REPUBLICAN REDEFINED » THE LIBERAL-DEMS

President Obama Bowing Again? Really?

T. CHRISTOPHER — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:24:22 +0000

You got it folks. Your Chief Executive was at it once again today bowing to his betters. At a gathering of world leaders at the Nuclear Security Summit President Barack Obama greeted Chinese President Hu Jintao with a hearty “I sure love this view of your loafers” and once again chipped away at the prestige and power of the office he holds. The President is making quite the habit of these little transgressions – although I doubt he sees them as such. He undoubtedly believes that taking such a “posture” makes him appear open-minded, enlightened, a renaissance man if you will; above the fold and humble even in his high office. Ridiculous! (PHOTO VIA DRUDGE)

The true ridiculousness of this little trend is that when he was caught the first time (when he bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia), the administration adamantly denied the Presidential bow and offered up a myriad of explanations for what the President was doing hunched over at the waist. If it was deniable behavior then, what the hell is it now?

REMEMBER THIS ONE? Photo via Left Coast Rebel

Justice Stevens to Retire

T. CHRISTOPHER — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 15:23:32 +0000

(January 20, 2009 - Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images North America)

Justice John Paul Stevens will retire mid-summer according to Fox News and the AP. The development comes as a surprise to no one as the eighty-nine year old Liberal Justice only took on one law clerk for the current term and has been very open about his desire to have President Obama choose his replacement. No definitive date for his departure has been set, but it appears he will step down when the Court goes into summer recess. That timetable would “theoretically” allow his replacement to be seated by the next term of the Court.

The somewhat reclusive Justice offered interviews to both the Washington Post and New York Times last week signalling that this decision was imminent. Stevens was nominated by Republican Gerald Ford Appointee 1975, and was confirmed by a 98-0 vote.

With his announced departure, attention has turned to the list of candidates on the table to replace him and speculation is already running rampant with 3-4 names emerging as the front-runners.

Elena Kagan – US Solicitor General and Former Dean of Harvard Law

Diana Wood – Chicago Court of Appeals

Merrick Garland – Washington Court of Appeals

Janet Nepolitano – Secretary Department of Homeland Security

Nepolitano is certainly the dark horse here, but the President has expressed a desire to find a nominee with a non-traditional background. It should also be noted that the other three names on the list here are only considered the front-runners at the current hour because of their place on the short list of candidates in the Justice Sotomayor nomination process. The President’s selection strategy could take him in an entirely different direction this time around, and we all know by now that he is capable of anything… and I mean anything.

With the ability to filibuster but not to vote down the nomination, Republicans will find themselves in a precarious position once this nominee emerges. If the President chooses a radical Lefty, the situation will undoubtedly improve as Republicans could stand on principle, but if the President chooses an air-tight ideological “unknown” the debate could be an interesting one and one that would likely divide Republican votes.

The short of it is this… It is clear that the President will choose a liberal. The only question is whether he will choose an outright, open, and proud liberal / radical or a closet Lefty similar to the cut of Stevens. The Left-Right balance of the Court will not be impacted either way but a hard-line radical liberal could impact potential outcomes as Stevens was seen as the “deal maker” amongst the current Members. This could be good or bad for both sides of the ideological spectrum – depending on how you see “blind” judicial matters being compromised in the name of ideology…

With that in mind, the President could use this nomination to choose a “moderate” – if he has the ability to find or distinguish a “moderate” among his gaggle of Left Wing affiliations at this point… or he could use this pick as his legacy selection. With control of the Senate inevitably swinging back to the GOP in 2010 and 2012, this may be his last opportunity to add a superlib of caliber near or equal to his own caste as Ginsburg’s retirement is likely to come in his successor’s first term – or if God truly has a sense of humor – President Obama’s second.

It should be an interesting Summer on Capitol Hill. With the Senate still feeling the aftershocks of Obamacare and the pending debate over the President’s nuclear agreement with Russia coming down the aisle, the addition of this little piece of business should prove to be quite the political football.

Drill Baby Drill?

T. CHRISTOPHER — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:09:44 +0000

In a move that appears out of character, unexpected, and generally inexplicable to tree-huggers everywhere, President Obama has reportedly decided to open up portions of the American coastline for offshore drilling… or is it?

NY TIMES: The proposal — a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations — would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean.

Under the plan, the coastline from New Jersey northward would remain closed to all oil and gas activity. So would the Pacific Coast, from Mexico to the Canadian border.

The environmentally sensitive Bristol Bay in southwestern Alaska would be protected and no drilling would be allowed under the plan, officials said. But large tracts in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea in the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska — nearly 130 million acres — would be eligible for exploration and drilling after extensive studies.

The move, when combined with the President’s new affection for nuclear energy, should send a message to all “moderate” Republicans that the President is willing to “compromise” to get their vote on proposed “cap and trade” legislation that will be taken up again in the Senate next month. Ready the Sunday circuit… Lindsey Graham is on his way. He has at least three weeks to prepare the nation for his move to the Left on this one, so don’t expect him to waste any time.

The Lonely Conservative is Skeptical to say the least…

I’m thinking he’ll allow the oil companies to do the heavy lifting before he swoops in and nationalizes the industry. That, and he’s trying to get moderates to go along with cap and tax.

Update: I should also have pointed out that any drilling that may occur won’t happen for years. So this move is largely symbolic.

Remember This???

Video via Michelle Malkin..

Adding a bit of Reason to the debate is Mr. Jackson at Political Realities…

So, I echo the calls for more drilling and I say we need to go about it quickly, as it has been much too long in the making already. We also have to understand that we can not rely on drilling alone. As much as it may pain both sides of this argument to work together on this, I don’t see any other way to do it. If all we do is push for more drilling and all the Democrats do is say no, no, no and delay it in every way possible, nothing will get done. New drilling will stop and in the years it will take us to get other energy sources up to speed, our country will become even more dependent on foreign oil. I think that is an unacceptable option.

Harold Ford Jr Opts Out of New York Senate Race

T. CHRISTOPHER — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:14:41 +0000

Former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford Jr. has apparently decided that a run for the Senate in his new state of New York is not in his plans for the Fall of 2010. According to the New York Times, Ford believes he could have won the nomination over Kirsten Gillibrand but saw that victory coming at a great price to his party because a tough primary race would have drained financial resources and improved the chances that a Republican could claim the seat. I guess its back to weekend punditry and Merrill Lynch for the “telegenic” Lefty...

NY Times: After traveling the state on a closely watched tour, he told friends that he could prevail but feared that an ugly campaign would leave the winner drained of cash and vulnerable to a Republican challenger at a time when the Democratic Party’s filibuster-proof majority in the United States Senate has evaporated. The New York Times reported his decision on its web site early Monday evening.

“I’ve examined this race in every possible way, and I keep returning to the same fundamental conclusion: If I run, the likely result would be a brutal and highly negative Democratic primary — a primary where the winner emerges weakened and the Republican strengthened,” Mr. Ford wrote in an opinion article that was posted on The New York Times Web Site on Monday night and appeared in Tuesday’s issue of the newspaper.

The possibility of a Senate campaign in New York by the telegenic Mr. Ford, who has been working as a vice chairman of Merrill Lynch and a political commentator on NBC since moving to New York in 2006, had riveted New York’s political world and touched off a furious behind-the-scenes effort to keep him out of the race.

NY Magazine: Ever since Ford, who moved to New York in 2006, said he was “weighing a bid” in early January, Democratic leaders have urged the Merrill Lynch vice-chairman not to run. Senator Chuck Schumer met with Ford one-on-one in an attempt to dissuade him, and even the White House offered support for Gillibrand.

Another Global Warming Miscalculation Confession

T. CHRISTOPHER — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:59:20 +0000

Global warming alarmists were dealt another blow this weekend by the most recent in a series of “admissions” that scientific data regarding the “man-made” phenomena may have been inaccurate or at least poorly calculated. You’ll be happy to know that there are no email controversies or general lack of fundamental office skills to blame for this one either. The scientists behind the aspect of global climate change theory that predicted a catastrophic rise in seal levels by 2100 are now “admitting” that their findings may have been somewhat inaccurate due to “one miscalculation” and a failure to “allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years.”

In a state of obvious shame, the scientists have retracted the paper that revealed the pending environmental disaster and will “invest in the further work needed to correct the mistakes.”

Via Althouse

“In a statement the authors of the paper said: ‘Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work. One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes.’”

Via the GuardianUK

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study “strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results“. The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.

Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.

Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper’s estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.

Do we really have to guess on this one? I mean come on… If it were an underestimate, don’t you think we’d be readying aircraft carriers and relief personnel for the coming flood? Check these scientists bank accounts, did they run off to buy a boat?

In all seriousness, I don’t know if I am more alarmed / troubled that so many have been cramming this nonsense down our throats for years or that they’re only admitting that they “may have been wrong” now that they’ve been exposed for the shady little scientists they really were in the first place? I mean would we have know about any of these “miscalculations” if ClimateGate hadn’t been revealed? Would these scientists have really staked their reputations and credibility on owning up to these errors if they didn’t fear being exposed on the back-end as frauds when none of this comes to fruition? I think not. Thank God for the shortcomings of email.

The Gateway Pundit had this to offer. A nice little reminder that our brilliant Chief Climatologist may need to run the numbers through that overused brain of his. “The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising….” I love it…

Come Thursday Prepared to Say Yes or We’re Going the Way of Reconciliation

T. CHRISTOPHER — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:16:11 +0000

(June 5, 2009 - Photo by Miguel Villagran/Getty Images Europe)

As I told you earlier, the President unveiled his “new and improved” health care reform proposal this morning ahead of Thursday’s bipartisan summit. As you might have expected, it was not well received by Republicans and is so convoluted, vague, and ubiquitous that the CBO can’t even score the thing without more information. Sounds like the perfect plan for confusing the hell out of Republicans and the American People as they decide whether or not to support the proposal in three days when they make their way to the cheap trick side show that is this “summit.”

As Republicans begin to rip through this “crap sandwich” as the Lonely Conservative calls it, they must also deal with the increasing possibility that their support means little to nothing. On the very conference call where the President’s people unveiled this lovely little piece of big government ridiculousness, they also offered a warning to the Right that they will move forward with or without them.

Via Plumline: In the course of unveiling Obama’s new health reform proposal on a conference call with reporters this morning, White House advisers made it clearer than ever before: If the GOP filibusters health reform, Dems will move forward on their own and pass it via reconciliation.

The assertion, which is likely to spark an angry response from GOP leaders, ups the stakes in advance of the summit by essentially daring Republicans to try to block reform.

“The President expects and believes the American people deserve an up or down vote on health reform,” White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said on the call.

Pfeiffer said no decision had been made how to proceed, pending the outcome of the summit. But he added that Obama’s proposal is designed to have “maximum flexibility to ensure that we can get an up or down vote if the opposition decides to take the extraordinary step of filibustering health reform.”

Translation: If the GOP doesn’t cooperate with us in any meaningful sense, we’re moving forward on our own.

Here’s House Minority Leader John Boehner’s response to the proposal and the threats of reconciliation…

“The President has crippled the credibility of this week’s summit by proposing the same massive government takeover of health care based on a partisan bill the American people have already rejected. This new Democrats-only backroom deal doubles down on the same failed approach that will drive up premiums, destroy jobs, raise taxes, and slash Medicare benefits.

“This week’s summit clearly has all the makings of a Democratic infomercial for continuing on a partisan course that relies on more backroom deals and parliamentary tricks to circumvent the will of the American people and jam through a massive government takeover of health care.

“The best way to protect families and small businesses in this time of economic uncertainty is to start over with a step-by-step approach to health care reform focused on lowering costs, and that’s exactly what Republicans are fighting for. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that the Republican bill reduces premiums for families and small businesses by up to 10 percent. The Republican bill reduces premiums by implementing common-sense reforms such as allowing Americans to purchase insurance across state lines. Despite their rhetoric to the contrary, none of the Democrats’ proposals – including the President’s – provides this much-needed reform in a manner that can actually be effective.

“Republicans are also standing with the American people by calling for health care reform to protect human life and not use taxpayer money to fund abortion. The Republican bill would codify the Hyde Amendment and prohibit all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion, which the President’s proposal would allow. Pro-life Democrats in the House have already pledged to vote against this provision. Health care reform should be an opportunity to protect human life – not end it – and the American people agree.”

I had formerly been of the mindset that Republicans should walk in and drop a proposal of their own on the President – and walk out. I think I have officially changed my mind. My new plan…. Every one of the Republicans invited to this party ought to gather on the steps of the Capitol Building and burn their invitations; and give the administration the “up or down” vote it wants in full view of the American people. Let the Dems go the path of reconciliation. It would be far better to be labeled the party of NO than to attach even one Republican’s name to this inevitable disaster.

Weasel Zippers thinks Dem’s lack the cojones to take this path if abortion language isn’t clarified.

Dave Poff at Red State had the quote of the day with this response to the administration’s call for an “up or down” vote.

You know, if we’re going to have laws forced down our throats against our will, however loudly we protest, when will we learn to just shout our mouths and wait for the memo telling us where to send the checks?

I’d like to think there is sufficient testicular fortitude within the GOP Leadership to tell the monarchy we won’t be attending the human sacrifice…and let them bleed themselves dry without our providing them the audience…but I don’t think such anatomy exists in sufficient quantities for Obama and the gang to bother listening.

Via Memeorandum

President Obama Releases “New Plan” for Health Care Reform

T. CHRISTOPHER — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:40:07 +0000

(July 29, 2008 - Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images North America)

Meet the new plan same as the old plan… The much anticipated health care reform proposal drafted “by the President” is now available for viewing online at the White House’s website. The President is meeting with the Conference of Governors and is not expected to address his plan today, but White House spokesmen will surely be out in full force as the day progresses. Here are a few of the high points to this “new” proposal.

Via Jamie Dupree

• Eliminating the Nebraska FMAP provision and providing significant additional Federal financing to all States for the expansion of Medicaid;
• Closing the Medicare prescription drug “donut hole” coverage gap;
• Strengthening the Senate bill’s provisions that make insurance affordable for individuals and families;
• Strengthening the provisions to fight fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid;
• Increasing the threshold for the excise tax on the most expensive health plans from $23,000 for a family plan to $27,500 and starting it in 2018 for all plans;
• Improving insurance protections for consumers and creating a new Health Insurance Rate Authority to provide Federal assistance and oversight to States in conducting reviews of unreasonable rate increases and other unfair practices of insurance plans

So the President’s proposal is out there folks. These people think we live under a Parliamentarian legislative system these days, so I say we call for that “confidence” vote and run the whole regime out of town. Who’s with me?

The release of this proposal is flatly ridiculous. The President has had over a year to weigh in on this thing and he has chosen to stay on the sidelines from day one until day 365 and growing. His entrance into the “debate” – if you can call it that – at the current hour is nothing more than a clever ploy to align himself with Congressional Dems as the victims of the Republican Party of NO. When the MINORITY party opposes this bill as they have those that have preceded it, they will set themselves up to serve as the fall-guys for health care reform’s failures.

I for one am eagerly awaiting Thursday’s bipartisan health care reform summit at Blair House. I cannot wait to see how the GOP responds to this one. I’d love to see everyone of them show up and say nothing the entire day. Just walk in the door and drop a Republican proposal on the table with a cardboard sign directing the American People to a website so they too can see the content. If the President can drop a proposal and call it “compromise” why can’t we?

Read the full White House press release here…

Michelle Malkin

Obamacare 2.0$ has been unveiled. Philip Klein sums it up: “Almost every provision in Obama’s new proposal will make it more costly than the Senate bill.”

You can read the repackaged government health care takeover plan here. Gone: Ben Nelson’s Cornhusker Kickback. Still there: Big Labor’s Cadillac Tax Exemption Buy-Off.

The Plumline has an email response from a spokesperson from Eric Cantor …

The Obama plan costs a trillion dollars, puts government in control of personal health decisions, and allows the government to set prices in the private market. That mirrors the Pelosi/Reid plans that have already been soundly rejected by the bipartisan majority of Americans.

Via memeorandum

The Obligatory Liberal Headline – “CPAC Speaker Bashes Obama, In Racial Tones”

T. CHRISTOPHER — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:04:57 +0000

(October 6, 2009 - Photo by Astrid Stawiarz/Getty Images North America)

You knew it was coming folks. A gathering of ten thousand conservatives in one place. That’s just a scene too ripe for the Left not to pick away at with the hope of finding one sound-bite to spoil the bunch. Don’t get me wrong, put 10,000 people in a room talking politics and there are bound to be some gaffes, but the one that the Left is choosing to focus on from yesterday at CPAC is nothing short of ridiculous. In a piece titled “CPAC Speaker Bashes Obama, in Racial Tones” Kate Zernike of the New York Times asks the question, “How can conservatives win the youth vote that overwhelmingly went for Barack Obama in 2008?” Her answer – “betting on using racial stereotypes.”

I read her piece three times through to see what she was citing as “betting on using racial stereotypes,” and in case you decided not to head over there to have a look, this is what she was apparently drawing upon. The speaker, Jason Mattera, author of soon to be released Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation referenced the President’s admitted cocaine use, spoke on two occasions in what Zernike characterizes as a “Chris Rock voice,” and closed his remarks by telling the crowd – in a Chris Rock voice - “Get your government off my freedom! AND “Yes, my brothahs and sistahs. Yes we can!”

Given that I clearly lack the necessary skill set to determine what shocks the conscience of the American people of 2010, I am at a loss sorting through this article to find the “racial tones” Zernike is referring to. I was unaware that speaking in a “Chris Rock” voice was racially offensive speech. If anything, I would have assumed it would have been a clear marker for satire in the most conventional use of the word satire. He was either mocking Rock, using his “voice” to mock the President, or simply trying to make a joke that if offensive, was so only because Rock has been living under a bridge somewhere in irrelevant land since the turn of the century. The more likely scenario that Zernicke is glossing over from her Manhattan-centered perspective is that Mattera is from Brooklyn – he talks just like Rock without even trying. Call me a stereotyping, racist, homophobe, or whatever you want to throw out there, but half of Brooklyn talks like that you twit.

Now I know recently some on the Right have taken on the role of language police. Many went after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for his Antebellum reference to then candidate Obama, and Former Gov Palin clearly wants the “R-word” stricken from the English language. I get that we have brought a fair amount of this upon “ourselves” (even though I thought both debates were pointless and ridiculous), but even with those chips on the table and the stupidity of those “controversies” fully admitted, have we really lowered the bar so far that this is considered racially insensitive language?

If it is, I have to tell you that I am absolutely screwed.

What a world we now live in if this is racist banter. I can’t even begin to conceptualize what is or isn’t appropriate use of the vernacular any longer if we are now condemning one another for offering up statements using “Chris Rock Voices.”

I understand that the Left is threatened by events like CPAC, and I don’t even fault them for trying to chip away at the credibility of those who speak there. Politics is a strange and foul beast that lends itself to forcing people to take sides. I write from a Far-Right perspective and Zernike clearly writes from a diametrically opposed position, so its only fitting that we would have some disagreements; but does it really have to come to this? Turning politics into a race-baiting minefield of censored speech and political correctness belittles her profession and distracts from the only debate that matters – the one devoted to preserving the greatness of this country for future generations. Its time to get past this sort of racial politics NY Times and Zernicke. I would think your bastion of progressive propaganda would be the champion of, rather than the impediment to, a move toward post-racial politics. You’re better than this folks. Get a clue.

Michelle Malkin offers up some personal perspective regarding Jason Mattera and his Brooklyn roots and accent….

Longtime readers know that fearless young conservative firebrand Jason Mattera has been a great friend of mine and of Hot Air’s for years. You also know from his countless videos that he’s got a Brooklyn accent thickah than an old-growth redwood tree. Yesterday, he gave a rousing, raucous speech at CPAC in Washington, D.C.

To the apparently untrained ears of a New York Times reporter, Jason’s Brooklyn accent = RAAAACIST!
No, really.

Here’s the video of the alleged “racial tones”… via Michelle Malkin

Ed Morrissey of HotAir caught up with Jason Mattera for an interview after word of the NY Times piece had spread around the conference. Have a look.

Two Dems to Cut and Run in Same Week?

T. CHRISTOPHER — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 04:58:31 +0000

By now you have certainly heard that Indiana Senator Evan Bayh has decided not to seek re-election this November opting to free himself from the “partisan” politics of Washington, but what you have probably not heard – unless you are a net-nerd conservative news junky – is that he may only be the first of a pair of Dem departures fleeing the hallowed halls of the United States Senate this week.

Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski has reportedly decided that she too will join Bayh in the ranks of the unemployed come November and not seek re-election according to Rich Vail at the Vail Spot who says…

I’ve just heard from an impeccable source that Barbara Mikulski, the Democratic Senator who is up for reelection this November, will choose to retire. Mrs. Mikulski is expected to make her formal announcement in the next few days.

Mrs. Mikulski seriously fractured her right ankle last fall just prior to Edward M. Kennedy’s death. Due to the severity of the fracture, she had to have open reduction surgery, that included the insertion of pins, as well as the use of special surgical boots, during recovery. She had tried to arrive in time for Mr. Kennedy’s funeral but was turned away.

Her recovery has been exceptionally slow and she is evidently still in a great deal of pain. Reportedly, she has told her physician that she does not desire to seek reelection. Additionally, friends and family have been saying in the near future she will announce her retirement. Because of the very slow recovery, she has been forced to use a wheelchair, a walker or a cane in order to get around.

One of her complaints is that the health insurance that is provided for Congress is “poor” with high deductibles and “limitations” on coverage. My contact tells me that she told an aide that she should have inserted in the ObamaCare bill an amendment to improve Congressional health insurance!

Mrs. Mikulski was first elected to the Senate in 1986, and thus is a very senior member of the Democratic caucus. Despite this seniority, she has never been offered any important chairmanships or leadership positions. Born on July 20, 1936, she is 74 years old, come July…it is perhaps fitting that she has choose this year to retire.

Call it old-age; call it partisan politics; call it unhappiness with her place in the Democratic hierarchy; call it whatever you want; but something is making these Dems fall on the sword for the party as we head toward November elections. I would love to assume it is just a result of weak candidates reading the “tea leaves” and sensing their ultimate demise, but I am more inclined to think a greater plan is unfolding here… The Bayh retirement was easily explained as personal (selfish) political posturing, but this defection is much more difficult to understand. I have no idea at the current hour what this retirement means if it these reports prove credible, but it could certainly open a window for Republicans to climb through this Fall. If Maryland is truly in play, all bets are off. Lets hope these reports are accurate…

Listed amongst Mikulski’s “stated” list of complaints…

A poignant response from the Lonely Conservative…

Oh, poor baby. Her salary and benefits are paid for by we the people, and she’s complaining that she has to pay out of pocket for some of her health expenses.

Note to Senator Mikulski on behalf of American taxpayers: You’re welcome.

Evan Bayh Doesn’t Love Congress Anymore

T. CHRISTOPHER — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:35:54 +0000

In what came as quite a shocker to much of the political community, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh announced that he will not seek a third term this November. In a speech delivered today, Bayh said “I love working for the people of Indiana; I love helping our citizens make the most of their lives; but I do not love Congress. I will not therefore be a candidate for re-election to the United States Senate this November.” He cited partisan politics and the ugly business of Washington as motivating factors for his decision, and reminded the audience that he was an “Executive at heart” – perhaps referencing his previous post as two-term Governor of Indiana or maybe just maybe hinting at a potential run at the White House. Pretty tough sledding it would be for a Democrat to run to the Right of President Obama in the primary, but who knows… I didn’t see this one coming either.

I had thought his drastic move to the center was an attempt to improve his chances for re-election to the Senate. Perhaps it was a precursor to something bigger. He did follow up that “Executive at heart” comment with a statement that he “valued his independence.” He may be considering a third party alternative ticket to really throw the 2012 election into a tailspin.

Noteworthy points to ponder on with this one…

Bayh is sitting on a $13 million war chest he raised for his re-election bid

Who will seek the Democratic nomination now that Bayh is out?

Michelle Malkin: Yikes, this wasn’t very considerate, was it?: “Bayh’s decision will set Dems scrambling for a replacement. The deadline to file to reach the ballot is Friday, meaning any Dem considering running for the seat must make a decision quickly.”

Full speech here…. via Breitbart TV via MSNBC

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Other McCain thinks there might be something bigger at play here – not a run for the White House but a run for the hills…

The Lonely Conservative thinks that “If Republicans play their cards right, there’s a chance they can take control of the Senate.”

Another Black Conservative is adding Bayh to the “another Dem to the too chicken to face the voter’s wrath column.”

Ruby Slippers updates that Harry Reid didn’t know about Bayh’s retirement.

Gay Patriot says “you have to move this one from lean Democrat to lean Republican.”

Atlas Shruggs isn’t buying the Democrats’ retirement strategy - “See the new face, same as the old face. See the new left, same as the old left.”

via Memeorandum

Allahpundit points out

“Remember that last-minute filing deadline that Ed talked about this morning, how Indiana Democrats would be forced to go through a caucus process because no one qualified for the ballot in time? Well, “no one” is on the verge of becoming someone.

Red State’s got the right idea. She claims she needs 500 signatures by tomorrow, especially from the 8th District, although she’d feel safer with 1,000. If you’re a conservative Hoosier and you get a knock on the door, you know what to do.