June 08, 2010
— Ace Oh, God. We're taking the Emoting Offensive to a whole new level now, aren't we?
It is to laugh -- Norah O'Donnell is not just neutrally reporting these "facts," but insisting on them, really trying to convince you of them (and their relevance).
To her, it's not important that real oil is hurting real animals and damaging a real fishing economy and doing real harm to real people's lives and Obama is not doing a damn real thing about it.
The only thing that matters is the White House's emotional connection to these facts, and if they're guilty of anything, it's of not convincing the public of how emotionally engaged they are.
Pushing the New Narrative like the trooper she is.
So, how bad are White House staffers' nightmares?
Bad enough, apparently, that only Beer Pong can chase the evil dreams away.
John Favreau's recurring cold-sweats nightmare:
White House Spokesman Tommy Vietor slams back his serve,
right into his cup of golden-smooth Miller Genuine Draft,
forcing him to chug, and, just as he's downing the sweet barley nector,
the beer turns to ash in his screaming mouth
And some of you scoffed at the relevance of this picture!
I knew it was going to come in handy.
Accept The Pudding, Norah O'Donnell: You will accept the pudding. You must accept the pudding.
Admiral Benson Makes a Statement: Finally.
Posted by: Ace at
12:28 PM
| Comments (117)
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.
— Ace In the generic congressional, he has Republicans up nine, 44% to 35%, which, I feel stupid for having to say this but you are, of course, morons, is almost ten.
The latest poll has Republicans holding steady and Democrats losing two points from their previous level of 37%.
RedState figures that that kind of a lead is good for a 60 seat pickup. Assuming all the things you need to assume.
If you click around Rasmussen's site, it's pretty much all good news, or, at least, neutral-to-good.
Another Poll: This one of registered voters, in which Democrats, unsurprisingly, hold a margin-of-error non-lead of 47% - 44%. Hotline, which conducted the poll, notes this means that Democrats will lose, not gain, seats.
Democrats are having success at attacking the Tea Party:
Meanwhile, it's not just incumbents who are viewed as unpopular. The poll also shows support for the Tea Party movement is dropping, and a majority of voters now have unfavorable views of the libertarian-leaning movement. Just 36% see the Tea Party favorably, while fully 50% say they have an unfavorable impression of Tea Partiers.That's a significant jump, of 11 points, in voters' unfavorable mood, since a poll conducted in late March. The rise comes after months of orchestrated efforts by Dems to paint the Tea Party as out of touch with mainstream America.
Registered voters, again, but even so-- the trend is there. (That is, the last poll was of registered voters too, and the last poll had higher levels of support for the Tea Party.)
Posted by: Ace at
11:52 AM
| Comments (114)
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.
— Ace Yesterday I was discussing liberals finding it very useful to knock Obama on style points, because if meaningless style is the only topic of discussion, the much more important question of Is Obama competent? is not under discussion -- by derailing the national discussion into meaningless blib-blab about appearances, they avoid the much more relevant -- and more deadly -- discussion of reality.
Looking back, I think I was wrong to state that this was "deliberate" and "by design." That's probably only half-true, or less than that. It may not be so much by design, as caused by the fact that liberals cannot even begin to question Obama's competency because they so completely assume it that questions about it simply cannot occur to them. Thus, having eliminated Obama's obvious real problem -- he's not doing a damn thing to fix the catastrophic Obamatrina, and unable to push his people into Red Alert mode -- they are forced to grasp at other explanations.
What they've come up with is that he's good enough at feigning emotion. Which is, of course, pretty much a compliment, because they're saying, basically, Obama is so honest he finds it demeaning and difficult to counterfeit some PR tears even when doing so would redound to his political benefit.
As Sherlock Holmes said, when you eliminate the impossible, then the remaining possibility, no matter how improbable, must be the solution. Since it is, to Obama supporters, impossible that he's failing in the polls because he's failing as a president, they cast about for improbable solutions.
Ah! It must be the case that he's actually a phenomenally successful president, but he's unable to communicate this to the moronic public, which is so intellectually stunted they can only evaluate presidential performance through soap-opera-level play-acted emoting.
This seems to explain (to them) Obama's declining poll numbers while, not coincidentally, reinforcing several of their most cherished beliefs:
1. Obama is the most honest man born of a human parent, and maybe more honest than Jesus too.
2. Obama is the most competent and brilliant man not named "Henry 'Indiana' Jones, Junior," and maybe better than him, too.
3. The public is a bunch of morons who cannot appreciate the wonders of progressivism simply because they're too stupid to do so.
4. Nothing needs to be changed about progressivism or their progressive president, except for some meaningless focus-group-tested catch-phrases and maybe a little faked anger.
Notice how comforting those fictions are. They permit progressives to continue saying their favorite words in the world -- I was right, I am right, I had always been right," as The Stranger said -- and thus to avoid any empirical evaluation of their key tenets of Faith.
Truth is a decent reason to believe in something. Psychological comfort is a far better and stronger reason to believe in something.
At any rate, this absurd discussion now enters a new phase. With some liberals making the removed-from-reality critique that Obama just isn't "emoting" enough, now comes the second wave, to argue that he is emoting just enough.
And while we're having this ridiculous debate about sub-trivialities,
we conveniently ignore the reality that a massive oil slick is poisoning the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida, and Obama hasn't done shit about except talk about it, and even on that score, he didn't talk about it much.
The American Prospect's Adam Serwer notes today, "One of the things I used to like about the president is that he always seemed indifferent to village demands that he acquiesce to whatever empty political gesture they wanted him to make."Well, Serwer can relax.
President Obama did not conjure up the posterior metaphor on his own. He turned Matt Lauer's "butt" into an "ass," and his annoyance seemed to be more a consequence of Lauer's questions than of any effort to appear angry. Appearing angry and appearing engaged are two different things. The White House understands how anger can be appropriately channeled and employed, but at this point, they are eager for the public to see the president as engaged -- as problem solving.
If President Obama hadn't said "ass," then he'd be accused of not being angry enough. Because he did say "ass," he's accused of titrating his response to criticisms that he's not angry enough about the oil leak. The man cannot win.
Yes, Marc Ambinder, he can win -- he can do something about the oil slick.
Not just talk about it or "strike the right emotional notes," but actually do something about it, something tangible, something real, something with real-world impact.
That's how he "wins," dude. And that, I'm sad to report, is the only way he wins.
But liberals are determined to believe that Obama can "win," as he has his whole life, not by actually accomplishing anything but by giving a nice speech.
Hey, if we set the bar for success low enough, then even Obama might be able to clear it -- with some helpful cheerleading by his media Amen Corner, of course.
I've got an idea: Let's just say that whenever Obama uses the sentence "I am angry," he automatically is judged a success at whatever it is he's failed to accomplish.
Manufacturing Consent: I think Noam Chomskey hit upon this idea, and there's something to it.
Suppose there are five possible plausible public reactions to an event or initiative. A, B, C, D, and E, ranging from rightist to leftist, and A and E representing the extremes.
Media debate tends to package C and D -- C, a centristl reaction, and D, a left-center but still mainstream-ish reaction -- as the only two possible reactions, and debates the issue without reference to A, B, and E, as if they don't exist, or, if they do mention them, they are dismissed peremptorily as extremist and wack-a-doo and "not serious."
Thus, at the end of the day, the public does get to "choose"... but only from the two options the media has pre-screened as permissible, C and D. Thus, consent of the governed has been "manufactured" -- sure, the public chooses between C and D, but their choice was forced -- as a magician forces a card on you -- by a media that carefully insulated them from genuine consideration of A, B, and E.
(Now-- Chomsky certainly did not use this idea to argue for media bias from the left! Quite the opposite-- he claimed we were always discussing only two possibilities, like "full support for corporate power" and "90% support for corporate power;" he claimed the media biased the discussion towards two possibilities, one on the right, and one on the further right.
In other words -- he was annoyed that "E" wasn't under active discussion, which is to say, full-blown communism.
Of course it is abject nonsense that the media censors ideas on the left*-- but his theory makes perfect sense when you adjust it to say the two allowable modes of thought are center-left and a little-farther-left-than-center-left.)
So, that's what we have going on. We are allowed two permissible storylines -- Obama's not emoting enough, or Obama's emoting just enough -- and the MFM won't entertain other storylines, like, "This has nothing at all to do with emoting, but rather to do with reality and real-world achievements."
* To some extent, he is right: The media doesn't like talking about communists, and will swear on a stack of Bibles that, for example, Obama is not socialist at all, not even a little bit.
But they do that not to thwart communism, but because they, unlike true-believer Chomsky, understand that communism will not sell in America and if the liberal Democrats are seen to be in basic agreement with communists, or at least count them as allies, it will badly damage the center-left's ability to get its agenda into operation.
Like I Was Saying: Even Matt Lauer is incredulous at Obama's reasoning for not talking with BP's CEO.
"Captain Kick-Ass," all the young people are calling him now.
Posted by: Ace at
11:21 AM
| Comments (170)
Post contains 1369 words, total size 9 kb.
— Dave in Texas As has been mentioned, this is the fight.
A retired U.S. Marine who runs a high school ROTC program in Worcester says he faces the boot for refusing to pay local union dues, leaving the 58-year-old father of two crying foul and school administrators bewildered.
I'm not bewildered.
Major Stephen Godin is a 20-year veteran of the USMC, an F-4 pilot who was deployed five times. He hasn't missed a day of school in 14 years. He's the instructor of North High School's Naval JROTC in Worcester (pronounced WOOSTER WUHSTAH, I heard that once incorrectly, by every damn person). He doesn't get a stipend for after school activities like coaching their drill team. He gets half his salary and all his other benefits from the military.
Sounds like the kind of guy you'd want in your schools, teaching your kids.
But the Massachusetts Teachers Association (or the local I guess) has demanded he either join the union and pay the dues, or cough up a $500 "agency fee" which goes toward the cost of electing Democrats collective bargaining activity.
Either way, they think they're entitled to the money. He contends they don't provide him any benefit, and don't negotiate his salary, so why the hell should he have to pay them?
Because the state legislature rigged it that way, that's why.
tip via Jazz over at H2
Posted by: Dave in Texas at
10:29 AM
| Comments (119)
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.
— Slublog Charlie Crist's campaign to set the gold standard for shameless careerism continues.
In the latest development in the race for the open U.S. Senate seat in Florida, Governor Charlie Crist is coming under fire for removing the pro-life section of his campaign website. This comes on the day the legislature sent him a bill that would allow women to see an ultrasound of their baby before an abortion.Follow the link over to Hot Air to see just how thoroughly Crist has scrubbed his website of pro-life content and enjoy his newfound openness to a job-killing measure supported by the state's labor unions. The issue here is not abortion or labor unions, but trust. Those who elected Charlie Crist governor thought they were getting a pro-life, pro-growth, pro-education reform Republican governor. In just under two months, Crist has jettisoned each of those positions and his party only to further his personal ambition, and he's using the power of his current office to do the opposite of what Florida voters thought they'd elected him to do.Crist has already hinted he will veto the legislation, which also allows Florida to opt out of some of the abortion funding under the new national health care law President Barack Obama signed.
That he would potentially veto a pro-life bill will broad support from voters is another indication of his strategy to leave the Republican Party and run as an independent.
When Crist first started scrambling to re-invent himself, his shamelessness was almost amusing in a darkly humorous kind of way. It's decidedly less so now. At this point, I'm beginning to wonder if there's actually something wrong with Crist, as he seems to lack even the basic concept of shame. It's unsettling.
On a political note, Crist's behavior should serve as an object lesson to those who keep insisting our best chances to win elections lie with moderate candidates. Political moderation may have its benefits, but as we've seen with Crist and with Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, it also has its dangers. Those who believe in nothing will do anything to keep power.
Posted by: Slublog at
10:10 AM
| Comments (53)
Post contains 362 words, total size 2 kb.
— Monty So...the Euro is tanking, brought low by fiscal promiscuity from one corner of Europe to the other. The ship is listing. What to do?
Why, you bring a financial powerhouse, an economic battering-ram, into the Euro! I present: Estonia! The Baltic juggernaut! Their mighty kroon will reinvigorate the Euro like a shot of pure testosterone straight from a bull's testicles!
And unlike all those other lying liars (who shall go unnamed for the moment), Estonia has adhered to all the EU rules governing budget deficits and total government debt. Honest.
And here I've been a doubter of the whole Euro project. Jean-Claude Trichet shall surely have the last laugh.
Posted by: Monty at
10:00 AM
| Comments (125)
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.
— DrewM Who says the GOP doesn't have a big tent...it's apparently so big it includes Code Pink activists attending a progressive think tank talk.
Watch to the end when one of Pelosi's security people comes up and says "they're throwing stuff, we need to leave". To her credit, Pelois didn't let the bastards shut her down (or cry "Palomino!"). Of course, she didn't appear to tell them to STFU and sit down, that's only something conservatives have to do.
Remind me again at which tea party or town hall meeting did the 'violent right wing extremists' throw things at Democrat office holders?
Thanks to "wtfci" in the comments for the heads up.
Posted by: DrewM at
08:07 AM
| Comments (237)
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.
— DrewM The title of the Newark Star Ledger column on this is "N.J. Gov. Chris Christie's rant reveals a hard-right agenda". And what exactly is this "hard-right agenda"? A belief that elected official, not judges, should set education policy in the state and be held accountable for the results. If you're a liberal, that's borderline sedition!
Just imagine the kind of US Supreme Court Justices this guy would appoint.
Nothing wrong with a little dreaming.
Added: Elsewhere on the Star Ledger's blog is a report on a liberal think-tank (which to their credit they identify as such) attack on Christie's education plan.
The center said statewide education policies and targeted funding in Massachusetts — used by Christie as a model for his proposal — have allowed its test scores to remain high, but schools increased class sizes and cut art, music, foreign languages and athletics.
Assuming that's true (and there's really no reason to) my response is...so?
We are in terrible financial straits as a nation and NJ is as a state. The idea that you will have to accept less in times like these really shouldn't be controversial. People all over America are doing without things they like because they can't afford them. People don't have unlimited sums of money to spend on themselves, they surely don't have an unlimited supply of money to send to Trenton, D.C. or any capital.
Yes, it's unfortunate that schools will have to make touch choices there's simply no reason they should be exempt from the reality everyone else is facing. If parents think music, art and other enrichment programs are important to their kids, they can use their own money (which they'll be saving in taxes) to send their kids to private programs. Free people spending their own money as they see fit. What a concept.
Of course, they haven't been willing to give Christie's approach a try (salary freezes and employee health care contributions). Why don't we see how those ideas work first before beating up on taxpayers for more money they don't have? I mean, it's for the children, so these wonderful educators should be willing to do with a little less. Right?
If teachers and administrators aren't willing to kick in some of their own money (and they haven't so far), it becomes clear to everyone that 'for the children' is just a tool unions use to beat politicians and taxpayers into submission.
This moment of clarity brought to you by...Chris Christie.
Added Part Deux: DaveInTexas sends along this story laying out the case against "more school spending=better school results". When it comes to education, you don't get what you pay for. Actually, since we mostly pay for lots of administrators and teachers, I guess we do.
Posted by: DrewM at
07:14 AM
| Comments (222)
Post contains 475 words, total size 4 kb.
— Purple Avenger Sounds good, right? People are spending, lenders are lending, liquidity is restored, and the consumer is "powering" the "Recovery".
...U.S. consumer borrowing rose by $1 billion in April, climbing 0.5 percent after dropping in the prior two months, the Federal Reserve reported Monday.When the actual Fed numbers are examined, all of this supposed increase - AND THEN SOME, is accounted for by Federal government lending lending...probably most of which is student loans. Now that ObamaCare has eliminated private student loans completely, we can expect them to keep using this increasing student loan figure to keep papering over the wreckage since the MFM rarely look at any of the details, this strategy will work and the public will continue to be fooled.Economists had expected a $2 billion decline in credit activity. The Fed, however, revised its March figure from a $2 billion increase to a drop of $5.4 billion...
| CONSUMER CREDIT OUTSTANDING | (2009)Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 r | (2010)Q1 r | Feb r | Mar r | Apr p |
| Federal government 5 | 122.7 | 135.4 | 157.8 | 186.0 | 209.8 | 204.5 | 209.8 | 211.5 |
The New Hotness: Deception
Posted by: Purple Avenger at
05:08 AM
| Comments (130)
Post contains 183 words, total size 2 kb.
— Gabriel Malor
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
04:58 AM
| Comments (71)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.
44 queries taking 0.3681 seconds, 151 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
