I heard about this the other day, in the context of the Celebrity Apprentice's declining ratings -- see, the show skews to a liberal audience. So they maybe are tuning out, now that they hear Trump trashing Obama.

This chart is very interesting. Not only does Apprentice have the most liberal-skewing audience on TV, it doesn't just win on points, it's way out there on the left.

I don't know -- is it possible people who are both Trump fans and Democrats might be inclined to hear his criticisms where they'd tune it out from others?

Thanks to Johnny, who suggests an Independent Trump bid might draw more from Democrats. I strongly doubt that. Anything that splits the anti-Obama voe is likely to be deadly for us.

The core of the Democratic Party -- minorities, white collar women, younger voters -- is very loyal to Obama. Sure, Trump might peel off the 'bitter clingers," as Obama calls them, but if Trump's not on the race, Democratic-leaning voters displeased with Obama will vote for us. Tossing them to Trump is net loss.

Nevermind whatever Republicans decide to split to make a statement or something.

Posted by: Ace at 07:21 PM | Comments (101)
Post contains 217 words, total size 1 kb.

Harvard Sure Didn't Think Much of Obama's Father

Apparently by 1964 Harvard was fed up with Obama Sr. over a number of issues and worked with the INS to have him deported.

”Documents show that Obama, Sr. was denied an extension on his student visa in July, 1964, in part because Harvard University, where Obama, Sr., was a Ph.D. candidate, sought his removal. Obama Sr. eventually left the United States willingly after becoming an illegal alien for remaining in the country past the expiration of his visa.

An INS investigator, M.F. McKeon, wrote “They (Harvard officials) weren’t very impressed with him and asked us to hold up action on his application until they decided what action they could take in order to get rid of him. They were apparently having difficulty with his financial arrangements and couldn’t seem to figure out how many wives he had.”

Documents show that Harvard officials considered Obama, Sr. to be a “slippery character,” and conspired with the INS to have him deported.”

I can understand the appeal of having a mysterious, exotic, but elusive bio-father to a young Obama - real day-to-day fathers always pale by comparison - but he was 34 years old when he wrote 'Dreams of My Father', old enough you'd think to be beyond having father fantasies.

Or maybe he was 34 with little to no accomplishments to date and a past-due book contract and had to come up with something quick to please the publishers. But neither of these explanations is particularly flattering to a man presented by the media as a political messiah with a 'first-class temperament'.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:01 PM | Comments (699)
Post contains 791 words, total size 8 kb.

Lots of familiar names, especially if you remember the Bush administration.

In the biggest change, CIA Director Leon Panetta will replace Defense Secretary Robert Gates when Gates makes his long-planned exit this summer. In remarks introducing the Cabinet and Afghan war leaders, Obama also bade farewell to Gates after a tenure begun more than four years ago under President George W. Bush.

Gen. David Petraeus, the high-profile commander of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will replace Panetta at the CIA in the fall, after helping to manage the first steps of a drawdown of U.S. troops in Afghanistan over the summer.

Marine Corps Lt. Gen. John Allen will succeed Petraeus as the top commander in Afghanistan, and seasoned diplomat Ryan Crocker will take over as ambassador there. The new team in Kabul will manage the planned shift toward a back-seat role for the United States and its NATO partners, as Afghan security forces gradually assume responsibility. Both Allen and Crocker have experience with a similar transition in Iraq, and with the effort there to broker deals with former militants and political rivals that U.S. officials want to mirror in Afghanistan.

The two biggest names and jobs Patreaus at CIA and Panetta to Defense are obviously the most interesting.

I think the Panetta pick is interesting because aside from his time at CIA (where he oversaw an increase in the drone war in Afghanistan and Pakistan) most of Panetta's experience is with budgets. He was Chairman of the House Budget Committee and Clinton's OMB Director. With Obama making it clear that he sees defense as a rich source of savings ($400 Billion worth), you have to think Panetta's charge is to cut, cut and cut so more (then cut again).

Congressman Buck McKeon, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee isn't on board with Obama proposals.

If implemented, this plan would intensify the stresses on our troops while eliminating the resources available to them to accomplish their missions. Simply put, this is irresponsible leadership and disrespectful of the immense sacrifice our fighting men and women have made on behalf of this Republic.

In his first two years of office, this administration has ballooned domestic spending to astonishing levels. At the same time, the Obama Defense Department cut back or canceled more than 20 major military modernization systems and slashed our strategic nuclear deterrent — all while opening a third theater of war in Libya.

After cutting $78 billion from the defense budget earlier this year, and harvesting $100 billion more in projected savings in 2009, Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned that we had reached the "minimum level of defense spending that is necessary" to meet the complex threats of the 21st century. Anything further, Gates said, would be "potentially calamitous."

I doubt even Secretary Gates imagined a $400 billion cost-cutting plan that would wholly gut the military and callously endanger the American homeland. Not during wartime, not as the Middle East teeters on the verge of anarchy, and not as our soldiers are in harm's way.

It is somewhat counter intuitive to some people that as we wind down our involvement in Iraq and probably Afghanistan, we can't simply strip the defense budget down. I was talking to tmi3rd last night about this and off the top of my head came up with a list of major systems coming due for replacement....

The Navy expect a large number of ships to age out at the same time in the next 10-15 years. This includes the Ohio Class of ballistic missile subs.

The Air Force is working on a new strategic bomber and would like to upgrade its ICBM fleet.

Then there's the biggest defense procurement program of all...the star crossed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

And that doesn't include what the Army is going to need to reset or the Marine Corps, USAF tankers, attack subs for the Navy to challenge the growing Chinese fleet and on and on and on.

It's not going to just be a question of budgets but of missions. You simply can't say we're cutting x number of dollars and expect to be able to the same missions (not just Afghanistan) that we are doing now. If you want to cut $400 billion as Obama wants to, you better be able to tell the country what they won't be getting in the future because while there's always money that can be saved you're talking a lot more than the defense equivalent of 'waste, fraud and abuse' at that level.

What do we get for our defense dollar? It's not just a question of being the world's policeman or a "global force for good". America's economic interests require access to markets, resources and a reasonably stable international order. Cutting back on our ability to police the global commons means someone (hello China) will step in, the job won't be done or likely some combination of both.

Ultimately this is a questions of values. Is America a nation that needs a military so its citizens have the environment and opportunity to build their lives to the best of their ability or is it simply a gigantic health care and retirement plan with a military to protect it?

Push has come to shove and real choices are going to have to be made.

Posted by: DrewM at 05:09 PM | Comments (75)
Post contains 904 words, total size 7 kb.

Nah, I'm just kidding.

NFL Draft thread.

The Panthers just took Cam Newton number 1.

Posted by: DrewM at 04:06 PM | Comments (52)
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

Bumped For Hot Video: At the Right Scoop.

No, he really said this. Ten minutes apart.

First, bringing up Transcriptism, Clarence Page chuckled that "He [Trump] must have his presidents mixed up," meaning it must be Bush who needed special help to get into Yale (and Harvard Business).

They both had themselves a laugh at that. How dumb Bush is! They've been saying that for ten years, of course.

Then, next segment, still marveling that only a racist could question a president's academic ability, he said, quote, "They would never say this about a white president!!!"

Um? Didn't you? Like five minutes ago?

Didn't you? For ten years straight?

And then, in case you completely forgot about the last ten years, I repeat: Didn't you just five minutes ago?

This is not about "racism." This is simply about their certainty that Bush was dumb and Obama is smart.

I'm not so sure. Am I racist?

Why? Because I'm supposed to just assume that someone who gets into an Ivy school is smart, the same as Matthews and Page don't as regards Bush?

And let me point out: by Chris Matthews apparent rule, it would in fact be racist of Page to make this joke, since his unstated premise seems to be you can only talk smack about a president of your own race.

I've asked TRScoop to cut the video. It's good for a laugh.

Seems to me that if a president is screwing up left and right, it's fair to doubt his intelligence. It has a long, long tradition.

It seems to me the only reason we can't ask about Obama's is precisely because he's half-black.

Okay, fine. I am specifically not questioning the IQ of his black half. That would be racist. I'm sure that part must be brilliant, because it must be (black, so it must be). I'll say that I am convinced his black half has an IQ of 155.

I am specifically challenging the IQ of his stupid white half. Which I think has an IQ of 77.

So I think his combined average IQ, of his brilliant black half and his stupid white half, is 116.

Not even close to genius.

'Kay?

Apparently Some Special Pluses Are Okay To Note: sydney jane makes a point I was just about to, and adds a 2003 CNN citation besides:

Hmm, the legacy admission (Bush) vs the affirmative action admission (Obama). In both cases, the Ivies have lower admission standards. But, as for no one ever questioning Bush's academics, I found this from an old CNN article, titled How Affirmative Action Helped George W, from 2003.

"They may not have had an explicit point system at Yale in 1964, but Bush clearly got in because of affirmative action. Affirmative action for the son and grandson of alumni. Affirmative action for a member of a politically influential family. Affirmative action for a boy from a fancy prep school. These forms of affirmative action still go on."

No, no one would ever question Bush's academic credentials.

Nope, never.

Bush: Yale, Harvard Business School = stupid and we can question if he got in via a special program with took other factors into account apart from pure academic firepower

Obama: Occidental (what?), Columbia, Harvard Law = obviously brilliant and we cannot question if he got in (or got Law Review) via a special program which took other factors into account apart from pure academic firepower, even though he says he undoubtedly did benefit from such a program in a New York Times article

Posted by: Ace at 04:06 PM | Comments (135)
Post contains 674 words, total size 4 kb.

Alabama.

I know this has been covered, but you really can't overcover it:

U.S. authorities say the number of people killed in a series of tornadoes and thunderstorms across the southern United States has risen to at least 292, making it the country's deadliest tornado outbreak in almost four decades.

Alabama Governor Robert Bentley says the tornadoes that struck his state on Wednesday killed at least 194 people, by far the highest toll of the eight southern states hit by deadly storms. Speaking Thursday, he said Alabama's final death toll may not be known for another day or two.

150 tornadoes in one day.

How You Can Help: An always-updating list of local relief efforts.

Thanks to AOSHQ's Darklord. Of Relief Drives, I guess.

Posted by: Ace at 02:58 PM | Comments (76)
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

If anyone wants to post somethin'...

Hilarious: Thanks to Andy, unfunny clown Bill Maher hilariously beclowns himself.

The joke he accuses The Onion of stealing is what we call in the industry "a bad joke." Sure, if you're a comic, you toss the bad stuff out there too; in any endeavor, a lot of times it's publish or perish. You can't just not be funny because you don't have a good joke. Good joke, bad joke -- if you're a pro comic, you're expected to have jokes when you go on stage.

So I don't blame Maher for using the joke. (Or The Onion for using it.) It's a bad joke, but if you need to tell a joke, what the hell.

What is truly sad is that Bill Maher is especially proud of this disposable, lame, obvious wordplay. This to him is Intellectual Property that must be fought over.

That is sad. This poor, sad, short whoremonger.

Posted by: Ace at 02:27 PM | Comments (52)
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

Sure, why not.

"It was an expected slowdown," Goolsbee said in an interview on Bloomberg television. "The biggest driver was a reduction in government spending at the federal level, a big negative from defense spending."

Earlier the AP told us it was due to bad weather and inflation; the White House now elevates "Republicans" to the top of the list.

Posted by: Ace at 01:43 PM | Comments (117)
Post contains 92 words, total size 1 kb.

Nonsense? I've got facts. Reported by the Harvard Crimson and Reuters.

What do you have? You have assumptions.

We know this is nonsense," Jarrett said on SiriusXM Radio's The Joe Madison Show. "He's almost 50 years old and he's president of the United States and I don't think anybody would debate his intelligence and so now we need to get serious."

We wouldn't have to debate it at all if you didn't hide the record.

Jarrett's foray into the conversation follows CBS anchor Bob Schieffer's accusation that Trump's comments are racist.

"That's just code for saying he got into law school because he's black," Schieffer said on the CBS Evening News Wednesday. "This is an ugly strain of racism that's running through this whole thing."

Let me ask this, seriously: Is what the liberals ask of the rest of us to not only support a racial-preference regime but then to simultaneously pretend we do not know that regime is in operation?

Because it sure sounds like Schieffert's saying that.

On one hand, Obama, we know that Harvard Law instituted a strong policy on affirmative action for law review right before Obama got there.

Obama himself wrote, while at Harvard, that he had undoubtedly benefited from Affirmative Action.

Via Kaus (see end of post).

Now, did he or did he not benefit?

He says he did.

Am I racist for taking his word for it? Is Bob Schieffert not a racist for implicitly calling him a liar?

The liberals want us to do double-think where with the one hand we give minority applicants +10% on their applications but with the other hand we're supposed to wipe our memories clean of this action so we don't even know we just did it.

The question is not whether he's dumb. He's not dumb. The question is whether he's especially smart, which he does not appear to be, or just above average intelligence and out of his depth, which he does appear to be.

And grades and SATs, while not perfect indicators, are at least a bit more objective than Chris Matthews' personal assessment of Obama as a genius.

Posted by: Ace at 01:11 PM | Comments (146)
Post contains 385 words, total size 3 kb.

Same pattern as in that poll I linked yesterday-- It's the independent disapproval, plus soft Democratic support, that really cuts.

Posted by: Ace at 12:44 PM | Comments (107)
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.