To the point. And on the air.

I'm glad he's running this ad. I believe -- as most of you believe -- that the media and the Democrats (BIRM) have essentially Jedi Mind Tricked the country into believing there's this massive wellspring of affection for Obama, and that the country will react hostilely to any attacks on Obama.

Nonsense. The media is still in love with him, as well as his bitter-ender progressive fantasists (but I repeat myself again), and no one else.

Independents don't like this guy. They might not hate him, but they don't like him.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:02 AM | Comments (108)
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

Damnit, Roseanne Barr will not be the Green Party candidate.

I thought she might eat at Obama's vote share a little, among progressive white voters who still remember who the fuck she even was. Not a large group, but still.

Posted by: Ace at 07:45 AM | Comments (67)
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm making up the "94%," but that's his thrust, if not his number.

I'm thinking about the saying, regarding war: "Amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics."

While this to-and-fro provides blog fodder and lots of opportunities for TV Talking Heads to say things like "This is a good move" and "This move, not so much," how much do campaigns matter?

They matter some, of course. But how much?

Not all that much, Cost thinks.

Basically, the vote choice begins with the broadest consideration of American politics – i.e. which party you affiliate with – and then on to how you think the country is doing. Together, those two factors likely determine whether you think the incumbent president has done a good job.

All of that happens before the campaign has even begun. This serves as the backdrop for how you respond to the campaign...

The decisive variable here is your evaluation of the president. That will determine how persuasive one side or the other has to be to get your vote. And notice that the above picture includes the net campaign effects. In other words, what is the end result when the two sides deploy their hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising?

Campaigns are important, but that does not mean they are decisive. The reason is that the two sides usually neutralize the other – both sides tend to be equally well-funded, their campaign strategists, media mavens, and other specialists tend to be equally skillful, and so on. Thus, their net effect tends to be pretty minimal.

He says he's not looking at head-to-head numbers. He says he's just looking at the president's job approval rating, because presidents tend to get just that share of the vote. (Like, duh, if you don't approve of the president's job performance, odds are you're voting for his rival.)

And Obama continues to get around 47% approval, which is just above the basement, guaranteed your-base-will-deliver-this-much-to-you level a Democrat can have.

Obama's a dick, is what I'm trying to say.

Posted by: Ace at 07:10 AM | Comments (146)
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.

No link.

How dare this racist note that there is only one president, and so, when he says he's running for "president," he actually in fact means to replace Barack Obama?

Michael Tomasky on Mitt Romney the Race Baiter at the NAACP
by Michael Tomasky Jul 12, 2012 4:45 AM EDT

With his incendiary speech to the NAACP, Mitt crossed an ugly line. No longer simply spineless and disingenuous, heÂ’s now become a race-mongering pyromaniac. Plus Mansfield Frazier on Romney's diversity problem.

Until yesterday, I thought of Mitt Romney as a spineless, disingenuous, and supercilious but more or less decently intentioned person who at least wasnÂ’t the race-mongering pyromaniac that some other Republican candidates of my lifetime have been. Then he gave his speech to the NAACP, and now I think of him as a spineless, disingenuous, supercilious, race-mongering pyromaniac who is very poorly intentioned indeed, and woe to us if this man sets foot in the White House as anything but a tourist.

...

That speech wasn’t to the NAACP. It was to Rush Limbaugh. It was to Tea Party Nation. It was to Fox News. Oh, he said some nice things. And sure, let’s give him one point for going there at all. But listen: You don’t go into the NAACP and use the word “Obamacare” and think that you’re not going to hear some boos. It’s a heavily loaded word, and Romney and his people know very well that liberals and the president’s supporters consider it an insult. He and his team had to know those boos were coming, and Romney acknowledged as much a few hours later in an interview with . . . guess which channel (hint: it’s the one whose web site often has to close articles about race to commenters because of the blatant racism). Romney and team obviously concluded that a little shower of boos was perfectly fine because the story “Romney Booed at NAACP” would jazz up their (very white) base.

Blame the media for making such a big deal of it? Come on. When a candidate’s staffers are preparing a speech, they know very well exactly what line the press is going to lead with. Speeches are written with precisely that intent (or if they’re not, someone is sleeping on the job). The mention, for the record, was couched, with appropriate plausible deniability, in the middle of a list of five things he’d do to get the economy humming again. (Speech text here.) Point three concerned reducing government spending and bring down the debt: “To do this, I will eliminate expensive non-essential programs like Obamacare, and I will work to reform and save Medicare and Social Security, in part by means-testing their benefits.”

So far the only evidence of the "incendiary" nature of the speech is the mention of "ObamaCare," which is racist, despite Democrats now embracing that term.

The context is crucial, and the fact that it was mentioned in passing certainly does not absolve Romney because it was just one item on a list.

Is he really suggesting that blacks don't know he has vowed to repeal ObamaTax? Or that it is racist to mention a known part of his platform to one racial group, for fear of offending him?

Who's the racist, again?

By the way: What's the big deal if blacks boo? He's acting as if any time you say something a black person doesn't like, it's ipso facto racist.

Again, that's racist.

Let’s imagine that in 2008 Barack Obama had spoken, oh, to the American Legion—that is, a strongly Republican assemblage—and had spoken of being anxious to get to Pennsylvania Avenue so he could end “Bush and Cheney’s wars.” In fact he did speak (via video) to the American Legion in 2008, and he talked about needing to end the wars, but he sure didn’t use any loaded phrases that he and his speechwriters knew would piss his audience off. Part of the difference is a clear difference in character between the two men. And part of it, of course, is that in our political discourse, pissing off veterans is as bad a mistake as you can make, while pissing off black people usually adds value.

So he... announced his agenda to a crowd that didn't like it. But he didn't use the racist term "Bush and Cheney's wars," or something. (By the way, this idiot seems to have forgotten that Obama pledged -- on paper, at least -- to end only one of Bush's and Cheney's wars. The other one he vowed to fight, fight, fight, but in the "right way.")

Eh, just hit-whoring. Say something as stupid as you can imagine to drive traffic. It's intellectually dishonest; it's just carney-barking.

That's why there's no link. Use your adult words, Mikey.

Laura Adds:

he actual subtext of that speech is 'what's good for all Americans will be good for black people, too.' No race-obsessed-victim-fetishist wants to hear that.

I saw some black commentators say yesterday that even though they disagreed politically with Romney, they appreciated his candor and thought it was courageous of him to not attempt to blow smoke up their asses.

This must be terrifying for the Left.

Thanks to @slublog.

Is Obama A Racial Pyromaniac Too? Is he deliberately provoking blacks by calling ObamaCare "ObamaCare"?

It's so stupid anyway, I don't know why we even have to point out it's factually wrong besides.

thanks to @drewmtips for that.

Posted by: Ace at 06:15 AM | Comments (195)
Post contains 961 words, total size 6 kb.

I had the good fortune of seeing Jonah Goldberg of NRO give a live presentation and Q&A on his book Tyranny of Cliches in Boston last night. He was hilarious, insightful as always, and couldn't have been a nicer guy. A true Moron's Moron.

Posted by: andy at 02:51 AM | Comments (292)
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

WTF Is The Deal With People Who are Contrary Conversationalists?

We've all dealt with people like this where every conversation is a variant of this one:

Them: "It's a nice day outside."

You: "Yes, it is."

Them: "Not really. It's kind of crappy outside."

Well Gretchen Rubin, author of The Happiness Project, has coined a term to describe this behavior:

Here's a new phenomenon I've tentatively identified: oppositional conversational style.

A person with oppositional conversational style is a person who, in conversation, disagrees with and corrects whatever you say. He or she may do this in a friendly way, or a belligerent way, but this person frames remarks in opposition to whatever you venture.

I've always referred to them as quibblers - people who simply will never accept any statement from you - no matter how trivial or obviously correct it is - as true on its face. They must always quibble, argue, or simply contradict what you said.

Needless to say people like this are extremely annoying and by breaking the unspoken 'yes and...' rules of conversation they basically make every interaction with them a chore.

For a long time I assumed they were just being asshole-ish and trying to establish some kind of dominance - and for some that is the case. But later I realized that for many of them it was unintentional behavior and they were clueless and genuinely mystified as to why they always seemed to rub people the wrong way and why casual chats often ended with people storming off.

You tend to see this much more among engineering and technical people where it comes out as compulsive hyper-correction and quibbling - so much so that I'm now convinced that it's actually a very mild form of Asperger's.

In fact I've run into some engineers who were such extreme contrary conversationalists that they would go into what I call 'hostile witness' mode over the simplest questions. Here's an example ripped from the pages of my life:

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:22 PM | Comments (393)
Post contains 1700 words, total size 15 kb.

The second half is implied.

And he got in touch with Andrea Mitchell to relay this. What a surprise.

NBC News reports that missing Illinois Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. has been found.

The 2nd District Congressman reportedly has been In Arizona receiving treatment for alcoholism in Arizona, according to Andrea Mitchell.

Jackson Jr. went on hiatus from congress a month ago, on June 10, and his office released a statement nearly two weeks after that saying he was being treated at an undisclosed location for exhaustion.

His collapse is well scheduled.

[A]s ABC News points out, Jackson is facing an ethics probe, and just “days before he left Congress on medical leave, a former fundraiser for Jackson, Raghuveer Nayak, was arrested by the FBI on charges of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to doctors.” Any disappearance shrouded in this much secrecy and circumlocution deserves a healthy dose of irritated skepticism.

Update: Now Jackson's office says he's being treated for a "mood disorder."

Turns out he's not in the mood to go to jail, so.

Posted by: Ace at 04:34 PM | Comments (224)
Post contains 201 words, total size 2 kb.

Remember when Occupy used chains to hold open subway gates, their "gift" to "The People"? Free Subway rides, or something?

Police dabbed the chains used for DNA, and one of the samples matches DNA left at a 2004 murder scene.

[D]NA found at an Occupy New York-affiliated protest matches genetic material found at the crime scene. The 21-year-old drama major and aspiring actress disappeared after she left to go running on May 19, 2004. Fox's body was found six days later in a heavily wooded area of Inwood Hill Park, her clothing removed and larynx fractured....

DNA samples collected from a chain left behind at a March 28 protest in Brooklyn matches the DNA found on a pink CD player found near Fox's body, the law enforcement official told the New York Post.

I'm sure Occupy will cooperate fully with police to help solve this murder. /bullshit

Thanks to @laurww

Posted by: Ace at 04:09 PM | Comments (64)
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

Romney isn't going to win blacks. But if he doesn't win blacks as badly as McCain did last time, it's a win.

And Obama is not going to win blue collar white men. That's one of the most conservative-tilting groups in America. Nevertheless, it's a big cohort, so Obama can't afford to lose them too badly.

In 2008, he won 39% of their support, a pretty good level for a Democrat. In fact, that was the high-water mark for Democrats with the blue-collar white male cohort.

Walter Mondale only garnered 31% of their support in 1984, and was blown out.

And Obama?

Just 29%.

It's not all upside. Romney's only attracting 56% of their support, so he has a fair amount of persuading to do.

But Obama's had three and half years to make an impression, and Romney's only had a few months.

It should also be noted that minorities now make up a lot more of the electorate:

Demographic change is the silver lining for Obama in these shifting patterns of political support. As recently as 1992, non-college whites cast an absolute 53 majority of all votes, and minorities just 12 percent, with college whites contributing the remaining 35 percent. By 2008, minorities had increased to 26 percent and non-college whites fallen sharply to 39 percent of the votes, with college whites holding steady at 35 percent, according to the exit polls.

Posted by: Ace at 03:43 PM | Comments (62)
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.

It takes some stones to stand in front of a hostile crowd and tell them a bunch of things they don't want to hear.

Drew mentioned the ObamaTax part of the speech earlier, and the subsequent boos. And subsequent doubling down by Romney.

I like this line, too.

Unflinching before a skeptical NAACP crowd, Mitt Romney declared Wednesday he'd do more for African-Americans than Barack Obama, the nation's first black president. He drew jeers when he lambasted the Democrat's policies.

"If you want a president who will make things better in the African-American community, you are looking at him," Romney told the group's annual convention. Pausing as some in the crowd heckled, he added, "You take a look!"

"For real?" yelled someone in the crowd.

Over at National Journal, a glowing review, which the media doesn't generally share, naturally.

With the critical eyes of the political world resting squarely upon him, Romney marched defiantly into the lion's den and delivered a speech that was direct, assertive and dispassionate. Undaunted, the man seeking to unseat the nation's first African-American president stood calmly before a group of his most fervent supporters and informed them that he, not Obama, is the one they've been waiting for.

...

[R]omney promised to repeal the president's health care law -- casually referring to it as "Obamacare." The audience didn't like that, and they let Romney hear their displeasure, raining down boos on the Republican nominee. Romney appeared taken aback by the crowd's response, and for a few fleeting moments, it looked as if the Romney campaign's fear of an embarrassing episode would be realized.

Then something happened. Romney, often mocked for his robotic style and lack of nimbleness, stepped away from his script and succinctly explained his opposition to the Affordable Care Act: Business owners say it makes them less likely to hire new employees, he said. Romney then sought to reassure the skeptical crowd of his commitment to health care policies that protect society's most vulnerable and and provide effective care to those who need it.

The incident served as a microcosm of the broader occasion, one that revealed a different side of Romney. He easily could have played it safe in Houston, sticking to civil-rights issues and issuing abstract rebukes of Obama's economic and education policies. But he didn't. Instead, he went all-out, forcefully denouncing Obama's job performance and criticizing a law he knew had support among the Obama-friendly audience....

The writer notes that his stump speeches often appear listless and rote, but he spoke forcefully and animatedly here.

He spoke with aggravated empathy about the African-American unemployment rate reaching 14 percent. He hammered the issue of job creation, arguing that Obama's economic policies have disproportionately harmed minorities. And he expertly used education reform as a wedge between the president and his supporters in the audience, earning sustained applause when arguing that "candidates cannot have it both ways" -- i.e., Obama must choose between advancing education reforms and protecting teachers' unions.

It was a fine performance, one that delivered a distinct message to observers of all political stripes. Democrats saw a candidate who embraced adversity and wasn't afraid to mix it up. Republicans saw a candidate who was quick on his feet and took a punch without falling down. And independents saw a candidate who isn't the "extremist" or "panderer" his opponents portray him to be.

Hacks for the NAACP are slamming his appearance -- some claiming he "patronized" them, others angry he refused to patronize them -- and deeming it just a big darned strategic error to even show up.

Which makes me think that it wasn't an error at all, but a hit plus a stolen base for good measure.

No matter what your politics, no one has much bad to say about straight-shooting or showing some stones.

Back in 2000, I think, George W. Bush made a play for black votes, and an analyst said, "The play was superficially for black votes, but in reality it was for independent but liberal-ish white votes." The sort of people for whom the never-ending shriek of "racist!" still has meaning. By reaching out to blacks, this line of reasoning went, Bush was actually reaching out to non-black voters who were persuadable, but would not vote for anyone the media successfully depicted as a racist.

And that's not to say Romney won't get black votes, either. In 2004, 18 percent of black voters were at least entertaining the idea of voting for Bush, and a percentage there and a percentage there and suddenly you're talking about an election.

One good thing: I've been worried about Romney's tendency to get lock-jawed with a ghastly fake grin when he feels sharply criticized. He seems to have avoided that response. Oh, he still had some faint sort of smile through much of the booing, but it was more like the Competitive Smile you see jocks get when they know they're up against it. Like, Okay, let's deal with this.

Full video below, thanks to @jtlol and @theh2

more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:12 PM | Comments (177)
Post contains 899 words, total size 6 kb.