Joe Biden is full of hot air.

Literally.  And live on air too.

Schiff memo a trap? No problem.

According to a Hot Air report, the Democrats' own memo on the FBI investigation is not intended for release, rather it's purpose is as a trap for the president:

Democrats warned that releasing the Nunes memo would damage national security. Some who looked at the memo after its release didn’t really see how that would be the case. But it turns out Democrats could have been describing their own memo. According to a report at Fox News, the Democratic rebuttal memo is loaded with information on sources and methods in an effort to put the White House in a bind.

If it's a trap, it's an easy fix:  give the memo to the FBI and have them determine what needs to be redacted. It would show that the president is trying to work with the FBI to protect sources.  That diffuses the Schiff memo trap and might even come off as conciliatory. Problem?  No problem.

Down the Rabbit Hole

If the underworld of American government is going to be exposed, be prepared for it to get much more shocking. To appropriate the words of The Carpenters, we've only just begun with this stuff.  Here are some examples just from today.

Anti-Trump Strzok says Mueller probe is a nothingburger. (Via The Daily Caller)

Missing texts were probably deliberately deleted. (Via Hot Air)

The volume of unmasking requests increased exponentially in the same time frame as the missing Strzok-Page text messages. (Via Gateway Pundit)

They conspired to try to wrap up the Clinton email investigation and sweep it under the rug (Via Hot Air).

First the IRS destroyed emails pivotal to our investigation of their political targeting. 

Now the FBI "failed to preserve" texts between Peter Strzok & Lisa Page following the '16 election. 

The time for a second special counsel is now.https://t.co/BonrBlsJsB

— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) January 21, 2018

This is the cost of the mainstream media not doing their job - their liberal icons from former president Obama and Hillary Clinton all the way down to the DOJ and FBI agents run amok doing whatever they want with no fear of consequences, no matter the crimes.  The fifth estate should be ashamed for giving Democrats a free pass for the last decade (and in fact far longer). Sadly, they'll just continue thinking that they are on the right side of history and that their acts of turning a blind eye to one side while relentlessly persecuting the other is morally wrong and it's own form of tyranny.

I soooo want this to play out.

Again? Really?

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey is reporting that Hillary Clinton is establishing a shadow DNC (Democratic National Committee) to compete against...the DNC:

Old and busted: Buying the DNC. New hotness: Competing against it. NBC News reports that former aides of Hillary Clinton have launched a new super-PAC that looks an awful lot like a campaign. Party Majority, NBC reports, will “act as a parallel structure to Democratic party committees at the national and state levels,” while remaining in the hands of “Clinton world,” as Jonathan Allen characterizes it later...

Eventually, Democrats would have figured this out anyway. The question remaining is why Party Majority and “Clinton world” wants to do this in parallel with the party rather than within the DNC itself, as Priebus did, which would increase its durability. The obvious answer to that would be control, and in the context of Hillary’s former grip on the DNC, it’s also probably the correct answer, too. “Clinton world” wants to act as kingmaker in the 2020 cycle, or perhaps operate as a platform to give Hillary a third shot at the White House by again locking out any competition early by monopolizing GOTV resources and cash.

As Ed notes, it's not like the DNC, which is currently busy shaking off the Clinton stranglehold, is going to stand by and just let this happen. They're bound to push back.

Instead of working together, which is not the Clinton style, this is probably going to turn into a street fight. The DNC vs. Party Majority could last right down to election day 2020, with the Democrats forwarding a candidate and Hillary Clinton running as an independent, both siphoning votes from each other and ensuring a president Trump second term. There's down ballot implications as well.

That's not the only possible outcome. There could be an eventual coming together, provided Hillary re-establishes her stranglehold on the DNC. That would also bode well for president Trump as she has proven to be a stiff, unfriendly, shrill and generally unlikable and unwinnable candidate. Other possibilities will present themselves along the way, but the thought of a knockdown drag out fight between Clinton and Biden bloodying each other prior to the general election is just too rich not to want it to happen.

For Bush, family>country>politics

No political capital left, so buh-bye.

Via Hot Air, former president Bush finding his voice to criticize Trump is now real;

In 2009, less than two months after Obama was sworn in, Dubya had this to say about criticizing the new president:

“I’m not going to spend my time criticizing him. There are plenty of critics in the arena,” Bush said. “He deserves my silence.”…

“I love my country a lot more than I love politics,” Bush said. “I think it is essential that he be helped in office.”

Four years later he was still true to his word. Now he’s crapping on Trump. As a certain losing presidential nominee might say, what happened? It can’t be tactical.

Allahpundit goes on to speculate that it's personal.  It is. Bush cannot apply one standard to Obama and another to Trump without his motivation being questioned.  If what he says about country being greater than politics is true, then by extension, he should not criticize president Trump either.  But he has.  That means there has to be something greater than country.  That would be family.  Then-candidate Trump was pretty harsh on Jeb Bush, and he's family.

The Bushes seem as incapable of any level of self-reflection; Jeb Bush regardless of Trump, was not going to win the Republican nomination for president.  Even if he did he would have lost to Hillary Clinton.  Putting Clinton ahead of Trump from the perspective of most Republicans is not putting country first.  A Clinton presidency would have been the final nail in the coffin of America's future.  Either they're ignorant of that fact or clearly the Bush's took Jeb Bush's loss personally. 

For a family that prides itself on putting service to country first, this is a bad reflection on that image.

Thursday Hillary Bash - outsourced again

Larry O'Connor over at HotAir had a great piece on Monday concerning Hillary Clinton's multitude of lies in her Sunday interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace.  It's so good, I've decided to link back to it and I urge you to go read it. I'm outsourcing I know, but this is worth it.

The volume of lies in just that single encounter is truly disturbing and instructive of her broader pattern of falsehood behavior.

For Trump, as goes Iowa, so may too go the nation

Donald Trump is polling well in Iowa, and as pointed out by Allahpundit at HotAir, new GOP registrations in Iowa are up quite a bit, and they don't appear to be typical Republican voters.  Conversely, Allahpundit points out that Trump's ground game in Iowa, is not looking so great.

That is the current GOP race in a microcosm. Donald Trump is winning the publicity war, and he's attracting non-traditional Republican voters, possibly faster than he's offending traditional ones.  He's also winning a non-traditional campaign battle and possibly losing, heavily in a traditional one.  GOTV (get out the vote) efforts are a super critical part of a winning strategy.  It's true in primaries but especially true in caucus states.  And Iowa being the opening one, merits special attention.

This speaks more to what a winning strategy might be than the merits of the individual candidates.  If Trump's strategy works in Iowa, he could be impossible to beat.  But if he comes in anywhere but first, even a strong second, leaves him particularly vulnerable.

If I'm Ted Cruz, or any other candidate, I can speak to Trump's lack of planning, lack of organization and lack of foresight to even tend to a ground game, as a strong indicator that Trump's leadership skills are not what he claims they are.  I would argue he's all sizzle and no steak.  His campaign is about his personality and not his actual ability to plan and organize - and that's because, apparently he can't.

So, as Iowa goes for Trump, so may too go the nation.

The right to disrespectfully disagree

Culled from the articles on HotAir, a recent Allahpundit entry discusses a poll that indicates only 36% of Americans believe that they have the right to blaspheme religion.

The problem? Of course you have the right to blaspheme. The real question is whether it's a good idea or not. The real problem as Allahpundit points out is the high number of "I don't know" answers. Yes people could be interpreting the question to mean should you do it.

Other than that Allahpundit does his level best to try and interpret the results. The problem is, there's too little information - about how the question was asked, the wording itself, respondents' views on religion and on civics, their knowledge of their rights - to explain it.

My takeaway from the survey is that it is a single dot in the snapshot of the American political and/or moral and/or civics landscape and as a standalone exercise it means and explains very, very little and can be disregarded. For now.

That aside, everyone has the right to disagree with the precepts of any religion. They have the right to do so respectfully or disrespectfully. The decision to do so disrespectfully should be carefully considered and not undertaken lightly. To insult someone has consequences. Those consequences should come in the form of counter argument, boycotts, perhaps even shaming. But to voice your opinion is, pardon the reference, a God-given right. No terror group can take it away from you. ISIS and Al Qaida believe they have that right, indeed obligation to do so. It would appear a number of Americans require a reminder, or a lesson, that such is not the case.

Refining the small government movement

The best approach: Defend aggressively, advance slowly.

Back in 2011, I commented on a Hot Air article about the Conservative party in Canada and their chances of winning elections but the focus of my comment was more about how Canadian conservatives are not less conservative than those in America, we are simply faced with a different reality.  But it's one that provides a lesson on how to move America back to the right, and in retrospect, one that requires a little additional nuance to it. As I wrote in response to Ed Morrissey's point about Canadian conservatives being less so than our American counterparts;

The conservative party of Canada is far less of a center-left party than you suggest. While it is not currently conservative in the sense of American conservatism, it’s still a center-right party. The way it governs is affected by the country as a whole. The conservative government is hampered by decades of liberalism and socialism, so moving the country back to the right will take considerable time. The country fears conservatives as being radicals and Prime Minister Harper has had to temper his lower taxes, stronger national defense, pro-business views to suit what is still a center-left country that is slowly testing the waters with a conservative government (three elections later).

Harper’s prudence isn’t as exciting as Reagan or Thatcher in a full on charge to the right, but it’s the smartest approach in a country ready to run back to the liberals at what it regards as the slightest hint of radical conservatism...

In short - in Canada we have had to take baby steps back towards the right, not giant leaps. Our electorate needed to learn to be comfortable with the positives of conservatism and will only eschew the liberal rhetoric about us over time. Canada is now more comfortable with a conservative government than it was in 2011. The same logic holds true in the United States. As I've written about many times, Democrats and their progressive ilk have successfully pushed the U.S. to the left over the course of decades by moving the ball slowly, while occasionally taking advantage of a crisis to move the ball a lot more all at once. That's because they know, as Rush Limbaugh has often pointed out, that if they were up front about their true intentions, voters would balk en masse.

That seemed true until the current president bought into his own hype and decided that the country was fully behind him on the aggressive march to the left. You see how that's worked for him. His re-election was arguably an incumbent's advantage win. He has met with growing resistance and weaker job approval year over year. That's because Americans want change to be managed, not a headlong, ill-planned plunge into something new.

As many have argued - an aggressive refutation and loud opposition to the progressive liberal agenda is definitely necessary. But if the GOP wins in the midterms and wins the next presidency, should they engage in a headlong plunge back to the right, or manage the walk back and advancing the agenda in a smart, organized and palatable way? Obviously that's a bit of a rhetorical question.

The lessons of Canada and of Obama's leftward plunge apply. Replacing an extremely liberal agenda with a very conservative one will accomplish two things - a lurch of change that will be as mismanaged as Obamacare, and a knee-jerk reaction from voters wiling to test the waters of conservatism.

That's an unfortunate situation since the country clearly needs to be brought back to smaller government, fiscal conservatism, non-interventionist courts, American exceptionalism etc. in a big, big way. Obama has slid and/or allowed the nation to slide into a disgusting malaise of lowered respect, lowered expectations and a dead end, debt-riddled future without a future.

But with so much to accomplish, in order to govern effectively, there is a need to prioritize. That in itself will help manage the return to the right and make it a more orderly change. The best way to prioritize what needs to be done is to look at the low hanging fruit first - where there is major agreement on the right, indicates itself as a good place to start. For example, rolling back Obamacare is an easier sell on the right than pretty much any social issue or an issue of libertarian smaller military vs. conservative defense hawks.

With each issue tackled, there is a need to move cautiously and intelligently forward. A simple repeal might be something most every conservative can agree upon, but it is way to easy for the liberal media to frame as bringing America backwards. Armed with Congressional Budget Office proof, the GOP could move forward with an intelligent mix of their dozens of proposals that the Democrats and media ignored while claiming the GOP had no plan. The message - we are not returning to the status quo, we are moving forward but in a different direction than the previous president with ideas that are more cost effective, will help more people, offer more alternatives to people and be simpler to understand.

Each area will eventually snowball and it will give people a chance to adjust as it grows its own momentum. That's what Obama has been trying to do with all of the delays to Obamacare. The difference is that the president is attempting to hide the true cost, the true implications, from voters. The GOP will necessarily have to be up front about their real goals, more choice, and lowered costs. The approach of slow and steady is a necessary evil for America.

Because charging headlong never works. I know, I've posted this before, but it's still funny and apropos here.  (more below the video):

One last point - the advance slowly notion need not be equally applied in all areas. If there is a true emergency with the national debt for example, perhaps a bit of not letting the crisis go to waste becomes not only feasible, but advantageous to conservative ideals.

Quote of the Election cycle, 2014

To everything there is a season.  In an analysis of a Larry Sabato analysis of the potential for Republicans to gain Congress and the Senate this year, and in which Sabato states that this cycle will the Republicans' to lose, Ed Morrissey notes that Sabato poins to the the potential of a GOP big win.  That is, if the GOP keeps the focus on Obamacare and conservatives don't shoot the GOP in the foot.

To the latter point, Morrissey sums up the situation perfectly:

In this case, we’re better off getting Republicans elected rather than spending this election in a purification effort. Right now, the majority has got to be the priority.

Truth. 

Another Feinstein mess you've gotten us into

I first saw this this morning on Hot Air.  It left me incredulous.  How is this woman allowed to sit as a senator?  She is either incredibly vapid or a villainous liar, complicit in the Obamacare lies and deception.  Read the article at Hot Air - Ed Morrissey articulates very well what I'm too aghast to convey just yet.

Quote of the Day

It's only Monday or this gem from Allahpundit at Hot Air, would get quote of the week.  As a matter of fact, I don't see anyone topping this one this week.

Said O this weekend of his massive technological faceplant, “Folks are working around the clock and have been systematically reducing the wait times.” No doubt that’s true; the shutdown might stop the feds from manning the Amber Alert site, but rest assured they’ll find a loophole to keep repairs to Healthcare.gov humming.

Summing up the hypocrisy of the White House, while pointing out the complete failure of the Obamacare web portal in two short sentences is quite impressive.

Thursday Hillary Bash - National Journal Edition

Ed Morrissey ar Hot Air beat me to this story, but let's face it, he is full time, better funded, and let's face it, more talented than me.

Hillary Clinton may have missed her window thanks to Obama's tenure.  That seems to be the case the liberal National Journal is making, or at least hinting at now. The question asked - is she peaking too soon?

Crack organizers from President Obama's campaigns are the latest political honchos to join the Clinton-for-president movement and, like others involved, they say they are just trying to make things "Ready for Hillary" if she decides to run. But the bandwagon effect is fueling an "inevitability" narrative that damaged Clinton in 2008, and is allowing her no reprieve from politics.

The Ready for Hillary super PAC announcement of a partnership with 270 Strategies, coming on top of earlier testimonials from prominent Democrats, feeds the impression that the non-existent Clinton campaign is a runaway train about to reach top speed (albeit without an engineer at the controls). Former Clinton campaign aide Mo Elleithee says the actual significance of the new partnership is merely that "there are a lot of people that want her to run. That's all it means. She is not in this race yet, and there's no guarantee that she ever will be."

The early and intense focus on Clinton recalls 2008, when she was wrongly assumed to be the prohibitive front-runner for the Democratic nomination. The constant spotlight now means Clinton remains a political target even as friends and associates say she is trying to focus on advocacy, speeches, and writing a book about her tenure as secretary of State. "What they're doing is fantastic," Elleithee says of Ready for Hillary, but "I do think it is adding to the hyper-politicization of every move she makes." He says her advocacy for women, children, and families, a lifelong crusade, is more important to her right now than politics.

As Morrissey points out, Clinton may look even more like yesterdays news by 2016, even as nostalgia for her may grow as the Obama presidency plays out. But there's another possible dynamic at work. There is no evidence being proffered that she has indeed reached a peak. She may still be ascending.

A better question might be is her trajectory one guaranteed to supersede other potential contenders? If the economy stays tepid at best, might a popular Democrat governor like (now Senator) Mark Warner be most appealing to Democrats?  If the hope and change isn't complete yet, might someone like Andrew Cuomo or more likely a Deval Patrick have a better shot?

Clinton is by no means inevitable, but as conservatives have been surprised by expected weak opposition in the recent past (both Bill Clinton, and Obama), who the candidate becomes, is probably less important than the connectivity of the message they craft versus the message of their Republican opponent composes.

Can Romney Win?

The man with the plan.

Of course Mitt Romney can win the presidency. There's a lot of polling trying to convince voters that Obama has the election wrapped up but those are potentially misleading.  There were two articles on Hot Air today about Romney possibly changing direction because, as the press wants voters to think, they need a course correction to avoid an utter humiliating defeat. The first post by Ed Morrissey points out that the comical media narrative has lost it's focus.  The second by Allahpundit notices that maybe there are some truths in one stream of the narrative.  But while there is a media-contrived narrative in play, there are some dots that can still be connected.  So let's connect them.

Romney spends to win Florida

This won't work against Obama.  Via Hot Air;

Update: Romney and his PAC spent $15 million on ads in Florida. Total number of positive ads he ran in the state: One. It ran 15 times. And it wasn’t even in English.

His spending advantage against Obama will be a proportional disadvantage in the general election.

Why Giffords' Congressional pay cut idea isn't good.

Tina Korbe at Hot Air has some praise for a Gabriel Giffords idea to lower congressional pay. Too bad it's not really a good idea.

Good reading for Friday

I don't think I'll have time to post anything today, so here are some posts from elsewhere worth reading.

Frankenstein Government mourns America's lost rule of law.

Chicks on the Right notice the lack of fairness too.

Legal Insurrection updates us on the good and bad of the cyber wars.

Hot Air observes that Romney is in Newt trouble.

The Scott Carp Dream reminds everyone of some of the pearls of wisdom of Obama.

Grant at What We Think and Why, sees that the transparency is not transparent. 

Reaganite Republican replies to Newt-bashers; So what?

The Warrior Bard looks at Obama, SEIU and OWS.

Bonsai from the Right looks at the link between Occupy Portland and the Democratic party.

What in the world? Verum Serum gives props to...Anderson Cooper?  And the Western Experience praises...Paul Krugman?

A Cop's Watch reminds us about China's military ambitions via Stratfor.

Western Hero on the race to the bottom.

Diogenes brings us some happy news.

The national debt meanwhile, has moved past $15 trillion but the debt super-committee is super confused.

Palin: Still Not Running

Nope.

Allahpundit at Hot Air has a piece today about the faint hope speculation that Palin might still be reconsidering a run for President.  The logic behind the late bid is that it is possible, not plausible.  Read the piece here for the details on why there is a glimmer of hope for Palinistas.

But the reality of the situation suggests otherwise.  It's too late.  The game plan Allahpundit maps out in fun, is just that - in fun.  There's no way to make that scenario work.  It's too late for Palin to run in 2012.*

If she wishes to remain relevant, she's going to have to run for office somewhere as a step on the road to political recovery.  She stretched out her indecision too long to come back with a 'no'.  If she wants to contend in 2016 or 2020, some Senate, Congressional or more gubernatorial resume building is required.  It serves three purposes.  

Firstly, it adds to her resume, which many regard as too thin.  While it's not as thin as Barack Obama's was, no one needs another rookie president.  Fair or not, Palin needs at least four years of profile political experience.  That means not in Alaska, either in Washington in Congress or the Senate or as a governor in another state.  Executive experience is preferable.  Another option might be as Energy Secretary, although that could be limiting unless wildly successful.  Following Steven Chu bodes well for a superior performance - there'd be no Solyndras under Palin.  However the bureaucratic nature of a federal department 

Secondly it serves to give her time to rehabilitate her image.  While Democrats loath her and will continue to do so, she needs to win over Independents and Republicans who have accidentally swallowed the MSM Kool Aid and believe she's an airhead. The damage repair to her perceived persona could take years.  The time would serve her well in that capacity.  

Thirdly, somewhat related to the second point,  it provides her some more political seasoning and helps with damage control for her jilted followers.  She has to prove she wants to be in the fight.  After leaving Alaska prematurely, and not running in 2012, the image may be forming that she doesn't want to run for anything anymore.  If she doesn't, that's fine, but if she ever does, she's got to get back on that political horse now or she will be seen as not at all interested.  Waiting two years to start her comeback will make it far more difficult to achieve.

She may not be running now, but she could conceivably start her comeback now.  Ronald Reagan didn't win in 1976 and it only made him stronger.  The potential for Palin is still there for the future, if she starts doing the legwork now.

*there is always the convention option.  But I don't see that as a likely scenario either.

The Cain Smoking Man Ad and Rush Limbaugh

Last night on Twitter there was a brief flurry over the latest Herman Cain Ad.  The controversy is over the "smoking man" at the end of the clip.  But I really don't think that's the problem.

DeMint Losing It?

Um, what???

Jim DeMint is reportedly set to endorse...Mitt Romney, according to a Roll Call.article. Setting aside whether the article is true, would it benefit Romney, or would it harm DeMint?

Mitt Romney is the favorite to receive Sen. Jim DeMint's (R-S.C.) much-sought-after endorsement in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, according to knowledgeable GOP sources.

DeMint, who endorsed the former Massachusetts governor in 2008, made clear in an interview late last week that he has made no decisions on whom he will support in the 2012 primary. But Republican operatives familiar with the DeMint-Romney relationship and privy to the conservative Senator's private assessment of the GOP field believe Romney is the most likely candidate to receive the backing of the tea party favorite. 

"Jim is far more likely to endorse Mitt than anyone else currently in the race," a Republican with South Carolina ties said. "Jim is a business guy and that's his background. He's not really the good ol' boy conservative type. So Mitt in a lot of ways is a more comfortable fit for him."