DHS funding deadline

Here.

Hype. Advocacy. Partisanship.

Obama's 2014 #LIEOFTHEYEAR?

Obama quoted here, in National Journal, September 16th, 2014, two weeks ago, before the first US Ebola outbreak, reported today:

Obama said Tuesday that the outbreak is "a potential threat to global security, if these countries break down," yet said that the chance of an outbreak in the U.S. is unlikely.

Codepink Rips Drone War Architect Jeh Johnson, New Head Of Homeland Security

Story here.

Ron Fournier: Obama Is An Incompetent, Obfuscatory, Demagogic, Bungling Political Quack And Buffoon

Well, that about covers it from the former Washington Bureau Chief of the Associated Press.

Ron Fournier says all that, and more, for National Journal here.

Election 2012: Romney v. The Utopian

Whatever Mitt Romney is, he's not a utopian.

As reported here:

After electing a man of huge promise and ambition, voters might welcome a candidate with curbed enthusiasm. That seems to be Romney’s calculation, anyway. “President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family,” Romney said, drawing perhaps the loudest cheers of the night.

Romney's Unfavorables Now As Bad As Newt's!

So National Journal, here:

Just 31 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Romney, the poll shows. Almost half, 49 percent, have an unfavorable opinion, and 21 percent said they have no opinion. Romney now holds virtually the same favorable and unfavorable ratings as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose numbers have also dropped over the past month -- suggesting that the ugly, protracted fight for the Republican presidential nomination is dragging down its two most prominent participants.

Net Revenue from Dem. Surcharge on Incomes Over $1 Million in '09 = $9 Billion

Nowhere near enough to pay for Obama's nearly $500 billion "pass this bill now" jobs bill.

In 2009 (the last year for which the data is available) 78,147 people made more than $1 million in net compensation, according to socialsecurity.gov, here, pulling in about $184 billion. I said "billion."

A 5 percent surcharge on that, which is what the Democrats are proposing to pay for Obama's latest jobs spending bill of nearly $500 billion, is . . . drum roll please . . . $9.2 billion.

Sen. Harry Reid must think the whole country is as stupid as the voters in Nevada who re-elected him, the man Bob "Money Talk" Brinker has called "a good man."

Hell, CONFISCATING EVERYTHING from everyone who makes over $1 million WOULDN'T PAY FOR HALF the proposal.

Do you hear me? A 100 percent tax on everyone making $1 million or more would pay for precisely 41.0 percent of Obama's spending bill. SPENDING BILL! A 5 percent tax pays for 2.0 percent!

Which means YOU are paying to create someone else's MAYBE one year job.

Instant replay of stimulus bill, February 2009.

Another Guy Goes on the Record that it was a Missile

According to National Journal here:

Naval expert Norman Polmar, a long-time consultant to the Navy and Pentagon, said he believes the missile was almost certainly launched by the US military. “From the video it’s clearly a land- or sea-launched ballistic missile, and it couldn’t have come from a French or British submarine, because they are only deployed in the Atlantic and Mediterranean,” he told National Journal. “Chinese submarines have never ventured farther east than Hawaii, nor have they ever successfully test fired a ballistic missile. That only leaves the Russians, but for the life of me I can’t fathom why Moscow would have a submarine sail 5,000 miles to launch a missile off the coast of California.”

I can fathom why a North Korean submarine would do it, or a Chinese submarine, especially just ahead of Obama's arrival in Seoul for the G-20 meeting.

But the capability question is still there in both cases.

Do the North Koreans have a blue water submarine, let alone the technology?

Do the Chinese have the technology?

And why would the US government lie about a test of its own?

DIVIDED GOVERNMENT IS A SOLUTION, NOT A PROBLEM

A new kind of check and balance, in the opinion of Ronald Brownstein, writing for National Journal Magazine:

"To the Constitution's enumerated checks and balances we have informally added our own by habitually dividing power between the parties. . . . The public's default switch may have flipped from centralizing authority in one party to fragmenting it."

Read the whole piece, here.

The Dodd Bill Makes Moral Hazard Government Policy

An Opinion from The Washington Examiner

Run against Wall Street

By: Michael Barone

Senior Political Analyst

04/01/10

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, after spending some time negotiating with committee Republicans Bob Corker and Richard Shelby, has decided to advance major financial regulation legislation without bipartisan support. Democratic spin doctors will try to portray the fight over this legislation as a battle between Republicans favoring lax regulation of Wall Street and Democrats favoring tough regulation.

But is the Dodd bill really tough legislation, particularly in its treatment of the major financial entities? My American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison argues that it is not, because it gives Too Big To Fail status to the big entities—Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. This is done by setting up a resolution process for a failing firm which protects creditors more than ordinary bankruptcy proceedings would. Wallison writes:

“From the perspective of its effect on the economy, it does not matter what happens to the company, or to its shareholders and management. The only thing that matters in a government resolution of a failing company is what happens to the creditors--because it's the creditors that will provide the funds preferentially and at favorable rates to large companies rather than small ones.

"In this respect, the Dodd bill does it again--it signals to creditors that they will get a better deal if they lend to the big regulated firms rather than their smaller competitors, and it does this by making it possible for creditors to be fully paid when a too-big-to-fail financial firm is liquidated, even though this would not happen in bankruptcy. There are a number of ways that this can be done, including through a simple merger with a healthy firm. As a prescription for moral hazard, this can hardly be surpassed. The creditors will line up to provide cheap money to the too-big-to-fail firms the Fed will be regulating.”

Wallison is not alone in taking this view. Clive Crook, writing in National Journal seems to agree:

“You do not deal with ‘too big to fail’ by keeping a list of systemically significant institutions: By itself, that makes things worse. You do not deal with it by promising to let most failing financial firms, including those on your list, go bankrupt: Nobody will believe that promise. You deal with it by combining early FDIC-like resolution for all financial firms, banks and nonbanks alike, with stricter and smarter requirements on their capital, liquidity, and leverage.”

Libertarian economist Arnold Kling suggests an even tougher approach, though he doesn’t say how to put it into effect: break up the big banks.

I think as a matter of both policy and politics, Republicans ought to oppose the Dodd bill’s provisions that effectively grant Too Big To Fail status to a handful of financial institutions (and perhaps to other companies, Wallison has argued). They should oppose giving preferred status to the very largest firms as compared to smaller competitors. They should be prepared to argue that the Democratic bill gives vast advantages to firms whose employees have gotten huge compensation (and who, as it happens, tend to give more money to Democrats than Republicans). The cry should be, no favor to the big Wall Street fat cats. Mainstream media is unlikely to transmit this message but, as we have seen in the health care debate, messages can get through without them.

BOMBSHELL: Democrat Rep. Eric Massa Says He Was Set Up

One of thirty-nine Democrats to vote against the House healthcare bill last November now believes ethics allegations lodged against him recently were designed to get rid of him before he could vote no again. Hotline On Call at National Journal, among others, has the story:

Massa Implicates Emanuel, Dem Leaders

March 8, 2010 9:06 AM

By Reid Wilson

Embattled Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) lashed out in an emotional radio appearance Sunday, accusing Dem leaders of what he suggested was an orchestrated campaign to force his resignation.

"There's a reason that this has all happened, frankly one that I had not realized," Massa said on WKPQ radio on Sunday. "Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill, and this administration and this House leadership have said, quote unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they've gotten rid of me and it'll pass."

Massa addressed rumors circulating on blogs about his personal behavior, including incidents during an informal Navy ceremony in '83 on the USS New Jersey and one that occurred in a state room later during his Navy career. He insisted he had done nothing uncommon, insisting his sin was foul language.

A complaint before the House ethics committee, he said, stemmed from a wedding Massa attended over New Years, when he made an inappropriate comment to an aide, according to Roll Call, which first reported the radio program.

Massa maintained his comments were inappropriate, but he blamed "political correctness" and accused Dems of a setup. Massa voted against health care legislation in Nov., and he has not been a reliable vote for Dem leadership. That, he said, has put a target on his back.

"When I voted against the cap and trade bill, the phone rang and it was the chief of staff to the president of the United States of America, Rahm Emanuel, and he started swearing at me in terms and words that I hadn't heard since that crossing the line ceremony on the USS New Jersey in 1983," Massa said. "And I gave it right back to him, in terms and words that I know are physically impossible."

"If Rahm Emanuel wants to come after me, maybe he ought to hold himself to the same standards I'm holding myself to and he should resign," Massa said.

Massa slammed House Maj. Leader Steny Hoyer for discussing a House ethics committee inquiry, accusing Hoyer of lying in an effort to eliminate an opponent of health care. Hoyer said last week he heard in early Feb. about allegations against Massa, and that he told Massa's office to report the allegations to the ethics committee.

"Steny Hoyer has never said a single word to me at all, never, not once," Massa said. "Never before in the history of the House of Representatives has a sitting leader of the Democratic Party discussed allegations of House investigations publicly, before findings of fact. Ever."

"I was set up for this from the very, very beginning," he added. "The leadership of the Democratic Party have become exactly what they said they were running against."

Massa bemoaned the state of the nation's politics, which he said is perpetuated by the constant need for money to run for re-election. And, he said, he has been made an example by Dem leadership.

"There is not a single member of the Democratic freshman class which is going to vote against this health care bill now that they've got me," he said. "Eric Massa's probably not going to go back to Congress, because the only way I would go back there would be as an independent. A pox on both parties."

Massa has held the radio program, in which he took calls from constituents, during his 14 months in office. He said yesterday's episode would be his last as an incumbent.