Pages

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Polling in the NY-23 Election

In my last post , I updated with Ed Morrissey's analysis of the Siena poll that led to Scazzafava dropping from the race. Allahpundit has another take that points to a few potential problems for Hoffman:
Ed argued this morning that Scozzafava’s withdrawal is likely to hurt Owens “tremendously” because it frees up a ton of Republican votes. Could be, but how conservative are those votes? Turns out Obama’s net favorable rating among Scozzafava loyalists is … +33, with the split almost a perfect mirror image of The One’s favorables among Hoffman’s supporters.
Allahpundit links Nate Silver's analysis who figures although Scozzafava voters are approximately 62% Republican which would intuitively seem like a huge boost to the Hoffman campaign.  Hoffman had high unfavorables, however among this groups as did Bill Owens the Democratic candidate.  Surely the more conservative voters had already broken away to support Hoffman leaving the question how are the moderates going to break this Tuesday.  Silver thinks it is possible some will sit this one out while others might break for Hoffman reluctantly:
If I had to guess, I'd think that of Scozzafava's support, one-quarter of people don't vote, one-quarter vote for Scozzafava anyway, 30 percent defect to Hoffman and 20 percent defect to Owens. Extrapolating from the morning's Siena poll, that would produce a result of Hoffman 43, Owens 42, Scozzafava 5, with 10 percent of the voters still up for grabs. 
Gun to my head? Sure, I'd take Hoffman at this point. But I'd also take the short side of the 67 percent odds that he's been given at Intrade. 
Jimmie Bise of Sundries Shack fame, guest posted at The Other McCain on a PPP  poll showing massive leads for Hoffman.  After a few hundred unweighted interviews Hoffman was leading 45% to Owens 26%.  Scozzafava was trailing with 17%.  Jimmie Bise points out two giant caveats in this poll.  The poll has a very small sample and it was taken prior to Scozzafava's announcement which will take a while to settle in.  Silver adds an additional point, however, the enthusiasm/turn out factor seems to benefit Hoffman.

Indeed, respected pollster Charlie Cook has been sounding the alarm bells to Democrats with ears, the enthusiasm is completely one-sided:
Democrats would have to set up machine-gun nests to keep these people from voting, while the lethargy among Democratic voters is palpable.
This factor is quite evident in the Siena poll crosstabs:


Hoffman shows the greatest percentage of voters absolutely certain and fairly certain they will vote for him and the lowest percentage of voters not very certain or not certain at all.  While Scozzafava had the lowest percentage of voters absolutely certain they would vote for her, a full 88% were either absolutely or fairly certain of their vote.  Owens voters came in third with 84% either absolutely certain or fairly certain they would vote for him.  Owens also had the highest percentage not very certain or not certain at all they would change their minds.  In short, Owens support is the softest of the three.  Now that Scozzafava is out of the race, the voters most likely to sit out the election would be the Owens' voters.

One last note, Barack Obama's favorables among Scozzafava voters are indeed high but his favorables are polling higher in general than his policies, which are more relevant when electing your local representative:


Silver manages to break the Scozzafava vote down so the fundamentals between the two front runners are unchanged, it seems more likely those shifting to Hoffman are higher than the 30% he suggests. Thirty-one percent of Scozzafava voters had an unfavorable opinion of Obama which is already higher than Silver's numbers.  It doesn't follow that of the 64% with favorable opinions of Obama, none of those voters would be motivated by opposition to policies.  Personally I think there are more in the moderate category who have difficulty saying they don't like Obama even to a pollster over the phone.  It seems more likely that the Scozzafava announcement gives Hoffman a convincing lead.  Nevertheless, the only poll that matters is the one taken by voters on Tuesday in the New York 23rd.   Those opposed to the expansion of government and tax and spend policies of this administration need to vote, it would be fatal to assume your vote is not needed.

Scozzafava Quits Race in NY-23 UPDATED

Breaking News:  Stacy McCain has a message up on Twitter announcing Dede Scozzafava has quit the race in the New York 23rd Congressional election.  According to McCain, Scozzafava broke down in tears announcing her decision, which came after a new Siena poll showed Hoffman and Owens in a dead heat but Scozzafava still fading.  She threw her support to Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman.  The Siena poll shows Hoffman support surging:
"While Owens has picked up three points of support over the last few weeks, Hoffman has surged going from third place and 23 percent support to now being virtually tied for the lead with 35 percent support," said Siena spokesman Steve Greenberg.

"...Owens has shown slow, steady momentum, particularly with Democratic and independent voters," Greenberg continued. "With the exception of Democrats, however, Hoffman has picked up considerable steam with voters of virtually every demographic, and particularly with Republican, younger and Catholic voters. He has picked up 10 points in the region he does best in, 12 points in the region Owens wins and 15 points in Scozzafava’s home territory."
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air had reported earlier GOP Chairman Michael Steele has said a win by Hoffman would be welcomed by Republicans.  I wonder if Scozzafava was urged to drop in light of her fading chances and the possibility that her continued presence in the race could end up with the Democrat candidate Owens sneaking past for a win.  Karl Rove, in an appearance on Greta last night that the Republicans should embrace Hoffman but expressed concern over the three party race as well.  Meanwhile the White House has made the 23rd election a priority sending Joe Biden to campaign for Owens, hoping to come out of Tuesday's election with something to claim as a win.  Looks as though Scozzafava just threw a monkey in the works for which she deserves the thanks of all who have supported Hoffman.

UPDATE:  Ed Morrissey has more:
Scozzafava has seen her negatives explode, while her two opponents have only become more accepted as they became more well known.  She has no chance of winning this race, and her withdrawal leaves Hoffman with the Republican vote whether she endorses him or not.
On the Siena poll Ed writes:

According to the poll, Hoffman had attracted 50% of the Republican vote, while Owens had 2/3rds of the Democrats.  Hoffman leads Owens among independents, 40%-35%, and the remaining 15% supporting Scozzafava will almost certainly break more towards Hoffman than Owens.  Owens will likely get more of Scozzafava’s Democratic supporters, but she only had 11%, while 14% have already gone to Hoffman.  Hoffman and Owens had a near-even split of the opposition in Scozzafava’s regional stronghold of Jefferson/Lewis/St. Lawrence counties, but I’d be surprised if Hoffman didn’t pick up more in those areas of disaffected Scozzafava voters, too.
Hoffman now has the default Republican endorsement with Scozzafava’s retreat, as well as all of the late momentum.

That looks like game over to me. Tuesday is likely to be a sad day for the Democrats and the Obama administration.

Happy Halloween!



Friday, October 30, 2009

Transparency: William Ayers was at the White House but not the William Ayers - Updated

Via Karl on Twitter: Is this transparency? Yes, William Ayers, Michael Moore, Jeremiah Wright and Malik Shabazz were all at the White House. By extreme coincidence, however, they were all "false positives," and not the famous folks who share the same name. Who believes another Jeremiah Wright just so happened to make it to the White House?

A lot of people visit the White House, up to 100,000 each month, with many of those folks coming to tour the buildings. Given this large amount of data, the records we are publishing today include a few “false positives” – names that make you think of a well-known person, but are actually someone else. In September, requests were submitted for the names of some famous or controversial figures (for example Michael Jordan, William Ayers, Michael Moore, Jeremiah Wright, Robert Kelly ("R. Kelly"), and Malik Shabazz). The well-known individuals with those names never actually came to the White House. Nevertheless, we were asked for those names and so we have included records for those individuals who were here and share the same names.
Incredible.

UPDATED:  to include link to WhiteHouse.gov mistakenly not included in original post.
UPDATE II:  Allahpundit links the records and points out it is unlikely William Ayers actually went to the White House.  Maybe it is a coincidence, maybe.  He does point out another interesting visitor though:


Do take a moment to skim the visitor logs, though. I haven’t double-checked, but according to Patrick Ruffini, the name that appears most frequently on there is — surprise — demagogic SEIU thug-in-chief Andy Stern.


Baghdad Bob Gibbs Spins the Stimulus Created or Saved Jobs


Baghdad Bob Gibbs has his hands full lately spinning the created or saved jobs stories that are supposed to prove the $787 billion stimulus wasn't a complete waste of taxpayer's money.  Yesterday the AP noted that a report of 30,000 jobs created or saved by the stimulus was full of problems:
"The AP review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of jobs; some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced."
The White House blog did a fact check on the AP report, yes seriously they did.  Of course the mistakes  found by AP weren't the government's fault, the mistakes were caused by the stupid people who received the money:
Governors, mayors, county executives, private businesses and community organizations across the country submit reports to Recovery.gov so that you can get an unprecedented look at how your taxpayer dollars are being spent creating jobs and boosting the economy through the Recovery Act. These reports are not from the federal government – but from the very people putting Recovery funds to work. 
Well that's a relief that is!  I feel so much better now knowing that it was just the people who got the money who gave the inflated figures on jobs created or saved.   The White House then reported they would release an exact accounting of jobs "created and saved" on Recovery.Gov today at 3:00, it's now 3:59 and still no report.   Jake Tapper got an advance on the report and writes:
The numbers come from Congressionally-mandated reports submitted earlier this month by tens of thousands of state and local governments, private companies, colleges, universities, and community organizations nationwide, administration officials said, with the majority of the funds coming from state governments.

Factoring jobs indirectly created from the stimulus -- not reflected in these numbers -- an administration official says in a statement that "because these reports show that less than half of the spending through that date created or saved about 650,000 jobs, they confirm government and private forecaster’s estimates that overall Recovery Act spending has created and saved at least 1 million jobs."
So the new numbers come from the same people who received the money but these are Congressionally mandated reports so I guess they are supposed to be reliable this time.   Jake Tapper asked Gibbs today why the American people should believe these numbers:
TAPPER:  How credible should the American people consider these numbers, given that in many cases they're rough estimates and there has been some reporting problems in the past?

GIBBS:  Well, I -- there -- there were -- there was a reporting problem with one of the contracting numbers because that paperwork went up quite quickly.  They've had a chance to go through the numbers over the past couple weeks and address any confusion or errors.  This is paperwork directly from a project that money has been appropriated for, so I think the American people can have confidence in them.

Say what?  Here is the latest screen shot from Recovery.gov that shows the new "created or saved" magical jobs numbers:



Jobs Created or Saved as Reported by Recipients that were misleading before but now have the Federal government seal of approval.   Does anyone else think it is not a coincidence these numbers are coming late on a Friday?

Via Michelle Malkin Republican.Senate.Gov has a top ten list of "Created or Saved Jobs" stories spun by this administration to prove the $787 billion stimulus was not a complete waste of taxpayer's dollars.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Thirteen Teeny Tiny Taxes in the House Health Care Bill


Americans for Tax Reform have put together a list of 10 teeny tiny  new taxes in the House health care bill released today.   The bill is compact, just 1990 pages; how much damage can they do in a couple thousand pages?   Don't worry though, these are just teeny tiny taxes, you probably won't even notice them ...until you have to pay them:
Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).

Links around the Ozosphere


Texas 4 Sarah Palin: Prevaricating Politico Piece Pummels Palin. Besides being a great takedown on a Palin hit job, who can resist a title with amazing alliteration?

Pundette Totalitarian Hell etcetera

The Daley Gator:  Uncle Jay explains political ads

Fishersville Mike    NY 23 - Kos: I didn't mean what you think I meant

No Sheeples Here:  Check out the sheep graphics and the Alan Grayson photoshop.  They're hilarious.

Legal Insurrection:  It Took Just Minutes To Find Profound Stupidity In Pelosi's Bill

And so it goes in Shreveport:  Mood Music

Levi Johnston Finds a Trash Can for his Garbage - Part II

Part II of his CBS interview was fairly non-eventful. Much of it revolved around his rigorous preparations for his Playgirl centerfold. Maggie Rodriguez did run Sarah Palin's response which you can see at the very end of the clip here. Rodriguez makes the absurd argument that Palin was invited repeatedly on the show as if her refusal was somehow proof of something. Rodriguez left me with the impression the interview with the talentless Johnston was nothing more than bait to get an interview with Palin. Why in the world would Palin dignify his allegations or CBS' trash interview with an appearance on the show?

Watch CBS News Videos Online

When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Cliff Lee

Substitute Cliff Lee for any of the jocular Chuck Norris facts and you have the ingredients for the top twitter trend during game one of the World Series. While the star of the night was undoubtedly Lee, Chase Utley had quite a night for himself as well. Utley, who is usually nonchalant when discussing his accomplishments, responded with a surprised smile when told his two homers put him in the ranks of baseball legend Babe Ruth:
Both homers marked the first time a left-handed hitter had gone deep off Sabathia in new Yankee Stadium. Even more remarkably, Utley's two home runs marked the first time a lefty has hit two homers off a lefty since Babe Ruth homered off Bill Sherdel of the Cardinals in Game 4 of the 1928 World Series. Ruth hit three in that game -- the last one off legendary right-hander Grover Cleveland Alexander.
Utley's reply when informed by a reporter of this remarkable statistic, "Well, I guess that's pretty good company."  Indeed it is Chase.  Lee's pitching was stellar yet he barely looked as though he broke a sweat.  When asked in a post game interview whether he had been nervous playing on the largest stage in baseball, Lee answered,  "to be honest I really never have been nervous in the big leagues. This is what I wanted to do my whole life."  Here are two highlights from Lee's game that show the truth of his answer:





Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Levi Johnston Finds a Trash Can for his Garbage


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Palin responds:
We have purposefully ignored the mean spirited, malicious and untrue attacks on our family. We, like many, are appalled at the inflammatory statements being made or implied. Trig is our 'blessed little angel' who knows it and is lovingly called that every day of his life. Even the thought that anyone would refer to Trig by any disparaging name is sickening and sad. CBS should be ashamed for continually providing a forum to propagate lies. Consider the source of the most recent attention-getting lies - those who would sell their body for money reflect a desperate need for attention and are likely to say and do anything for even more attention."

CBS should be ashamed, this was vile. Despite Maggie Rodriguez's attempt to point out that Levi's claim Palin would disparage her own baby son was hard to believe, she allows him to go again until he finally comes up with "maybe she was joking." She pretends to chastise him while she presses for dirt. He seems to break eye contact quite a bit but he has no credibility in my opinion anyway. He is the definition of immaturity.

CBS, offering him this venue, lowers themselves even further, which is incredible I know. This interview belongs in a supermarket tabloid that requires predictions from Nostradamus and "proof" of alien visitations in order to make the sale.

Hardball Analyzes the Republican Civil War

I am probably posting this Hardball clip out of order. In my previous post I showed Matthews reaction to the latest poll in the Washington Post on the upcoming Virginia election. Matthews reaction in that post is not as surprising after you've seen this clip. This clip came much earlier in the program and is quite a bit longer.
Matthews discusses the latest Gallup poll that shows the country moving to the right on issues with an increase in self-identification of those polled as conservatives. The segment includes Pat Buchanan and Bob Herbert, the liberal NYT op-ed columnist.

Matthews begins by declaring in the civil war erupting between moderates and conservatives, conservatives are winning  "big time."  He then gets involved in a debate with Buchanan over Palin vs Romney which is really a diversion.  Buchanan is a Palin fan but Bay Buchanan is heavily involved in the Romney campaign.  Pat Buchanan was not going to answer this directly but both he and Matthews agree Palin will be a powerful force in 2010, interesting concession.  He then turns the discussion to Herbert who agrees Palin brings the passion but thinks the only move for Republicans is to move to the center if they are intent on winning.  At about 5:00 in this clip Matthews lays out to Herbert the poll results showing the shift to the right on every issue.  Herbert responds by denying it.  Watch Matthews reaction to this if nothing else.  The reaction takes place at about 5:24 or so:



Matthews cuts Herbert off saying, "he believes in polls" which is true regardless of whatever bias he shows otherwise.  The discussion then turns to what will happen in the NY-23 election, where again Matthews makes a surprising statement.  He states that whether the conservative wins or whether the Democrat sneaks by as a result of the split it shows conservatives have greater power.  He and Buchanan go on to analyze the 23rd district election ending with a shared joke about Scazzofava being in the 4% of Republicans who identify as liberal.  Buchanan then defines for Herbert why she is liberal, "she is more pro-gay marriage than Barack Obama."  Matthews then argues with Herbert that he doesn't like the polling but the polling is showing the country becoming increasingly libertarian.  Buchanan agrees the trends are heading in that direction.  They all seem to agree the country is going to be looking for someone with a strong economic message which takes us to the end. 

Before Matthews went off the rails with his Obamamania and left wing spin, I was an avid Hardball fan.  I saw glimpses of the old Matthews in these two portions of his show.  He does love polls and he sees a trend he can't spin and wants to understand which is interesting given his passion for Obama.  Bottom line though, I thought his take on the NY-23rd election was dead on.  Whether Hoffman wins or loses, Republican leaders get the message they need to find someone who appeals to the base and can bring in the Independents who are lurching increasingly to the right.  It won't be a tough reach for them and the polls and trends support that belief.   The GOP needs to look to Virginia to see the path to clear and decisive victory in the coming year.

There should be no reason beyond this NY election for the conservatives to be at war with the moderates.  In fact, the war is not with the moderates it's with the GOP officials who seem hell bent on proving that they can maneuver a turn to the left as readily as the Obama administration.  How's that working out for them?

Chris Matthews on What the Vote in VA says About Obama

Today's Hardball had some interesting comments from the Obama worshipper-in-Chief. Matthews concludes the show with the poll from the Washington Post that shows 7 in 10 say how they intend to vote next week does not reflect their opinion on Obama. The Post finding is intended to show the upcoming election in not an early referendum on Obama:
Seven in 10 Virginia voters say their views of President Obama, who is scheduled to campaign Tuesday with Deeds in Norfolk, will not be a factor in their choice for governor. The rest are about evenly divided between those who say their vote will be motivated by their desire to express support for the president and those who want to voice opposition to him, suggesting that Obama might not be a decisive figure in the contest and that the race is not the early referendum on the Obama presidency many have suggested it would be.
Watch the video for Matthews take on this poll and be sure to hang in there to the end, it's less than a minute and well worth watching.


Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Charlie Bites Evolution of Dance

Here is some news you can really use,smh.com reports that the 55 second video of Charlie the finger-biter has surpassed the "Evolution of Dance" as the most watched video on youtube. Each of the videos have over 129 million views each.

The "Charlie Bit Me-Again" video was reported to have been uploaded only to show the boys' godfather who lived overseas. The brothers, Harry and Charlie Davies-Carr, receive autograph requests according to their father Howard who originally uploaded the video in 2007. The boys were 5½ and two at the time.

The "Evolution" video went up a full year earlier than the "Charlie" video and has been knocked out of the number one spot twice before. Perhaps it will regain top status again. Here are both videos, for those who aren't among the 129 million who have already seen them:




Every Day is Groundhog's Day in Health Care

I was out for much of the day, when I returned to look at the latest news I thought I must have tuned into Bill Murray's "Groundhog Day."  While I was out, Senator Lieberman announced he would join Republicans in a filibuster if the final health care reform includes a government run public option.  Cue the requisite head explosions on the left.  Cue the miraculous polls showing support for a public option that continues to grow  while support for Democratic health care reform falls.  Cue the liberals questioning  Obama's commitment to the public option that everyone loves but he's just not far left enough or something   Cue the calls for Schumer to pass the whole fiasco by reconciliation.  " Do you ever have déjà vu?  Didn't you just ask me that?"

Megan McArdle  ponders the public option "parlous" and concludes it can't pass.  I am trying to remember how many Democrats have said that all along.  McArdle makes the case as clearly as I have seen it why the public option is not only a fiscal fiasco waiting to happen but the political fiasco that would unwind the entire reform.  With a public option the insurers revolt which would ultimately lead to a provider revolt:
Here's the political problem:  if you insert a strong public option, the providers will revolt.

You've already lost the insurers.  Try to reimburse hospitals and doctors at Medicare + 5% for any large segment of the market, and you'll lose them too.  Health care reform is likely to survive the defection of the much-hated health insurance industry.  I doubt there is any way at all that it survives negative ads from coalitions of doctors, hospitals, and other assorted healthcare workers.  I don't see Obama having much success getting on the radio one Saturday morning to complain that doctors are all a bunch of lying obstructionists.
Well, I wouldn't put it past him, but for now Obama knows the reality as surely as anyone, include the public option and he will have a fight on every front.  We could still get there, but for now I have to believe that Obama is looking to keep things quiet on at least a few fronts.  Still, Reid includes the public option debacle in a bill, not exactly a smart move.  Reid is facing a dismal reelection and knows his base is hell bent on health care that includes a government run option.  In essence, Reid put his own reelection concerns ahead of passing a bill by including the public option.  The option would not likely be stripped from the final bill during the amendment process which would make the bill doomed to fail.  Lieberman signals he would filibuster calling on Reid to strip the option before the process begins.  As Allahpundit suggests, Lieberman did Reid a favor here:
Even so, while the left will beat him up for not being able to buy 60 votes via horse-trading, isn’t Reid actually helped a bit by Lieberman taking the lead among the opposition? So deeply do progressives despise Joementum that the storyline here will be his betrayal and obstructionism, not Reid’s idiocy, which is a huge help to Dingy Harry. As scapegoats go, you can’t do better than a guy who lost a primary to a nutroots-supported liberal three years ago and then endorsed John McCain.
All this points to the the reason Obama wanted this done before we headed into the NJ & VA elections and then onto the midterms.  We're a week away from NJ & VA elections, the Dems are running out of Groundhog Days to get this right. 

Sarah Palin Weighs in on NJ and VA Elections


Posted on her Facebook page was this note asking for support for the Republican nominees in New Jersey and Virginia.  Given her recent endorsement for Hoffman in the NY-23rd election, Palin has increased credibility when she throws her support behind the Republican.  This is a point she makes early on in this appeal to her 900,000 Facebook supporters:

As I stand here in a high school gymnasium watching freshmen girls' basketball games, I'm struck by the sight of America's future right in front of me - these tenacious young women full of energy and intensity - I want them to realize every opportunity this great, free nation can provide.

There are big political races on the East Coast that are coming down to the wire - the results of which will impact policies and political actions that touch all of us in every state. Like other independent Americans, you know I don’t always see eye-to-eye with Republican political committees, so when I tell you that the Republican Governors Association has my complete support and confidence in its campaign efforts back East, know that I really mean it. The RGA is helping lead the conservative comeback, BEGINNING THIS YEAR, and its involvement in the East Coast races is significant. I hope you'll support these efforts, which are vital to the cause for America's freedom and prosperity: http://www.rga.org/now <http://www.rga.org/initiatives/comeback-fund/>.

Let's consider the governor's race in New Jersey. The state has the highest tax burden in the country and the incumbent democrat governor has only added to the economic burden. He eliminated property tax rebates for middle class homeowners while the sales tax increased. Altogether, taxes on the people in the region have increased by billions of dollars. It’s no surprise that New Jersey has the highest unemployment rate in the region! Thankfully, there is an alternative. Residents there will be better off under an administration that understands the benefits that result when workers are allowed to keep more of what they earn. Watch New Jersey's economy come alive under new leadership that will put government back on the side of the people! Chris Christie promises this new leadership.

Fortunately, New Jersey's democrat governor is being held accountable with the RGA spending $7 million in the New York and Philadelphia media markets telling the truth about a liberal administrative record while highlighting New Jersey's tax-hiking ways, and reminding voters there is an alternative! The NY and Philly markets are the most expensive in the nation though, so the RGA is requesting help to stay on the air. Visit http://www.rga.org/now <http://www.rga.org/initiatives/comeback-fund/>.

Then in Virginia - there is a clear difference between Republican Bob McDonnell and his liberal opponent. Republican Bob McDonnell is fighting for cheaper American energy and lower taxes, while his opponent wants to raise taxes, and, amazingly, even bragged about having more earmarks than any other state legislator. Bob McDonnell promises to fight for Virginia's hard working families, and he opposes some heavy-handed union leadership efforts that could ultimately hurt employers and employees. The RGA has aired $6 million of TV ads exposing the liberal candidate’s record. I encourage you to help fight for our neighbors in the East by visiting: http://www.rga.org/now <http://www.rga.org/initiatives/comeback-fund/>.

Americans who believe in smaller government and free enterprise have a chance to show Washington that people all across the U.S. don’t want an ever-increasing national debt, more dependency on foreign energy sources and more wasteful government spending. If, like me, this is what you want to show Washington, then I hope you'll support Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell, and the RGA, as great efforts are put forth in these East Coast races.

The young student athletes I'm watching right now are counting on us to do the right thing - to fight for what is right for America today, and into their future. Electing candidates with common sense and respect for freedom is one way we can fight for what is right.
- Sarah Palin
Palin is correct, these are incredibly important elections.  A win in Virginia for a Republican candidate just under a year since the state voted for the first time for Democrat candidate for the presidency is a huge loss and should serve as a wake up call to the Democrats in Congress.  Please support the RGA in their efforts to elect Christie and McDonnell. 

Monday, October 26, 2009

Conservatives Dominate as Country Moves More to the Right

Gallup's latest poll confirms the country is indeed center-right.  Compared to 2008 more people identify themselves as conservative on issues which is strongly supported in Rasmussen's latest poll on the issues.  Independents are increasingly leaning to the right as well.  In the current poll 40% identify as conservative, 36 as moderate and 20% as liberal.  More importantly, of the Independents, 35% now identify as conservative up from 29% in 2008.  

The country has moved to the right on the issues of abortion, immigration, government regulation, sale of firearms, and global warming.  One interesting change I noted was the self-identified Republicans show a decrease in belief government should promote traditional values moving from 71% in 2008 to 67% in 2009.  Among Independents, however, 37% supported the belief government should promote traditional values whereas 54% support that role for government  now.  There is no doubt that many conservatives who were turned off by the Republican party in recent years now identify as Independent.  This would account for some of the change.  There is no doubt, however, some Independents who were led to believe Obama would govern as a moderate are sending a message that he has taken a hard-left turn to the left.

According to Gallup it appears the increased identification of Independents as conservative may lead to increased support for Republican candidates in 2010.  This is playing out as we speak.  The conservative Republican Bob McDonnell is sailing to victory in Virginia showing moderates and Independents have no trouble supporting a strong candidate.  Deeds repeated use of McDonnell's thesis has done nothing to increase his poll numbers.  In fact, the opposite appears to be true.  The Republican endorsed candidate in NY-23rd election, is trailing the Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman.  While the local committee that appointed Scazzofava may have mistakenly believed they needed to give a nod to someone who appears to be more liberal than the Democratic candidate, they failed to identify a candidate who would have some appeal to conservatives.  There is a lesson in there somewhere for GOP leadership should they decide they like winning elections. 




Project Valour-IT

Carol at No Sheeples Here and Pundette have links to make a donation to Project Valour-IT.  This is a great way to give back to the men and women who have been wounded in service to our country.  Project Valour IT provides laptops with voice activated software to wounded soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen recovering at military medical centers all across America.   Carol's' post has a lot more information  for those interested in making a donation to this great cause.  I donated already this year and will definitely be making another one during this drive.  

Politically Inspired Halloween Costumes

It's that time of year again.  The best Halloween costumes aren't always the most elaborate, but make an ironic statement or reflect who and what is in the news.  Politics is fertile territory when mining for ideas for a great Halloween costume.  Last year, Sarah Palin costumes were abundant ranging the gamut of political commentary from flattering to insanely critical.  For the most part, Palin costumes were a variation of Tina Fey's caricature of Palin.  Saturday Night Live often does the easy work for those on the left who want to mock Republican leadership.   That doesn't mean there isn't loads of fertile ground to plow for Halloween and comedy in general while Democrats are in charge, just that the comedians are slow to find the humor .  Here are a few ideas I have been putting together along with a few shout outs to leaders in the right side of the political blogosphere.

Easy group idea:  The Obama administration

Politics Chicago-style comes to DC
Whoever is lucky enough to play Rahm Emmanuel can carry a horse head.  In lieu of weapons you could substitute green jobs and health care.  A hope and change lapel sticker would provide the subtle clue your group isn't a run-of-the-mill group of gangsters.

Another group idea:  Pelosi and her blue dogs
Cruella de Ville is just one of the cartoon characters that comes to mind for Pelosi.  Pairing her with a group of blue dogs in lieu of dalmations seems appropriate.  The blue dogs costume would be an easy one to put together with blue sweats, a dog nose and of course a leash, preferably a short one.  She doesn't need a leash for all though; there are plenty of lap dogs as we all know.



 Here is a variation on the same idea: Pelosi as the Wicked Witch accompanied by her flying blue monkeys.  You would need to rely on identifying the monkeys as Blue Dogs here as the Pelosi part requires botox and plastic surgery.   I think a name tag would do the job.  Who could accompany the group with a bucket of water?




Here is a variation on my description of the Baucus Bill.  Described by others as the Vapor Bill, I tended to think of it as Claude Raines the Invisible bill.  The costume that flowed from that image is Hillary the Invisible Secretary of State. This would be easy to put together.  All that is needed is a blonde wig, a pantsuit, some gauze and a pair of sunglasses.  Make sure you leave enough of your eyes unwrapped so you can see the reset button or the path to a primary in 2012.



An Obama Czar costume shouldn't be too difficult.  Glenn Beck has a list of 32 of them so you're bound to at least be in the ball park of looking like at least one.  Save a copy of a Mao portrait on a disk, take it to your nearest Kinko's for printing and cut a hole for your face.  Voila you're a Czar.  For a more subtle approach you could purchase The Communist Party t-shirt at Threadless, declare your affiliation with the Communist party and make yourself an honorary Czar.  Don't declare it too loudly, you might end up accidentally appointed Czar.  There are still many positions unfilled throughout the administration.  As long as you haven't paid your taxes you might end up with a high level job in Washington.  Anne Leary, the Backyard Conservative has her eye on this costume.  Smitty has his eye on the Czar d'Oz.



Running with the Communist/Socialist theme, here is a sure fire hit.  Remember the Campaigner in Chief's latest stump speech, "Why don't you grab a mop, why don't you help clean up.  'You're not mopping fast enough, that's a socialist mop.'   Work with me here, I have no picture to show but the costume idea is pretty straightforward.  If you guessed socialist mop as the costume, give yourself some bonus points.  A pair of brown or tan sweats make the handle which is set off with a skirt made from clothesline rope.  Top it off with a Che hat and you're in business.  For ladies who want to go as a sexy socialist mop, consider a tan or brown bodysuit with a matching pair of tights instead of the sweats or go all out and do a variation of Babbette  the feather duster but with clothesline fringe.


If you would rather stay on the right side of the aisle, consider impersonating your favorite blogger.  There are many bloggers who shape the minds of our future leaders in the hallowed halls of respected universities by day.  When the blogosphere calls with breaking news they strip away their academic garb to reveal their Superman Underoo jammies as they head to their keyboards faster than a speeding bullet.

We have Professor William Jacobson who toils by day as a mild-mannered law professor at Cornell, super blogger at Legal Insurrection by night.  The Blogprof is an Associate Professor of Engineering in Michigan, when he is not blogging or body-building.  Donald Douglass is an Associate Professor of Political Science in Southern California. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit fame, is a law professor at the University of Tennessee when he isn't busy bestowing the beloved instalanche on grateful bloggers everywhere.  Pat Austin teaches English by day and blogs at "And so it goes in Shreveport"
before and after school.



Andrew Breitbart, the merry prankster  declared war on the left wing media machine.  An Einstein wig and a jester hat would work for a Breitbart costume.  For the younger or more adventurous types, Giles and O'Keefe is a perfect Halloween costume.  In the words of Jon Stewart, this is an easy costume, "Your pimp costume appears to be a fur coat on top of your Andover uniform....You're telling me that two kids from the cast of "High School Musical III" can break this story with a video camera and their grandmother's chinchilla coat?  Nuff said.


I think the costume here is self-explanatory





In the spirit of Jim Halpert's 3-hole punch costume, paper or in this case graph paper can work as costumes. Consider sporting the blogger's dream in costume form.  I speak, of course of the instalanche.   Troglopundit's latest and from what I gather greatest, is featured on the costume prototype.


Allahpundit, Phantom of the Internet?
 Captain's hatthe latest in tech gadgets, and I would include a pair of  angel wings for giving a new blogger a link.  No one quotes him more than Rush making Ed practically a household name. When you gain that sort of prominence, a Halloween costume is soon to follow. 


The Paco Enterprise Nobel Prize Committee
“La-deeeez an’ yentlemen! Tewnight dis here Committee hass de honor tew present de Nobel Peace Prize tew a trewly distinguished
citizen of de vorld."




But if you're determined to take on the left, here is my last suggestion.  With polls heading down in flames and Virginia  and other forthcoming elections showing nothing but bad news for the Democrats in charge, Robert Gibbs always finds a way to declare they are winning, if only in their imaginary war on Fox News.  This makes Baghdad Bob Gibbs the perfect caricature of this administration.  Oh, the comedy that could be written with variations on quotes from Baghdad Bob the first coming from the mouth of Baghdad Bob Gibbs.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Copenhagen, Hopenhagen, Nopenhagen

From IBD, a scant two months before the big global warming conference in Copenhagen, China and India have said "thanks but no thanks" to the treaty being drafted to replace the Kyoto Protocol set to expire in 2012.  As the editorial points out, lack of participation by these two heavily populated nations makes the entire Conference pointless.

The agreement between India and China is likely to encourage other nations to follow their lead:
They're basically saying no to anything that forces them to impose mandatory limits on their output of greenhouse gas emissions. Other developing nations, including Mexico, Brazil and South Africa, will likely reject any proposals as well.

The deal was already in trouble. Three weeks ago, the Group of 77 developing nations met in Thailand to discuss what they wanted to do about global warming. Their answer: nothing.
The IBD editorial cites a piece by William Hawkins in American Thinker that underscores how these nations view the pressure to sign onto the treaty:
The author of the Science Times article, Wang Jin, used Ding's study as part of his larger argument that, "the massive propaganda ‘human activity induced the global temperature increase' has been accepted by the majority of the society in some countries, and it has become a political and diplomatic issue. Why do the developed countries put an arguable scientific problem on the international negotiation table? The real intention is not for the global temperature increase, but for the restriction of the economic development of the developing countries."
The failure to gain the support of these countries is what doomed the Kyoto Protocol and the handwriting is on the wall for Copenhagen as well.  This has not deterred the "hope and change" folks from launching a full scale effort to transform Copenhagen into Hopenhagen

 
Meanwhile, Lord Monckton has been issuing dire warnings that for the United States Copenhagen  should be a NOpenhagen.   Lord Monckton successfully sued to block Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" from being shown in British schools due to it's inaccuracies.  His warning to the United States is quite serious, signing the treaty will cause the US to cede authority.  He points to specifics in the treaty in a posting at Watts Up With That? and suggests those who are interested in preventing the US from signing in Copenhagen to call the specifics of the treaty to their Representatives and Senators.

Clearly there is little to be gained for the US in Copenhagen, yet stopping Obama from signing is an uphill battle.  China and India, just on the brink of recovery from the world-wide recession, are not willing to suppress their economic production on the basis of unproved science.  Their lack of participation, however, is most unlikely to stop Obama from pursuing his commitment to his grand green scheme.  Poll after poll shows declining acceptance that human activity is somehow contributing to fluctuations in global temperatures.  Even if it were proven, none of the measures proposed by Congress or through this moot treaty in Copenhagen.  Nevertheless, hope and change has invested in Copenhagen, wild horses won't be able to keep Obama away.



Saturday, October 24, 2009

Liaison Dangereuse: Sexuality Beneath the Burqa

Via Mere Rhetoric who posted this very strange German lingerie ad for Liaison Dangereuse:

(Mild nudity)



Omri Ceren writes:
Actually I have no idea what message this Liaison Dangereuse commercial is trying to send. It's either "burkas are really sexy" or "you can be sexy despite burkas."

I ran the liaison Dangereuse webpage through the German translator and found this message followed by positive responses to the ad:
We believe in limitless femininity and sensuality. Any woman can be sensual, no matter what she loves what she believes or where she lives.

Thank you for the overwhelming flood of positive responses.

"Congratulations, this is the best advertisement I saw this year habe.Weiter so!" SR per Email SR by email

"I have your commercial" Sexiness is everywhere "as seen on the Internet. Congratulations to reach the spot class, tasteful and sexy, but also respectful" TG USA via email

"The reality is even more beautiful" TL, Dubai, Facebook

"Who was in Damascus or Dubai, a thousand times in a laundry business, which knows exactly how it is. Why not?" SG, Facebook SG, Facebook

Of course, we're also looking for any critical voice.
Some of the translations of commentary is really rough but the message Liaison Dangereuse intends is clear,  women can be sexy no matter how they choose to live.  I am just going to take a guess that how they are forced to live might change the dynamic a bit.  There is a fair bit of cultural relativism here. As Omri Ceren also points out, how likely is it that a veiled woman would have her own apartment?  Perhaps if the ad calls attention to the beautiful women who are repressed in both subtle and horrific ways, it serves a purpose.  Most likely the sensationalism will sell some lingerie and give Liaison Dangereuse a higher profile.  In other words,  it will serve its intended purpose.

Swine Flu Emergency - UPDATED

AP is reporting Obama has declared Swine flu a national emergency:
President Barack Obama declared the swine flu outbreak a national emergency and empowered his health secretary to suspend federal requirements and speed treatment for thousands of infected people.

The declaration that Obama signed late Friday authorized Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to bypass federal rules so health officials can respond more quickly to the outbreak, which has killed more than 1,000 people in the United States.
Since when has the Obama administration been concerned about bypassing federal rules?   Sebelius uses the HHS website to promote the health care agenda of the President, something even the very moderate Megan McArdle found disconcerting.  Call me cynical but I am having trouble seeing this story as anything other than a distraction from a really lousy week for the White House.

According to the AP the goal is to remove bureaucratic roadblocks from Medicare and Medicaid to allow sick people to receive treatment.  There is concern, however, for the potential "to overburden health care resources."  Well lets add 30 million to the system and see what happens, shall we?

Of course it is terrible that 1000 people have died from this flu and certainly they should receive treatment.  I have trouble, however, with the declaration of a national emergency.  According to the CDC 36,000 people die annually from complications from the flu, why do these 1000 constitute a national emergency?  The CDC has a graph of flu epidemics and there was clearly an epidemic in 2008:

The trend looks to have just crossed a threshold barely, but it seems a bit premature to declare a national emergency.  Will update with any additional information.  

UPDATE:  A potential explanation for at least part of the emergency might be that the administration was overly optimistic in its projections of the number of vaccines that would be available at this point.  The Obama administration had projected 120 million would be available at this time.  Currently, there are 11 million vaccines ready.  I don't need to add the usual disclaimer do I?  What if the Bush administration had been so unprepared? 

Pumpkin Carvings

I love pumpkin carving.  Since they have started selling the kits I have been carving a few every year.  It doesn't take very much practice before you are able to carve several in an evening and have them all turn out very professionally.  I have quite a way to go before I reach the level in these two videos however.  They are fun to watch though.  Here is a video from last year showing an expert carver working with the Wall Street meltdown theme:



Here are some really amazing carvings done on popular figures from the entertainment world, including the Wizard of Oz:



I will update with some more free pumpkin carving patterns in a bit. Here is a good one to start off with for anyone who has never tried carving before:



Hershey's website also offers a good selection of free pumpkin carving patterns. 

Friday, October 23, 2009

More Doom and Gloom for Dems

From Rasmussen:


For the first time in years, or so it seems, Republicans lead in voter's trust on all ten issues regularly polled by Rasmussen.  Republicans have doubled their lead over Dems on the issues of taxes and the economy since last month.  

Denial, Doom, Gloom & Back Stabbing: Just Another Friday With the Dems


Washington Post  has lots of unnamed Senior administration officials speaking off the record on the Governor's race in Virginia.  In short, they're tossing the losing Deeds under the White House bus.  Claiming to have laid out a clear path to victory for Deeds, the White House is distancing themselves from the loss in Virginia blaming Deeds for choosing an alternate, read "losing" path.  Nice try.

John J Miller  notes the number of "profiles in courage" in the Obama administration who contributed to the dumping of Dirty Deeds anonymously:
  • "Democrats at the national level"
  • "Senior administration officials"
  • "Democratic strategists"
  • "a national Democratic strategist"
  • "A senior administration official"
  • "A second administration official"
  • "national Democrats"
  • "administration officials"
Which brings me to Moe Lane  who points to the blue on blue sniping that normally occurs after an election is happening before.  He calls it the Doom Watch:

  David "Mudcat" Saunders, Democratic strategist is a *little annoyed*
"They're making the assumption Virginia is a blue state, and it's not," Saunders said of the administration. "It's not a red state either. The very best that can be said about Virginia is that it's light purple. For them to say if he had listened to us they would win, that's chickens**t. That's Monday morning quarterbacking."

He also questioned the White House's unsuccessful efforts to court former governor Democratic governor Doug Wilder, who publicly refused to endorse Deeds. "I don't think Doug Wilder means anything anymore," Saunders claimed.

"It's a goddamn shame when our center of government, the White House, won't talk on the record. I discount all of it," Saunders said of the Post article. "It's a lack of courage. And it goes against transparency that Obama told us last year was going to come out of the White House. Anybody who makes anonymous quotes out of the White House should be fired."
The lefty blogs are all in a tizzy over earlier reports the "robust public option" is really most sincerely dead.  They prefer to believe Valerie Jarrett over the anonymous folks who claim they don't have the votes and the President is going for the trigger presumably to get the vote of Olympia Snowe.  Here is Valerie Jarrett on Morning Joe:

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Hey, Valerie, we had Mike Allen from Politico on earlier this morning, he said Nancy Pelosi didn't have the votes for a public option and said that there was some suggestion that the President wants a health care reform bill that doesn't have a public option, but has a trigger in case the insurance companies don't start playing ball. Is that a fair description of the President's current position?


   VALERIE JARRETT: No, I think the President has always said that he's committed to the public option. Why? Because he thinks it will create competition and therefore bring down costs. He's always said he's open to new ideas, but at this late stage in the game, he still thinks it's the best option. So I don't know whether Mike Allen can actually count votes or not. A lot of people said President Obama didn't have the votes to win, but he did. So we'll see. He's committed to it, he's pushing for it, and he's absolutely committed to delivering on health care reform this year.

   SCARBOROUGH: So, by the White House's count, do you believe you have enough votes to pass a public option in the House and the Senate?

   JARRETT: You know, we'll see. I think it's too soon to tell. All I know is that we're going to keep pushing until the very last moment. But I think it's important to understand why. We want to bring down the costs. Joe, there's some states, such as Maine or Alabama, where you only have a couple of insurers, and in those states, you see that the prices are going up. And so what we want to do, on behalf of the American people and our taxpayers, is to bring down those costs so that it's more affordable. That's what we think the public option will do.

Jarrett isn't confirming Obama's support for the public option, she is letting them know they are keeping up the pretense they are all for it until they drop it at the last minute.  As I have said before, I don't think the public option is by any stretch the only thing we fear from the Democratic health care reform.  The public option would certainly be the hardest thing to undo if the Dems manage to pass this debacle but the handwriting has been on the wall for ages this thing is dead.  That the left continues to delude themselves that the President is secretly pulling all stops to get it in there is really a new level of denial.

Denial, doom and gloom all hang in the air as the Democrats proceed full steam ahead with the agenda that doesn't have support of the majority of Americans.  This is a train wreck, it's almost impossible to believe they are imploding this soon and at such break neck speeds.  

Famous B Movie Monsters - Updated

B Movie Monster Hall of Fame

The Thing that Wouldn't Die

 
The Brain that Wouldn't Die


The Blob
Godzilla
 
 There's no public option like a "robust" public option
But Everyone Loves the Public Option, Don't they?
As recently as this morning, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), for one, dismissed recent polls that show public support for the idea, telling NPR, "I think if you asked, do you want a public option but it would force the government to go bankrupt, people would say no.”

It just will not die, take a look at the top thread at Memeorandum
Update: It might be nearly dead
Mike Allen reported on "Morning Joe" that Pelosi took a count on that "robust" public option and didn't have the votes.  I will post a video when it becomes available.   Politico report at the link.


More from same show - Lawrence O'Donnell public option is a mirage to hide the real problem they have no clue how to pay for this whole fiasco.   Also continued focus on public option is to keep left thinking they will get their fantasy right up until the last minute.  


Thursday, October 22, 2009

Palin Endorses Hoffman


From her Facebook:

The people of the 23rd Congressional District of New York are ready to shake things up, and Doug Hoffman is coming on strong as Election Day approaches! He needs our help now.

The votes of every member of Congress affect every American, so it's important for all of us to pay attention to this important Congressional campaign in upstate New York. I am very pleased to announce my support for Doug Hoffman in his fight to be the next Representative from New York's 23rd Congressional district. It's my honor to endorse Doug and to do what I can to help him win, including having my political action committee, SarahPAC, donate to his campaign the maximum contribution allowed by law.

Our nation is at a crossroads, and this is once again a "time for choosing."

The federal government borrows, spends, and prints too much money, while our national debt hits a record high. Government is growing while the private sector is shrinking, and unemployment is on the rise. Doug Hoffman is committed to ending the reckless spending in Washington, D.C. and the massive increase in the size and scope of the federal government. He is also fully committed to supporting our men and women in uniform as they seek to honorably complete their missions overseas.

And best of all, Doug Hoffman has not been anointed by any political machine.

Doug Hoffman stands for the principles that all Republicans should share: smaller government, lower taxes, strong national defense, and a commitment to individual liberty.

Political parties must stand for something. When Republicans were in the wilderness in the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan knew that the doctrine of "blurring the lines" between parties was not an appropriate way to win elections. Unfortunately, the Republican Party today has decided to choose a candidate who more than blurs the lines, and there is no real difference between the Democrat and the Republican in this race. This is why Doug Hoffman is running on the Conservative Party's ticket.

Republicans and conservatives around the country are sending an important message to the Republican establishment in their outstanding grassroots support for Doug Hoffman: no more politics as usual.

You can help Doug by visiting his official website below and joining me in supporting his campaign:
http://www.doughoffmanforcongress.com/donate3.html.
For More Robert Stacy McCain has a piece at The American Spectator who is reporting from New York.  McCain covered a press conference and rally featuring Dick Armey.   Armey and Hoffman share support for a flat tax which will simplify the tax code and create opportunities for growth that is badly needed in our economy.  Republicans need bold colors, to quote Reagan and echo Palin's sentiments in her Hoffman endorsement.  There will be districts that call for socially moderate candidates but the party must back those who support small government, lower taxes and economic growth.  Scazzofava is not a candidate of bold colors, she is indistinguishable on nearly all issues from the liberal Owens. 

For more on this see all the buzz at Memeorandum
Related Posts with Thumbnails
 
Web Analytics