Maybe I should take the hint.

Governor Sarah Palin won't be coming to live closer to me anytime soon.

In other words, she isn't running for the Alaskan Senate seat against Lisa Murkowski.

Many seemed to think after the election that moving into the elder body of the U.S. Congress would be the best move for her -- providing a chance to develop and show off the foreign policy chops some think harmed her in '08.

I disagree. She should maintain her role, building her reputation as a successful executive in the face of a tough political atmosphere -- quietly establishing her record so there is no question of positive results as Governor come 2012. She can satisfy the national conservative base by feeding them one of the red meat issues they crave -- energy.

"Drill baby, drill" has vanished from our nomenclature since the last campaign season. It resonated for a reason, and engaged conservatives haven't detached from energy as a major issue simply because gas prices aren't $4 a gallon. Palin, just as before, has the moral high ground to speak directly towards the net benefits of increased drilling. If she can develop a unique and viable policy towards increased use of nuclear power, she can show her chops as a policy wonk, enthuse the conservative base and most importantly, do the right thing.

Finally, and not to be overlooked, the last poll taken in Alaska showed higher favoribility ratings for Murkowski than Palin. If the Governor wants to continue her career in politics, she obviously can't risk losing a Senate race.

It's a shame. I suppose I'll have to admire from afar.

:bats eyelashes:

Why bother?

Today, many are reporting on a new NYT/CBS poll that claims massive support for the President and the direction of the country. Taegan Goddard from Congressional Quarterly summarized it this way:

Polls Finds More Optimism
Americans have grown more optimistic about the economy and the direction of the country in the 11 weeks since President Obama was inaugurated, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

"Fully two-thirds said they approved of his overall job performance. By contrast, just 31 percent of respondents said they had a favorable view of the Republican Party, the lowest in the 25 years the question has been asked" in the poll.

But what good is a poll if the sample is skewed? To me, the two most interesting questions of this poll had nothing to do with approval rating or direction of the country. Instead, it was the questions asking 'who did you vote for?'(43 Obama-25 McCain) and 'what Party do you affiliate yourself with?' (39D-23R-30I).

While I can understand Party affiliation fluctuating over time, this poll seems to go to the extreme in their sample. I accept that there are fewer Republicans than Democrats, but 16 percent fewer than the D's and less than 1/4 of the population?

What is particularly telling is the 'who did you vote for' number. As we all know, the election was much closer than the 43-25 differential that this poll provided. There are few numbers in politics that are stable, but the ultimate poll of the nation comes every four years. If you want to properly gauge Americans, wouldn't it be more effective to fit your sample around how they actually aligned themselves?

With such skewing, why should we even bother paying attention to these numbers?

George Bush was a racist and didn't care about AIDS.

Bullshit.

The former President never really seemed to get the credit he deserved for a program he first initiated in 2003, and had renewed in 2007, to treat those infected with HIV on the African continent.

But now a study has been released that helps us understand the real-life impact of what he really accomplished.

CHICAGO (Reuters) - A U.S. program launched during the Bush administration has cut AIDS deaths by 10 percent in targeted African nations compared to their neighbors and saved more than a million lives, U.S. researchers said on Monday.

One million people.

Africans. HIV patients. All for less than 10% of what we gave to AIG.

One million people.

Thanks, W., for understanding the value of human life.


h/t: Petr Weifen

"We'll help rebuild this room."

We suck at giving things.

First it was DVDs.

Then an iPod.

Now we've donated the diplomatic equivalent of a fairly nice bottle of port to the earthquake relief effort in Italy.

The United States said Monday it would donate 50,000 dollars in emergency aid to Italy after a powerful earthquake killed at least 100 people.

[...]

President Barack Obama earlier offered his condolences on a visit to Turkey and voiced hope that the United States could send rescuers.

The earthquake killed at least 100 people and injured 1,500 more as it reduced medieval buildings to rubble in the central town of L'Aquila.

Also delivered were a gorgeous bouquet of freshly picked lilies and a "Sorry All Your Medieval Buildings Were Destroyed" hallmark card.

50 grand? Seriously? This is so frickin' embarrassing.

UPDATE: An aftershock of 5.1 magnitude was just felt in Italy. Obama just sent them a Home Depot two-for-one coupon.

h/t: Topspin

What to do at lunch.

If you're looking for a way to distract yourself for a bit, checking out these old political ads is a great way to do it.

Enjoy.

Hey look! An elephant!

There's an elephant in the room in Ohio.

221,000 jobs have been lost in the Buckeye state in the past 12 months.

And while Governor Strickland is hiding under his desk playing with federal stimulus money and worrying about everything but the #1 issue facing the state, John Kasich is recognizing the real issue affecting Ohioans.

Recharge Ohio just released this video. Check it out.

It's opposite day.

Or at least I hope it is.

Just imagine this for a second -- federal immigration agents get word of an American firm employing a number of illegal immigrants. The federal agents storm in and promptly give these illegal aliens....temporary work visas.

Believe it or not, this seems to be the new status quo for the Obama Administration. From NPR:

The Obama administration's approach to immigration enforcement is still something of a mystery. The Department of Homeland Security is issuing new guidelines for field agents on how to deal with illegal immigrants in the workforce, and so far, those guidelines are being kept secret. But a recent incident in Washington state may provide some clues.

On Feb. 24, when armed immigration agents raided Yamato Engine Specialists, a small company that rebuilds car engines in Bellingham, Wash., 28 workers were led away in handcuffs. They were illegal immigrants, most of them from Mexico, and they faced quick deportation. It was the first big immigration raid under President Obama, and it came as a shock to many in the Hispanic community.

[...]

But the White House seemed almost as surprised by the raid as the workers. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano told Congress she hadn't known about the raid ahead of time, and she ordered a review of it.

Now, one month later, 27 of the 28 workers have been released. One of them — Luis Ramos — says he can't get over how nice the immigration agents have become.

"They treat us wonderfully," Ramos says. "They even say, 'do you want a soda from the machine?'"

The government is offering them temporary work permits, and immigration agents are even giving the Mexicans free rides to Seattle to file the paperwork.

Giving known illegal aliens work permits to stay in the United States? Isn't that like finding out about one of the 9/11 terrorists on 9/10 and giving him a job as a flight attendant?

Sec. Napolitano was reported as saying, "I can't believe we're getting away with this."

It seems that under pressure from the Washington hispanic community, the Obama Administration has found a way to circumvent the law. How?

Doing the exact opposite of what they are supposed to do.

I know, I know....this whole situation seems almost too ridiculous to be true. But before you can say "Jennifer Lopez is totally gonna love me for this", it gets better...

On Thursday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials came back, but this time, it wasn't after workers — the blue-jacketed immigration officials had a warrant to search the company's files. They set up special gear to copy the contents of Yamato's computers, and company manager Shirin Makalai watched the process with an air of strained cordiality.

[...]

Edgar Rebollar, one of the released Mexicans, says the agents have been questioning him about all aspects of their experience at Yamato.

"They asked us if there was racism," he says, "or if they paid some people more than others." Questions like that suggest the government might go beyond immigration violations and try to prosecute Yamato under labor laws.

Rebollar says he thinks Yamato treated him well, but he and his colleagues say they'll provide the government with evidence, if necessary. They have good reason to cooperate. Their work permits are valid only as long as there's a case against Yamato. Once they're no longer useful to investigators, they again face deportation.

That's right. They want to nail the employer on racism in the workplace charges. Now, I would totally support throwing this guy in the can for hiring illegal aliens in the firstplace -- but if this guy was racist would he ever have even hired these guys?

So let's sum this one up real quick.

• Confirmed illegal aliens
• Given work permits by the very government that caught them abusing its laws
  
• And their boss being considered for racism in the workplace violations
  

Really.

The world is upside down.

h/t: Silverback

Westbound & Down.

Sorry for the sparse posting the past couple days. I've been trying to get ahead on work since I'm heading west for a business trip next week.

In other news, I'm looking forward to an interesting experience tomorrow morning. I was invited, along with a few other friends, to join a group of veterans that take it upon themselves to wash the Vietnam Memorial on the National Mall once a month. This evening will be an early night, as tomorrow I'm waking my butt up at "oh-dark-thirty", as one of the vets called it. If given the ok by the guys that run the joint, I'm going to try to do a bit of a video documenting what happens. It should be a unique experience and I'm honored to be invited.

In the meantime, everyone should really stop asking me for the Secretary Clinton Sex Line. It's allll mine. Thanks.

Have a good weekend, all.

This is going down like a crock of shit back home. Help.

The question that flummoxed the great orator.

Oomph.

Nice one, Nick Robinson. Want a job here in the States?

Start working out your legs...

The United States will not have any need for foreign oil in 2010.

Sounds ridiculous, eh?

Well, President Obama made that promise.

Per Breaking News Online:

Obama says the $3.45 trillion fiscal 2010 budget plan "will end our dependence on foreign oil and spur a new clean energy economy".

Please remember this promise when you're driving one of these...

1-800-MIX-ALOT

Someone must have put some Funky Cold Medina in the White House water coolers:

Journalists seeking to talk a little foreign policy with high-profile Obama administration officials live from the G20 meetings in London this week were solicited for phone sex instead after ringing up the toll-free number given by the White House.

In a press release, the White House accidentally listed a sex line number for journalists seeking an "on-the-record briefing call with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Advisor Jim Jones to discuss the NATO summit."

But after dialing, a soft-voiced female recording that was clearly not Clinton asked for a credit card number if you "feel like getting nasty."

Effing amateurs. They could at least have provided everything pre-paid.

p.s. When I was google imaging "phone sex operator", this came up. Hysterical.

An experiment.

Thanks to Mark Sanford, we'll be able to conduct a bit of an experiment in regards to how stimulus funds are best used.

Are they best served paying down state debt, as Gov. Sanford wants to do in South Carolina? Or is the state best served by using the funds the way Obama intended?

From Campaign Spot:

The White House acknowledges that yes, governors control how stimulus funds are used in their states, not state legislatures:

In an important victory for the nation's governors, the White House is acknowledging that state legislatures across the country can't wrest control of $48.6 billion made available under the new federal stimulus law to help states cope with their budgets.

White House budget chief Peter Orszag says there is no provision in the stimulus law for state lawmakers to accept that money without approval by the governor. South Carolina's Republican governor, Mark Sanford, has said he may decline more than $700 million in stimulus money because the White House won't let him spend the money to pay down his state's debt.

Orszag wrote in a letter to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that Sanford controls those purse strings. The White House also urged Congress to change the law to avoid what it called unfortunate and unintended consequences.

So, relative to eachother, which economy will improve faster....South Carolina's, or the United States as a whole?

Let's check in around 2012.

Fistbump me, Mr. Prime Minister

On the day we've learned the President once again brought glory to our nation by giving the Queen of England an ipod, 3BP, with some suggestions from its audience, has provided President Obama with a giftbasket idea for the recently announced Russian summit set for Moscow in July.

You're welcome, Mr. President.

Democrats suck at models.

According to the Drudge Report, Democrats are predicting a 210 vote win for Scott Murphy, after absentees and military votes are counted. They base this on a model they produced assigning where absentee ballots came from relative to who won which county on election day. In other words, they assume if Murphy won 51% of the vote in Columbia Country, then Murphy should win 51% of the absentee ballots from that county.

No, really. That's how they did their model.

Even though, according to actual statistics, there are more Republicans that submitted absentee and military ballots than Democrats.

After all, why use actual data when you can make up models that predict whatever you prefer the outcome to be?

Idiots.

Obama lost.

At least, that's the way the NY-20 results should be played in the national media.

Yes, it's a swing district. Yes, a Democrat has won it two times in a row. Yes, Obama won it in 2008. Yes, Democrat Scott Murphy had the momentum heading into election day.

And yes, we won't know who won the seat until all the absentees are counted.

Did it used to be a more GOP district? Yep. But honestly, I don't care. This was the Dems seat to lose. And the mere fact they didn't win by at least 3%(Obama's margin in November) is a loss for the President.

At the end of the day, we know this -- Obama campaigned in NY-20. He utilized his vast grassroots network in NY-20. And still, it wasn't enough.

Congrats to Jim Tedisco, the NRCC and the RNC.

Now, let's watch how the MSM plays this....

That sound you hear is 1000 GOP bloggers crying.

From The Hill:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) backed the plan for GM and Chrysler put forth yesterday by President Obama, the candidate Romney may face in the 2012 presidential election.

"I think a lot of people expected the president just to cave, write a check, and just hope for the better," Romney said Tuesday morning on CNN. "I think he's expressing some backbone on this."

Now, to back up a bit, Romney has long been a favorite of the online GOP chattering class. Personally, I don't get it. The guy had every advantage in the world for the 2008 primaries and still got trounced. He simply lacks the ability to connect with voters.

But I digress.

Romney has been getting a decent amount of press lately as the person best suited to carry the conservative mantle into 2012.

But this latest proclamation is already strike two since Obama took office.

Strike one? Earlier this month, Reason Magazine touted Romney's health care program in Massachusetts as a failure:

There is both good news and bad news for advocates of market-based approaches to health care.

The good news is that there is a growing recognition across the political spectrum that Massachusetts’ experiment with TonySopranoCare – otherwise called universal health coverage -- is unworkable and unsustainable.

Three years ago the Bay State started forcing individuals and employers to purchase health coverage on the threat of penalties and fines. At the same time, it mandated insurance companies to sell Cadillac coverage (complete with in vitro fertilization and hair prostheses) to everyone regardless of health status. The first inflated demand for health care. The second diminished supply because not too many health care underwriters can do business under the prescribed conditions. The upshot? Massachusetts’ delivered a captive market to a cartelized insurance industry – something that some of us had predicted at the outset would lead to spiraling health care costs.

So as Governor, Romney devised a universal health care system that is now being touted as a failure by both the left and right. And we now learn he has no problem with the President of the United States playing the role of de facto CEO of Fortune 500 companies.

Romney as a conservative is a sham. Eventually, some will learn to accept it.

"...and Barney Frank knows a lot about pay for performance."

This column comes from 3BP contributor, Thanksforyourtaxes. His experience on the Hill and now doing congressional affairs at a local DC think tank provides us some good insight, but not as much as his ability to cut the bullshit and tell us what he really thinks:

Rep. Frank has laid another whopper on us. As detailed in "Beyond AIG":

The “Pay for Performance Act of 2009” states that the government can impose controls over employee pay for ANY company that accepts federal tax payer dollars (or ‘investments’).

I know your first response: “What the F%*&?!”

But beyond that, just how is this ‘performance’ measured? The answer, unfortunately, is the U.S. Department of the Treasury. How do they think Geithner or anyone in the frighteningly understaffed Treasury are going to be able to better hire/fire/promote/pay any employee of any corporation?

Because they love big government. Why has this not made huge news like the bonuses Senators agreed to pay AIG employees? I just don’t get it.

Wait a second, though. This could be a good thing. Why would any company in their right mind take federal dollars to stay afloat? Everyone in the company would benefit from Chapter 11, more or less, rather than the government coming in and saying “you can make this much, you can make this much.” Soon everyone will know what the GS13-45-ER222 government pay scale is exactly.

The fact is, your tax dollars are already bailing out government employees every day. I have an idea, as the DJ mentioned yesterday, let’s start looking at the ‘performance’ of government employees! After all, these are people who work at the pleasure of the taxpayer, right? As it stands, you can't be fired from a government job.

Let's test this ‘pay for performance’ idea on government employees. (out of the kindness of our heart, we'll start them all with a clean slate, despite years of data showing their inefficiencies) Someone offer up a bill expanding 'pay for performance' to federal employees. That way we can make really gauge the salaries of some crazy NASA scientist that spends his work days protesting global warming and promoting some altogether massively inefficient transportation system; or some HHS employee downloading porn on his desktop.

Let's give Barney Frank a chance to clean up what he should be making accountable -- the government.

Patrick Ruffini likes himself.

Ruffini is one of the more prominent GOP bloggers.

Maybe this is why. From his twitter feed:



There is no reason for this post. I just found it funny.

Ha.

It's yours, whether you like it or not.

Obama has involved himself in the first election since he won the grand prize last November.

Tomorrow, Jim Tedisco, the Republican, takes on Scott Murphy, the Democrat, in the NY-20 congressional special election to replace Sen. Gillibrand. NY-20 is a swing district. While there are more registered Republicans, Gillibrand, a Dem, has won the past two elections and Obama won by 3 points.

So, even without Obama's involvement, one could say this is the first true gauging of the Obama presidency.

But what is curious about this race is the President's hesitancy to join the fray until late.

His involvement includes only one television ad recently released over the weekend(with a surprisingly small ad-buy), and an e-mail to his network of supporters.

The reasons for his tardiness could be many, such as wanting to hold off until he was confident in a Murphy win, and in turn able to consider the Democrat's victory an exclamation point to his agenda so far.

Or, polling could state that Obama isn't popular among independents right now, and strategists decided it was best to hold off on committing the President's political capital. That way if they lose they can try to spin it as "he never put his full strength behind the campaign due to his focus on the White House agenda".

It could be any number of things, all of which are impossible to predict without more information, such as internal poll numbers.

But at the end of the day, whether the President likes it or not, this special congressional election is a referendum on him -- no matter how he tries to spin it.

Does that mean it's as big a deal as the 2010 midterms? Oh hellllllll no. But it will be a story in the mainstream media and it will be framed around the status of Obama's political capital.

Unfortunately, based on the latest public poll numbers -- that's good news for Obama.

Fumble!!!!!

Once again, Gov. Strickland's 'crouch under the desk and hope nothing bad happens' strategy is flying in his face.

It turns out his fellow Democrats have decided to pick up his fumble on education and do their best to get things moving again.

Many changes to Gov. Ted Strickland's school-funding plan are in the works. A revamped version probably will help many poor districts, while lessening the impact of a property tax change that otherwise would provide big benefits to high property-value districts such as Columbus.

[...]

Through weeks of examination, including more than 50 hours of House committee testimony from 320 witnesses, Strickland's "evidence-based" funding model has been taking on water through a number of holes.

"There are a lot of good things in it, and there are some things that we feel ought to be changed," said Matt Bunting, treasurer of Athens schools. His district would get almost no new money in the next two years under Strickland's plan, which phases in funding over eight years.

"We need to speed up the phase-ins that help some of the poorer districts and slow down the phase-in for some of the wealthier districts," Bunting said.

In 2006, Ted Strickland said if he didn't fix education, he would consider himself a failure as Governor.

Since the Democrats in the Statehouse now feel the need to take over his plan, perhaps we can make this call a little earlier than we anticipated.

Thanks for nothing, Guv.