News: January 2008 Archives

John Edwards has dropped out from the presidential race, and my speculation is that he did so in exchange for a promise to be Barack Obama's VP.

The former North Carolina senator will not immediately endorse either candidate in what is now a two-person race for the Democratic nomination, said one adviser, who spoke on a condition of anonymity in advance of the announcement.

Obama needs all the anti-Hillary voters he can get for next week's Super Tuesday, and trading the vice presidential slot for those votes might be the only path he saw to the nomination. I don't think Edwards brings much to the potential general election Obama ticket based on his positions or geography, but you can't get to the general election if you don't win the nomination.

Then again, Edwards might end up only being offered a cabinet position. The guy's basically unemployed, so he'll probably take what he can get in 2009.

Everyone was expecting Barack Obama to beat Hillary Clinton in South Carolina, but he got more than double her number of votes. That's amazing.

Sen. Barack Obama, vying to become the nation's first black president, has won the South Carolina primary today, boosted by a record turnout of African-American voters in a state whose electorate appears polarized along racial lines.

Obama overwhelmingly beat Sen. Hillary Clinton with 55 percent support to her 27 percent, and former Sen. John Edwards, trailing with 18 percent support, with almost all precincts reporting.

The Clintons are doing everything they can to cast this primary in racial tones, but wow, Obama trounced them tonight.

So the generous government elite have deigned to return to us plebeians some of the money they confiscate from us by force on a weekly basis. Consider me underwhelmed.

Congressional leaders announced a deal with the White House Thursday on an economic stimulus package that would give most tax filers refunds of $600 to $1,200, and more if they have children. ...

The rebates will go to 117 million families, according to a Democratic summary. That includes $28 billion in checks to 35 million working families who wouldn't have been helped by Bush's original proposal, the analysis estimated.

Republicans, for their part, were pleased that the bulk of the rebates—more than 70 percent, according to an analysis by Congress' Joint Tax Committee—would go to individuals who pay taxes.

By "working families" I assume the story means family with members who work, but not enough to pay any taxes... which means they probably don't work full-time and are already likely to be on the public dole.

As many other more knowledgeable writers have already said, this "stimulus package" is idiotic. Besides being deeply "progressive" (in that the amount is basically equal rather than being a percentage of income) there's no evidence whatsoever that this plan will do anything to encourage long-term economic growth. The only way you do that is with tax cuts, which Democrats hate because they reduce our dependency on government.

If somebody grabbed your wallet and then handed you back a $20 bill, would you be grateful? Realizing the money was yours to begin with, you would probably call the cops rather than thank the thief.

President Bush’s latest gimmick to stimulate the economy by giving back to taxpayers $800 of their own money is the Washington equivalent of the “generous” thief. The biggest fairy tale in Washington isn’t Barack Obama’s voting record on the war in Iraq, but the notion peddled by Republicans and Democrats alike that the government has a big pot of its own money that it generously gives to people by “injecting” it into the economy as a stimulus.

In fact, government has only our money or money it borrows from lenders. The problem is it costs the government a major portion of every dollar it takes from us in collecting it and paying the interest on dollars it borrows. Why not just let us keep our money in the first place?

Cut taxes, and make the cuts permanent so that people can make plans and commitments based on the lowered rates. That's how you stimulate an economy permanently.

Even though I'm only a luke-warm Mitt Romney supporter, I was glad to see him win in Michigan last night. Romney isn't my ideal candidate, but I have a lot of respect for his executive experience, which far eclipses any of the Democrats and surpasses even the other Republicans who have served as governor of a state. Romney "should" have won in Iowa and had victory snatched from him by Huckabee, a candidate who is only in the running for a shot at VP.

In a drama that only grows more bizarre with each passing month, Britney Spears has been involuntarily hospitalized as a danger to herself and others and put on a 14-day lock down.

Britney Spears has reportedly been placed on a 72-hour lock down in a special suicide watch-style unit for a mental evaluation after holding her children hostage and refusing to hand them over to their father at a court-appointed time.

Amid extraordinary scenes, the fallen popstar was stretchered bleary-eyed from her home last night under police guard and then taken to hospital by ambulance for tests when she was suspected to be "under the influence of an unknown substance".

The story says 72-hour, but based on my familiarity with the system in Los Angeles I believe the authorities can hold her against her will for up to 14 days while they decide what to do.

Britney Spears' life is a tragic example of how the American Dream can go horribly awry without any moral boundaries or spiritual guidance. She has everything anyone could ever want, and is still a miserable wretch.

I've been writing about Hillary Clinton's unelectability for years, so I'm very conflicted over the results of the Democrats' caucus in Iowa last night. On the one hand, few people are slimier, more corrupt, or less qualified than Hillary Clinton, so I'm saddened to see her lose because I think she would have been easy for any Republican to beat in November. On the other hand, no one wants face the prospect of an America saddled with such a slimy, corrupt, unqualified president of either party.

I disagree with Barack Obama on every political issue I can think of. Barack Obama's "Christian" church is literally insane. And yet, he doesn't come across as slimy and corrupt as Hillary Clinton which means that -- despite sharing her inexperience -- America would likely do much better with an Obama presidency than a Hillary presidency. If I had to pick a Democrat for President, Obama would be near the top of my list, so in that sense it's good that he trounced the Hilldabeast in Iowa.

If Obama wins the nomination, as seems likely, the Republicans will have a hard time beating him. Huckabee certainly won't stand a chance. Hopefully Romney or Giuliani will shine over the course of the next month and one of them will turn out to be a diamond.

Captain Ed has put out a porkbusting call-to-action for us citizens as well as for President Bush.

In case you aren't familiar with the situation, Congress recently passed the Omnibus Spending Bill which included in the text of the law a whole bunch of pork-barrel earmarks. These earmarks that are in the text of the law are called legislative earmarks because they identify spending that is now required by law.

However, Congress also issued a bunch of paperwork with the law that identifies additional earmarks that they want various government offices to spend money on but that aren't specifically called out in the text of the law. These are nonlegislative earmarks and do not have the force of law because they are not in the text of the bill that was passed by Congress. In essence they are preferences expressed by one or more lawmakers (not a majority, or they would have been in the text of the bill) for how they want some of the money spent. Constitutionally, because these nonlegislative earmarks don't have the force of law, the President can issue an executive order instructing the government to completely ignore these earmarks and to instead spend the money in the way that the departments think is best for the country.

President Bush should do exactly this, and we citizens should be pressuring him issue such an executive order. Call or email the White House as described below.

Sources on the Hill tell some of us that a critical point has been reached at the White House on whether to issue an Executive Order that would prevent federal agencies from spending funds on 90% of the earmarks in the Omnibus Spending Bill. According to the whispers, the earmarkers on Capitol Hill have begun to lean heavily on the White House to let the matter drop and to keep the earmark funding in place. Every day brings a fresh round of calls from the same lawmakers who porked up the overdue spending bill, "airdropping" almost all of them (against the new rules in Congress) to keep the porkers from accountability.

If CapQ readers want George Bush to issue the Executive Order and hold Congress responsible for violating its own rules while pursuing personal political benefits, they need to let the White House know now how they feel. The EO advocates need to remind Bush that only through dramatic action can the GOP reclaim any momentum on fiscal responsibility. A rescission package would only play into the hands of the same people who larded up the spending bill while delivering it three months late.

You can make a difference. Call 202-456-1111 and politely explain why the President should issue the EO, or e-mail the staff at comments@whitehouse.gov.

(HT: Instapundit.)

My wife tells me that the men attacked by a Tiger last week were carrying slingshots.

Two brothers who were injured when a tiger attacked them at the San Francisco Zoo had slingshots on them at the time, a source said.

An empty vodka bottle was also found in a car used by Amritpal Dhaliwal, 19, and his brother, Kulbir, 23, on the day of the mauling, which left 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr. dead, according to the source.

The discoveries could be an indication that the brothers may have taunted the 350-pound Siberian tiger before it leapt from its grotto.

Someone call the Darwin Awards.