This is actually just a work-in-progress site.  It's half-done.  Right now it's not used, except as an emergency back-up when the main site goes down.

The actual site is at http://www.ace.mu.nu, or aceofspadeshq.com, which will redirect there.

If you're not seeing pictures on this site, it's because it's not really working yet.

If you've posted comments and no one seems to respond -- that's because most users can't see them.  Comments from the real site get posted here, but comments from here don't show up on the real site.

Basically, you should come to the real site.  It looks a little crappy right now and it breaks down a lot, but this one isn't quite ready yet.

Sorry.. should have put up this notice long ago.

Posted by: Ace at 01:01 AM | Comments (1641)
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.

Silver bullet, AHFF Geoff says.

Under health-care reform legislation pending in Congress, the task force's recommendations would be used to help determine the basic coverage that insurance companies would need to offer for preventive services. But task force officials said that played no role in the panel's decision and costs were never considered. In fact, the task force decided to review the mammography guidelines and completed the bulk of its work years before the presidential election and the reform push, Ned Calonge, the panel's chairman, said in an interview.

...

A top federal health official said Wednesday that the controversial new guidelines for breast cancer screening do not represent government policy, as the Obama administration sought to keep the debate over mammograms from undermining the prospects for health-care reform.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, in a written statement, said the new guidelines had "caused a great deal of confusion and worry among women and their families across this country," and she stressed that they were issued by "an outside independent panel of doctors and scientists who . . . do not set federal policy and . . . don't determine what services are covered by the federal government."

Um, yes, but when government has taken over health-care, and is scrambling to "bend the curve" to reduce costs so that it can pay for 40 million new clients, the task force's determinations will become government policy.

Posted by: Ace at 02:01 PM | Comments (596)
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

But I don't know if I trust this stuff -- after all, AllahPundit is notorious for cherry-picking only happy, upbeat news to report.

Palin's favorables remain kind of weak -- remember, Obama's got something like a 56-60% personal favorability rating, depending on the poll; and yet his actual approval rate, as in job approval, is at least ten point lower.

It's good that her favorability rating is climbing, now up to a very ehhh 47-42. But John McCain got creamed in an election with a favorability rating of like 56% or something.

On the other hand...

[Obama's] possible opponent in the 2012 elections trails him in personal favorability by only seven points (54 percent to 47 percent). Among the critical segment of independent voters, they are virtually even (Obama at 50 percent; Palin at 49 percent).

Allah notes the poll is a bit skewed towards Republicans (for once!), but that independent segment should be unaffected by that.

Still, personal favorability, while meaningful, is just not the same as "I'd vote for her."

Meanwhile, a Kos poll says Rubio is on Crist's heels. And Kos thinks Crist is done as a Republican candidate, for what that's worth.

Done as a Republican candidate, that is. We now have to worry he'll run as an Independent, or even -- as Kos urges -- a Democrat.

And I suspect we will hear of some exploration of these possibilities, confirming Republicans' worst fears about him.

Posted by: Ace at 12:46 PM | Comments (377)
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.

Pretty serious stuff.

Republican Commissioner Judith Peck refused to speculate on whether the code that governs the counts could have been tampered with. She indicated that "as far as I know, the machine in question was not functioning properly and was repaired" by the technician.

Commissioners in other counties have stated that they were not made aware of the virus issue in Hamilton County. In Jefferson County, inspectors from four districts claim that "human error" resulted in their "mistakenly" entering 0 votes for Hoffman in several districts, resulting in Owens leading Jefferson County on election night though the recanvas of the computer counts now show that Hoffman is leading. Jefferson County has not conducted a manual paper ballot recount.

In St. Lawrence County, machines in Louisville, Waddington, Claire, and Rossie "broke" early in the voting process on election day. Republican Commissioner Deborah Pahler said that the machines kept "freezing up... like Windows does all the time," and that they experienced several paper jams as well. The voted ballots that could not be scanned were placed in an Emergency Lock Box and re-scanned later at the St. Lawrence County Board of Elections. Election officials in St. Lawrence County were given no advance knowledge of a potential virus in the system.

At least one County official thus far has raised concern that it's possible that ALL of the machines used in the NY-23 election had the 'virus' but only a few malfunctioned as a result. The counts from any district that used the ImageCast machines are suspect due to "the virus" discovered in Hamilton County, last-minute "reprogramming" by Dominion workers, and security flaws in the systems themselves. A manual paper-ballot recount of the vote could resolve computer vote accuracy questions.

Given the virus, and given the four "human error" tallies of zero votes for Hoffman, how can they possibly resist a full manual recount?

Drew predicted this would happen with these new machines, didn't he?

Remember the idiocy of people demanding computerized balloting machines in the wake of Bush v. Gore? Remember how transparently stupid that was, even at the time, to anyone who gave it more than three seconds thought?

People become utterly stupid when they get into herd/riot mode.

Via Jim Treacher's Twitter.

It's Over? Hoffman trails by more votes than there are left to be counted.

Ah, but there's always that hail Mary of a recount.

But... yeah, it's kind of over.

Posted by: Ace at 11:50 AM | Comments (352)
Post contains 425 words, total size 3 kb.

We know this as a general matter. But to me it's significant that we can start seeing who specifically is in jeopardy due to ObamaCare.

If you're a soldier charging a hill, it's one thing to know that your group will take, say, 30% casualties. It's a different thing if you know in advance that you, specifically, will be one of the dead of war.

Blanche Lincoln is on notice that it won't be just some other soldiers dying on that hill, but she herself.

A Zogby Poll this week illustrates the stark choice facing Senate Democrats as they have to decide whether or not to vote for ObamaCare. The poll shows that Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln, high up on the list of vulnerable Senate Democrats seeking reelection in 2010, literally faces a choice between being reelected and voting for the bill.

The Zogby Poll shows Arkansans opposed to the Obama/Reid bill by 28-64, with 50 percent "strongly opposed" to the legislation. To swim in the face of such a current of public opinion is risky business for a U.S. senator.

Lincoln's most likely Republican opponent, state Sen. Gilbert Bennett, is hot on her heels in the poll, trailing by only 41-39. But asked who they would support if Lincoln votes for ObamaCare, Arkansas voters switch to Bennett, giving him a 49-36 victory. That Lincoln goes from two points ahead to 13 points behind over one Senate vote illustrates the potency of the opposition to healthcare changes.

It has to be noted that this poll was specifically commissioned by a group, the League of Voters, hoping to use the poll to lobby senators to vote against the legislation. Still, it's a reputable polling firm; Zogby has incentive to add his secret sauce, but there are limits to what he can do.

Meanwhile, Rasmussen and Fox both show Obama's approval at 46%. That is an all-time low for the Fox poll, which has generally found middling-to-high support for Obama, compared to other polls. It's not a poll that has been stacked against him.

Posted by: Ace at 11:34 AM | Comments (229)
Post contains 370 words, total size 2 kb.

Vid at Newsbusters; I'll just quote some of the transcript.

"This is a largely white -- almost no minorities in this crowd," reported MSNBC's O'Donnell live from the scene.

Matthews reiterated, "Well, they look like a white crowd to me," later claiming, "I think there is a tribal aspect to this thing, in other words, white vs. other people."

Liberals are fond of claiming their thinking is more nuanced, more multidimensional, more wide-ranging, than conservatives' thinking.

So why is it at every opportunity they indulge in retarded reductivism and reduce everything to the single variable of racism?

People don't want to give up their health care? Must be racism.

People don't want to pay more in taxes? Must be racism.

People don't want to import millions of new needy poor which they are then obligated to support through social welfare? Must be racism.

Racism, racism, racism. There seem to be no other variables in this equation or inputs in this program.

But they are more nuanced, and can think in three dimensions, and possess better "negative capability."

Posted by: Ace at 10:40 AM | Comments (601)
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

Lotta sub-50% polls recently.

And on health care?

Overall 49% of voters express approval of Obama’s work with 46% disapproving. He has the support of 83% of Democrats, 47% of independents, and 10% of Republicans.

...

Hurting Obama’s overall reviews is that for the first time in our polling we find a
majority of Americans opposed to his health care plan. 40% say they support it with 52% opposed, including 58% of independents.

“This is the first time President Obama’s approval rating has dropped below 50% in our polling,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “It does seem that the health care issue is hurting him some with independents who voted for him last year.”

Gallup just emailed me: Maybe people actually approve of his health-care plan but are registering disapproval of a hypothetical future Republican filibuster of the plan.

Related: 76% of Californians oppose the proposed reduction in mammograms.

Not a good data-point for a president proposing cutting a whole swath of "unnecessary" testing.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff again.

Posted by: Ace at 10:19 AM | Comments (74)
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

Obvious, but nice to have an official non-partisan analysis.

Actually, the whole thing is a pack of lies in the first place. I can't repeat enough that the same behavior with the doc-fix -- forever delaying/suspending supposedly-required "cuts" -- will happen here with the five or six hundred billion dollars in "cuts" that the Democrats are supposedly proposing to keep costs down.

And if those cuts do occur -- congratulations, seniors are now being denied care on a routine basis.

Which would mean Democrats would be out of office in two years.

The whole point of this lie is to pass the plan in small pieces. Oh look, if we just pass ObamaCare and the doc-fix, with the cuts proposed, it only costs us a hundred billion or so.

What's that? It's not fair that seniors got their care reduced? Okay, we'll pass a "fix" for that. We'll delay those cuts by a year. It will only cost us $60 billion to do that... for a single year.

Oh it's next year again? Oh let's suspend those cuts. It's only another $60 billion, after all.

And on, and on, and on. For ten years, for twenty years, for forty years. The "bend the curve" cuts that supposedly kept this from being a budget-busting extravagance will never happen, and therefore it is a budget-busting extravagance from day one, and people should know that.

They're just trying to avoid sticker-shock by refusing to give you the total costs up-front. Instead you're promised one price, but they know damn well they'll be extracting another trillion from you in smaller bites.

Sure, this car only costs $15,000. It's a steal.

Oh -- you wanted an engine? There's an additional fee for that. Engines aren't standard in this car.

You wanted tires, too? Well, Mr. Sinatra, I didn't know you were in town. I didn't know you'd want all the "extras." Okay, I can give you some tires too at the low, low price of $500 per.

Etc.

Posted by: Ace at 10:07 AM | Comments (252)
Post contains 369 words, total size 2 kb.

Ouch. The trouble with this sort of statement -- even though I agree with it -- is that it's hard for even a hack like me to explain why this statement is unobjectionable while Dingy Harry's "The war is lost" statement is noxious.

And yet: It is. Thompson is saying this to spur President Present into action, while Dingy Harry was urging only defeat.

"It really doesn't matter how President Obama divides the Afghan baby, how he splits the difference between McChrystal and Biden. Because the war has been lost," Thompson said on his radio show today. "I say this because of one sad and simple fact. The president does not have the will and determination to do what's necessary to win it. His heart's not in it, and never has been. The Taliban knows it. Al Qaeda knows it. Our allies know it. And the American people know it.

"Our enemies are now emboldened and our friends are discouraged. We cannot prevail if the American people are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary for an extended effort. The case has not been made to them to justify this effort. The case can only be made by the president. This president is unable or unwilling to make that case," Thompson said.

I can see the spin: Even conservatives like Fred Thompson say the war is lost, so Obama of course should surrender.

Posted by: Ace at 09:48 AM | Comments (229)
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.

Police suspected she was DUI due to her high-beams being on in inappropriate situations. (NSFW explanation of high beams, here.)

Senator John Kerry's daughter, Alexandra Forbes Kerry, was arrested early this morning on suspicion of DUI ... law enforcement sources tell TMZ.

It went down in Hollywood at 12:40 AM. Alexandra, a 36-year-old film producer and director, was pulled over for a traffic stop, then arrested and booked at LAPD's Hollywood station. She was released at 5:25 AM.

Cops tell us Alexandra violated a traffic law which got their attention. They then conducted a field sobriety test and it appeared she was under the influence of an intoxicant. She was then placed under arrest. At that point, cops asked her to take a preliminary alcohol screening test in the field, but she refused.

Cops took her to the station and then conducted a formal blood alcohol test which showed a level of .06. Under California law, the legal limit is .08, but a driver can still be prosecuted -- even under a .08 reading -- if the vehicle is being operated unsafely due to alcohol.

Because she's a Democrat, she can expect her legal troubles to come without paparrazzi coverage and months-long smearing of her. She gets to live a human life, in other words.

Must be nice.

Posted by: Ace at 09:07 AM | Comments (210)
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

Not the 60% or thereabouts we need to ensure the Democrats back down. But still.

[V]oters disapprove 51 - 35 percent of the health care overhaul passed by the House of Representatives which he has endorsed, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

Voters disapprove 53 - 41percent of President Obama's handling of health care.

The first finding they report is that voters like Obama personally, but disapprove of his policies. 74% "like" him, 47% "like" most of his policies. Obama's vaunted charm and presence seems to be having the same effect at home as it does abroad, i.e., none at all. I can "like" someone while refusing to support policies detrimental to my interests.

Gallup, meanwhile, attempts to spin a finding that hurts Obama as somehow "ambiguous."

As Congress debates a possible major expansion of health insurance in the United States, Gallup finds 38% of Americans rating healthcare coverage in this country as excellent or good, the highest (by eight percentage points) in the nine-year history of this question, and 12 points above last year's level.

Most of the change since last year involves a shift in Americans' ratings of healthcare coverage from "only fair" to "excellent" or "good." Since last year, the percentage rating healthcare coverage as only fair has declined by 10 points, while the percentage rating it poor has changed little.

Seems to take a lot of the wind out of Obama's sails, eh? If people now realize they've got it pretty good, seems a pretty good sign they don't need the massive changes Obama is proposing.

Gallup suddenly comes down with a case of the stupids and pretends it forgot what the question asked. They asked if people appreciated their health care now, as they have been asking for nine years. But given a finding that hurts Obama, they wonder: Gee, maybe we really asked how health care would be in the future, after Obama's changes take effect.

It is unclear based on the overall data whether this shift could be due to a greater appreciation for the current system among those who think it is threatened by the proposed changes, or perhaps an anticipation of better days ahead from those who support the changes.

Um, by the terms of the question itself, dear, it is not "unclear" at all. Pollsters often ask about people's belief about how things will be in the future. They did not do so here.

Gallup's headline for this references "Greater Optimism" on health care, optimism being a forward-looking word that implies a belief about the future.

The correct word, which they did not choose, is Satisfaction. The question asks not about optimism for the future but satisfaction in the present.

What is the point of polling people at all if Gallup is going to disregard the answers people provide, and even set aside the questions they themselves ask?

Hey, as long as we're making stuff up, maybe most of those people saying health care is poor are really talking about the future under ObamaCare, too.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Posted by: Ace at 09:00 AM | Comments (207)
Post contains 538 words, total size 4 kb.

I'm second to no one in my loathing of Lindsay Graham's style of 'make a deal and get something done' politics but my guess is he's a hell of a lawyer.

There are a lot of knocks on Eric Holder but no one really thinks he's a stupid man. Misguided? Sure. Diagnosably retarded? No. Watch this exchange between Graham and Holder. Graham leaves Holder stammering like a fool.

Here's the crap Holder is trying to sell that Graham won't let him get away with...Holder says, 'we don't need to question bin Laden because we have so much evidence already so we won't question him for a statement, therefor Miranda doesn't apply'.

Graham nails him with the fact Miranda isn't just about 'the right to remain silent'. It's also about an affirmative right to an attorney.

The fight is about when does a "military capture" become a "civilian arrest" and when and how do all the rights that come with a civilian arrest and trial attach. Right now there are no answers because as Graham points out, the Obama administration is making it up as they go.

Guess who is going to get involved in that question at some point. The courts. Given the arc of cases since 9/11 is anyone 100% sure (hell, 50% sure) that a court won't throw out a conviction or even a bar a trial on any number of 6th Amendment grounds?

Holder is left babbling like a fool about these basic questions.

I'd be interested in what the lawyers here have to say about Graham's style of questioning. My guess is they wouldn't want their client on the other side of it.

Graham did this during the Sotomayor hearings. He walked her down a path where there was absolutely no doubt she was incompetent and lying. Unfortunately at that point Graham's political instincts overrode his legal training and he let her off the hook. Worse still, he then voted for her but his questioning left her, like Holder, in shreds.

I found the above video at The Corner. To make up for swiping it, I commend this post to you. McCarthy has been all over this and as someone who actually convicted terrorists (the first WTC bombers), he knows the drill and the limitations of the Obama approach.

UPDATE:

Oy. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 05:30 AM | Comments (461)
Post contains 768 words, total size 5 kb.

Well, yes, but no, no, no.

In 2005, Texans amended their constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The trouble, which is being stirred up by Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, Barbara Ann Radnofsky, is the second part of the amendment:

"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

Obviously this was intended to prevent the legislature or the courts from establishing domestic partnerships or civil unions. But the plain text of the amendment says that the state may not create or recognize legal statuses like marriage.

So, yes, Texas banned marriage. At least on a purely textual reading of the amendment. Fortunately, I doubt even the most conservative judge would fail to read the second part of the amendment in light of the first part, which clearly set out to make marriage available in Texas under the limitation that it be between a man and a woman. (Although, now Texans can sweat over whether any liberal judges will temporarily adopt a strictly textualist jurisprudence to cause trouble.)

This doesn't seem to be stopping any marriages, anyway. Which means somebody's probably going to sue. Texas could have avoided the issue by including an extra word in the second part of the amendment: "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any other legal status identical or similar to marriage."

Thanks to J. Joyner.

More:

People in comments seem to think it's mere "lawyering" to believe that if Texas had defined something in subpart A of the amendment that it could not have then banned it in subpart B. Except, of course, that's how laws get written all the time.

For example, the criminal law is filled with that type of thing. "Statutory rape is defined as X." "Statutory rape is a felony punishable by Y." Regulatory law is also fileld with that type of thing. "Controlled substance is defined as A." "No wholesaler, manufacturer, or retailer shall furnish controlled substances unless B (usually having to do with state licensing)."

When the legislature defines something it does not necessarily follow that it intends to approve that thing. Now, you and I know that Texas very much wanted to approve the traditional notion of marriage with its 2005 amendment and ban gay alternatives. The text of that amendment, though, followed a familiar pattern:

(A) Definition: Marriage is between a man and a woman.
(B) Proscription: The state shall not recognize legal statuses identical to marriage.

Commenters are reading an implicit "other" in subpart B ("The state shall not recognize other legal statuses"), because they know the intent of the amendment. The point of my original post is that the text alone does not get you there.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:30 AM | Comments (176)
Post contains 479 words, total size 3 kb.

Dick Cheney takes candy from babies, then gives it to diabetic babies.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:03 AM | Comments (134)
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

There's another Thursday night game, so don't forget. I could probably pick up a game by forgetting to remind you idiots, except one game ain't going to make much of a difference for me, and I'd have to actually get it right to gain ground.

That ain't happening.

Also, hope you're not flying today.

It may be Thursday for you, but it's Friday for me biznatches. I don't think you can just jump right into a short week with a holiday, you have to ease into it or else your head will asplode.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 03:56 AM | Comments (113)
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

In the USSR, this used to be known as a "show trial".

...“I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him,” Obama told NBC’s Chuck Todd...

WHEN, not "if".
IS, not "might be".
Being a law professor and all that, Obama fully understands the semantic difference between "when" and "if", and "is" and "might be".

The problem of course is that a jury in a civilian trial can be a real wild card, as it was in the OJ trial. They CAN and often do ignore compelling evidence if they get a bug up their ass about something the prosecution has done that chafes them.

KSM's "trial" is plainly going to be a show trial, but the real question is what "the show" is going to be about (and we all have a pretty good idea about what that's going to be), since its OBVIOUSLY NOT going to be KSM, since a military tribunal could have convicted and sentenced him to die a long time ago, saving the taxpayers a monstrously expensive spectacle.

The next question is if the Obama administration has intentionally setup a show trial for one man with a predetermined outcome and penalty, they've just proven they're OK with the notion of rigging civilian trials.

That is a pretty chilling revelation.

"...words matter..." -- Benjamin Cardozo

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 06:32 PM | Comments (235)
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.

Interesting thing about polls: When people like you, they claim to like everything about you. When they don't like you, they start saying they don't like anything about you.

That is why, for example, when Captain Wonderful was leading in the run-up to the 2008 election, pollsters reported the public claimed they actually trusted Obama on taxes more than McCain.

Taxes. And the deficit. And controlling government spending.

And for American Jews? They claimed they thought that Obama would be better for Israel.

Um, okay.

Just a tendency people have to blow off specific, secondary questions and just keep answering the same way they answer the primary, general question.

Which candidate is has a better understanding of the trauma experienced by captured pilots held hostage at the Hanoi Hilton for eight years? Why, Barack Obama, naturally!

I don't know if this poll finding really indicates that independents are waking up specifically to the fact that Obama is very deceptive and manipulative, or if it's just the standard "Yeah, he kind of sucks on everything" response, but either way, I likes it.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Posted by: Ace at 03:19 PM | Comments (215)
Post contains 221 words, total size 1 kb.

The latest sham number coming from the Democrats.

Among the reasons it is sham: It proposes $500 billion in Medicare "cuts" that 1, are likely to never, ever happen, or 2, which represent a true and undeniable reduction of services to the elderly. One or the other, or some mix of both.

First of all, let's look at the so-called "doctor fix" which is being used to bribe the AMA to support this abortion. In 1997, the government passed, supposedly, cuts to how much doctors would be paid under Medicare to "bend the curve" of long-term costs. (Sound familiar?)

Doctors quickly lobbied Congress, noting they were already taking a bath on Medicare patients, and if they were forced to take less money still, they'd have to begin turning them away.

Every year or two since then Congress has passed a "doctor fix" suspending the supposedly-required cuts to the payment schedule. Every year the AMA lobbies to have the "cuts" put off another year, and every year Congress does so.

Now, in 2009, to pay off the AMA -- which is frankly sick of lobbying for this legislation every year -- Obama and the Democrats propose the "doctor fix," a ten year suspension of cuts that were supposedly mandated back in 1997.

For 12 years these cuts have been put off on a year-by-year basis. To pay off the AMA for its purchased support, a "doctor fix" will be passed suspending the phantom cuts for 10 more years.

Obama's plan will supposedly save money by reducing Medicare payments to the tune or $500 or $600 billion. And yet we have an instance here of cuts that were already suspended for 12 years and are now to be suspended for another 10, making what was supposed to be an effort to reduce long-term costs of federal health spending beginning in 1997 suspended until at least 2019.

And what do you think the odds are of the cuts taking place in 2019, when now we will have a full twenty-two year backlog of yearly cuts which are supposed to happen? I.e., in 2019, will doctor's rates really be rolled back to what they were supposed to be in 1997, 22 years earlier?

No: They will never occur.

And the cost of the ten year doctor fix? $250 billion, or thereabouts.

But Congress is supposedly quite serious, now, about carving $600 billion out of Medicare, and no sirree Bob, they won't be similarly suspending "required cuts" into the approximate timeframe of the events depicted in Dune.

Now, supposing, hypothetically, these cuts do in fact happen? Then seniors are denied about $600 billion in services they're now receiving. If you can follow this logic, we'll be saving money by denying seniors preventative, precautionary testing, because such tests are "unnecessary" when it comes to the elderly, while also saving money by providing the young and currently uninsured with preventative, precautionary testing, which is not only good medicine for the young, but also necessary, because testing early and often when it comes to the young actually saves us money in the long term. (Actually, it doesn't, and the CBO already said so, but notice how the same tests are "unnecessary" for the old and vitally necessary for the young.)

As I keep saying: We are talking here about taking $600 billion in benefits from a demographic that doesn't vote for Barack Obama in order to give it to a demographic that does, and nobody is supposed to notice this.

Incidentally, the doctor fix itself is therefore part and parcel of Obama's "reforms" and yet is being kept out of the bill itself so that the CBO is required (by law) to ignore it and report back, falsely, that the plan "saves" $127 billion.

It doesn't. First things first, the $250 billion doctor fix wipes that out and then some, and then on top of it, the CBO knows, but is not allowed to say, that Congress will likely not be cutting the alleged $600 billion in "savings," ever.

Let me just put in a centimeter, just to see how it feels.

Okay.

2074 Pages... And senators will have a full three days to read it before voting.

2074 pages. For your reading pleasure.

Posted by: Ace at 02:04 PM | Comments (233)
Post contains 756 words, total size 5 kb.

Behind the curve, but at least on the curve. more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:25 PM | Comments (191)
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

..for hitting the tip-jar, sincerely, and thanks to the cobloggers for doing that. As Andrew Sullivan once said, you know, it takes $120,000 a year just to pay for the bandwidth here.

It is unfortunate, however, that the day LauraW announces "Ace is on a pretty good roll lately" is the day I flake out until 3pm and then don't post until 2pm the next day, and then post erratically and lightly.

I meant to thank everyone yesterday but was too embarrassed about that late start. It really is incredibly helpful, especially with advertising rates so in the trashcan right now.

Posted by: Ace at 11:44 AM | Comments (364)
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.