Who sat right next to her at the rally.

It's not proven they're mother-daughter, but the Obama donor (photographed with the president, too!) sat next to her, suggesting she's her guardian.

And they both hail from Malden, MA.

I love real, genuine grassroots activism.

Thanks to MichaelS.

Posted by: Ace at 05:18 PM | Comments (26)
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

My bona fides as an advocate of the 2nd Amendment are unassailable. I do not recognize the right of any government to disarm me. When my daughter was born I promised to always be there and to never be lying in a mall parking lot bleeding to death saying "Man I wish I woulda brought my pistol". I've carried on aircraft (with the pilot's permission) while escorting my team's weapons. I think guns are a wonderful way to kill bad guys. BUTT!!!!!!!!!!

The clown who brought a gun to the Obama healthcare farce did the cause of the right to bear arms no help though. On so many levels and for so many reasons this freedom exercising douchebag hurt the right to carry, the health care debate and the image of those who disagree with the President's many over reaches.

FFS, what was this idiot not thinking? And to top it off this bandito of ass was carrying a sign that said "It's time to water the tree of liberty" Good God, the rest of the quote is about killing tyrants. Say hello to the Secret Service and the IRS maroon, you brought this on yourself.

Ok I'll update a bit in deference to the wishes of the moron mob. Sounds like he was 1/2 mile from Obama's event and 2 hrs prior to Obama's arrival. So? He was likely and begging to be seen and with his sign certain to get attention. Plant? maybe, but more likely just a Ron Paul voting dipshit. Does my disowning him make our team own him? Umm well...no, I kinda think the opposite. Whether he is an ex-Dem, or a libertarian douche. He is not on my team, thankfully.

Posted by: Uncle Jimbo at 04:59 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

Really? You have not said you supported single payer?

Hm. I guess I imagined, and continue to imagine, the below video.

Posted by: Ace at 11:46 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

Krauthammer:

The Democrats are pulling a rabbit out of a hat, and the Republicans (or conservatives) are handing the Democrats the rabbit. The Democrats have no argument. They have no facts. They don't even really have a bill.



And if people were just to stand up and quietly and civilly raise questions — "the money doesn't add up," "the CBO has said that you say it is going to control costs, but it increases it by $1 trillion," all of this stuff, it's really out there — they would be winning this debate as they were before the town halls.



What's happening is this is causing a backlash. It's completely unnecessary. It is shooting yourself in the foot. If you want to demonstrate, you want to shout, you do it outside carrying signs. When you walk inside [the town hall meeting], you ask questions.



This is going to have two effects. Public opinion will make people, if anything, rather unsympathetic to those who oppose the bills.




And secondly, it's going to give a great excuse for the Democrats, when Congress returns, to push a partisan bill with no Republican support and say it's because the opposition is not — is simply oppositionist without any arguments and is acting in an irresponsible way.

McCarthy:

With due mountains of respect to Dr. K, his suggested approach of "quietly and civilly raising questions," politely pointing out that the numbers don't add up, etc., is exactly how we have come to be stuck with the stimulus, the bailouts, and obscene trillions in budget deficits.

This is not a nice, ivory tower, Oxford debate. This is gut-check time about whether we are going to maintain the bedrock American relationship between the citizen and the state. We are in the battle against ruthless, radical ideologues who have the media and the daunting numbers on their side. On our side, we have the further burden of wavering moderates and in-Washington-too-long types who define success as making a deal — any deal — that they think they can sell as a bipartisan compromise that staved off something extreme (but what in reality would be a sell-out that is 3/4 extreme, with Obama simply coming back in 2010 or 2011 to get the remaining 1/4 ... plus).

If our side's approach lacks passion: (a) the brass-knuckled Rahmbo/Pelosi/Reid leadership will easily succeed in showing the potential Democrat convincables (without whom we cannot win) that they better stay on the team if they know what's good for them, and (b) the GOP moderates and old Washington hands will interpret civility as a greenlight to do the dealing they're dying to do.

I agree with Krauthammer, more, but not fully. Public spectacle does have a bit of usefulness. But only a bit. In the end this is an attempt to persuade the persuadables, not preach to the choir, not try to top each other with how super-duper ragey-angry of a YouTube moment we can produce.

Where Krauthammer is wrong, though, is that if we're "perfectly civil," we basically allow these guys to stage-manage the events and offer tissue-thin platitudes instead of answering tough questions. It's only the jeering, and hooting, and yelling, and refusal to be fed pablum that results in the questions Krauthammer approves of being asked at all. Otherwise these jerkoffs would take our "civility" as a license to steamroll and ignore us.

But the more florid, Shouty McShouterson stuff?

I thought the guy screaming about his son with CP getting "no care" came off as an uninformed boob, and not the sort of person whom I, were I undecided in this matter, would listen to.

And the guy today screaming at Specter that God will judge the Democrats in Heaven?

What? This is the sort of thing that helps? Telling people Jesus will get payback?

Good arguments do not persuade people.

Bad arguments persuade people.

When someone hears a bad argument, they run from that person. Bad arguments shape opinion far more than good arguments.

I bet if I asked you guys why you support capitalism, or American exceptionalism or conservativism, 90% of the answers would be about the dog-food nonsense of the other side. You have been driven to the conservative side largely by how absurd the liberals' arguments are.

We can either have these idiots providing dogfood evasive answers and outright lies, thus getting them to drive voters into the opposing camp through their bad arguments, or we can have a self-indulgent can-you-top-my-anger-YouTube-"celebrity" contest and drive people to the other side with our bad arguments, such as "God will take care of you, buddy."

I like the hooting and jeering after evasive answers, as we saw in Claire McCaskill's town hall. That's a great way to let her know "We ain't buying it" and put her on the defensive.

Frankly, I've long admired the rudeness of the British jeering and hooting responses in Parliament, and have thought US democracy could use a little less sheepish passivity and acceptance.

But while hooting and jeering are useful -- forcing someone to offer more than platitudes, letting them know they are not trusted, but ultimately letting them speak -- simply getting all Shouty McShouterson is counterproductive.

Shouting people come off like angry assholes who don't know a damn thing about anything.

Rudeness and open scoffing and jeering is fine. But I see a lot of angry people, whose anger far outstrips their persuasiveness, getting their YouTube moment and turning what is a critical debate into an all-about-me fame contest.

It's a bad move.

I do get the reason for that one guy's anger -- Specter lied to him about letting him speak, choosing only to read friendly questions. But while his anger was real and warranted, yelling out dopey things like God is sending you to hell makes the con side look like emotion-driven anger-bots.

Posted by: Ace at 11:26 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 992 words, total size 6 kb.

There are two good reads today about the U.S. Commision on Civil Rights noting that the Obama Administration sure has race on its mind a lot.

The first is an excellent letter from the USCCR to Attorney General Holder about the New Black Panther voter intimidation case and the non-answers it has been getting from Obama's political appointees at DOJ:

We regret that the reply from Portia Roberson, Director of the Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison, is largely non-responsive to our questions. To the extent it is responsive, it paints the Department in a poor light. We also reviewed correspondence between DOJ and Members of Congress who raised similar questions about the case. The July 13 letter from Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich to House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith is also non-responsive and includes what we believe to be factual errors and asserts novel and questionable legal claims. As we explain below, the DOJÂ’s replies thus far raise new and serious questions about its civil rights enforcement decisions, which we believe we are obligated to investigate.

[...]

The letter from Ms. Roberson to us repeats some of the vague conclusions sent to Members of Congress. Yet, the Roberson letter provides none of the facts we need to determine whether the NBPP voter intimidation case was handled consistently with others the Department has investigated. Ms. Roberson provided no response as to whether there are “any similar cases in which the CRD has dismissed charges against a defendant” charged with voter intimidation. Nor did she respond to our request for the Department’s “evidentiary and legal standards for dismissing such charges in cases of alleged voter intimidation.” If the Department has no such standards, we would like to know that.

There's much more at the link.

The second read comes from the Washington Times. The USCCR calls attention to a part of the Democrats' healthcare proposal which would award billions in contracts, scholarships and grants based on the race of the recipient. It's affirmative action for physicians and medical schools.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 11:10 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 349 words, total size 3 kb.

Even the NYT disputes Obama's claim that you'd be able to "keep your current insurance."

Here's the NYT on these assurances, which they politely call "aspirational" only. As in, a lie.

These assurances reflect an aspiration, but may not be literally true or enforceable.

The legislation does not require insurers or employers to continue offering the health benefits they now provide. The House bill sets detailed standards for “acceptable health care coverage,” which would define “essential benefits” and permissible co-payments. Employers that already offer insurance would have five years to bring their plans into compliance with the new federal standards.

The Senate health committee bill goes somewhat further by offering an “option to retain current insurance coverage.”

The legislation could have significant implications for individuals who have bought coverage on their own. Their policies might be exempted from the new standards, but the coverage might not be viable for long because insurers could not add benefits or enroll additional people in noncompliant policies.

Dallas L. Salisbury, president of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a private nonpartisan group, said: “The president and Democrats in Congress are saying what they would like. Their promises may not be literally true because your health plan may change, and your doctor may no longer accept your insurance.”

You won't keep your coverage.

By design.

That is the entire point of "public option," to introduce a slow-acting single-payer poison that will kill private insurance on the sly and without a lot of fuss and mess.

Again: This is what the guy who shopped it to liberals (like Obama) intended it to do.

Much more at that link, by the way. It's Karl's post on Hot Air. Worth reading in full.

Posted by: Ace at 10:58 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

Did I say Joe Biden? I meant our clean and articulate commander in chief.

Sayeth the genius:

As long as they have a good product and the government plan has to sustain itself through premiums and other non-tax revenue, private insurers should be able to compete with the government plan, Obama said.

"They do it all the time," he said. "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. ... It's the Post Office that's always having problems."

Um, that's part of the problem.

Even taking his quote for the claim it's meant to stand for: UPS and FedEx would be doing better. The trouble is, they're not permitted, by law, to compete with the Post Office regarding regular (that is, non-overnight) mail.

They are specifically excluded from that market.

They are "doing fine" in the market segment they're permitted to compete in.

However, if the law were changed and they were permitted to compete for regular mail delivery, they might not be "doing fine" in that market if the government competed unfairly in that arena, such as imposing general taxes on everyone to reduce the cost of postage, etc.

The government, on the other hand, continues to exist in this business at all only because the government grants itself a monopoly in the delivery of regular mail.

That's the only reason we still have a Post Office. Government fiat.

What a boneheaded remark. Yes, let's remind everyone of the shocking difference in experience between the Post Office and FedEx or UPS.

Posted by: Ace at 10:44 AM | Comments (7)
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

What, Obama on television? What is it, Christmas?

I'll post stupid crap he says.

Teh Most Adorable Little Plant in the World: A nine year old is called upon right off the jump. She wants to know about these mean signs she sees about Obama.

Blathering: Dude, I have no idea what this stuttering prick is saying. I don't think he knows, either.

He Wants Generics on the Market Sooner? What, sooner than the statutory 7-year patent period for the invented drug?

7 years is not a long period of time to recoup all the money you spent in inventing a drug. And Obama wants to cut that?

He didn't say that, I don't think. But I'm scratching my head wondering how else you get a generic "on the market" quicker. It's easy to make a generic -- to get a patent in the first place, you disclose precisely what your invention is in your patent application, so anyone can later copy you.

What is this buffoon talking about?

Now... He's talking about bringing down drug prices.

But this lying bastard just cut a deal where he would not use the government's market power to force down drug prices, in exchange for $150 million from ads from the pharmaceutical industry.

"I have not said I was a single-payer supporter:" Uh-huh. Nope, President Prissypants, you never said that.

Never.

Paraphrase (via AHFF Geoff): " have not said i am a single player supporter because frankly we historically have employer, transition too disruptive."

No, that's the claim you began making later to walk-back your original statements supporting single payer.

He Did Suggest Cutting the Already-Short 7 Year Drug Patent Window: DrewM caught it; I missed it.

"He did say if they can cut the patent time 'a little bit' it will save money," DrewM. says.

"A little bit." Uh-huh. It's only 7 years as it is. Any cut is already a substantial fraction of the whole.

And this is the window of profitability that makes drug research worthwhile to begin with.

"I don't want anyone to think I'm pulling the bait-and-switch here:" Right. You're just claiming that two thirds of a trillion dollar plan can be paid for solely by "eliminating waste and inefficiency."

"I don't want people to think I'm calling on nothing but plants here" (chuckle from crowd): No, why would we think that.

Buffoon: Scott writes:

That "UPS and FEDEX are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems" in an answer about public option. Did he really just use an example of a failed almost bankrupt gov't run institution to say people shouldn't worry about private health companies being able to compete?

Yep.

At Claire McCaskill's Town Hall... She's asked if the public plan will cover abortion. She answers, dishonestly, "There is nothing in the bill that mentions using federal dollars to cover abortion."

She then attempts to move on. The crowd boos at her naked dishonesty. She gives in to the boos and lets a guy note that AP says that the bill will cover abortion, and that Obama dodged the question, saying he "didn't want to micro-manage" what the public plan would cover. (Except to the extent he's going to micro-manage which tests you don't get, and which tests you must get.")

Posted by: Ace at 09:27 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 557 words, total size 3 kb.

It's a statistically insignificant fall from 56% to 54%, but it was also statistically insignificant when he went up to 56% from 55%, and yet liberals crowed that he had stopped the bleeding and was on the mend.

So I'll point out -- No, just noise and fluctuations around his new, lower approval rating around 53%. (Of adults, note.)

On the other hand, his disapproval rating seems to do little but rise. A bit of noise here and there, bumps up and down, but the clear trajectory is upwards. His disapproval on Gallup (of adults, again) has gone from around 12% (twelve!) to 40%, and, while the next 10% will be harder than the previous 28%, he's on a pathway to get there.

And sure, I know it's all AstroTurf Nazis and all, but clearly the passion is on the opposing side.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Cf. Gallup's Previous Analysis: A blip turns into a trend:

There has been a substantial amount of focus on Obama's job approval slide over the last week. The current data suggest that, at least for the moment, that slide has been arrested.

Posted by: Ace at 09:11 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 1 kb.

DrewM. Slublog thinks this may be the dumbest thing she's written yet, and that's saying something.

What do Malkin and the other conservative pundits hope to accomplish by arguing that people “like me” have no place within the Republican Party? And who exactly are people “like me”? Young people? Moderate people? Young female people? People with tattoos who go to biker rallies?

...

I don’t know exactly what about me threatens them so much, other than that people are listening to me. Malkin has the No. 1 book on The New York Times bestseller hardcover nonfiction list, but I have nearly twice as many Twitter followers as she does. And trust me, Twitter is more of an indication of where young people are than books published by the hyper-conservative publisher Regnery—which will be bringing you Carrie Prejean’s new book and published one of Ann Coulter’s.

Dear heart, Malkin also has a blog, which is her primary form of internet expression, getting hundreds of thousands of visitors per day. Unlike you, who "tweets" her every tattooed, biker-rally-going thought, Malkin writes essays on the internet as her main vehicle of real-time publishing.

In addition, you have so many followers partly because an employee of Malkin's (Allah) is sorta obsessed with your dumbness and maybe wants to snork you in the squeaker.

BTW, I have more combined readers on a yearly basis than Fred Thompson has FaceBook friends, so I am therefore... well, I don't want to say more important to the party than he is, but I do want someone else to say it.

Sick of MegMac: Karol's had enough of Meghan McCain's endless claims of expertise based, as far as anyone can tell, solely upon the fact that, like anyone who didn't die at 23, she has successfully lived to age 24.

Bonus: Penn & Teller on taxes.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:41 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 3 kb.