Has it come to this?

It has.

Slut-tastic! RT @davidhauptmann: Politico: "MSNBC has suspended host Ed Schultz for one week without pay"

The wet-looking toad earlier called Laura Ingraham a "rightwing slut" and, um, a "talk-slut," which is just stupid.

Yeah, Ed Schultz really needs to watch this. This is my own good deed for the day-- an intervention.

Ed Schultz is an embarrassing person. The sort of person you don't want to be seen in the company of. He's obese, stupid, red-faced, stupid, inarticulate, borderline mentally-deficient, stupid, graceless, charmless, witless, last-sad-hound-at-the-kennel ugly, and also stupid.

The swells at MSNBC, like Larry O'Donnell, with his boyish good looks untouched by any required military service in Vietnam, do not want to share his company. As he's a gross toad.

They're really looking for a reason. They'll put up with fewer viewers and more losses if they don't have to be buttonholed by him, mouth spraying out spittle and partially digested appetizers, at corporate events.

He needs to watch how stupid and repugnant he allows himself to be. No one, not even liberals, want to associate with someone so embarrassing and unattractive and stupid.

They fired the other borderline-imbecile. And Rich Sanchez didn't have to shop for his clothes at a special shop.

Correction... it was CNN who fired that other imbecile. Meh, they all run together.

Posted by: Ace at 03:46 PM | Comments (135)
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

Can that be right? Can that possibly be right?

Pat Dollard highlights this Mediaite report.

“What began in 2004 as a ten- person shop with a $3 million annual budget now has around 90 employees and plans to spend $15 million this year.” That is striking and demonstrates the enormous fundraising operation that they have created. But that is not translating into readers. With that budget and staff, they should be about the size of a site like Politico, but the numbers tell a far different story. According to web traffic evaluator, Quantcast, Politico averages 5.6 million monthly unique visitors, Media Matters a mere 646,200. Even if you give Media Matters the benefit of the doubt and double that number, they are still doing a fraction of the traffic of sites its size (at 1.3 million, it would still be far smaller than little Mediaite, with ten times the staff). That’s something that clearly should have been pointed out in the story.

For comparison: this site gets 2.5 million uniques per month (or 3 million in good months).

That's not to brag, because this site does not get a huge amount of traffic. So-so, and some people have heard of it, but it's not a lot. For comparison, the celebrity site Perez Hilton has sometimes gotten 14 million views... in a day.

It's not to brag, then, but rather to note that Soros' vanity website is getting traffic on the level of a 2nd tier political blogger.

Or 3rd tier, if tiers are defined more narrowly. Or 4th tier.

Actually, 4th tier is about right. If a Hot Air or Michelle Malkin is 1st tier, and this site is 2nd tier, the Mmmmmfah is 3rd tier at best and really 4th tier.

For $15 mil a year. Must be nice to be an unaccountable liberal.

This isn't quite true, but it's nearly so: Media Matters' only actual readers are the "reporters" at the networks (and especially MSNBC) that immediately type up their drivel and mainstream it into "news."

Not to push my own meme, but seriously, any time a conservative hears a liberal cite "Media Matters" he should just immediately say "But does it?" Let them figure it out.

On Attracting and Keeping Readers: Very often I get criticized for running funny or trivial stories, or going off-message. There is a contingent of folks who want their political sites doing nothing but relentlessly messaging.

First of all, I couldn't do that. Neither could the cobloggers. What you see on this site is a mix of 1, stories that are both important and which we are interested in, 2, stories which are important and must be posted even if we have nothing to add to them, and 3, stories which are not important but which we either have something to add about, or which we find interesting.

Those who demand "stay relentlessly on message" don't realize that that category 3 is often more interesting than category 2. Sure, we do category 2, because we have to. But we don't actually have anything new to add. It's just a link and quote. You can get that anywhere, and in fact, you do get that anywhere.

But more importantly, those who demand this are making a mistake. I think in their heads they just want to know that there exists sites out there constantly hammering The Message.

They want to know that's going on... in background.

They want to know other people are being indoctrinated by such a site.

But would they read it themselves? Or do they just want to know it exists for other people, those in need of indoctrination, to read?

I think the latter. They seem to make the error of not realizing that for a message to be effective, first, it must be read in the first place.

And being a little idiosyncratic and random and funny and goofy helps with that. Whether the Seriousness Brigade realizes that or not.

Now, case in point: MMFA, or Mmmmmfah, is in fact relentlessly on message.

They are without character or identity. And without wit or warmth or anything recognizable as human.

All they are are a 24 hour a day propaganda manufacture and distribution machine.

They are dreary, stupid, bombastic, witless, stupid, and boring.

They are, in fact, Stalinist in their single-minded adherence to a never-resting Party Line.

And it shows in their traffic. By God it shows.

Now, you can write that shit if you like. All it takes is $15 million per year and you now have a website that faithfully concocts and propagates spin and stupidity 24 hours per day.

But will people read it?

Well... 624,000 uniques per month will read it. (Which works out to as few as 10,000 or 20,000 actual readers, because a "unique" is not a unique at all.)

So, to the Always Be Serious brigade: No thanks. The model doesn't work. It is in fact the idiosyncracies, the characters, the oddnesses, the obsessions, the weirdnesses of a site that differentiates it from the seventeen bazillion other sites doing approximately the exact same thing.

And I might be a little annoyed that Russ is deviating from the party line on ethanol, but I actually like that there is a deviation from the party line. Oh, mostly I'm annoyed. But partly... I like that.

A Generic Right Wing Political Propaganda Blog would have just as many readers as that title would suggest.

Posted by: Ace at 02:38 PM | Comments (223)
Post contains 945 words, total size 6 kb.

So here is how this thread works. Elections are won in the Electoral College. The goal is 270 electoral votes, regardless of the national popular vote. Most of the candidates who have announced (besides fringe ones like Paul and Johnson) have at least some route I can see to 270. Just to beat up on Huntsman, I would like to illustrate that his “run” for the White House is absolutely dead before he even opens his mouth:

Harvesting snail pee and collecting dead rats would be more fruitful exercises for that goofball.

Of the candidates announced so far, I have illustrated the hypotheticals for Pawlenty, Romney, Cain and Bachmann which show their possible routes to 270. I have also thrown Palin in the mix as well, and you may be shocked that I even give her a route, albeit a narrow one. Nothing would make lefties heads explode more than if Obama beat her in the national popular vote by five million yet she still squeaked by with a win in the electoral vote. Blue states can be considered off limits for them, red states very likely for them, and white, well you can figure it out.

Instead of saying “OMGZ!!! YOURR A HACK (what's new?) SO AND SO TOTALLY WOULD WIN THIS STATE TOO!!!”, this experimental thread gives you the chance to defend your candidate on a state-by-state basis. Claiming “anyone can beat Obama” can be mathematically silly when you see the generic republican ceding 190 electoral votes to Obama out of the gate. Where does YOUR candidate shine, and where can he/she improve? Are there certain states I am being too generous to the GOP on, or too generous to the Dem on? If you think, "WTF NO WAY PALIN LOSES MICHIGAN!" or "NO WAY ROMNEY WINS NEW HAMPSHIRE!", explain why you disagree. Since we are all in different states, you may have a better insight as to the current momentum or hatred the locals have for one of our party's choices.

Also, for kicks there is one candidate I can think of who has not declared, and will not win the primary, but who could very seriously put even the NE Blue Bloc in jeopardy (based off in-state polling and his personal popularity in that region). Hint- it isn't the Fat Guy.

The election is far, far away and a billion things can happen to alter these, but this is the lay of the land right now. All projection maps and polling are for kicks only, but there still some basic limits to the election in 18 months if you are willing to accept reality. We aren't going to win 40 states. We aren't going to lose 40 states. Boundaries keep the trolls and crazies classified as such.

First up, polling favorite Generic Republican: more...

Posted by: CAC at 02:14 PM | Comments (149)
Post contains 512 words, total size 4 kb.

Really. Really.

So, you guys are great on Israel, and obviously then the issue of Israel must help you; that must then by why you are demanding everyone shut up about Israel.

Let me shake the Magic 8-Ball of Plausibility...

OBVIOUSLY CORRECT

There you go. The DNC is trying to declare Israel off-limits as a campaign issue because Democrats would prosper from this issue.

Oh, and they made this demand in their private bipartisan meeting with Netanyahu, trying to get Netanyahu to agree that his country ought not to be an issue.

The RJC used their opening remarks to say that now was a historical time for the future of the Middle East, and to thank Prime Minister Netanyahu for meeting with them. But while the NJDCÂ’s chairman said essentially the same thing, he was followed by hyper-partisan comments, first from Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Steve Israel and then from the DNC chair, Wasserman Schultz.

Sitting in front of Netanyahu, the DNC chair asked the RJC to “pledge to refrain in 2012 from using Israel as part of the issues in campaigns,” according to RJC executive director Matt Brooks. “It started that way. Right from the get go they just jumped on it.”

“They decided to hijack these meeting in order to, in front of the prime minister, put a gag order in effect to prevent us from speaking out on Israel,” Brooks says.

It is highly unusual for a sitting DNC chair to try to use a foreign prime minister to pressure another political group to act in a way that she deems appropriate. But this seems to have been what happened yesterday.

So, did Netanyahu agree to Wasserman-Schultz's plea for help?

No.

Asked about Netanyahu’s reaction, Brooks said Netanyahu was “clearly uncomfortable and at one point said, ‘do you guys want me to leave the room and give you guys some privacy?’”

You know who DWS needs to lobby on this issue? Senators in her own party, who are looking for a way to repudiate President Palisymp on Israel.

Senate Democrats are expected to support a resolution intended as a rebuff to President ObamaÂ’s call for basing Middle East peace talks on the 1967 Israeli-Palestinian borders.

It would be a rare rebuke of the president by the upper chamber and a sign that Democrats are worried about the impact of last weekÂ’s speech on the U.S.-Israel relationship and pro-Israel constituents.

Democrats in both chambers are scrambling to fix the damage caused when Obama called for the 1967 borders and land swaps as a basis for peace.

Even Harry Reid rebuked Obama at an AIPAC event.

Oh: Since everyone keeps mentioning hot IDF girls.

Thanks to Eye Stallion.

Posted by: Ace at 01:55 PM | Comments (117)
Post contains 480 words, total size 3 kb.

Interesting breakdown of the numbers. I'll leave those in the article, but long story short, MediScare probably depressed conservative turnout from a high Bush 2004 level down to a low-ish McCain 2008 level. Note that had Jack Davis not been in the race, we probably would have won, but even adding his numbers into our pile, MediScare does seem to have dented our support.

So I agree wholeheartedly with my Examiner colleague Conn Carroll, Republicans need to go on the offensive on Medicare. Or as the Washington Post’s Dan Balz wrote in his analysis: “Republican leaders believe in their agenda and are not likely to back away from it just because they lost one House seat, particularly one that they could very well win back in 2012. But they have not yet won the argument over how best to deal with the country’s fiscal problems. They have accepted the responsibility to propose. Now they will need to learn how to persuade.”

I was just talking with someone -- Drew, maybe -- about the need to start hitting the point, hard, that MediCare "self-corrects" in 8 years if nothing is done, and by "self-corrects," I mean Seniors automatically get less money in health care, price controls are automatically imposed, and doctors and hospitals are paid less.

And they're already being paid less.

If you like your doctor, you get to keep, instead, a doctor who got his degree in the Belgian Congo, because guess what, there is a limit to how low doctors are willing to go.

They will simply stop taking MediCare patients, or rushing them and giving them crap treatment, given that they're not being paid crap money for each Medicare patient.

That's not the Ryan plan. That's the current plan. Or not even a plan-- that's what's going to happen.

That is a fact.

Oh, you can keep your Medicare, but it's not going to look like it looks today. Instead of doctors being paid something like 90% of the going rate, they'll be paid 80% and then 75% and then less, and you get what other people are willing to pay for.

And if you think "Oh we'll just raise taxes on younger voters to cover the difference," well, all I can tell you is no one has won on a platform of raising taxes on the middle class, ever, and I'll personally fight my heart out on that particular hill.

You can have Medicare as is, but don't say you weren't warned when the automatic rationing kicks in.

Paul Ryan notes this fact in Part 2 of his public lecture on our collapsing entitlement system, which I think really should have been Part 1.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:10 PM | Comments (155)
Post contains 474 words, total size 3 kb.

I have to point out most economists do not predict this. They predict small growth and lingering pain, but not a further retraction.

Yid with Lid sees it differently. And he thinks the "straw that broke the camel's back" is that commodity whose prices Obama used to be all in favor of escalation -- oil.

And if this is true?

Well it means at least another two years of deep recession and grinding unemployment. It also means the likelihood of Obama's reelection drops somewhere below 30%.

Via Melissa Tweets.

Posted by: Ace at 12:30 PM | Comments (201)
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

Ehhhhh...

Technically the test is the capacity to know right from wrong, and by calling his attack an "assassination," he evidenced he knew it was wrong and illegal. He also telegraphed his knowledge that he'd be arrested for it.

So technically, he's sane.

But a judge says no.

Jared Loughner, who is charged in connection with the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the killing of six others, was ruled incompetent to stand trial by a federal judge at a competency hearing today in Phoenix.

More:

U.S. District Judge Larry Burns found Loughner, 22, described by his own legal team as "gravely mentally ill," was incapable of understanding the proceedings against him and assisting in his own defense.

The decision came shortly after Loughner was hustled out of the courtroom for an outburst that disrupted the hearing. He spent five weeks undergoing psychiatric evaluations at a federal prison hospital in Missouri.

He is gravely mentally ill. But that's a psychiatric description, not a legal one.

In all honesty, the legal test is extremely stingy and only permits findings of "not competent" for those who experience actual visual hallucinations and the like. Because only that sort of person can say, "I thought I was killing a demon."

Mark David Chapman could pass that test because of his delusion that John Lennon had replaced him as a clone or whatever it was.

Still, stingy or not, the test is the test.

He was removed from court due to his outburst.

Posted by: Ace at 11:48 AM | Comments (138)
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

Is this a quote from one of the corn-state "bitter clingers" eager to discredit Tim Pawlenty's bold new stand on ethanol subsidies & tax credits?

Not so much.

I almost didn't post this, because I know what's coming. This info is all out there just waiting to be scooped up & used, but since I'm the one pointing it out, it will be painted as some big Love4Sarah conspiracy to derail T-Paw's Tough Talk Express.

"You're just a shill for ethanol, Russ"

"You live in Iowa, so you're hooked on federal subsidies"

"RiNO!"

Well, let's assume you're all 100% correct. I'm willing to sell you all down the river for a sweet federal ethanol blender's tax credit (which I don't receive any benefit from personally). That would mean that my new favorite Republican contender for President would have to be.......Tim Pawlenty.

Yeah, that's right. Tim Pawlenty.

You think tax credits for blending ethanol into fuel are reaching into your pocket? Then you're gonna love the MANDATED use of not just E10, but E20 blended fuel. Tax credits are for amateurs, the REAL money is in mandates. The tax credits just give refiners a hedge against the market for installing the infrastructure to blend ethanol into fuel. Mandates give them a permanent seat at the table. So take away the tax credits, SHIT even require extra taxes on corn ethanol. It's all good as long as you're going to federalize the mandated use of E20 fuel. Guaranteed demand is worth the extra taxes.

Minnesota was the first state in the Union to require all fuel sold in the State to have 10% ethanol content, and they're also the first ones to up that mandated content to 20%. Who was the governor who caught the Last Train to Porkville & made his state's drivers use ethanol? Mark Dayton?

Nope. It was T-Paw.

Do I think this will kill his candidacy? No, I actually kind of like the guy, if you can look past his squishy AGW support and the "Minnesota Nice" smug attitude that gave Al Franken an opening to cheat his way into the Senate (allegedly). I just have this crazy idea that the guy who is going to save us all from the ethanol monster should, you know, actually want to save us all from the ethanol monster. If Romney has to carry the RomneyCare albatross around his neck this cycle, there's no reason that T-Paw should get a pass on carrying around the Ethanol Mandate albatross. That's just fair play.

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at 11:12 AM | Comments (344)
Post contains 445 words, total size 3 kb.

Yes, another dumb, funny thing. Not all serious.

It's worth it.

Here are our memes for the next two months. There's no fighting it; it just is. The sooner we accept and rally around these memes, the stronger we'll be for 2012.

This clip takes Honey Badger and treats it like a Sofitel Chambermaid.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:02 AM | Comments (78)
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm not angry, I'm just disappointed.

Which of you did this?

Look, you can use a pseudonym (like me turning out the lights and asking for my watch back), but I need to know: Who's responsible here?

Posted by: Ace at 10:15 AM | Comments (285)
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.