6 in ten say that race relations will improve in Obama's America, presumably as the races unite in misery and in scorn of President Richard Hussein Nixon.

That, to them, is the big headline. As opposed to, say, this: the same poll -- happy race relations! -- shows a seven point net loss for Obama in combined job approval and job disapproval. September's poll had him 54/43. He's lost four in approval and 3 more have moved to the disapprove column.

But that's not the only key finding according to USAToday! You'll also learn that Michelle "Pat" Obama has experienced a "surge" in personal approval (popularity), and is even more popular now than her very popular husband!

A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken in the past week shows a surge in positive views of the first lady over the past year even as her husband's ratings have eroded. As the anniversary of the presidential election approaches, Michelle Obama is viewed more favorably than her husband, and her standing is 19 percentage points higher than Vice President Biden's.

"She has conducted herself as an educated, sensitive, down-to-earth woman — not a black woman, a woman — like when she does the gardening (to encourage healthful eating) and taking care of the family," including daughters Malia and Sasha, says Rosemarie Tate, 55, of West Hartford, Conn. "Those are values that everybody shares," says the registered dietician, who was among those called in the survey.

Let's compare the liberal media's reaction to this poll with their reaction to the WaPo/ABCNews poll claiming that only 20% of adults identify themselves as Republican.

Despite the cheesiness of that number, ABCNews' polling director put up a piece defending the result, and saying it was congruent with other liberal-media polls and past ABC poll findings. (He kept ignoring the question of whether it was congruent with Zogby, Gallup, or Rasmussen -- despite the fact he kept quoting Newt Gingrinch pointing out the divergence from those particular polls.)

So, ABCNews obviously buys that number.

Now... this number? It's pretty plain that USAToday does not stand behind it, or doesn't wish to push it out there. They do acknowledge Obama's approval has slipped to 50% in the race relations article, but it's mentioned as an afterthought. They are all but ignoring that finding as unreliable, and instead looking to some really minor findings about hopes that Obama will improve race relations.

Which is, by the way, old news: Every poll claims this. The six in ten figure is hardly remarkable; indeed, near the beginning of Obama's tenure, the figure was higher.

There has been some recalibration of the euphoric expectations expressed in a USA TODAY survey taken the day after the election, on Nov. 5, 2008. Then, 28% predicted race relations would get "a lot" better, compared with 15% now. Forty-two percent said they would be "a little" better, compared with 46% now.

A year ago, a record 67% said race relations one day would no longer be an issue in the United States. Now that has dropped to 56%, a tick higher than in Gallup polls taken before Obama seemed poised to win the Democratic nomination.

So, um... to the extent you find the race relation question big news, isn't that your headline?

So instead of pushing real poll news they push old poll news, and don't even headline the fact that even on the race relations question, Obama's lost ground, not gained it.

Curious, isn't it, which polls news agencies are willing to throw under the bus, and which they'll defend to the death. Funny that it always seems to be the polls that make liberals' hearts go all aflutter that are championed, and the ones they consider real downers that get barely a mention.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Posted by: Ace at 12:41 PM | Comments (408)
Post contains 667 words, total size 4 kb.

Seems I was wrong.

In his 256-page report to Congress, Barofsky notes that the Treasury Department's failure to implement anti-fraud measures, or even to require TARP recipients to report how they used the billions Congress and the Treasury Department gave them, makes it highly unlikely that the $317 billion outstanding -- nearly half the TARP total -- will ever be returned to taxpayers. Barofsky also threatened to subpoena documents relating to the Treasury Department's "less-than-accurate statements ... concerning TARP's first investments in nine large financial institutions," as well as its subsequent refusal to report what hundreds of other TARP recipients did with the funds.

So there you have it: Treasury officials lied to Congress and the public, and refused to demand even a basic level of accountability from TARP recipients while borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars that taxpayers will eventually have to pay back, plus billions in interest. Incredibly, just Wednesday, President Obama announced a new TARP-like program for small businesses and community banks. The madness in Washington won't stop until the people completely clean house at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

I was also very wrong about the bailouts not "greasing the tracks for socialism." Certainly Obama has capitalized on the panic-mentality and used a general claim that We must do something, now, before thinking! to usher through the Spendulus -- another $800 billion down the rathole -- and certainly the TARP panic aided him in that.

Incidentally, Obama ally General Electric, owner of Obama-approved media organizations NBC and MSNBC, lobbied for special rules to get TARP money despite having almost nothing at all to do with banking. (They have a finance arm, but their "banking" presence derives from the ownership of two small banks.)

GE, you will be happy to know, got the money under special rules and also, being so very special, does not have to comply with Obama's Pay Czar's CEO pay demands.

Posted by: Ace at 11:18 AM | Comments (250)
Post contains 362 words, total size 3 kb.

On the upside, it doesn't appear they were drunk.

Federal officials are working to sort out whether pilots of a Northwest Airlines flight dozed off or were simply distracted Wednesday night when they fell out of contact with air-traffic controllers for more than an hour and overshot their destination by 150 miles.

The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating, among other things, whether the two pilots fell asleep at the controls. The pair told law-enforcement officials who interviewed them upon landing in Minneapolis -- and apparently told fellow pilots later -- that they had been engaged in a "heated discussion over airline policy and they lost situational awareness," according to the NTSB.

Yeah, being out of radio contact for 78 minutes, 150 miles off course and having the military about to launch fighter interceptors to see what's up, is a little more than a loss of situational awareness. The NTSB is trying to figure out if the cockpit voice recorder is the older model that only records 30 minutes at a time or the newer ones that have 2 hours of data. If it's the latter and they hear snoring instead of fighting over company policy...buh bye to these two.

Pilot fatigue is a big issue and no doubt the NTSB and NASA will be looking into the flight crews schedule but there's also the fact that flying today's commercial jets is not the most exciting of things under routine conditions. Aside from take off and landing, a lot of the normal navigation and control functions are handled by computers. Once the crew plugs in the info, baring in-flight changes or emergencies, they are kind of along for the ride too.

I first saw this story last night over at Lex's, where there's lots of comments about sleeping on the job. Here's one of my personal stories that I left over there....

I was coming home from Hawaii on United one time and listening to Channel 9. Somewhere east of LA I heard a controller call up to our flight 2 or 3 times with no response. I was considering how to politely suggest to the FA she might want to, um, visit, the cockpit when the FO finally responded and took the hand-off to the next Center.

The funny thing is I was never affraid to fly before but after getting my private certificate, I know just enough to occasionally be worried.

Flying commercial is still one of the safest ways to travel and when those hours of boredom are punctuated by moments of sheer terror you want a guy like Sully Sullenberger working the problem. Still though, you expect them to at least be awake.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:57 AM | Comments (94)
Post contains 475 words, total size 3 kb.

The 49% are right, and the 27% who think there will be no change in their personal costs are wrong -- their costs will go up too.

You cannot take 100 units of service, currently utilized by 100 people, and spread those units among 120 people without rationing away from those currently getting the service towards those currently not getting the service.

And if you're paying the same amount for lesser service, your costs per service have gone up.

And you're not going to pay the same amount, either. You're going to pay more.
For less.

Posted by: Ace at 10:31 AM | Comments (72)
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.

That observation from Jennifer Rubin, noting Obama's Nixonian attempt to ban a Fox reporter from a pool to interview the "pay czar."

It’s a cringe-inducing moment, both for those who oppose the White House on policy grounds and those who cheer its every move. As surely as Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton allowed their personal flaws to erode the office of the presidency, Obama seems bent on allowing his own flaws (thin-skinnedness, hubris) to do potentially grave damage to the office as well. And over what? Not some grand policy matter or some key personnel matter, but over the desire to exclude a news network that has criticized him. For those who suggested that Obama’s main selling point was his “superior temperament,” we anxiously await an admission of grave error. It seems they were terribly mistaken.

Allah's worried. Regarding Obama obsessing over FoxNews at his sit-down with hyperbolically liberal commentators...

Dude, Glenn Beck’s own fans don’t obsess about him this much. How do we put The One’s mind at ease here? Taxpayer-funded psychotherapy? A week off at Camp David? A security blanket, perhaps emblazoned with the “O” logo that he loves so much? I’m not being altruistic; we’ve reached the point where, purely out of self-interest, we may need to start worrying about this guy being on the red line with Medvedev, chatting about nukes, and letting his mind wander to what Sean Hannity said about him that night. What can we do to help this poor afflicted individual get the help he needs?

I honestly think that this might have been the first time in his life where he's been subject to professional scrutiny and criticism.

It's rather easy to have a "first-class temperament" when everyone's always kissing your ass. But that's hardly the proof of such a temperament. Proof of an even, cool demeanor comes when you're under stress and subject to criticism.

This can only get worse, of course.

Posted by: Ace at 09:51 AM | Comments (295)
Post contains 342 words, total size 2 kb.

This has been an issue for months now. Nice to see the Head-Pat Media finally do some fact-checking.

- White House press secretary Robert Gibbs may want to add a Friday news story from the Associated Press to his to-do list today. The article disabuses Gibbs on claims he made in recent weeks saying the Hyde amendment prevent taxpayer-funding of abortion in the health care bills.

The Associated Press acknowledges what pro-life groups have been saying all along -- that the Hyde amendment, which stops abortion funding in Medicaid, doesn't apply to these new health care bills.

"Currently a law called the Hyde amendment bars federal funding for abortion - except in cases of rape and incest or if the mother's life would be endangered - and applies those restrictions to Medicaid," AP writer Erica Werner reports. "Separate laws apply the restrictions to the federal employee health plan and military and other programs."

"But the Democrats' health overhaul bill would create a new stream of federal funding not covered by the restrictions," AP confirms.

As LifeNews.com reported October 7, Gibbs said during a press briefing that, referring to the Hyde amendment, "there's a law that precludes the use of federal funds for abortion. That isn't going to be changed in these health care bills."

"Again, there's a fairly well-documented federal law that prevents it," he claimed.

Gibbs repeated the claim the next day when challenged by a reporter with a follow-up question, saying "there's a fairly clear federal law prohibiting the federal use of money for abortion."

This is happening with several provisions of ObamaCare. Liberals want illegal aliens covered; moderates and conservatives don't. Liberals want abortions covered; moderates and conservatives don't.

In both cases the liberals want to pretend that current law already bars the coverage, when they know in fact it doesn't, so they continue to vote down amendments specifically barring coverage in these cases on the pretext "it's already the law, there's no point in passing this."

It's a lie. They are trying to paper over serious conceptual splits by claiming the moderate/conservative position is already prevailing while all liberals know that's not true at all.

It's important for people to know what laws actually mean. Obama and his flacks keep lying about what they mean.

As they say, it is easier to ask for forgiveness than obtain permission in advance. Once they've gotten this on the books, they plan to say "Oh dear, we were wrong, turns out illegal aliens and abortions are covered; our bad. But, on the other hand, we'll block any amendment seeking to reverse this coverage."

Posted by: Ace at 08:48 AM | Comments (90)
Post contains 456 words, total size 3 kb.

And don't blame us.

Ah, nothing like throwing a guy under the bus a week and a half before election day.

Sensing that victory in the race for Virginia governor is slipping away, Democrats at the national level are laying the groundwork to blame a loss in a key swing state on a weak candidate who ran a poor campaign that failed to fully embrace President Obama until days before the election.

...A loss for Deeds in Virginia -- which for the first time in decades supported the Democratic presidential candidate in last year's race -- would likely be seen as a sign that Obama's popularity is weakening in critical areas of the country. But the unusual preelection criticism could be an attempt to shield Obama from that narrative by ensuring that Deeds is blamed personally for the loss, particularly given the state's three-decade pattern of backing candidates from the party out of power in the White House.

...But national Democrats are contrasting Deeds with New Jersey Gov. Jon S. Corzine and New York congressional candidate Bill Owens, who they say have more actively sought the White House's help and more vigorously and publicly backed its agenda. Polls show Corzine in a competitive position in New Jersey and Owens ahead, while Deeds has turned aggressively to Obama voters in recent days in an effort to overcome a significant deficit in the polls.

Although Deeds often praises the president on the campaign trail, he has distanced himself from Obama and Democratic policy priorities at times. At a debate in September, he declined the opportunity to label himself an "Obama Democrat." And just this week, he said he did not believe that a public health insurance option is necessary and that as governor he might consider opting out of one if Congress extends that right to states.

Boy, you'd almost think Deeds works for Fox News or something.

As for pointing to Corzine, that is a great idea. You mean Barack Obama is still popular in a hardcore blue state? Wow, better interrupt programming to report that news.

The fact is that Democrats are seeing that Obama is not translating well for anyone but himself in the swing states he carried last year.

While that obviously poses challenges for the GOP in the 2012 presidential race, it's got to have Democrats worried about the 2010 congressional races.

It's a great Catch-22 the Democrats find themselves in, the more congressional candidates find themselves voting for Obama's agenda (health care, cap and trade, etc) the more danger they put themselves in. At the same time, Obama's inability to get anything passed a Congress where the Democrats have overwhelming majorities will damage his chances for reelection.

I get that the environment looks good for Republicans and I understand the need to excite the the team, I really wish GOP officials would stop talking like this.

Leading conservative lawmaker Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) is confident that his party will regain control of the House in 2010.

Dr. Price told reporters Friday morning that the "hyperpartisan state" in the House resulting from "a remarkable lack of leadership" on the part of Democrats bodes well for his own party's chances of picking up 40 House seats necessary to retake the gavel.

In the words of the immortal Han Solo, "Don't get cocky kid".

But do pass the popcorn.

Speaking of not getting cocky...you can sign up to help the GOP candidate in VA, Bob McDonnell here.

And in the closer race in NJ, help Chris Christie beat Jon Corzine.

*I changed the headline because it dawned on me not everyone might get who I was talking about.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:53 AM | Comments (139)
Post contains 626 words, total size 4 kb.

Democrats in the Senate are furiously trying to figure out how to include something called a 'public option' and still get 60 votes. The problem is, every time they think they get 2 more votes with a new idea, they lose 3. It's actually kind of fun watching Harry Reid shuffle back and forth trying to sweep the sea.

The latest gambit is a scheme that would allow states to opt out of any public option.

The proposal, which was described by other senators and congressional aides, represented a first overture by the Nevada Democrat to solve one of the knottiest issues dividing his party: whether to create a national plan that would serve as a low-cost alternative to private insurers. House Democratic leaders are strongly behind a government-run plan, though exact details have yet to be finalized.

Whether the Senate will embrace any form of the idea is unknown. Republicans are lining up in near lockstep against it. Moderate Democrats are concerned, too, and responded Thursday with wariness.

Sen. Ben Nelson, who has met twice this week with Mr. Reid, said it would be "very difficult" for him to support any proposal that creates a national plan -- even one that allows states to opt out. The Nebraska Democrat wants to empower states to experiment with their own public plans, he said, "the nature of which would be determined by the states, not the federal government."

One of the biggest questions about this option is whether states would have the chance to opt out before it's implemented or after. The Senate Democrats don't seem to be saying much but one of the more visible liberal House Democrats, Anthony Weiner of NY says states would have to be a part of the plan at first and then they could bail.

I would accept and would be open to the idea of after the program's up and running a couple of years, if a state wants to opt out, if they want to leave 25,000, 30,000, 50,000 of their citizens without that choice-I don't believe it's going to happen, so I would accept that kind of an opt-out thing.

That's from Wednesday on Hardball but he said basically the same thing last night with Olbermann (talk about going from the loony left to the, well, loony left).

Here's the thing, if they do go with this opt out provision but only after a few years, no state will ever opt out. By the time 3 or 4 years goes by so many people will have been dumped from their employer based plans into the government option, no state is going to be able to pull back, no matter how much it kills state and federal budgets.

This opt out idea is simply another scam.

Now if states want to enact their own public options, they can now. In fact some have, with the predictably disastrous results.

Of course the supporters say what they always do, the only way to fix the failure of a government program is with...more government programs!

Added: Commenter "the other coyote" makes a good point

The opt-out means a state can opt out of PARTICIPATING in the public option plan.

The state can't opt-out of PAYING for the public option plan.

If Texas opts out, the Texas taxpayer is STILL going to be paying for this debacle through their federal taxes

That's a point that voters in states represented by the likes of Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu and Olympia Snowe need to be reminded of.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:00 AM | Comments (69)
Post contains 612 words, total size 4 kb.

FRIDAY!

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:27 AM | Comments (185)
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.

WELCOME TO THURSDAY ALL M&MS! AND YES IT IS INTERNATIONAL CAPS LOCK DAY. THUS THE YELLING. THIS IS ALSO PART OF OUR ENHANCEMENT FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

The Best Villains in Film History
A montage of the best villains in film in the last 50 years. Some are truly evil, others are just the 'bad' guys. See how many you can identify..

Posted by: Open Blog at 07:59 PM | Comments (807)
Post contains 258 words, total size 3 kb.