I'm sure this has been covered, but Dan Pfeiffer's lie punked the NYT blogger covering the matter too, who reported his falsehood as true.

But then he was apprised of the facts, and winds up calling Pfeiffer a liar. Or at least a writer of falsehoods.

Below, an unrelated ad, but a good one.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:09 AM | Comments (77)
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

You know what the really good thing about The Hobbit was? It moved. Fast. It was punchy and quick and fun and adventuresome.

But someone wants to make $50 million more so they're going to gamble away the strength of the book in favor of making it slow and plodding and filled with endless backstory.

We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.

So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of “The Hobbit” films, I’d like to announce that two films will become three.

Great.

I want to watch dwarves singing for a total run time of 6 3/4 hours. Because I've got that kind of time allotted to singing dwarves.

Let me explain to you why you shouldn't turn a lively adventure story into a bloated, self-important prequel about the formative years of the villain of the previous trilogy: here.

Posted by: Ace at 08:49 AM | Comments (168)
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

JohnE. just did this.

I'll ask him if he'll do more of them.

Posted by: Ace at 07:33 AM | Comments (269)
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

First, from Moonbattery, via the very clean LauraW, comes this picture of the Wimp Factor:

By the way, I guess this is second: Like three weeks ago Laura Ingraham was all like "Get off the Jet-Ski, Romney! The American people don't want to see you on a Jet-Ski! With your wife. On vacation."

I ignored this because, well, people paid to talk are going to talk. Manufactured content. Whatever.

But I really thought this was dumb. Are the American people really dazzled by the ultra-exclusive technology of the Seadoo? Is this something that the average person thinks, "Gee, it's too bad I'm only in the middle class, because I could never possibly go to a lake and rent a Seadoo for a couple of hours"?

It's a freakin' Jet-ski. People have seen them. Many have actually ridden them. It's not a personal spaceship, you know. It's not made of gold.

Next thing they'll be saying "Don't you dare to go to beautiful Mount Airy Lodge in the Poconos, Mitt Romney. You don't want to flaunt your wealth by getting exclusive tickets to the beautiful Mount Airy Lodge, also known as the Millionaire's Playground, also known as 'the place where they laugh at the Bildersbergers.' Why, the average person watching an ad for the beautiful Mount Airy Lodge, at 10:30 in the morning, at home, on a weekday, during a rerun of Jeanie, could never dream of actually booking a room there, nor bathing in its heart-shaped tubs."

And then God Forbid he goes to a Lazer Tag arena. Talk about exclusive.

What the hell was I talking about? Oh right.

Instapundit links this old link of an old post. Obama's a baby and needs his ba-ba.

One of my favorite moments from the new book The Escape Artists: How Obama's Team Fumbled the Recovery:

Energy was a particular obsession of the president-elect's, and therefore a particular source of frustration. Week after week, [White House economic adviser Christina] Romer would march in with an estimate of the jobs all the investments in clean energy would produce; week after week, Obama would send her back to check the numbers. "I don't get it," he'd say. "We make these large-scale investments in infrastructure. What do you mean, there are no jobs?" But the numbers rarely budged.

This Is a Good Pic Too: Via Lauren.

Posted by: Ace at 07:10 AM | Comments (136)
Post contains 444 words, total size 3 kb.

So, what else we got?

Check out the Washington Post on Newsweek's "wimp" gambit.

Newsweek seems to define Romney’s alleged “wimpiness” as a sort of wide-ranging insecurity that forces the Republican presidential candidate into a series of gaffes like the ones he committed in London late last week.

Writes NewsweekÂ’s Michael Tomasky:

“He’s kind of lame, and he’s really ... annoying. He keeps saying these ... things, these incredibly off-key things. Then he apologizes immediately—with all the sincerity of a hostage. Or maybe he doesn’t: sometimes he whines about the subsequent attacks on him. But the one thing he never does? Man up, double down, take his lumps.”

First up: Gotta love the smashing prose of Michael Tomasky. "He's kind of lame, and he's really... annoying." Ernest Hemmingway just emailed me to say "Keep an eye on this one."

Okay, back to the Washington Post. I do have a point here.

That seems overly harsh, but you get the idea. Americans want strong leaders telling them hard truths, Tomasky argues, and Romney isnÂ’t it.

There is some polling evidence that suggests that Romney has not yet passed the commander-in-chief test, which, of course, isnÂ’t a test at all, but rather a sort of perception hurdle about whether the former Massachusetts governor looks like he is up to the task of representing America on the world stage.

In an NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released last week, 45 percent of respondents said President Obama would make the better commander in chief, while 35 percent said Romney would. Forty-eight percent said Obama was “knowledgeable and experienced enough to handle the presidency,” while 32 percent said that phrase better described Romney.

It is now 42 months into Obama's presidency, and only 48% of the public think he's "knowledgeable and experienced enough to handle the presidency"? Only 48% think he's knowledgeable enough and experienced enough to handle the job he's currently performing?

Doesn't that mean a majority of 52% either doesn't believe or doesn't know he has such knowledge and experience? Even after four years?

Chris Cilizza doesn't even pause to consider this. He just chalks it up as a big fat win.

Posted by: Ace at 05:47 AM | Comments (241)
Post contains 440 words, total size 3 kb.

This was old last week when I didn't post it (wondering if it was too old to post).

If you haven't seen this, but you're a male heterosexual, here you go.

The costs of not seeing it are too great to run that risk. more...

Posted by: Ace at 05:10 AM | Comments (94)
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

Jimmy Carter, of course, was such a disaster that he led to 12 years of Republican rule, and the Democrats had to create a new party-within-the-party, the DLC, to make a new, plausible pitch to the public.

“Obviously, I’m not a big fan of President Obama,” said Cheney in an excerpt from an interview with ABC News aired Monday on “Good Morning America.” “I think he’s been one of our weakest presidents. I fundamentally disagree with him philosophically, be hard put to find any Democratic president I disagree with more.”

Asked by ABC’s Jonathan Karl if Obama was “worse than Jimmy Carter in your perspective,” Cheney responded “yes.”

I'd like to see polls asking people if Carter or Obama was a better president. People tend to be most negative on the current SCOAMF and let the previous one -- the one no longer doing any harm -- off easy. So, that sort of a poll could be good propaganda against the Lightworker.

Another poll I'd like to see is "Who would you rather have a beer with, President Obama, or this bowl of hot shit?" Just sayin', the bowl of hot shit? Doesn't keep saying "You didn't build that."

Bowl of Hot Shit 2012

He knows he's crap and he's not trying to convince you otherwise.

Posted by: Ace at 04:40 AM | Comments (89)
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

Gabe posted this earlier (and hello again, everyone), but I wanted to post it again, to say "See look how smart I am" and also because I don't know what's actually new news at this point. I haven't followed the news and in fact have barely been on the current events section of the internet.

Mitt Romney holds thin advantages over President Obama on leadership, personal values and honesty, according to a new poll for The Hill.

...

It found 48 percent of voters consider Romney the stronger leader, compared to 44 percent who favored Obama.

Similarly, 47 percent of likely voters also said Romney most shares their values while 44 percent picked Obama.

When asked which candidate voters considered more honest and trustworthy, 46 percent said Romney and 44 percent said Obama — a result within the poll’s 3 percentage point margin of error.

...

Obama has generally fared better than Romney throughout the campaign in polls assessing the candidatesÂ’ personal qualities.

In June, a USA Today/Gallup poll found 60 percent of voters considered Obama honest and trustworthy, compared to 50 percent for Romney. The Gallup survey also showed more people believed Obama shared their values (53 percent) than Romney (45 percent).

ObamaÂ’s biggest personal strength has been likability.

Anyway, for the past month I've written several times that when voters make their decision -- whether they announce it or still claim to be "waiting for all the facts" -- they begin saying the candidate they favor is better in all ways, even ones you wouldn't expect. Like when Obama was beating McCain, the public was saying Obama would be better on the deficit (!), terrorism (!!), and even taxes (!!!).

Consistent with the main line of my argument -- the election is almost over -- the public does seem to be breaking to Romney now on all these secondary questions. He's better for this, he's better at that.

Compare to this report from July 23rd:

Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is WashingtonÂ’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill.

It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy. Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame, followed by 23 percent who say Congress is the culprit. Twenty percent point the finger at Wall Street, and 18 percent cite former President George W. Bush.

I imagine the psychology is buyer's optimism-- when you research a new HDTV for three months and just decide to buy one already, you maybe convince yourself it's better (or at least pretty good) even in the few areas that it was bothering you.

I thought this would happen, and it is happening, which makes me firmer in my belief that the texture of the election campaign will make Romney the favorite. Barring any black swan that hurts Romney (after giving that kid the Gay Haircut, Romney blew him!) or helps Obama, his position will only strengthen, out to a persistent 5-8 point lead in the polls.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 04:12 AM | Comments (51)
Post contains 663 words, total size 4 kb.

Week three of the Romney camp focusing on Obama's "you didn't build that" remark kicks off with a new ad:

The campaign will continue the "We Did Build This" events with small business owners across twelve states today.

This is what the campaign should be about. Obama's failures as a leader, his disastrous financial ideas, his empty promises, and his fundamentally hostile attitude to the people that make the U.S. econimy tick.

The more the Obamatons bleat that this is unfair, "out of context," the better off the campaign is going for Romney. Pile it on 'em.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:47 AM | Comments (48)
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

Happy Monday.

Walter Russell Mead has a must-read post on the energy revolution and environmentalists. It is, as typical for Mead, brilliant.

The NYTimes' Andrew Rosenthal is not amused by the White House's clumsy attempt to put to rest the story of the Churchill bust: "I got some facts wrong, because I made the mistake of relying on a White House blog post by the communications director Dan Pfeiffer. . . . The White HouseÂ’s handling of the issue was bumbling and amateurish. In other words, business as usual." Charles Krauthammer thinks an apology would be appropriate.

Some good poll results for Romney. After a month of Obama ads trashing him for Bain and after six months of media fixation on clown questions, e.g., Shamus, bullying, Mormonism: 48 percent of voters consider Romney the stronger leader, compared to 44 percent who favored Obama. Similarly, 47 percent of likely voters also said Romney most shares their values while 44 percent picked Obama. When asked which candidate voters considered more honest and trustworthy, 46 percent said Romney and 44 percent said Obama. The crosstabs are interesting (PDF).

According to the Daily Caller, a new book on the Obama Administration scheduled for release in August claims that Obama cancelled the UBL raid three times on the advice of Valerie Jarrett before finally making the gutsy call.

A new Gallup poll finds that voters' absolutely lowest priorities are taxing the wealthy and dealing with environmental problems. Voters want good job creation the most.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:50 AM | Comments (105)
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.