Again, a statistically insignificant blip from yesterday of a mere point, which, for all I know, may be due merely to a good Obama day falling off the three day track, or a particularly bad Obama day entering it.

1% is no big shakes. But it is a whole new low of support, at 51%. And once again, the blip is trivial, but the trend is persistent, obvious, and significant.

FYI, Obama's support at Rasmussen creeps up from 49% to 51%. Of likely voters.

I doubt that. Rasmussen will have him at 48% by Monday.

You can group everyone in America into strata depending on overall political ideology and specific political triggers. These groups will "flip" together based upon specific triggers. First come your harder-core conservatives (who never flipped because they weren't on board to begin with), then the squishier varieties who "wanted to give Obama a chance," then the RINOs like Noonan, then the conservative-leaning independents, etc.

AHFF Geoff, who tipped this, sighed as he said "I sense a bottoming." Well, I'm not so sure of that -- I think Obama has a couple of more points to lose, at least.

But it could be we're getting fewer and fewer flips from approve to disapprove based on the triggers -- the circumstances, the gaffes, the unemployment figures, etc. -- we have now.

But I don't see that as a problem. There will be new triggers. Sure, some might flip people back into Obama's camp, but I think most of what's coming will flip more and more strata of voters into the opposition.

The only thing you can confidently predict about the future in politics is that the future will almost certainly be different than the present. Maybe it'll be better for Obama. But I don't think that's the way to bet.

Posted by: Ace at 09:33 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.

There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damnable lies, and claims that words have been "taken out of context."

A liberal Yale scholar, widely regarded as the originator of the “public option” idea of creating a government run insurance provider to compete with private-sector insurance companies, told CNSNews.com that he does not see the public option as a "Trojan Horse" that could lead the United States to single-payer, government-run health insurance.

“I do not see my ‘Health Care for America’ proposal as a route to single payer,” Jacob S. Hacker told CNSNews.com in an email.

Hacker said that he hopes the public option, if adopted, would eventually lead to a government-managed system--but it wouldn't happen overnight.

In a 2008 video obtained and aired by Fox News Channel, Hacker not only suggested that his plan would lead to a single-payer system, but said it would do so openly, in a gradual way, he admitted.

“Someone once said to me, ‘Well, this is a Trojan horse for single payer.’ I said, ‘Well, it’s not a Trojan horse, right? It’s just right there! I’m telling you!’” Hacker said in the video, which was filmed at a July 2008 forum sponsored by the liberal Tides Foundation,.

“We’re going to get there (to a government-run system)--over time, slowly, but we’ll move away from reliance on employment-based health insurance, as we should.

“But we’ll do it in a way that we’re not going to frighten people into thinking they’re going to lose their private insurance. We’re going to give them a choice of public and private insurance when they’re in the pool, and we’re going to let them keep their private employment-based insurance if their employer continues to provide it.”

Hacker told CNSNews.com in an e-mail that his 2008 statement was being misconstrued because he meant only to say that the public plan itself would not be disguised--or a hidden “Trojan horse.”

“It is not: The public plan is right out in the open, as it should be, since most Americans say they want the choice of a new public plan.” Hacker added.

That's a lie. It is clear from his remarks -- as you can see above, he states that the government option will lead to single-payer, over time, but not in a way that will "frighten" voters -- that the government option is intended to slip single-payer in through the back door. Again, his quote:

“We’re going to get there (to a government-run system)--over time, slowly, but we’ll move away from reliance on employment-based health insurance, as we should.

“But we’ll do it in a way that we’re not going to frighten people into thinking they’re going to lose their private insurance. We’re going to give them a choice of public and private insurance when they’re in the pool, and we’re going to let them keep their private employment-based insurance if their employer continues to provide it.”

Of course, over time, employers will stop providing private insurance, which is the entire idea.

Verum Serum continues making rent by posting Hacker admitting this.

Below, a different quote, with Hacker again apparently being "taken out of context."

A questioner asks if Hacker's plan is not intended to "squeeze out" private insurance altogether (and employer-provided service as well) over time. Such that within a generation or two, everyone would be in the government's "quasi-Medicare" system.

His answer comes in the last five seconds.

And here is Hacker, Obama, and Frank all misseaking and/or being taken out of context.

Correction/Back-Pedal: Quote that was here was deleted. See below for the quote and an a correction.

Again, taken out of context! How does this keep happening to this poor man?!?!

Like Sonia Sotomayor, this guy seems to misspeak and be taken out of context and awful lot. And he always seems to be saying the exact same thing.

Odd. If he were saying something other than what it appears he's saying, you'd think he'd state his thoughts correctly at least once or twice.

But no, he always misspeaks and seems to say that the government option is an out-in-the-open brazen Trojan Horse designed to displace private insurance. But of course he doesn't mean that; he always says so. Or, at least, he says so now that this mountain of misstatements and out-of-context misquotes has been discovered.

Sad. He apparently suffers from some sort of hitherto-unknown public-policy Tourettes Syndrome.

By the Way: He sold his plan (which he originated) to liberal Congressmen. He pitched it to them, sold it to them, explained it to them.

So when you hear Barney Frank and Jan Shackowsky proclaiming this will "put the private insurance industry out of business," that's not merely their erroneous interpretation. That's precisely how the plan's originator sold it to them and explained it to them.

These drooling imbeciles and non-expert tax-lice didn't come up with that on their own.

No, the Harvard trained Yale professor boy genius who created the plan told them that.

Correction: To keep this fair -- and I don't see why I should, as these guys are lying their asses off -- I have reconsidered a quote I pulled out of the second video. I think maybe it was taken slightly out of context.

The quote I seized on:

""This would eliminate, I think, the small-group market insurance industry. It's premised on doing so."

Here's why this is I think taken slightly out of context: The "small-group market insurance industry" refers to, well, small groups seeking insurance. They don't have much bargaining power, being small.

Now, pretty much everyone, including conservative Republicans, want some kind of encouragement to get these small groups to band together into big groups, groups of groups, to increase their leverage so they can buy insurance for their employees more affordably.

In this one instance, I think maybe the line is taken out of context, because, at least in the initial stages of the government option take over, the "small group insurance" would be eliminated in favor of "small groups grouping together to form bigger groups with more leverage" insurance.

Of course -- there is another option. Their employers could just put them into the government option, which is Hacker's ultimate goal. But initially, some small groups might band together in the private market, while others (most) would go to the government option.

This is kind of a technical correction because, whatever Hacker expects to happen to "small groups" in the near term, it is quite clear, based on all of his statements, that in the mid- to long-term he expects all groups, large and small, individual and corporate, rich and poor, to eventually be on the government option.

I feel like a dick even offering this correction in the interest of strict honesty because the entire point of Hacker's plan is to deceive the public into accepting in small, inevitable pieces what they would reject outright if it were offered to them honestly and and all-at-once.

The whole point of this charade is to lie their way around the public's rejection of government-run socialized medicine by creating a dishonest fiction that private insurance will endure, when in fact the entire point is to change the rules of the game such that private insurance withers and dies, and they only option left is the government option.

It's Hacker's and Obama's version of "let me put it in for a second just to see how it feels." No one who's ever said that has ever had any intention to withdraw after the promised "second."

Zactly: huerfano writes:

Taken out of context = Did I really say that out loud?

With a side order of "Wait, I only wanted my liberal correligionists to hear that, I have an entirely different and contradictory message to sell to the moderates."

Posted by: Ace at 08:40 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 1339 words, total size 9 kb.

You may remember Rep. Eric Massa from his comment that he would be wiling to vote against his district's wishes when it comes to health care*.

Well it turns out at the same Nutroots conference he also said Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa committed an "act of treason" for suggesting that Obama Care will be bad for old people.

It turns out Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) made more waves at the Netroots Nation conference on Saturday, accusing Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) of "treason" for saying that health reform would result in doctors "pulling the plug on grandma."

"I mean what Grassley said the other day was an act of treason. I'm sorry. It's not being called on," the outspoken Democrat said to a group of liberal activists.

The Senate Finance Committee chair made his claims about the end-of-life provisions in the House healthcare bill last Wednesday, but retracted his claims later in the week.

Massa is not an important guy but this is a great example of how the Democrats constantly project their true nature on Republicans. For 8 years we heard nothing but baseless accusations from the left about how Bush and Cheney were questioning the patriotism of anyone who opposed the war in Iraq. Alas, they never could provide an actual example of that.

Yet here is the new darling of the nutters actually declaring it treason to engage in debate against Obama.

Treason is actually defined in the Constitution

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

I'd love for Rep. Massa to explain how what Grassley said fits this definition.

I'm guessing if anyone noticed this it would be brushed off as over heated rhetoric, nothing to see here. You know, like the MSM said about Palin and her "death panels", even though accusing someone of treason is far more serious than characterizing a policy initiative.

It's almost as if there's a double standard or something.

*I don't have a problem per se with a Congressman voting against what he thinks his district wants. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 08:05 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 532 words, total size 3 kb.

Back in May, Nancy Pelosi stuck her foot in it when she said that the CIA had a pattern and practice of lying to Congress over the years. She was defending herself from charges coming from the Left that she knew all about the CIA's harsh interrogation program. (Her excuse was that she wasn't briefed. Then that she didn't pay attention when she was briefed. Then that she sent an aide to the briefing, who didn't tell her about it. Then that the CIA lied to her and Congress.) She ended up having one of the most entertaining press conferences I have ever seen.

CIA Director Leon Panetta smacked her down hard, defending his agency. San Fran Nan then sulked, but continued her claims that the CIA had lied to her.

Then, out of nowhere came the bombshell: Panetta announced that the CIA had been running a secret, illegal assassination program for eight years and it had failed to brief Congress. "VINDICATION!" trumpeted Pelosi. Then the whole thing died down and no one remembers Pelosi's stunning sequence of CYA lies.

Turns out Leon Panetta is an idiot.

The Daily Beast has learned that shortly after his electrifying June 24 disclosure, Panetta spoke personally with each of his three predecessors—George Tenet, Porter Goss, and Michael Hayden—and only then realized the mistake he’d made about the program. An innocent mistake, but the consequences of his gaffe, which he’s unable to admit without damaging his own reputation further, will likely subject U.S. intelligence capabilities to unnecessary and intrusive oversight for years to come.

But once Panetta had spoken with Tenet, Goss, and Hayden, he learned that this secret “program” wasn’t much more than a PowerPoint presentation and a task force assigned to think it through. “Sensitive information” had been collected in a single foreign country, my sources tell me. That’s about it. It wasn’t really a coherent program at all so much as a collection of schemes, each attempting to achieve the same objective: to kill terrorists. This was one of perhaps dozens of ideas that had been kicked around at Langley since September 2001, when George W. Bush issued a presidential “finding” authorizing the agency to use deadly force against Osama bin Laden or other terrorists.

Under three successive CIA directors, these plans for paramilitary hit squads had been given three different names. (In the CIA, a program isn’t real until it’s given a codename.) But they never got off the ground. The logistical, legal, and political obstacles proved to be insurmountable. George Tenet gave up on it—too many moving parts. Porter Goss took another stab at it, but nothing, and then Gen. Michael V. Hayden’s team studied it for a while but envisioned nothing but trouble. So there was a reason that none of the last three CIA directors had briefed Congress about it: There was nothing to brief.

There's much, much more at the link. The gist is that Panetta successfuly covered for Pelosi by fabricating a secret, illegal spy program.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:19 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 529 words, total size 4 kb.

Frank Luntz says that "public option" polls so-so/mildly well, whereas the public expresses majority disapproval of a "government option."

And he says we've conceded a lot of rhetorical ground by agreeing to call it by the president's focus-group tested formulation.

So I'll be calling it the "government option" from now on.

Posted by: Ace at 07:06 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.

Mostly, I should say. Or at least we haven't seen Republicans carrying such signs.

Who are carrying them? The media likes to claim it's Republicans, conservatives, or those generally bitterly clinging to their health insurance.

The actual source of the poster? Followers of a cult that existed previously to Obama's -- Lyndon LaRouche's cult. And Lyndon LaRouche is a far-left-wing paranoid crank, and a registered, if atypical, Democrat of the conspiratorial populist type, as are many of (most of) his followers. Government and the corporations (and the Catholics and the Jews) are in a conspiracy to deny us a fair reapportionment of wealth, their Bilderberger blather goes. more...

Posted by: Ace at 06:36 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

Drudge was pushing this NY Times story last night but it turned out to be kind of, meh.

Top Democrats said Tuesday that their go-it-alone view was being shaped by what they saw as RepublicansÂ’ purposely strident tone against health care legislation during this monthÂ’s Congressional recess, as well as remarks by leading Republicans that current proposals were flawed beyond repair.

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said the heated opposition was evidence that Republicans had made a political calculation to draw a line against any health care changes, the latest in a string of major administration proposals that Republicans have opposed.

“The Republican leadership,” Mr. Emanuel said, “has made a strategic decision that defeating President Obama’s health care proposal is more important for their political goals than solving the health insurance problems that Americans face every day.”

The article then goes on to note what anyone with half a brain already knowsÂ…the Democrats internal divisions are almost as unbridgeable as the ones with the Republicans.

When I read this story last night, all I could think was it was a note to the base that spent the last few days grumbling about Obama's shifts on the public option. When Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow start to get down on Obama, you know it's time for a pep talk.

So while the left may feel better with this pat of the behind, the res of us can deal in facts. The Democrats werenÂ’t wooing Republicans for cover or to be bi-partisan, they simply need their votes. According to one of the leftÂ’s favorite analyst, Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com, they only have 43-45 votes for a public option out of their 60 seat caucus. So theyÂ’d need 5-7 Republicans (Collins, Snowe, Voinivich andÂ…..?) just to get 50 votes even if they decide to go the reconciliation route (which has its own challenges and limits).

Could this change? Could Obama and Reid lean on enough of the 15-17 Democrats who oppose the public option to take one for the team? Maybe but given the trends in ObamaÂ’s popularity and public support for this effort, thatÂ’s going to be a hell of a sell.

This fight does show that for the most part the US is a country that has to be governed from the center (with a reasonably narrow +/- range to either side of the ideological spectrum). You can have super majorities in both houses but you get their by reaching out to people further from your base. Base conservatives and liberals may wish it were otherwise but if a part canÂ’t pass one of its signature agenda items with 60 Senate seats, a 79 seat House majority and the presidency, IÂ’m not sure what it takes.

That's Our Obama [ace]: Ponder this: Obama has finally discovered that there are some people who can't be negotiated with, who agree to "discussions" chiefly as a delaying tactic using the purloined time advance their own agenda, who are inflexible as to their own purpose and who therefore aren't worth talking with further. And so unilateral action is called for.

These people, it turns out, aren't the Iranian Mullahs, but the Republican fellow citizens of his own country.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:07 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 576 words, total size 4 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:25 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Good evening all morons and moronettes. Genghis is taking a much needed vacation so you are once again spared from teh kittehmageddon. Hopefully after the intervention his vacation the threat will have passed and we'll be back to that good old snarky love that we're used to.

So here are a few items that you may enjoy:

Item #1: 7 Signs That You Might Be An Adult
[minor warning: the site seemed to have added some NQSFW pics since I linked it]
All of these are pretty good signs that you are no longer a kid, but here are some specific ones that I've discovered along the way:

1. You no longer have a burning desire for sea monkeys or anything else you can buy from a comic book.
2. You own your own vacuum cleaner. And use it.
3. You don't have a subscription to Playboy even though you promised yourself you'd get one as soon as you got old enough.
4. If something falls into the toilet, you're the one that has to get it out. Also you're the one responsible for both breaking and fixing the toilet.
5. Having insurance on something actually does give you peace of mind.
6. You've got a $20 bill in your pocket yet you still don't buy 10lbs of M&Ms and Now-and-Laters.
7. You think about things before you do them. (OK this might be specific to me since my father begged me to do this through most of my childhood. I mean who could possibly have foreseen that building a vinegar-baking soda volcano in the living room could lead to permanent carpet damage)
8. You don't buy a brick of Black Cats and M-80s every time you get the chance.
9. Getting a good night's sleep before a big event actually seems like prudent, useful advice.
10. You have unfettered access to a motorized vehicle and can go anywhere anytime you want, yet you choose to stay home and watch TV.

Item #2: Blooper Video from the Moon
This is Jack Schmitt during Apollo 17. Now Schmitt is a pretty accomplished guy - he received a Ph.D. in Geology from Harvard and was later a Republican Senator from New Mexico - but even accomplished guys can have a bad day. Of course I've I had similar accidents before but in my defense I'm still getting used to this planet's gravitational field plus cosmic rays and shit were affecting my middle ear. more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 06:39 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 437 words, total size 4 kb.

A scene-stealing squirrel got up right into the camera when tourists were taking a picture, and now he's the newest internet star.

Like the Tourist Guy, he's not being inserted into every other picture on the webs. Maybe not the next LOLcats, but still, it's pretty funny.

Silly, even.

His name is Nuts, by the way.

Shep Smith, I think, just said there's a site that helps you cut and paste your own Crasher Squirrel pictures, but I can't seem to find it. If you know of it, let me know.

The Squirrelizer: A very basic widget for doing these.

My lame effort below.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 04:09 PM | Comments (12)
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.