Eerie, Frozen Grimace

Gawker delivers the headline of the day with Barack Obama's Eerie, Frozen Grimace Will Haunt Your Dreams.


Don't even attempt the fake smile thing if you're not as cool as Obama; disaster may result.


Told you. Or, of course...


...then a few degrees down on the tragedy scale....


Yikes! sorry, should have given you more warning.

It still don't work on you

Iowahawk on "young professional kowtowers, bumnuzzlers and bootlicks"

Iowahawk is fracking cracking me up on the aforementioned push to out-Riefenstahl Leni herself.

Unlike traditional art schools, the Federal Art Instruction Institute doesn't waste your time on boring Post-Modernist theory, messy bodily fluids, or painful self mutilation. With our easy-to-learn program you will quickly learn how to channel your natural artistic ability and suburban self-loathing at state enemies who, when you think about it, are a lot like your parents.

Can you draw triangles? The Federal Art Instruction Institute will show you the easy way to turn them into Ku Klux Klan hoods. Turn them upside down and they become scary vampire fangs! Even a simple black rectangle can become a Hitler mustache with our easy to learn methods.

Our award winning studio instructors includes some of the top young professional kowtowers, bumnuzzlers and bootlicks working in the government art field today -- people like Buffy Wicks, Yosi Sergant and Michael Skolnik. They will keep you up to date on all the hot new policy trends and enemy lists, and what your patrons at the NEA need you to do about it. Using tried and true traditional art techniques from Cuba, Germany and central Asia, they will teach you how to pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it -- for big cash prizes!

And the ACORN cartoon is too funny. "Screw robbery, kid." LOL.


Hey, the second picture of the dude in the purple looks like Dennis Kucinich. Just saying.

You have to check out the link to Patrick Courrielche's piece if you haven't already.

John Zmirak on Human Dignity and Current Debates

The hat tip goes to our friend Carol McKinley for pointing out this excellent piece by John Zmirak. It reminds me of another one of his articles which I linked to regarding "misguided compassion". Those Zmirak skewers here are no less misguided than the Earl of Longford; here's his initial characterization:

When asked, "What's your favorite thing about being a Catholic?" some well-instructed souls will cite the Eucharist, while others will speak of their devotion to Our Lady.... Reading what many Catholics have to say on economics and politics lately, it seems to me that if these folks answered honestly, they'd have to say: "Being Catholic gives me a high-minded rhetoric of noble-sounding values, a sense of moral superiority, and unrestricted license to speak and write as a crank."

I really beg everyone to read this entire thing. John Zmirak is not a Catholic blogger, but a Catholic writer, and a well-informed Catholic writer, not a hack theologian or amateur apologist. Plus he's always funny, which makes his writing pleasant, and he's always succinct, which makes reading him worthwhile. Following are some excerpts and my own short commentary on his insights which are rooted in the meaning of what the Church proclaims about Human Dignity and not based on chimerical vagaries bearing titles like "living wage" or "economic justice".

I've had my disagreements in the past with the learned Thomas E. Woods Jr., but as someone who has taken the trouble to read seriously in the discipline of economics (I wrote a book on the subject in the light of Catholic social teaching), I share with him a violent frustration at Catholics who grandstand about "distributive justice" and offer Rube Goldberg schemes for re-engineering our country's economy, without knowing or caring how wealth is produced in the first place. Our country's relatively recent, hard-won, and fragile prosperity they treat as if it had descended in pennies from heaven, and the only question now is how to divide up the windfall fairly. All property and all labor, they take for granted, is owned in common. It may suit the State to allow you to hold a "title" to your house, or keep some portion of your wages. But fundamentally you belong to the U.S. Congress, just as a Russian serf and every stick of furniture in his house was the property of the tsar. Left-leaning bishops who wish to make this point note that Creation was given to man in common; they leave out the fact that our labor is our own, and that taxes enforced by the threat of imprisonment can mount up to a kind of slavery. (Medieval serfs paid only 10 percent of their wealth to their feudal lords; you and I pay up to 50 percent when federal, state, local, Social Security, and sales taxes are added up -- which means that half our time is spent working with a bayonet at our backs.)

This is why whenever I hear the phrase "giving back to the community" I intone the same mantra: "I gave at the office."

What's missing from these people's happy, totalitarian picture is something fundamental to the West, a fruit of Christian culture that it took Vatican II (yes, you read me correctly) for the Church to fully recognize: the fact of human dignity. In the early Church, up through the first writings of St. Augustine, the Church asked only for liberty of worship, confident that the gospel would sway people on its own. In his later years, frustrated by the intransigence of the Donatist heretics, Augustine changed his mind and asked the now-Christian emperors to "compel them to come in." Building on Augustine's later work, many popes and countless Christian kings used the coercive power of the State to persecute heretics -- arguing that the free will of these individuals was outweighed by the danger to the souls they might lead to hell. Besides, they said in a phrase that became a little bit infamous, "Error has no rights." Since no one has a right to do what's wrong, how can those with false beliefs have a right to hold and practice an inaccurate religion? Do they have the right to lie about the gospel?

At Vatican II, the Council Fathers were more concerned about the very real persecution of Christians throughout the Communist bloc than the duty of (now-deposed) Catholic monarchs to uphold orthodoxy. They reframed the question as follows: Error may have no rights, but the person holding the error does. In Dignitatis Humanae, the Council teaches that the dignity of the human person forbids religious coercion by the State. Pope John Paul II was not, I think, misguided when he apologized for the actions of his predecessors that violated this precept.

Now—this is the key paragraph, and it might provide a dividing line for modern day American Conservative Catholics and modern day American Liberal Catholics on issues such as health insurance reform, wage laws, the environment and the role of government in general:

Nor does human dignity stop at the church door. Throughout the Catechism, the Church insists on the rights of the human person to liberty of thought, association, and action—within the limits of justice and the countervailing rights of one's fellow men. Only when our actions violate justice—not charity, but justice—is it right to use the violent, coercive power of the State to curb and restrict them. Indeed, it is only justice that can be enforced by the State. Mandatory charity is as moot as mandatory faith or hope.

If you have a problem with this, go back and read Dignitatis Humanae again, the first paragraph should do in a pinch if you are short on time.

Then he concludes beautifully by explaining the prudential nature of the current debate. I think Zmirak has explained Pope John Paul II's apologies better than just about anyone else I've heard on that oft-misunderstood topic.

Any Roman Catholic decrying the government's use of coercive tactics—the torturing of terrorism suspects comes to mind—should extend their disapproval to the kind of economic coercion imposed by the kind of out-of-control government redistribution being discussed and proposed currently in our nation. It consitiutes an affront to the same human dignity possessed by all, only on a much larger scale.

Thanks for reading my blog. For current commentary and what-not, visit the Est Quod Est homepage.

Obamacare: Taxing the Uninsured

James C. Capretta asks the question Who's Really Paying for Obamacare? Then he gives a hint: "it's not the rich." Here's the conclusion:

The president and his allies in Congress are trying to convince Americans that they have found a painless way to achieve “universal coverage” that will involve no sacrifice from anyone. But the truth is that the Democratic plans all depend on coercion and hidden and regressive taxes. Low- and moderate-wage workers are the ones who will pay the bulk of the costs. Indeed, last week, the Lewin Group found that the House bill would increase costs for households with at least one uninsured member by $1,400 per year, on average. The same is almost certainly true of the Baucus plan. “Taxing the uninsured” is not likely to be a winning slogan for Obamacare. But it’s an accurate description.

Stay Classy, Sarah Palin Hataz

From My Fox Illinois:

The Fairbanks Daily Cage-Liner published a story about Palin's speech at a Hong Kong investors conference on Wednesday. The caption that appeared with the photo for the story read, "A broad in Asia."

The Cage-Liner's managing editor Rod Boyce published an apology later in the afternoon for the paper's "terrible mistake."

The News-Miner is the actual name of the publication, but I think it would be more accurate to refer to its best use, i.e., lining the birdcage.

Jeff Miller nails what stinks about the Notre Dame protester arrests

In a plea to Notre Dame to drop the charges against those protesting the honoring of pro-abortion President Obama at a Catholic University, Jeff Miller elucidates the primary incongruity about the arrests.

What gets me about the arrest of the pro-lifers is a couple of things. One Fr. Jenkins decided he could give his own interpretation on what the Bishops said regarding honoring pro-abortion politicians. He has not followed the provisions in Church documents such as Ex Corde Ecclesiae, Yet when it comes to a Notre Dame law in regards to protests - that is hard and fast dogma with no mercy or change possible. Dialog is so much talked about, but making allowances for pro-lifers to peacefully protest is another story. The way that these protesters were treated is sad beyond belief. Handcuffing a elderly priest for the crime of protesting what 80 some bishops said should never have allowed is a sad indictment. Really what should have happened is that the protests should have been given permission in the first place.

I really can't put this any better. The incident demonstrates a strict adherence to "laws of men" alongside a calculated laxity with regard to those in the church with teaching authority, and that's putting Fr. Jenkins's contortions in the best light possible. It's more likely that Jenkins is being a typical liberal which implies any of his liberality is selectively applied. It's also extremely stupid on Jenkins's part. People are going to remember the maltreatment of an octagenarian priest long after they've forgotten the President's why-can't-we-all-get-along speech.

Madisonian meditates upon solitary taraxacum officinale

I was watching Lou Reed perform Vicious in Paris in 1974 yesterday and my first thought was "Man, this makes the Village People seem straight. Of course unlike Reed, Victor Willis can actually sing."

My next thought was this: what if Andy Warhol had discovered Art Paul Schlosser rather than the Velvet Underground?


I love it. So pure and simple. The kazoo solo is downright Dylanesque. Someone commented that he's playing a baritone ukelele. What will these Earthlings think of next?

Back to Andy and Lou, supposedly the lyrics to Vicious were inspired by Warhol in a conversation...

Andy: "You gotta get vicious."
Lou: "What do you mean vicious?"
Andy: "Vicious, like I hit you with a flower."

There you go.

Disappearing Rosaries

Here's a post by Michael Iafrate about the part which the rosary has played in his life, and how he likes to meditate on an alternative set of Gospel scenes called the "Subversive Mysteries". I got to the post via Tom's post which provides a gentle critique and warning of the practice of "rolling one's own mysteries". I recommend people who pray the rosary or are interested in private devotion read both posts, preferably not "out of order" as I did.

But one thing struck me in Mr. Iafrate's piece which is completely incidental. He writes, "Sometime in grade school, probably first grade, I received a really nice Italian rosary from my uncle who is a priest. It was blessed by Pope John Paul II, and I remember being very proud of it. I was crushed when it was stolen from my desk one day."

The reason I was struck by it is that I have lost almost all my "prized" rosaries somehow. For the most recent example, a priest went to Rome to see Benedict XVI and brought back a nice Rosary personally blessed by him for me, and we're talking a $30.00 rosary here, not a cheap-assed plastic jobby made by old people in a nursing home somewhere. However, about a year and a half ago, this rosary I so highly prized just up and disappeared.

This is only the last in a long line of incidents where my cool sets of beads disappear and I'm left with those little metal rings and plastic models made in Thailand. My theory is that my Guardian Angel, Our Lady and the Holy Spirit—who we all know are totally in kahoots anyway—have arranged all these disappearances so I won't be tempted into some kind of weird, low-grade idolatry or superstition about my rosaries. This theory has been corroborated over the years by stories of others who have lost all their best rosaries regardless of the meticulous care they've given them. This story might sound a bit superstitious in and of itself, or at least an excuse for my own negligence. But on the whole, I'm not a big loser of items and when I do misplace things, they generally turn up within a day or two. Not so with my rosaries. Hopefully if others find these they'll say a few decades for the previous owner; I'll take what I can get.

Scott Ott reports on ACORN's soon-to-be-audited Brothel Consulting Services Division

High-larious.

"Obviously, there's been a breach of protocol here," ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis said. "We do not approve of ACORN offices being used for the production of films starring pimps and prostitutes. We are not a film company, and the taxpayer money that funds our operations should not go toward that purpose. If you want to make films about pimps and prostitutes, you get a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts."

ACORN's Brothel Consulting Services Division has strict guidelines regarding the recording of consultation sessions, she said.

"We've reviewed the video and were shocked to discover that confidentiality had been breached by the hidden cameras," Lewis said. "Perhaps the scantily clad prostitute led our staff to forgo the normal wanding and pat-down."

I must confess jealousy for Scott Ott's comedy-writing talent and his cool name. Makes me want to change mine to Pauli Auli, as in "Pauli Auli in free!"

(bedtime....)

I guess Hassan Nemazee contributed to Sherrod Brown also

This political contributor is in BIG trouble.

A wealthy fundraiser for Hillary Clinton and other Democrats has been indicted on charges of bank fraud and aggravated identity theft in an alleged $292 million Ponzi scheme.

Federal prosecutors announced the indictment against 59-year-old Hassan Nemazee in New York yesterday. It says he fraudulently obtained loans from three banks between 1998 and this year.

Nemazee served as national finance chairman for Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign and later raised money for President Barack Obama after Clinton's defeat.

He also was Sen. John Kerry's finance chairman in New York for his 2004 bid for president.

I've always said in my regular speeches at the barber shop that if you're going to bother pulling off a major bank fraud caper, let alone aggravated identity theft, you might as well couple it with a Ponzi scheme to fully leverage the ill-gotten gains. Then contribute money to everyone from Rahm Emanuel to Sheldon Whitehouse.

Here's a list of beneficiaries of Nemazee's scheme. I noticed several Repubs on the list, notably Sam Brownback and Kay Hutchinson. But mostly it reads like a Who's Who list for big Washington Dems. Hopefully Sherrod Brown will return the dough.

Yahoo Question: Should Paterson Listen to Obama?

I've been having lots of fun with Yahoo! Answers lately. Here's my latest contribution:

Should Governor David Paterson listen to President Obama and step down instead of running for re-election?

You have to get to "Level 2" before you can ask questions, and you have to do that by answering a whole bunch of other people's questions. But that's fun, too; I answered a lot of stuff like "What does the Catholic Church say about Baptism?" -- stuff like that. Of course I also gave snarky answers to snarky questions, which was fun as well.

What's really cool is you get answers almost immediately upon posting something there because it's such a popular site. And if it's a question about politics, people pounce on it immediately.

That is one big assed answer machine!

I was just reading this and I thought "oooohh... bad idea."

Politico's Ben Smith on the McChrystal Leak

This stuff is interesting, and way beyond my ability to add anything insightful. Excerpt.

So who did it?

The simplest theory — and one most administration officials Monday were endorsing — is that a military or civilian Pentagon official who supports McChrystal’s policy put it out in an attempt to pressure Obama to follow McChrystal’s suggestion and increase troop levels in Afghanistan.

But not everyone in Washington is a believer in Occam’s razor, so all manner of other theories flourished.

Then Smith goes on to detail the alternate theories.

Giving Loads of Hypocrisy

Remember the Armstrong Williams payoff? Remember the Scooter Libby "pardon"? Now we have a payoff and pardon for Andrew Sullivan by Obama's Department of Justice. From Powerline:

No one has been a more uncritical cheerleader for the Obama administration than liberal blogger Andrew Sullivan. Now, Sullivan has gotten his reward, courtesy of Obama's Department of Justice.

Sullivan was caught smoking marijuana in a National Park and was prosecuted, consistent with the usual policy of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. But Sullivan's pull with the Obama administration got him a sweetheart deal: the U.S. Attorney decided to drop the charges, even though there evidently is no doubt about Sullivan's guilt. The issue here isn't whether marijuana possession should be illegal, or should be prosecuted. It is illegal, and the U.S. Attorney in Massachusetts does routinely prosecute such cases. But not Sullivan: Barack Obama and Eric Holder paid him off for his slavish devotion.

Here's what United States Magistrate Judge Robert Collings thought about the charges being dropped. Excerpts:

When the case was called, the Court expressed its concern that a dismissal would result in persons in similar situations being treated unequally before the law. The Court noted that persons charged with the same offense on the Cape Cod National Seashore were routinely given violation notices, and if they did not agree to forfeit collateral, were prosecuted by the United States Attorney. In short, the Court explained that there was no apparent reason for treating Mr. Sullivan differently from other persons charged with the same offense. In fact, there were other persons who were required to appear on the September 2nd docket who were charged with the same offense and were being prosecuted. ...

[T]he Court would not be concerned with any exercise of discretion by the United States Attorney not to prosecute the possession of small amounts of marijuana. The United States Attorney certainly has discretion to determine how best to allocate the resources of his office and could, if he deemed it appropriate, elect to focus those resources on more serious crimes while declining to prosecute the type of violation which Mr. Sullivan faces. However, from all that appears, the United States Attorney has not taken the position that persons who possess marijuana on federal property will not be prosecuted; rather, those persons are prosecuted routinely. ...

In the Court's view, in seeking leave to dismiss the charge against Mr. Sullivan, the United States Attorney is not being faithful to a cardinal principle of our legal system, i.e., that all persons stand equal before the law and are to be treated equally in a court of justice once judicial processes are invoked. It is quite apparent that Mr. Sullivan is being treated differently from others who have been charged with the same crime in similar circumstances. ...

In short, the Court sees no legitimate reason why Mr. Sullivan should be treated differently, or why the Violation Notice issued to him should be dismissed. The only reasons given for the dismissal flout the bedrock principle of our legal system that all persons stand equal before the law.

Via Patterico, we get the best and most damning commentary on the sordid affair:

This is my “Okay, I’ll post about Andrew Sullivan if you stop writing me about him” post.

Via the Internet Scofflaw, we learned that Andrew Sullivan once sanctimoniously wrote:

My view is that no one is above the law, and that when a society based on law prosecutes the powerless and excuses the powerful, it is corroding its own soul.

So when Andrew Sullivan gets busted for something, he will of course demand to be prosecuted if those less powerful than he are also being prosecuted. Right?

Heh.

Heh indeed. I guess Orwell was right—"Some animals are more equal than others." Dennis Prager is always stating that being on the left is never having to say you're sorry. How right he is.

But this Boston Globe piece contains by far, BY FAR, the most absurd comment:

When Collings asked Lang and Delahunt why Sullivan should be treated differently from other defendants charged with possessing marijuana on federal property, the lawyers explained that Sullivan was a British citizen applying for a certain immigration status and that the $125 penalty could imperil his application, according to Collings’s ruling.

Now... there's a reason to drop a charge against someone! Because imposing a penalty might penalize them! Can you imagine that defense? "Your Honor, sending my client to prison will affect his ability to earn an income to support his family." We could call it the Jesse James defense.

Commentator Rod Dreher is riding the fence as usual...

Do I think it would be unjust to keep Andrew Sullivan from becoming an American citizen because he was arrested for possessing a small amount of marijuana? Yes I do, and at a certain level I'm glad this pot bust won't be counted against him. But I am more troubled by the idea that a famous and well-connected person received special treatment in a criminal matter, for no apparent reason other than he's famous and well-connected. I look forward to Sullivan's account of this matter.

How'd he do that—sleight of hand? How can Mr. Dreher be "glad this pot bust won't be counted against him" and yet "troubled" by the special treatment? He seems to feel a little different about Sullivan's pot use than, oh... Michael Phelps, for instance. (I wonder if Andrew Sullivan has a big poster of Michael Phelps on his bedroom wall?) But the incident has had a good effect on Mr. Dreher in that it seems to caused a maturation with regards to ad hominum attacks...

[A] couple of you are using this incident as an excuse to discount anything Sullivan has to say about anything as invalid. That's argumentum ad hominem nonsense.

We look forward to Mr. Dreher's application of this principle to the teaching authority of the Bishops of the Catholic Church. But this is not the first time he's pled for a special privilege on the part of Mr. Sullivan.

Meanwhile, if you happen to get busted for pot possession, you might try talking with a gay British accent. It's at least worth a shot.

(H/T goes to pikkumatti.)

I See Blind People

Letterman's jibe to Obama, "How long have you been a black man?" humorously highlights a conundrum I was pondering yesterday. If Obama's recent drop in the polls is due to race then it's obvious that those supporters now deserting him did not realize he was black previously. Now they've opened their eyes and are horrified—"My God... he's black!!"

This is possible, I suppose, because we've been told many times by the left that skin color isn't enough to be a true member of the black race, ideology is also a key component. If you doubt this, just google sharpton kinfolk skinfolk. So following this line of thinking, maybe people knew that Obama had black skin, but they thought he wouldn't be as "black" in his ideas. The following video may help clarify this, or maybe not.


Of course, this is all very, very silly. Tolerating a diversity of opinion should surely be a greater goal than the admiration of diverse skin colors in any society. This is precisely why Obama has distanced himself from the race card playing—at least officially.

Obama compares Apples to Oranges

President Obama was on George Stephanopoulos's show last night talking about Obamacare. I heard the amazing sound clip where the President actually compares mandated car insurance to mandated health insurance. There are so many things wrong with this comparison.

First of all, some people will never file an auto insurance claim, whereas almost everything is filed as a health claim, even routine checkups. Can you imagine getting a tune-up and sending the bill to your auto insurance provider? Can you imagine laughter? Enough said.

Secondly, barring the "death panels" which we've been assured will never happen under Obama care, we don't declare human beings "totaled". (They do in the UK, but I don't think it would in the Obama Administration's best interest to put forward that comparison.) However if the damage in an auto accident is great enough, the owner will decide to ditch the vehicle rather than to repair it. So policy holders have a pretty finite limit with regard to what they will ever claim against their auto-insurance policies. Compare the cost of that to someone receiving experimental AIDS treatments over an extended period.

Thirdly, I don't know if the President realizes this, but garage mechanics make less than doctors. In fact, I've been known to throw a wrench around myself, replacing side-door windows, installing new head lamps, changing oil, etc. My father insisted on my doing some of these things when I lived at home and drove the family cars, however he never let me perform any of the dental surgeries my mother needed or treat my brother for the asthma he had when he was younger. I wonder why not? He could have saved thousands of dollars... right?

All of this goes to the reason why costs aren't spinning out of control for car maintenance and collision coverage. These bad analogies just grate on me somethin' fierce; that's why I never tire of quoting Sesame Street, "One of these things is not like the others."

Vox Nova: "...we are all racists"

Sam Rocha from Vox Nova seems to be attempting to confuse the current race card situation further. If so, he succeeds. I'll attempt to provide some corrections in my response below.

We all know the drill: X calls Y a ‘racist,’ then, Y calls X ‘racist’ for calling Y a ‘racist.’ Then, others enter the fray and repeat the accusations. And this is a major part of what passes as “politics” these days.

Uh, no. The Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Jimmy Carter (X) call those who oppose Obama's recent domestic proposals (Y) "racists", then camp Y accuses camp X of being a bunch of asinine political hacks, which is how those in camp Y perceive them. It's too bad this is what the Democrats seem to desire to have pass for politics, since they were the first to play the race card in this latest episode, and can hardly expect those whom they attacked not to defend themselves.

It seems too easy to forget that racism is not just a term, it is a real experience that happens to human persons.

This is possibly the stupidest line in the article. For normal people, especially those engaged in the argument, it is not "easy to forget" that any given word isn't "just a term", unless you are some sort of advertising copy writer, pop song writer or political sloganeer like Pelosi. It does seem easy for some to hurl the accusation out there, like tossing spaghetti against the wall, that some people in the Y group don't realize racism actually exists in the world.

Then Rocha goes on to posit a difference between a discriminatory racism which he claims everyone possesses and a capitalized Racism which includes supremacy in addition to discrimination.

In another sense, we all Racists but differ in relations and degrees of Racism and ought to try to eradicate the spirit of Racism from the human condition.

I like how he dropped into street slang there—"we all Racists"—to emphasize his point. It's cool; the bro is keepin' it real—don't fault my man fo' that, dog.

Attempting to sanely discern the difference between the two is what it would take to elevate political discourse on race from hand-wringing to an authentic consideration of what it means to be a racist in a folk sense of the term—a sensibility that doesn’t suffer from the need for these tortured categories.

I won't take further advantage of this embarrassment by quoting any more from it. My main point is that this is what passes for logic and thoughtfulness in the leftist mind. At least he admits that his categories are tortured; I question any need of them whatsoever. I've posted already on a few of the many successful attempts to provide sanity and discernment to correct the silly talk, and by them one can see that the political discourse has already been elevated on this issue by people like Toby Harnden, Michael Steele and Brit Hume. And since President Obama has spoken definitively on the issue stating that his opponents are not racist, the case would appear to be closed at this point. To behave as if no one has spoken with clarity, sensibility and persuasiveness in what Mr. Rocha calls the "Y group" on this matter is extremely misleading.

Boehner Declares Obamacare To Be Dead

House Minority Leader John Boehner says that the Democrat's health care plans won't pass as they currently stand. I don't know if he is correct or not, but he's definitely holding the reins of the conversation compared to Obama who is just all wee-wee'd up about the opposition at this point. Here's Boehner when Gregory asks him about the "tone" of the debate:

“Well, I don’t know that the tone of the debate has gotten out of control,” said Boehner.

“You don’t think so?” asked Gregory.

“It’s been spirited, because we’re talking about an issue that affects every single American,” said Boehner. “And because it affects every American in a very personal way, more Americans have been engaged in this debate than any issue in decades. And so there’s room to work together. But I first believe that we’ve got to just take this big-government option, this big-government plan and move it to the side. Now, let’s talk about what we can do to make our current system work better. Then we’ll have some grounds on which to build.”

Boehner said the White House had not reached out at all to discuss health care reform with House Republicans. Then he said the plan the White House and congressional Democrats were pushing would not pass.

When “Meet the Press” host David Gregory asked Boehner if he thought that plan was dead, Boehner did not hesitate.

“I think it is,” he said.

Meanwhile here's Obama stuttering and you-know-ing without his teleprompter.

I mean, let's face it. If you look at the news cycle over the last—over the last week—you know, it—it—it hasn't been the—the sensible people who, you know, very deliberately talk about the important issues that we face as a country. That's not the folks who've gotten a lot of coverage.

The "news cycle" still operates in a marketplace in this country, Mr. President. Coverage is going to go to the people making interesting points. Right now, the people making the best points are the ones saying "no" to health care plans with a "government option". The fact that they are stating their opinion passionately and sometimes shouting it, is a feature rather than a bug in the delivery of their message. Generate the same enthusiasm for one of the plans that you favor and you can own the debate.

This guy is not a good loser.

You've Been Beaker Roll'd

Funny Short