Obama's workin California, Delaware and Maryland.

Bill gets West Virginia, Kentucky, and BFE.

Ahead of Clinton's visit, Manchin is doing just about all he can to separate himself from the current president. In an interview on Fox News Friday, Manchin called the president "dead wrong" when it comes to cap-and-trade and earlier in the week the state sued the EPA over new coal mining regulations.

"President Clinton understands West Virginians and this is a great opportunity for me to continue to share my vision for West Virginia and how I will continue to stand up and fight for what is best for our state and nation," Manchin said in a statement Friday.

Manchin is currently down almost 5 in the RCP averages (I think there'll be another one out Monday).

I'm just enjoying the Clinton twist on Obama, he's far more popular right now than the One.

I suspect Preznit ThinSkin is having some heartburn over that.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:05 PM | Comments (132)
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

This isn't just opinion. This is data collected from focus groups.

He finds the Blame Bush message actually costs the Democrats 2% at the polls.

The weakest messages assert we should “go forward, not back.” Voters are not moved by Democratic messages that say ‘go forward, not back,’ mention President Bush, compare then and now, or even that hint the economy is “showing signs of progress.” No matter how dramatically these messages set out the record of Republican obstructionism, their work for the wealthiest and Goldman Sachs, the millions of jobs lost and Democrats’ support for jobs, small business and new industries – these messages falter before the Republican attack.

The messages get lower scores and lose voters. After hearing this battle of Republican and Democratic messages, 8 percent shift their vote to support the Republican, while only 5 percent move to the Democrats. We lose ground. These messages are helping the Republicans.

But, as we can see in the rank order summary of the different messages tested, this is the weakest way to go into the election.

This framework provides the least help to Democrats running in this election, indeed, leaves the Democratic congressional candidate a net 2 points weaker, which we can hardly afford. This is the only framework tested in this project that leaves the candidates in a weakened position.

When listening to people react to this message in focus groups or watching them react to video clips of this message, they respond with a common sense that we should heed. People are intensely dissatisfied with the economy and are looking for solutions – anything less sounds like excuses or some political blame game. Though voters agree the economy was an “inherited” problem, they do not like to hear politicians blaming Bush or looking backwards.

For some, going back to four years ago does not look so uninviting right now: “I was doing a heckavah lot better under Bush.”

“Who wouldn’t want to go back to 6 or 8 years ago? There was less unemployment back then. I’d rather go back. I’d go back to 8 years ago. I would rather go backwards than forwards right now.” White non-college female.

Because a “go forward” framework implies that Democrats and Congress have made progress those voters do not feel, the message re-enforces the Republican framework for the election – a referendum on the Democrats’ performance on the economy. In the experiment described above (where voters read the two Republican messages and the two Democratic ‘go forward, not back’ messages), votes shifted to the Republicans not only on which party can best handle the economy but also on the congressional vote. The 5 percent who shifted to the Democrats was exceeded by the 7 percent of voters who moved to the Republicans – a net negative 2-point worsening of the race.

But what else do they have?

Thanks to Purple Avenger.

Posted by: Ace at 04:01 PM | Comments (172)
Post contains 500 words, total size 3 kb.

At Director Blue. Here, Obama tells a funny story.

This second series, at Moonbattery, is a variation of The Tourist Guy -- Obama showing up in pictures taken during the Great Depression. Very funny, and very cutting. Kinda sorta brilliant.

Thanks to Maetenloch for those.

Updated: I directed the second link to Moonbattery, where I think the images were first published.

Posted by: Ace at 01:07 PM | Comments (118)
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.

He's truly amazing.

He's so cool that even when the country is breaking all around him he suavely finds some time to recharge his emotional batteries and take time out for himself.

Barack Hussein Obama

Unable to golf or take vacations? Don't worry; President Obama has your back and has got your slack. You're welcome.

Posted by: Ace at 10:26 AM | Comments (206)
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm tryin. Lord it ain't easy. But I'm tryin.

Not a lot of ranked head to head games today, Florida and LSU, Michigan and Michigan St, Florida St and Miami (FL), and Alabama against SC (here's a schedule). A certain co-blogger's Cowboys slapped around some little Louisiana school like a Bourbon Street harlot last night after a good game against A&M last week (not Cornell A&M Keith).

It's a gorgeous sunny day in Texas today. Git out there and enjoy yaself. Watch a game or two. And be kind to strangers.

She's a cute little Spartan, ain't she?*

* not a mistake so don't gimme no grief

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 07:11 AM | Comments (236)
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.

It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.

Hit it.

Remember Nov 2™, courtesy Slublog

appropo of nothing at all, if you're a trapped Chilean mine worker, you're about to have a pretty good weekend.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:32 AM | Comments (149)
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

And he's created them -- through his lawsuits.

"Businesses welcome them."

Linda McMahon, your next commercial is waiting.

Thanks to Laura "Shanty Trollop" W.

Add-on from lauraw: I recently saw Linda McMahon at a small gathering in a private home (maybe two dozen people there). She said that she will take no salary or bennies if she is elected. And that the congresscritters should have to live under the same health care system and laws that they enact for others, though she knows that is unlikely to occur simply because of how things work there.
And that if she is lucky enough to win them, she pledges she will only serve two terms.

We shall see, right?

I brought up to a campaign worker that she isn't bringing any attention to all the nasty stuff Blumenthal has done over his career, the people he has ruined, the way he oversteps his authority, and shouldn't Linda say something about that.
Got a pained look, and a 'no, I don't think she will be going there' kind of response.

It makes sense. She could so, so easily be tarred as that mean nasty wrestler lady.

Every question she responded to was pitch-perfect tea party conservatism, but pragmatic, too. She interrupted herself at times to address some of the unrealistic wishlist items, and why they were extremely unlikely to happen, and what kind of workarounds she would like to push. If she's a liar and a panderer she is amazing at it.

One thing I don't like about her campaign is the 'groups' thing. There's a Latinos for Linda group. One of the other ladies at the meet handed out pink 'Women for Linda' pins to all us broads.

Feh. I understand why she has to do that, especially in CT, and especially when she's peeling off so many Dems. That's their language. They're used to voting with their ethnicity and their reproductive organs.

Posted by: Ace at 07:06 PM | Comments (122)
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

Your Friday night respite from all things good and decent.

Tonight's 80's hair metal band selection features Love/Hate, a one semi-hit wonder, compleat w/ spastic lead singer. The band had a rather unfortunate fate as you'll see below the fold:

Keep reading...you know you want to. more...

Posted by: Genghis at 06:15 PM | Comments (683)
Post contains 489 words, total size 5 kb.

A physicist resigns from the APS. And on his way out the door attacks them for perpetrating a scam and once again breaking their own rules to shut down debate.

And of being bad scientists, and corrupted by the "trillions" of dollars at stake in Climate Alarmist Religion.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind---simply to bring the subject into the open.

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

The science is settled, but if you try to discuss the science, they shut you down.

Oh and I didn't bother with the corruption part. Seems too obvious.

But once again we see these guys ignoring their own rules to avoid the very debate which they then instruct you does not exist at all.

Of course "there is no debate." Every time someone tries to have one you change the rules.

Via Soylent Green and CharlesA., sending this in simultaneously.

Posted by: Ace at 05:39 PM | Comments (156)
Post contains 563 words, total size 3 kb.

Including the mandate.

He thinks the lawsuits working their way through the courts will push it to SCOTUS, and he also thinks there are just enough votes there to kill a federal requirement that citizens must enter into financial covenants with private companies for health insurance.

"It's going to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court's going to decide whether or not the Constitution of the United States permits the government to order the American people to purchase goods or services, whether they want them or need them or not," Pence said Friday on WLS radio in Indiana.

The Indiana lawmaker, and potential 2012 presidential candidate, has been among the crowd of Republicans to question whether a central part of Democrats' healthcare reform bill is constitutional. The crux of their argument is that the individual mandate — the section of the law requiring individuals to have health insurance of some sort — violates the Constitution.

Federal judges are funny critters, and oddly enough, disagree with interpretations of the Commerce clause at least as much as the rest of us.

One argument that has always fallen flat with me, is the comparison between "the federal government requiring you to purchase health insurance" and "a state government requiring you to purchase car insurance."

The state of Texas does not require drivers to purchase automobile insurance. The state of Texas does require a licensed driver to demonstrate "proof of financial responsibility", that is, your ability to cover the cost, up to certain amounts, of damage or injury as a result of your negligence.

Not insurance. The privilege of driving a vehicle here is granted with the requirement that you can demonstrate your ability to pay for your mistakes. That most of us choose to demonstrate this with liability insurance does not change the intent or meaning of the law.

I don't know why I'm rambling about insurance when all this crap is really about is buying votes with taxpayer money, and further enslaving us to our "betters".

Let's do this instead. Don't leave one candidate hanging.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 04:52 PM | Comments (86)
Post contains 367 words, total size 2 kb.