Drudge's wordplay, of course. Good word choice.

Michelle Malkin wants an investigation into illegal coordination between Obama and PrioritiesUSA.

So why this vicious ad, coordinated at the highest levels by Obama? Well, remember that Larry Sabato analysis I'm so fond of.

Larry Sabato looked at previous polls and had several conclusions: 1, there are not very many swing voters at all. 2, they're unenthusiastic about voting (which either causes, or is caused by, the fact that they're uncommitted and don't love either candidate).

And 3, they don't much like this Barack Obama character:

Swing voters had much more negative opinions of President ObamaÂ’s job performance than other voters. In fact, their opinions were almost as negative as those of Romney supporters. Only 11% of swing voters approved of ObamaÂ’s job performance compared with 6% of Romney voters. In contrast, 92% of Obama voters approved of the presidentÂ’s job performance.

[Quoting Sabato, if that's not clear.]

Sabato's conclusion was that a higher-turnout election actually favored Romney, because if these unenthusiastic Obama critics actually make it to the polls, they'll vote against Obama (or against him about 70% to 30%).

Interestingly, Obama's down-and-dirty negative campaign dovetails nicely with his best strategy, which is to depress the vote among all but his most reliable partisans. Making the election about nothing except negative attacks should do that for him.

Even though Romney has an edge with these True Undecideds, they're small in number. Sabato, IIRC, pegged them at no more than 10%, and yesterday's CBS/NYT poll had it that only four percent were undecided. (Four percent?!)

Still, a 70/30 split with 5% of the population means a net gain of 2% in the overall vote (3.5% for Romney, 1.5% for Obama)-- assuming we can get these people to the polls, which, at the current moment, is in doubt.

Sabato noted of the True Undecideds...

...compared with voters supporting a candidate, swing voters were disproportionately white and female.

I don't know how "disproportionately" white and female they were, though.

So Obama's gambit here may wind up helping him. Soptic's wife was white and female (presumably as to the former, required by the then-existing laws for the latter). The sob story is deliberately chosen to turn white female undecided voters away from the election -- they may despise Obama, especially after this ad, but they'll still remember the lie, won't they?

Obama's strategy is to simply disgust all voters except for his hardest-core partisans and depress the vote of all groups except those reliable Obamabots.

Everything he does must be seen in this light -- yes, he's turning people off, but he's turning people off from politics as a general matter, turning them off of voting, period.

Which is his only hope.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:05 AM | Comments (318)
Post contains 464 words, total size 4 kb.

This is precisely why you can't take the anti-war left seriously.

Republican in the White House: perpetual mouth-frothing outrage, with a side of paper-mache puppets.

Democrat in the White House: *crickets*

What I found most absurd about the advertisement, however, is the notion of enthusiastic supporters of President Obama attacking Mitt Romney for being complicit in the death of innocent people. Are they totally oblivious to Obama's record? It's true that the president has never led a company that closed a plant that employed someone whose wife later died of cancer.

(Has Obama ever fired anyone? I'd be curious to know.)

On the other hand, Obama personally approved a drone program that has killed hundreds of innocents since taking office. (Admittedly, few of them have TV-ready relatives living in a swing state.)

It would be nice if Obama defenders could respond that he's done everything in his power to minimize civilian casualties, but that isn't true. Drones that fire missiles, then sometimes fire again when rescuers rush to the scene, or when funerals are held, does not minimize civilian casualties. When a drone program defines "all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent," the effect is not to minimize civilian casualties, but to maximize the cover the United States has to kill people without raising alarm from outside observers.

Which one of these two has a 'kill list' again?

Posted by: JohnE. at 07:09 AM | Comments (315)
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

Happy Thursday.

The diplomatic row between Belarus and Sweden over parachuted teddy bears escalates.

Politico notes that polls are consistently showing far fewer "undecided" voters than at the same point in 2008, but then makes the incorrect logical leap that this means the election is "super-tight." Actually, it more likely indicates that the President is losing badly. This election is a referendum on Obama; if there are fewer undecided voters than usual, it's because they've already made up their mind in the midst of his anti-prosperity presidency and the general economic slump.

Over 100 million people in the U.S. are now receiving some form of federal welfare.

The NYTimes is just now noticing that if you incentivise something, you'll end up with more of it. In this case, the UN global warming treaty pays big money to firms that acquire and destroy greenhouse gases. So firms simply increased their production of the gas.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:50 AM | Comments (498)
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

The Insta-wife: Why I Will Place a Romney Sticker on my Car

Here Dr. Helen Smith responds to a post by Myra Adams on why she's afraid to put a Romney sticker on her car. One of Adams' commenters makes the point that vandalism of your car is more or less expected in some areas with an 'incorrect' sticker:

You should be afraid. I won't put political stickers on my car. I don't want it vandalized. I live in the People's Republik of Madison, WI.

That's not an irrational concern. I wouldn't put a Republican sticker on my car nor sign in my yard. I see plenty of people still with Obama stickers on their cars or wearing his clothes and given the attitudes described above, it's not worth tempting fate. I'll express my views in the polls where it counts.

Smith was unpersuaded and declared:

Seriously, WTF? When Bush was running for his second term, no one had a Bush sticker on their car, so I found a stack of them and slapped one on the back of my car, and passed the rest out to others who said they were afraid. I kept it there for five years, even after Obama became president. Other people told me at that time it wasn't safe. I say "bullshit."

What isn't safe is being so fearful that you will not take a stand to turn this country around and are willing to hide out. Screw that. The next Romney sticker I find goes on my car.

Is there anyone else out there who feels the same way? If so, stand with me and dare to put a Romney sticker on your car.

Well I'm probably not going to be putting a Romney sticker on my car.^*

Now I could give all kinds of high-minded excuses (my sacred conservative honor prevents it, it's a new car with anti-stick paint, I have adhesive allergies, bla bla bla), but the main reason is because I live in a pretty blue area and I just don't feel like dealing with the very real risk that my car will get vandalized while parked at the mall or grocery store. So yeah I guess I'm being fearful.

But since I don't live in a purplish area in a red state like Dr. Smith it's being fearful for a reason - vandalism of cars for having the wrong stickers can and does happen around here. It's sad but that's the reality. Plus I've had my car keyed before and it was a royal pain in the effin' butt trying to get it repaired enough not to look like crap. And frankly I'm just too lazy these days to want to go down that path again if I can help it.

So yeah I guess I'm being kinda cowardly and afraid to take a stand for this country via stickerfare. But I do intend to drag my ass to the polls to vote out the SCOAMF and convince/cajole/browbeat all my friends into doing the same. Which in my mind is a bit better than a vandal-bait sticker on my car.

* _{Plus I've never been into bumper stickers anyway so this isn't really a change for me.}

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:13 PM | Comments (905)
Post contains 1413 words, total size 13 kb.

Romney left Bain in 1999.

GST was shut down in 2001.

Soptic's wife had her own health insurance through 2003.

Now, in 2006, she was diagnosed -- diagnosed! -- with very late-stage cancer.

She died 22 days after diagnosis.

Is the argument made that Romney owed this guy another seven years worth of insurance coverage?

And what good would it even have done? She wasn't even diagnosed until just over three weeks before she would die.

What?!

I have to point this out because until now I'd been assuming she was suffering with cancer for years.

I knew this ad was preposterous, but this is just too much.

I'm sorry, I'm very late on this one. I knew the story was bullshit, but I thought there must be some shred of truth to it.

I agree with the guy I linked -- I have gone from thinking Soptic is a nice guy who's just a little bit dim, to thinking he's just a union thug recruited to make up a sob story.

Oh: Here's Politico, noting the timing, via Business Insider:

But Politico's Alex Burns reported that the Soptic's wife died in 2006, four years after the plant was closed.

A 2006 story in the Kansas City Star reported the death of Ranae Soptic, a former champion roller skater: “Soptic went to the hospital for pneumonia, but doctors found signs of very advanced cancer, and she died two weeks later on June 22.”

Both Politco and Business Insider attempt to cover for Obama/PrioritiesUSA by claiming that we don't know when she developed cancer, so who knows, gee, maybe Romney really did kill her.

This is total bullshit.

How f'n' long does Politico and Business Insider carry health coverage for terminated employees? A month? Two, if they're feeling generous?

Posted by: Ace at 03:45 PM | Comments (592)
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

Your money, their agenda.

Not only are you paying for this boondoggle as a direct, first-order matter...

But, the long-term costs for taxpayers may be even higher. Amid the receptions and social outings, there is a fair amount of work being done at the conference. There are speeches, panel discussions and working groups on every aspect of government. The problem is, though, almost all of these discussions are steered toward government doing more, rather than less. Ideas arising out of the conference are generally biased to expand the reach of government. In fact, many of these sessions are essentially how-to-guides for growing government.

Lawmakers will also meet in "committees" where, with the input of many outside interests they will decide "policies" which the organization will use to lobby Congress. Invariably this lobbying seeks to increase the flow of federal taxpayer money to state governments.

And, we pay for it. NCSL receives a significant percentage of its budget from "dues" paid by the individual states. In addition to this, the organization receives grants from the federal government, private foundations and "sponsorship" contributions from corporations and unions. (Lobbyists and union reps also pay $1,200 to attend the conference and enjoy access to the lawmakers.)

Why are we funding this? Why is it that everytime I turn around the left has managed to mulct the public fisc for yet another one of their taxpayer-financed agenda items, and no one does a damn thing about it?

Posted by: Ace at 03:08 PM | Comments (142)
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

Via Meredith Dake. Two different completely uncoordinated ad campaigns.

But the same shirt.

By the way, I really feel bad about all the Fan Service I've thrown out for guys, while providing nothing to girls except for a series of horrible photographs.

So: I don't really know Gerald Butler, but the ladies brought his name up. I'm not sure if this photo is him, and I'm not sure I've ever heard about some leaked cellphone budoir shots of him, but it looks kind of like him.

More: PrioritiesUSA claims that its ad was shot in a "union hall," and not in Scoptic's house, as Obama's ad was.

Union hall?

For one thing, it looks like a house.

For another thing, why does Scoptic have his hat on a bureau at his "union hall"?

Sure looks like it's his home in both cases.

Hmm: Not sure I'm right about that. I'm looking at the PrioritiesUSA scenery, and it just might be a union hall, like an office in the back. The glass at the right of the frame has an institutional architecture look, not a residential architecture look, and the "door" looks like it might be a room divider.

Well, guy still prepared the same ad for Stephanie Cutter in his phone conference for OFA.

But Wait: I aired my questions to Meredith Dake. She answers that she thinks both clips were shot in an institutional setting, i.e., the same union hall.

Ah.

Posted by: Ace at 02:20 PM | Comments (266)
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

I don't know if this is quite real. I've looked, and while a lot of sites are linking it, I don't see anyone confirming that this is a real, paid commentator. For all we know, this is just a guy watching a live feed and adding his own commentary.

Still, for all of that, it's pretty darned funny. There's a bit of cursing along the way, and various jibes about various other countries, and a pretty hysterical ending that causes me to seriously doubt this man is a professional sportscaster. (Update: Commenters are pretty sure they've read he's a comedian, not a sportscaster. Makes sense. Still funny.)

But still, he's funny, both when he means to be and when he doesn't exactly mean to be.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:46 PM | Comments (113)
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

Keep electing Democrats, Red States. Just keep electing them because they say they won't take away your guns. Because no Republican would ever guarantee that (and actually mean it).

So keep electing the Jon Testers and Joe Manchins that will always vote for ObamaCare and other liberal wish-list items when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid need them too.

And then keep acting surprised when this happens. "But he drove a pick-up truck with a gun rack in his commercials. I thought that meant he would vote in my own interests."

Yeah.

Called a "cheap date." Not a good thing.

Big, Fat, Stupid, Obvious, Transparent, Shameless Lies

At some point, your willingness to believe them says much less about the liar than it says about you.

Posted by: Ace at 12:58 PM | Comments (168)
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

And...

n 2011, female White House employees made about 18 percent less than their male counterparts, the Free Beacon found.

Never let it be said that Democrats don't value the work and values of women. They value them 85% as much as they value the work and values of men.

So what are you complaining about, Honey? I'm making you Special Assistant In Charge of Lower File Drawers. (Joke from "Wizard of Axelrod.")

By the way, here's my math: 15% less is about one-sixth less (16 2/3%). If women make 5/6ths of what men do, then men make 6/5ths of what women do. An extra fifth is 20%.

Yeah I took the SATs. That's right. Suck it, fractions.

Posted by: Ace at 12:34 PM | Comments (108)
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.