This is why we call him "actor Danny Glover" rather than, say, "Doctor Danny Glover" or even "High-Functioning Retard Danny Glover."

Global Warming is just "Zeus" for stupid people.

Video at the link: go to 1:58.

In the Comments... Drew (but not DrewM) argues Glover didn't clearly say this was due to global warming.

Well, Tim Blair points out he says: “When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I’m sayin’?”

Well, I don't know what he's sayin', I'm not sure anyone with an IQ higher than peat moss (low-functioning peat moss) knows what he's sayin'. But to the extent there's anything sensible in his mogoloid-gibberish whatsoever, he seems to be sayin' that the failure to stop global warming three weeks ago has caused this "response."

Posted by: Ace at 07:11 AM | Comments (145)
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

Okay, just one more. I know I said I'd move on, but this is such a huge stumble I have to put up the audio.

Ben Smith says he doesn't understand why she'd stumble so badly on this question, given the fact (he thinks) that Massachusett[e]s' law is clear on this point and (he thinks) is fair about drawing the line between religious compulsion and duty to save lives.

Martha Coakley for Senate

No dirty drunken Irish need apply.

And no theivin' Guineas, either, now that I'm on the subject.

No filthy fish-eating Papists of any kind.

This woman's truly got some kind of gift.

Round-Up... From Boston-based Jules Crittenden.

Here's a tidbit -- a presumably liberal jagoff in the Boston Globe ranking on her.

Martha Coakley made a jaw-dropping declaration earlier this week at the only live televised debate in Boston that she has deigned to do. She said, and I quote, “I’ve traveled the state and met tremendous people.’’

If she did, it was under the cover of darkness, with an assumed name.

Â…

Back in December, Coakley beat her closest opponent by 19 points in a primary in which she got stronger by the day. She strolled into the general election with high name recognition, strong favorability ratings, and as the Democratic candidate in a state that hasnÂ’t elected a Republican to the Senate since 1972. It looked as if it would be impossible to lose.

So what did she do? Apparently, sheÂ’s tried to accomplish the impossible.

Literally, she all but vanished. She refused to debate on TV unless it was exactly on her terms. She went days without venturing out in public. When she did appear, it was typically to accept endorsements from elected officials or union heads in front of supportive crowds. She may have gone the first month of the campaign without ever meeting an honest-to-goodness rank-and-file undecided resident.

Ehhh... bear in mind, he's trying to do the old liberal excuse-making thing of blaming the messenger, not the message. Under no circumstances will he wonder why Scott Brown even ever had a chance here; that is to say, he will never ponder why it is that Coakley's errors should even have been relevant at all.

And the reason for that, of course, is that Obama's agenda is very unpopular. But they won't admit that.

Yet.

Wednesday morning, January 20th, 2010, we may hear the first tentative admissions of just that.

Posted by: Ace at 06:57 AM | Comments (86)
Post contains 445 words, total size 3 kb.

Creigh Deeds situation?

A new poll in the Massachusetts Senate race shows a shift in favor of the Republican Party and a potential disaster for President Barack Obama and his Democratic political agenda in Tuesday's special election.

The Suffolk University survey released late Thursday showed Scott Brown, a Republican state senator, with 50 percent of the vote in the race to succeed the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy in this overwhelmingly Democratic state.

It's times like this I wish I had detachable testicles and a cornhole-target made of guacamole.

Yeah I know: Too much on this. I have other stuff to post. I'm getting to it.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Corrected: I printed an old, old letter without checking the date. I've retracted it.

Posted by: Ace at 06:37 AM | Comments (87)
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.

Being careful, courteous, and helpful is more critical than ever.

The old saying, "Bad news travels around the world while good news is still in bed," is still true, but the internet amplifies that effect significantly.

Nice song! It's got a good beat, and you can smash things to pieces to it.

Thanks to tipster and fellow CT Moron, Tom M.

Posted by: LauraW at 06:32 AM | Comments (49)
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

Friday!! Long weekend!!!

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:30 AM | Comments (77)
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

I have to do the obligatory "I think this poll is an outlier" thing but if I'm being completely honest I think 15 is closer to right than 4.

It's a robopoll, which I'm not even sure why I'm noting, because robopolls have by now a pretty good track record.

A new poll taken Thursday evening for Pajamas Media by CrossTarget – an Alexandria VA survey research firm – shows Scott Brown, a Republican, leading Martha Coakley, a Democrat, by 15.4% in Tuesday’s special election for the open Massachusetts US Senate seat. The poll of 946 likely voters was conducted by telephone using interactive voice technology (IVR) and has a margin of error of +/- 3.19%.

This is the first poll to show Brown surging to such an extent.

Without getting into Winston Wolf territory ("Let's not start sucking each other's [somethings] just yet, gentlemen"), I'm thinking the lead is currently up around 8 aways and will end up around 10.

The race is so hot that Byron York writes a column that's basically just hearsay from worried Democrats, knowing we can't refrain from linking it. And he's right.

Here in Massachusetts, as well as in Washington, a growing sense of gloom is setting in among Democrats about the fortunes of Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley. "I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers," says one well-connected Democratic strategist. In her own polling, Coakley is said to be around five points behind Republican Scott Brown. "If she's not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout," the Democrat says. "So right now, she is destined to lose."

...

Given those numbers, some Democrats, eager to distance Obama from any electoral failure, are beginning to compare Coakley to Creigh Deeds, the losing Democratic candidate in the Virginia governor's race last year. Deeds ran such a lackluster campaign, Democrats say, that his defeat could be solely attributed to his own shortcomings, and should not be seen as a referendum on President Obama's policies or those of the national Democratic party.

The same sort of thinking is emerging in Massachusetts. "This is a Creigh Deeds situation," the Democrat says. "I don't think it says that the Obama agenda is a problem. I think it says, 1) that she's a terrible candidate, 2) that she ran a terrible campaign, 3) that the climate is difficult but she should have been able to overcome it, and 4) that Democrats beware -- you better run good campaigns, or you're going to lose."

Yeah, well, that's the spin for public consumption. They know the reality is quite a bit more alarming.

Obviously this will be an earthquake. Assuming this happens (and I do assume this will happen), the aftershocks will be mighty.

Democrats are still holding out hope for some game-changer. The one they've settled on, from what I gather, is Coakley's support of Obama's bank tax, and Brown's opposition to it.

This is an interesting and possibly effective line of attack, as banks are very unpopular, and Massachusetts has a proud history of eagerness to tax Other People. It also highlights a possible wedge issue between the Tea Party Movement and the conservative movement -- although many Tea Partiers are conservative and therefore congenitally anti-tax, many others are not so steeped in conservative doctrine, and may elevate the populist urge to stick it to the fatcats over a general anti-tax sentiment. Massachusetts independents, currently flocking to Brown as Republican for "independent-minded" voters, may react poorly to what they perceive as a lockstep fidelity to conservative ideology.

So far it doesn't seem to have caused any problems for Brown, but Coakley just determined to push this line of attack.

I don't think it's a game-changer, myself, but it's a possibility.

By the way, it's stuff like this that makes me jump ugly on people who say they are members of the Tea Party, not the GOP; I know the GOP's general position on taxation, but I don't really know the Tea Party's position. Individual Tea Partiers may have their own thoughts on the matter; but is there a true "party position" on it?

This also underscores why I hate the idea of an independent third-party tea party candidate. Witness what happens when the GOP candidate embraces the Tea Party (as Brown has), and the Tea Party embraces the GOP candidate back (as they did here): It's a winning coalition.

But divided? Each offering up their own candidates? Note that one Massachusetts Tea Party group urged support of third-party spoiler Kennedy because Scott Brown had (they say) earlier supported property tax increases.

Imagine if we'd taken that jackass advisory seriously. Suffice to say we would not right now be talking about a heart-stopping shock to the system, but instead would be talking about whether either the Tea Party or the GOP had any real future in American politics.

Moral victories are not actual victories. Otherwise you'd just call them "victories."

More: Via Instapundit, a Democrat admits that in 2004, they cheated against Scott Brown, and he still won. Because he's a good campaigner.

In 2004, Brown won a special election to become state senator, despite the state Democrats scheduling the election to coincide with the Presidential primary, when Democrats would be flocking to vote for John Kerry. (As one Democratic operative recently put it to me: "We cheated, and he still beat us.") Brown then won a re-match in November, on the same ballot as Kerry vs. Bush.

And this:

Chalk it up to a weak Democratic candidate or to a lame campaign. Blame the Democrats for arrogance in assuming that this was a safe seat. But frankly, who could have blamed them? In September, Coakley was ahead in the polls by 30 points.

Since then, however, something has fundamentally changed. Since September, the country has witnessed the visible battle over ObamaCare — late-night votes, Cash for Cloture deals, and a bill that offends a wide array of groups. Democrats have never looked up or paused to consider the public’s views on the matter. They tell us they will “sell it” to us later. That arrogant defiance of public opinion and the unseemly legislative process that produced a grossly unpopular bill have fueled a resurgence of anger and determination among conservatives and even usually apathetic independents. They now are anxious to send a message to Washington: stop ignoring the voters. We saw it in New Jersey and Virginia. Now we learn that even Massachusetts may not be immune.

On that last point, many of the elitist establishment types want to chalk all of this up to some kind of childish, petulant, jealous tantrum-throwing by the little people. Douchemongers like David Brooks want to call it a strictly emotional response, and a base emotional response at that.

But tell me --- precisely what attitude should these little people rationally have about a supposed democratic governance which openly, contemptuously defies their wishes?

Seems to me that on strictly rational grounds, all these supposed Little People ought to have a bit of anger about that.

If my cable company promises me a service and then defiantly, contemptuously refuses to provide it, what attitude am I supposed to take towards them? Should I, as David Brooks and other members of the entitled establishment seem to think, say to myself, "Ah, well, they are the experts; they are the 'educated class' of cable-service provisioning; I should defer to their enlightened judgment. I'm sure they'll eventually get around to explaining to me why I have no internet or tv signal, and I should trust I'll approve of that explanation, when they see fit to provide it to me."

No, of course not. We are in a contractual relationship where they provide a service in exchange for value. And if they break that contract, 1, I get legitimately pissed off, and 2, I search for alternatives.

Brooks and the rest of the Entitled Elitist Establishment seem to think that's some sort of implicit breach of contract on my part. Because, apparently, being American means you owe some putative Social Elite your allegiance and trust, and failing to provide it to them is something akin to cultural treason.

I don't remember reading that in civics class. But I'm sure it was just because I was taking Retard Lessons that day.

Posted by: Ace at 05:00 AM | Comments (204)
Post contains 1439 words, total size 9 kb.

Martha Coakley is precisely the kind of person we need architecting this nation's health care. Caring. Compassionate..

..."Middlesex District Attorney Martha Coakley blocked the donation of Costin's heart after he was diagnosed clinically brain-dead," writes Sean P Murphy of the Globe, "to preclude any possibility that his assailant's lawyer might contend at the trial that Costin died of a pre-existing heart condition rather than the beating."...

H/T commenter Howard Gaknis

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 07:12 PM | Comments (303)
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

Evening M&M-types.

Military Recruitment Videos From Around the World
Okay apparently Japan wants you to join their Village People Self Defense Force and go fight gojira. And look festive while while doing it. And let's not forget about the seamanship.

Posted by: Open Blog at 06:19 PM | Comments (686)
Post contains 213 words, total size 3 kb.

Bang.

Riding a wave of opposition to Democratic health-care reform, GOP upstart Scott Brown is leading in the U.S. Senate race, raising the odds of a historic upset that would reverberate all the way to the White House, a new poll shows.

Although BrownÂ’s 4-point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley is within the Suffolk University/7News surveyÂ’s margin of error, the underdogÂ’s position at the top of the results stunned even pollster David Paleologos.

“It’s a Brown-out,” said Paleologos, director of Suffolk’s Political Research Center. “It’s a massive change in the political landscape.”

The poll shows Brown, a state senator from Wrentham, besting Coakley, the stateÂ’s attorney general, by 50 percent to 46 percent, the first major survey to show Brown in the lead. Unenrolled long-shot Joseph L. Kennedy, an information technology executive with no relation to the famous family, gets 3 percent of the vote. Only 1 percent of voters were undecided.

The poll shows that Democrats are unenthusiastic about the contest, whereas Independents are unusually enthusiastic for a non-presidential election, and a whopping 66% of Republicans are "looking for something cool and soft" to "dip their balls in."

I made up that last part but it's true.

Posted by: Ace at 06:15 PM | Comments (260)
Post contains 206 words, total size 2 kb.

I repeat: what the HELL is going on in this woman's head?

This was on WBSM 1420AM in New Bedford. Audio is here. This part is at 9:30ish:

Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don't want to do that.

Martha Coakley: No we have a seperation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.

Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.

Martha Coakley: (...stammering) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn't work in the emergency room.

She knows that there are Catholics in Massachusetts, right? And other religious folks? And folks who may not be religious, but respect those that are? Eeesh.

Massachusetts is the second-most Catholic state. As of 2007 (latest year I could find data (DOC)) Massachusetts had eight Catholic hospitals, sixteen Catholic nursing facilities, and nineteen Catholic-sponsored organizations including hospice, home health, assisted living, and senior housing.

Coakley is an idiot.

Wait, Wait, Wait a Minute [ace]: In Catholic Massachusetts, a woman running for office just said that Catholics shouldn't work in emergency rooms?

Theory: The Democrats realize health care is an almost no-win proposition. They only way to escape damage is to lose their supermajority in the Senate so they can say "We can't pass it."

Has Martha Coakley done anything to undermine that theory?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:56 PM | Comments (446)
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.