Via David Nir, the winning candidate in the NY-26 special election mentions Medicare and raising taxes on the rich:

Tonight we showed that many voters are willing to ignore a party label and vote for the person and for the message they believe in. We showed that thousands upon thousands of voters are more powerful than millions of dollars in outside money. We showed that our grassroots army – including thousands of donors and thousands of volunteers, who knocked on more than 53,000 doors and made more than 77,000 calls and over the last four days –could overcome our enrollment disadvantage and the fact that we were outspent by more than 2-to-1.

[. . . W]e can balance our budget the right way—- not on the backs of our seniors——but by closing corporate loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas, and ending subsidies to Big Oil and yes, by making the multi-millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share.

And we can ensure we do not decimate Medicare. We will keep the promises made to our seniors who have spent their lives paying into Medicare, so they can count on health care when they need it most.”

(Emphasis supplied.)

Seniors vote. Always have and always will. Let seniors get a whiff that you will vote against their interests, then you should be scared. Last night, Dems won a special election in a very red congressional district, NY-26. The issue was Medicare and the GOP plan to dismantle it. How will the GOP react? Almost as interesting is how will Obama and the Dems react. The guy in charge of electing more House Dems, Steve Israel, was hammering on Medicare:

This isn't about a three-way race," said Israel. "This is about three issues: Medicare, Medicare and Medicare. Independents and seniors, if you look at the polling, are voting for the Democrat and when you ask them why, they say Medicare.

Some Dems seem willing to throw away the issue (see Steny Hoyer.) I trust the Obama Team will have more sense than that, but who knows? Paul Ryan, now the face of the GOP on Medicare, seems unwilling to go away:

According to the news, things don't look good for John Edwards. The grand jury is winding down, and a decision is expected this week or next. I think the Grand Jury there meets on Thursdays, twice a month, but that could have changed.

Some say he'll either be indicted or have worked out a plea deal, but he won't get off scott-free. The likely charges, according to the anonymous sources: The money from Heiress Bunny Mellon, which he treated like a gift rather than a campaign contribution. [More...]

52 votes for cloture not enough.

Joan McCarter has some precious quotes from the GOP on how they would NEVER filibuster a judicial nominee:

Senator Saxby Chambliss (GA): “I believe [filibustering judicial nominees] is in violation of the Constitution” (4/13/05).

Senator John Cornyn (TX): Judicial filibusters are “offensive to our nation’s constitutional design…. [S]eparation of powers principles strongly suggest that the Senate may not—and especially not by mere Senate rule—enhance its own power in such a manner without offending the Constitution” (2004). [More . . .]

Paul Krugman:

On health care costs, [Paul Ryan] declared that “Our plan is to give seniors the power to deny business to inefficient providers.” Remember, what the plan actually does is hand out vouchers whose value will fall well short of the cost of coverage. So how much power do those Americans who can’t afford decent health insurance have right now in their dealings with providers? If you think people who don’t get coverage through their employers have the upper hand, you believe that the Ryan plan is empowering.

(Emphasis supplied.) In what way is Krugman's criticism of RyanCare not applicable to the exchanges in ObamaCare?

Speaking for me only

Via Greg Sargent:

"It is a flag we’ve planted that we will protect and defend. We have a plan. It’s called Medicare.” - Nancy Pelosi

You know, this would be a winning political message for President Obama.

Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has provided the LA Times with a statement admitting he fathered a child with a household staffer more than ten years ago.

The mother of the child worked for the family for 20 years, until January. She left on good terms. Arnold financially provided for the child since birth. [More...]

Never in a million years could I ever imagine writing about Kim Kardashian (pictured) and her sister Kourtney going global; but here I am. - Link

Donald Trump's decision to play the "I may run for President" publicity card and amp it up to 11 this year is doing serious damage to the Trump brand. This is significant to the Trump business interests as the reality is the myth of of Donald Trump, Master Builder, business genius, is a fabrication. Donald Trump has successfully built a licensing business - he licenses the Trump name. In that sense, Trump is a business genius the way Kim Kardashian is - though in fairness to the Kardashians, they did not start out with a family fortune, just some vague celebutante status. Today, the New York Times reports:

“I have made myself very rich,” [Trump said] recently, sitting in his palatial suite at the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas. “And I would make this country very rich.” But regardless of whether Mr. Trump ultimately seeks the presidency, his attempt to promote himself as a savvy financial manager who can lead America out of its economic rut is bringing new scrutiny to his own business practices.

This scrutiny is revealing that Trump is a flim flam man. More on the flip.

Paul Krugman has ignited a debate about whether the catastrophic decade we have lived through (and continue to suffer from) was due to "the Elites" or "the People." Kevin Drum writs:

Who's to blame for our fiscal problems of the past decade? Paul Krugman says elites deserve a lot more of the blame than the general public, but Dan Drezner disagrees: the public, he says, was in favor of tax cuts and in favor of the Iraq war, so they deserve a big chunk of the blame too. [. . .] Despite this broad support, nobody was crying out for either huge tax cuts or invading Iraq until George Bush and the rest of the GOP started talking them up. But the polling evidence is pretty clear that it was far from sufficient. Nothing about public opinion changed in 2001. The only thing that changed was the occupant of the Oval Office.

I want to provide a further example -- in 2009, the public was strongly for taking action against the financial sector. Indeed, the President famously remarked to the bankers ""My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks." And indeed, so the Obama Administration remains, for reasons only Geithner can explain. Apparently on this issue, it's ok to note that Presidents are not powerless bystanders. We were Bush'd. And now we've been HAMP'd. Thanks to the VSPs.

Speaking for me only

According to this CNN Poll, Donald Trump has replaced Sarah Palin as the Republican they most want to run against:

According to the poll, taken before the announcement of Osama bin Laden's death, President Barack Obama has an edge over all the top GOP candidates in hypothetical match-ups.

Who does best against Obama? [Ron] Paul. The congressman from Texas [. . .] trails the president by only seven points (52 to 45 percent) in a hypothetical general election showdown. Huckabee trails by eight points, with Romney down 11 points to Obama. The poll indicates the president leading Gingrich by 17 points, Palin by 19, and Trump by 22 points.

The Obama Team is definitely in "Run Donald Run!" mode.

Speaking for me only

Glenn L. Carle, a retired C.I.A. officer who oversaw the interrogation of a high-level detainee in 2002:

[C]oercive techniques “didn’t provide useful, meaningful, trustworthy information.” He said that while some of his colleagues defended the measures, “everyone was deeply concerned and most felt it was un-American and did not work.”

Via DougJ, I present Condi Rice on the "greatest moment in American history:"

“President Bush had at Ground Zero probably the most important moment maybe in American history. It was when this wounded nation watched their commander-in-chief stand on that rubble and say that they will hear us, we are going to avenge this.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Words fail.