More fallout and the Vice president continues to shine.

7:04 a.m. You want me on that bunker you need me on that bunker.

7:06 a.m. The NYT tries to say these guys were radicalized in Gitmo, excuse time.

7:10 a.m. You can’t just beat your chest.

7:12 a.m. He is comparing the left position to a protestant televangelist, that’s gotta leave a mark.

7:16 a.m. Here is the Nicholson speech that they are talking about.

7:21 a.m. Of course they welcomed it they planed to upstage the Vice President and it blew up in their faces.

7:36 a.m. Did Freeman not just condemn Cheney et/al then say sometimes it has to be done.

7:38 a.m. Deutsch makes my point about the timing.

7:40 a.m. Grey is the new black? This sounds like waffling to me.

7:55 a.m. I don’t think it’s hard case at all, the blogs and the grassroots didn’t like big government conservatism and spoke out about it loudly.

8:04 a.m. There has never been a successful escape from stalag 13 a supermax prison. Is it just me or do these guys all sound like Klink?

8:07 a.m. Last time Liz Cheney cleaned all their clocks lets see what she does today.

8:09 a.m. Deutsch tries to bait Cheney into calling the president a liar, she not only doesn’t fall in the trap but point out the material isn’t released and Joe point out he can release it at any time.

8:11 a.m. Donnie loses the argument on the: If this is 9/12 I would say take out the steak knives. The point is EVERY DAY IS 9/12!

8:13 a.m. She is cutting him to pieces. She nails it once they are on US soil then the Federal judges can make rulings to make the difference.

8:14 a.m. He says things as a platitude. God this woman is good!

8:16 a.m. The NYT guy point out he was talking about the dangers of the world in 1993.

8:24 a.m. Donnie is right they are close in one respect, The White House is going to do what Cheney says, they are just going to say that they aren’t going to do it.

…not only will fox, MSNBC and CNN all carry both speeches but because they will finish before 11 a.m. RUSH will be able to pick apart both speeches on his show. It will be teed up for him, just what the White House doesn’t want.

I jumped over to CNN and watched the reporter tie herself in knots saying first that the republicans want the vice president to go away and in the very next sentence went on how the republicans have won a significant victory on this issue.

Oh and after 5 months of president Obama both president Bush’s and VP Cheney’s approval numbers are up (6 and 8 point respectively).

If those numbers keep up Romney will need to neutralize Cheney not Palin.

It has been suggested that the president is very wise scheduling a speech suddenly today against the former Vice president:

1) The Obama White House runs the savviest information ops of any White House in modern history. This is all about rebutting an increasingly effective exponent of aggressive counter-terrorism policies. 2) Why do it? The simple answer is that the public is listening to Cheney on the issues, and if the Democratic Congress’s decision this week to deny funding to close Gitmo is any indication, finger-in-the-wind politicians are listening, too.

Already today on Morning Joe Vice president Cheney’s speech is being called the “Republican response” even though it was scheduled long before the president making it seem a “me too” speech in perception. That’s smart right?

My opinion is different. These guys are falling into the Rush CPAC trap.

Consider a few months ago, the White House and Limbaugh traded barbs (the White House STILL hasn’t taken Rush offer of radio time cluck, cluck ) because of this the CPAC speech which would have normally been ignored by the networks was carried by both FOX and CNN live exposing his ACTUAL opinions and positions directly thousands of people who would have never heard a word he ever said unfiltered by the media. It’s hard to demonize someone when you have actually heard him someone yourself. The increased audience for Rush and the success of the Tea party movement show this.

Now if the president had not given his speech today, the vice president speech would have been given and individual sound bites would have been picked up by the MSM and spun according to their whims to favor the White House.

Instead because of the president’s speech Vice President’s speech will be covered live and unfiltered. The public will not only be able to hear his position articulated but also articulated in a speech that he has had time to write and develop. At best it could be a game changer for the debate, at worst people who have only seen a filtered or caricature of the vice president will see the real thing.Minds will be changed.

Meanwhile the president, a fine speaker, will be reading a speech developed quickly in response to political issues. He has a good staff and I’m sure the speech will not be bad, but it’s very nature is reactive and it is not credible to assert that a speech written over the course of a day will be superior to one developed over time.

Add to that the Vice president convictions and experience on the issues of government and the difference will be noticed!

The end result will be pressure to pressure a policy that keeps America safer. That makes us all winners.

Update: Michelle nails it:

I, for one, and gratified to see this White House forced to put national security on the front burner. If not for the forceful public defenses by Vice President Cheney of the aggressive, proactive measures the last administration took to keep us safe, the current commander-in-chief would be happily gabbling about solar panels and weatherization subsidies or somesuch.

Well Michael Graham is going on about the changes and charges concerning credit cards.

Since I’m not one to pay fees it means that I’ll be using my card much less if I don’t cancel them. Lucky for me there is this wonderful invention called Cash and another innovation called checks I will be using these new things more often. The end result will be as follows:

The first loser is of course the credit card company. They lose the 3% on every purchase that they were making from the people who accepted cards. Every new purchase and every bill I don’t pay with those credit cards is 3% they don’t make.

Since I will need the cash etc that means less discretionary spending that means retailers and resturants that I would normally have spent money at won’t get it. They Lose.

Since I won’t be earning Amazon coupons I’ll be going there less, I invariablly spend more than the coupon so those purchases go.

And of course the Amazon coupons that I would give as gifts are gone too, that much less those guys get.

There are some winners. Providers of necessary items and utilities win since they aren’t paying the 3% to the companies.

However the gas station loses since it’s cash on hand I won’t be getting the car wash I would get with my fill-up.

And since I’m waiting on the paychecks rather than a time of the month no extra stuff to buy at the supermarket.

This also means that I’ll be paying bills with checks instead of credit cards too so the

Since there is this wonderful invention called Cash and another inovation called checks I will be using these new things more often.

Hey if they don’t want my money I have no problem keeping it.

Jeff Jacoby gets it:

International consensus or no, the two-state solution is a chimera. Peace will not be achieved by granting sovereignty to the Palestinians, because Palestinian sovereignty has never been the Arabs’ goal. Time and time again, a two-state solution has been proposed. Time and time again, the Arabs have turned it down.

He also points out some pre-Israel history.

In 1936, when Palestine was still under British rule, a royal commission headed by Lord Peel was sent to investigate the steadily worsening Arab violence. After a detailed inquiry, the Peel Commission concluded that “an irrepressible conflict has arisen between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country.” It recommended a two-state solution – a partition of the land into separate Arab and Jewish states. “Partition offers a chance of ultimate peace,” the commission reported. “No other plan does.”

But the Arab leaders, more intent on preventing Jewish sovereignty in Palestine than in achieving a state for themselves, rejected the Peel plan out of hand. The foremost Palestinian leader, Haj Amin al-Husseini, actively supported the Nazi regime in Germany. In return, Husseini wrote in his memoirs, Hitler promised him “a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world.”

I thought it was the west bank and gaza that was the cause of the trouble? That’s what we’ve been told. He cuts to the chase:

To this day, the charters of Hamas and Fatah, the two main Palestinian factions, call for Israel’s liquidation. “The whole world” may want peace and a Palestinian state, but the Palestinians want something very different.

The only thing the Palestinians want from the Jews are their lives.

Update: Nordlinger hits it out of the park in his entire Impromptus today but these two paragraphs complement this post perfectly:

There are major Arab excuse-makers here by the Dead Sea — and the leading one, I would say, is Amr Moussa, the longtime secretary-general of the Arab League. He is the epitome, the purest representative, of the Old Guard. But you know who most of the excuse-makers are? Americans and Europeans. Middle Easterners themselves are far more likely to be candid and clear-eyed.

They’re the ones who have to live with these problems. They’re the ones who have to live with a lack of progress. Americans and Europeans can sit in their free societies, fat and happy, and say, “Damn those Israelis, and damn us meddling, injurious Westerners.”

Read it all.

I mentioned last week that it would take two generations before the damage from changes such as “Gay Marriage” shows up. (The two generations rule often works with positive things too btw) but Maggie Gallagher finds some effects that show up after only 5 years:

A further 36 percent of voters who oppose gay marriage agreed with the statement, “If you speak out against gay marriage in Massachusetts you really have to watch your back because some people may try to hurt you.” (Twenty-six percent agreed strongly.) Fifteen percent of voters who oppose gay marriage say they personally know someone who experienced harassment or intimidation because of their belief that marriage involves a man and a woman. (emphasis mine)

This can’t be, supporters of Gay Marriage are supporters of tolerance right?

The NOM/MFI Massachusetts Marriage Poll thus documents a fairly significant level of apprehension among voters who oppose gay marriage about the consequences of speaking openly or acting on their belief that marriage means a husband and wife.

Nothing like a little fear, particularly in a bad economy. Believing Catholics need not apply I guess.

What difference has gay marriage made five years later? Support for the idea that children need a mom and dad has dropped, and a substantial minority of people believe it is risky to oppose gay marriage openly.

Yet another reason for my boys to go.

…unfortunately the state they will raise the revenue is New Hampshire:

The Massachusetts Senate approved a 25 percent increase in the state sales tax by a veto-proof 29-10 vote on Tuesday.

and that’s not all!

On a voice vote, senators also agreed to lift an existing exemption from the sales tax on beer, wine and alcohol purchased in stores — a change that could bring an estimated $80 million for substance abuse programs.

One of those rare creatures in Massachusetts known as republican senators had this to say:

Opponents pointed out that, of the five states bordering
Massachusetts, only Rhode Island, at 7 percent, has a sales tax rate above 6.25 percent. Only eight states nationwide have a higher rate. They warned that the higher tax rate would hurt the state’s ability to recover from the recession.

“Maybe we should call this the New Hampshire economic stimulus
bill,” Senator Robert L. Hedlund, a Weymouth Republican, said with sarcasm.

Massachusetts isn’t a large state and New Hampshire is not more than 90 minutes from any point in the state. This is about as stupid as it gets.

There is a reason why New Hampshire has so much development just across the border.

I was reading the story to my son who starts college in the fall. He is an almost straight A student. He will make something of himself, but it won’t be in Massachusetts. He is exactly the type of person who is going to get out of here.

I’m nearing 50, my mother is 84 and has years ahead of her, I’ll be staying here but if this state doesn’t want my honor student boys then so be it.

And people wonder why there are tea parties…

Crashed on the couch after game night and woke to Morning Joe:

7:45 a.m. Did I just wake to see Chris Dodd talking credit cards, oh joy.

7:47 a.m. How can you question Dodd about his troubles and not mention Countrywide or the Irish Cottage?

7:49 a.m. Joe forgot the last line of the quote…go and avoid this sin.

7:52 a.m. This guy Rubin seems to be cheering $4 gas. He should be thinking WWGPD? What Would Gateway Pundit Do? He would Drill!

8:05 a.m. More people get killed on the roads and new cars become more unaffordable, also Since steel is removed US steel makers take another hit. Plus the taxpayer will end up paying for the re-tooling as Rush said

8:07 a.m. The problem is the price of the car, I haven’t bought a new car in almost 20 years, they are too expensive. This is due to the Union costs

8:09 a.m. The Gitmo trap has bit them on the rear, and Mika is actually spinning a bit on the we didn’t build Gitmo.

8:16 a.m. Ford talks sense.

8:28 a.m. Barnicle’s doctor is Ryan’s uncle. Small world.

8:32 a.m. Specifics from a pol. Amazing!

8:45 a.m. Yeah Cheney is bad, that’s why Obama and Pelosi is running away from their Gitmo and Waterboarding stuff.

8:47 a.m. I would point out that Goldwater led directly to Reagan.

Picking up on the post yesterday concerning the supreme court something hit me this morning.

As you might have gathered I have a beef against the 60’s. I think the cultural changes have produced a lot of problems but there have been some changes of a very positive nature and one of the results of those changes is before us.

Professor Hutchinson and I have a chicken and egg argument in that would like to see “diversity” highlighted as a reason for a choice while noting that there are many qualified candidates who meet that test. I wish to see qualifications highlighted and diversity de-emphasized but note that there are plenty of “diversity” candidates that meet the qualifications standard that I have and if that standard is achieved I’m satisfied.

The amazing and wonderful thing is the increase of the pool of “diverse” candidates that are without a doubt qualified for the position.

Think 1968, there is no question that Thurgood Marshall would be a on short list for the supreme court in terms of qualifications but how large would be the pool of “diverse” candidates with his qualifications existed? Or at least were known by the general public?

Fast forward two generations we are having the debate over a new opening on the court. If the president wants to make a choice based on color or race it is actually much harder, not because of the breaking of a barrier but because of the number of qualified candidates to choose from, in fact it would take real effort for the president to choose an unqualified “person of color”.

This is an incredible thing, and the country should celebrate this fact. This is the ultimate success of the civil rights movement and the reason why at the time affirmative action was not a bad idea. The moves made two generations ago produced the pool of qualified candidates and assures us of that pool from this point on.

President Johnson had the problem of getting the country to accept a supremely qualified candidate for the high court who happened to be black. President Obama has the opposite problem, choosing one candidate from a large pool of supremely qualified candidates.

The fact that nobody notices how wonderful this is , shows how far we’ve come. Life is pretty good and we don’t even realize it.