Top Headline Comments 12-18-13
— Gabriel Malor

HUMP DAY.

USAToday: "Insurers, consumers await HHS guidance as deadline looms." Just go read the whole thing. These folks are so boned. The woman who plans to take money from her IRA to pay for health insurance? No. NO. NO. The dude planning to pay cash for the birth of his child? Oy. The chick who is letting her son's insurance lapse for at least a month so that she can get covered? What in the world?

A federal district court judge ordered the Obama administration to disclose a "global directive" that it was trying to keep secret. The directive was a widely-disseminated, nonclassifed order that has the force of law, but the administration claimed it could keep its content secret merely because Obama Himself issued it. This was the second benchslap (PDF) for the administration this week:

Masterwork level footnote commentary from judge smacking Obama over secret government orders: pic.twitter.com/jlRlR40zm4

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) December 17, 2013

Judge Huvelle was also less than amused by Obama admin's "cavalier" suggestion that it should govern in secret: pic.twitter.com/wit9ne3cqk

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) December 18, 2013

Keep those "Ask The Blog" questions/comments/advice/requests for evidence coming.

---

AoSHQ Weekly Podcast: [ RSS] [On iTunes] [On Stitcher] [Download Latest Episode] [Ask The Blog]

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:51 AM | Comments (608)
Post contains 204 words, total size 3 kb.

Overnight Open Thread (12-17-2013)
— Maetenloch

Quote of the Day I

"In 2012 the CEO of Walmart made $20.7 million. Walmart has about 2 million employees (as far as I can tell, this is only counting the employees in the American stores). So, if you divided the CEO's entire pay among the employees they'd each get $10.35 more per year- that's not quite 20 cents per week; a half a cent per hour for full time employees. Woohoo.

Now, look at a paystub and see how much the various governments' steal from every paycheck, and then tell me who the real parasite is."

Quote of the Day II

Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission . . .The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent of the national income.

Quote of the Day III

And at PJ Media, Bryan Preston has finally found the best description ever of MSNBC, something he reveals in the very first sentence of a post you'll want to read:  "Religious cable network MSNBC rallied the faithful with a pair of heartworming [sic -- done on purpose] messages."

more...

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:45 PM | Comments (705)
Post contains 1246 words, total size 14 kb.

New Obamacare Pitch Slightly Sadder and Weirder Than Previous Efforts
— Ace

Yeah Son, that is all too real.

It looks like a publicity still from one of those awful comedy pilots that NBC buys by the bushelfull where you never even hear of it before it gets cancelled but then one day you're looking up someone's imdb.com credits and a show with only six episodes comes up and the show's called Beta Buddies and you're like "What? What the hell? What the hell is Beta Buddies? Has IMDB been hacked?" but then you investigate further and see there's a review at the AV Club ("Beta Buddies is just like Perfect Strangers if someone at the network had said "NEEDS. MOAR. BALKY!") and you're like "Holy shit, I guess that was a show. Weird."

And, Open Thread.

Posted by: Ace at 04:42 PM | Comments (704)
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

With One Week Until January 1st, Obama Still Has Not Signed Up For Obamacare
— Ace

He's putting out the word: Sign up for Obamacare, exactly like I didn't.

Apparently he's staying on his "old, crappy fake-sham Bad Apple insurance" as long as the law permits him to.

And maybe even after that -- he can always suspend that part of the law, should it become inconvenient.

Meanwhile, an ad is now running against Jean Shaheen which can be easily used against every Democrat who voted for Obamacare, which is practically every single one of them. (A couple of House Democrats in tough seats were permitted to vote against it, to fool their constituents; a few of those may still even be in office.)

Oh, and people are "poised" to gain health insurance. Like the economy is "poised" to grow.

The White House's new Obamacare progress metric: people "poised to gain coverage." pic.twitter.com/4vtDEdZqOE

— Lachlan Markay (@lachlan) December 18, 2013

@lachlan The new "jobs created or saved."

— Sean Hackbarth (@seanhackbarth) December 18, 2013

more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:43 PM | Comments (237)
Post contains 186 words, total size 2 kb.

You're Not Going to Believe This, But Touré Embarrassed Himself
— Ace

He shames himself with dumb.

After airing a package report from NBC News White House reporter Kristen Welker, Touré thanked her but noted she did not go far enough. “Santa Claus is black. He just is,” the MSNBC host mock-insisted.

“I, for one, am glad Santa is black because I don’t want my kids worshipping some white dude who flies in to give them stuff,” Touré continued. “Thinking a benevolent white man gives them stuff every year is good training for a life on welfare.”

He added that he is not surprised by the resistance to the notion that a powerful figure like Santa could be black.

“The insistence he’s not black and can’t be black strikes me as an attempt to perpetuate white supremacy and to posit that whiteness is somehow normal and central while blackness is other or different,” Touré continued. He insisted that “race is fictional” and, as a social construct, it bears little bearing on day-to-day life.

“You do know, there is already a generous, benevolent black man in your children’s lives who lives in a place that is magical, who has given something to each and every American, whether they have been naughty or nice,” the MSNBC host concluded. “You know who I’m talking about?”

Obama, he meant, which he made clear when he played a video of an Obama impersonator touting Obamacare.

Meanwhile, Megyn Kelly defended herself on the #SlatePitch nontroversy issue.

She had said "Santa is white" in a previous show, and of course all the people you'd expect to splutter in outrage spluttered in outrage.

She has a question for the racialist left, though.

Also in the news tonight, is Santa Claus real and what does he look like? Hide the kids, mom and dad. Spoiler alert. Apparently we ignited quite a controversy the other night in a segment about an essay that argues Santa should no longer be portrayed as a white man. The African-American author of the piece, Aisha Harris, was upset about the commercial depiction of Santa Claus as white and argued that a, quote, "Fat old white man who is, quote, melanin deficient, made her feel ashamed as a child." Thus necessitating an image makeover.

And kicking off the light-hearted segment I offered a tongue in cheek message for any kids watching saying that Santa, who I joked is a real person whose race is identifiable, is white just as Harris claimed in her piece but that we were debating whether that should somehow change.
...

KELLY: But that, too, has brought a lot of, you know, feelings out by a lot of our viewers saying, look, you know, historically, all those pieces I referenced, all those pieces Ms. Harris referenced showed a black Santa. And some people are taking issue with her suggestion that the mere color of his skin in these portrayals as white is somehow alienating to black children or, as she put it, causes shame in them.

[ZERLINA] MAXWELL: It is alienating to black children.

KELLY: Why is it skin alienating and why is that not racist?

This is the simple truth of it. What's going on here is simple: yes, black kids are kind of put off by a Santa Who Doesn't Look Like Them. It's only natural.

But if a white person says "Well I want Santa to be the way I always imagined him (and most painters, etc., have always depicted him), looking like me," that's racist.

Why? Why the difference? Why is it natural and understandable that Aisha Harris (writer of the original stupid Slate article) should be alienated by a white-skinned Santa and prefer a black one, and yet it's racist that whites might prefer it the other way around?

There seems to be an awful lot of words being wasted on this as people strain to not state the simple, obvious truth of it.

There also seems to be a strange notion at work in these arguments. Whites in the majority will tend to argue, or at least implicitly support the idea, that the majority should win in these arguments.

The left doesn't agree with this. Fair enough. But they seem to take an indefensible position: the majority should not win, ever. The majority should always be frustrated in its desires, simply because it is the majority, and the majority must lose.

I don't see the sense of that proposition at all. Just in terms of simple utilitarianism, it fails.

Posted by: Ace at 02:59 PM | Comments (205)
Post contains 761 words, total size 5 kb.

So Who Else Retires?
— CAC

With the announcements of Reps Wolf and Matheson's retirements today, we saw a potential R-D seat swap in the House's roll call. Some excitement for Mia Love, some for the hundred or so Republicans and Democrats who will jump at the chance to win VA-10, but nothing particularly earth-shattering. What would intrigue me a lot more: a Democratic Senator pulling a last-minute retirement announcement.

Think I'm dreaming? Ben Nelson waited until the last week of 2011 to announce he was going to retire rather than see his ass mashed into paste over his Obamacare vote. Unlike the vulnerable Democrats discussed for this cycle, he was trailing badly in polls, but if any candidate's private polling paints an uglier picture for them than their campaign is letting on, and they want to avoid the heartache of a humiliating loss, they still have plenty of time to bow out.

Rockefeller, Baucus, Johnson, Levin and Harkin all announced their retirements much earlier in the cycle, leaving Republicans with solid pickup opportunities in West Virginia, Montana, and South Dakota; a draw in Michigan; and putting them slightly behind in Iowa. Each of these retirements inch the Republicans closer to majority status, and an additional retirement would mean Republicans can win the Senate without targeting a single Democrat incumbent. Unseating someone like Pryor or Hagan would then just be icing on the cake.

So who do you think may decide to throw in the towel?

Posted by: CAC at 01:04 PM | Comments (177)
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

Wow: Washington Post Has New Term for People Who Disapprove of Both Political Parties, But Who Are Voting GOP This Cycle: "Haters"
— Ace

If these independent, pox-on-both-houses voters were voting Democratic, I wonder if they'd be "haters" or perhaps something a bit nicer, like "mavericks" or even "stalwarts."

But they're voting GOP, so they're "Haters." The nation's throwing a temper tantrum again, I can almost hear Peter Jennings intoning.

Bias aside, though, this confirms what many have suspected: while both the GOP and Democratic Congressional caucuses poll very poorly, and the public seems to hate them both, the public hates the Democrats just a little bit more.

34% of the public disapproves of everyone in government -- President, Congressional Democrats, Congressional Republicans. And 72% of that large block intends to vote Republican:

Seventy-two percent of voters who disapprove of the job Obama, congressional Democrats and congressional Republicans are doing say theyÂ’d vote for the GOP candidate for U.S. House in their district if the election were held today, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll released Tuesday. Just 14 percent say theyÂ’d vote for the Democrat.

Posted by: Ace at 01:56 PM | Comments (233)
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

Let's Go Cherry-Picking!
— JohnE.

Fair warning. I'm about to dig deep down into a few polls today, looking to ferret out some unnoticed trends that others have completely missed due to their total obscurity. Unfortunately, Greg Sargent over at the Washington Post predicted some partisan hacks like me (but not him) might try to work this angle.

Keep an eye on the poll cherry picking on the right today.

— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) December 17, 2013

First up, a new WaPo/ABC poll was released today. WaPo tries to hide an interesting little morsel at the way top of the article, in the first sentence of the first paragraph.

President Obama is ending his fifth year in office matching the worst public approval ratings of his presidency, with record numbers of Americans saying they disapprove of his job performance and his once-hefty advantages over Republicans in Congress eroded in many areas, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

If you click over to the poll itself and scroll all the way down to the first question, you'll notice a pronounced shift in who Americans trust with the problems facing our nation.



If you're not yet exhausted from this fruitless hunt for slivers of positive minutia, buried in the backwater social media site known as Twitter, WaPo attempted to suppress this mostly useless tidbit: President Obama has the worst year 5 standing of anyone since Richard Nixon (whoever that is).

Post-ABC poll: Obama approval 43%, disapproval 55% - weakest 5yr mark since Nixon, G.W. Bush stood at 47% http://t.co/jJroLGuFOi @danbalz

— Post Polls (@PostPolls) December 17, 2013

Meanwhile, the latest Pew poll has found that liberal support for Obama has collapsed hard.

Following on the heels of other political groups, President Obama's liberal base is abandoning him, giving him an even lower level of support from his base than George W. Bush had from conservatives five years into his presidency, according to a new Pew Research Center poll.

Just 54 percent of liberal Democrats strongly approve of Obama in their new poll. For Bush at this stage of his presidency, 65 percent of conservatives strongly supported the Republican.

As yesterday's poll showed, millennials are souring on Obama. What's interesting is that even liberal millennials are as well.

Worse for Obama: Younger liberals have lost their thrill for Obama more than older liberals. Of those aged 18-49, just 46 percent strongly approve of the president, 39 percent “not so strongly,” said Pew.

As Greg might tell you, it's been a very positive couple of months for President Obama, but if you're willing to put in the hard work and have a keen, trained eye for poll analysis, you might be able to discover these little chinks in his armor. Don't read too much into it, though. I'm just cherry-pickin'.

[Update] He warned us, and now the prophecy has been fulfilled. Lotta cherry-pickin' out there.

@ron_fournier Our poll finds Ocare has rebounded by 20 points among young voters. Genuinely curious to know if that will get any coverage

— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) December 17, 2013

Thanks to @slublog

Posted by: JohnE. at 12:14 PM | Comments (161)
Post contains 513 words, total size 4 kb.

White House Delayed Avalanche of New Regulations Until After 2012, For "Clearly Political" Purposes
— Ace

Heritage noted, in 2012, that the Administration's rush to regulate slowed down in that election year:

Last fall, Heritage Foundation analysts noted an eerie silence coming from Obama regulatory agencies. The production of new rules, which until then had been in overdrive, slipped into a lower gear. And the regulatory agenda, which the Administration was required by law to release every spring and fall, did not appear. Noting the odd silence, Heritage research fellow Diane Katz speculated that the rules were being deliberately delayed until after the election year.

Obama officials scoffed at such speculation.

But a Washington Post report published over the weekend now indicates that's precisely what happened.

The White House systematically delayed enacting a series of rules on the environment, worker safety and health care to prevent them from becoming points of contention before the 2012 election, according to documents and interviews with current and former administration officials.

Some agency officials were instructed to hold off submitting proposals to the White House for up to a year to ensure that they would not be issued before voters went to the polls, the current and former officials said....

The Obama administration has repeatedly said that any delays until after the election were coincidental and that such decisions were made without regard to politics. But seven current and former administration officials told The Washington Post that the motives behind many of the delays were clearly political, as ObamaÂ’s top aides focused on avoiding controversy before his reelection.

The number and scope of delays under Obama went well beyond those of his predecessors, who helped shape rules but did not have the same formalized controls, said current and former officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic.

The report was prepared by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), an "independent agency that advises the federal government on regulatory issues." They interviewed more than a dozen "senior agency officials" at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which "oversees the implementation of federal rules."

OIRA officials -- political appointees -- put the brakes on the rush to regulate:

The officials interviewed for the ACUS report, whose names were withheld from publication by the study authors, said that starting in 2012 they had to meet with an OIRA desk officer before submitting each significant rule for formal review. They called the sessions “Mother-may-I” meetings, according to the study.

The accounts were echoed by four Obama administration political appointees and three career officials interviewed by The Post.

At the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, a former official said that only two managers had the authority to request a major rule in 2012: then-administrator Lisa P. Jackson and deputy administrator Bob Perciasepe. Perciasepe and OIRA’s director at the time, Cass Sunstein, would have “weekly and sometimes semi-weekly discussions” to discuss rules that affected the economy, one said, because they had political consequences, the person said.

“As we entered the run-up to the election, the word went out the White House was not anxious to review new rules,” the former official said.

Sunstein, who has returned to his post as a Harvard Law School professor, declined to comment.

The Administration delayed defining what constituted an Obamacare-compliant "essential benefits plan" in order to avoid "controversy." Thus avoiding an earlier discussion about the "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" lie, or, as the leftist media calls it, the "wrong promise that Obama inadvertently made in order to offer a pithy slogan to the public in response to Republican lies about Obamacare."

Other delayed regulations include environmental-protection rules, which we are now, of course, are told are essential, and must not be delayed a moment longer, lest the birds and the children should perish.

Posted by: Ace at 11:34 AM | Comments (167)
Post contains 658 words, total size 5 kb.

Americans' Belief in God Still High, But Falling
— Ace

Interesting poll. Not sure what it means, but I was actually curious about the numbers.

A new Harris Poll finds that a strong majority (74 percent) of U.S. adults say they believe in God, but that's down from the 82 percent who expressed such a belief in earlier years.

Belief in miracles, heaven and other religious teachings also declined in the latest poll...

Specific details omitted as I can't steal the whole article.

The same poll also found that belief in Darwin's theory of evolution increased to 47 percent, up from 42 percent in 2005.

...

Other findings:

-- Absolute certainty that there is a God is down vs. 10 years ago (54 percent vs. 66 percent in 2003).

-- Outside of specific religious samples, the groups most likely to be absolutely certain there is a God include blacks (70%), Republicans (65%), older Americans (62%), Baby Boomers (60%), Southerners (61%) and Midwesterners (58%), and those with a high school education or less (60%).

...

-- 19 percent of Americans describe themselves are "very" religious, with an additional four in ten (40%) describing themselves as "somewhat" religious (down from 49% in 2007). Nearly one-fourth of Americans (23%) identify themselves as "not at all" religious – a figure that has nearly doubled since 2007, when it was at 12%.

That's the most surprising number to me-- I didn't imagine less than 20% of the public would call themselves "very religious." I thought it would be over 30%.

Sorry: It's slim pickin's these slow-news pre-Christmas weeks.

I could do a post on whether Santa is white or black, but... Eh, I guess I'll do that.

Posted by: Ace at 10:30 AM | Comments (297)
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.