On the debate itself:

I was a little more down on it than most. The first hour was fine as far as these things go (not very usually) but the second hour seemed to go off the rails with candidates bitching about time, crazy social issues (Will Bachmann be submissive to her husband? But no questions on entitlement reform? Really?) and way too much Ron Paul.

Reporters always want to get more questions in and that's understandable. Personally, if you're going to have 8 candidates, I think fewer questions with longer answers and a chance for interaction would serve voters better.

The Candidates:

Mitt Romney- Again, he wins by not losing. No one really laid a glove on him in a way we haven't seen before. Either you buy Mitt or you don't but nothing that happened last night was likely to change your mind. When you're comfortably in front (for now) in the polls, you chalk that up as a win an move along.

Tim Pawlenty- The guy has been dead man walking since he the New Hampshir debate where he refused to back up his "ObamnneyCare" hit.

He's been going after Bachmann lately and he did have to own up to those shots simply because he couldn't run away like Brave Sir Robin twice. As I predicted however, it cost him dearly.

He's now the guy who will take on a woman face to face but not another guy. Also, he's the second leading squish in the race behind Romney but he's willing to trash the tea party favorite. That is not a good place for a candidate.

Attack is not his natural posture and it shows. Skillfully attacking an opponent without muddying yourself is a valuable political skill and one Pawlenty just doesn't seem to have. He's by turns too timid and too strident. He hasn't found the sweet spot in taking on other candidates.

On paper Pawlenty should be a strong candidate. Yes he has some deviations in his record but everyone does who has a serious record. He's got experience and he is willing to layout some relatively bold plans (which is what primary voters say they want, right?). As I said to Ace last night on Twitter, Pawlenty just doesn't have that "it" factor. You can't define it but like porn, you absolutely know it when you see it.

I think Pawlenty wanted to be "Mitt without Mitt's baggage". So far people are willing to take Mitt, baggage and all. That leaves Pawlenty without a niche of of support and a rationale for his candidacy.

Michele Bachmann- She was the revelation of the New Hampshire debate. To my mind she didn't build on that. I'm not sure how she could have honestly but she really didn't have to. She's on the radar and doing well in Iowa now so to some degree like Mitt, she wins by not screwing up.

I think Pawlenty's attack on her as someone who talks about leading fights but never winning them is legitimate but not likely to resonate with anyone who is already supporting her. She's a movement candidate, not a record based candidate.

I do think her talk of leading all these fights is a bit silly and will come as a surprise to a lot of Republican voters who never heard of her until about 3 months ago but unlike the fools at PolitiFact, I get political rhetoric and positioning. It's not court testimony under oath and it's not a scientific experiment that can be proven one way or the other. She's appealing to people who are more interested in the perfect fight than an imperfect victory here and there. That's a legitimate strategy and she's playing it well.

After those three it was a bunch of "why exactly are they there" candidates.

Newt Gingrich- What we learned is he doesn't like "gotcha questions" even when they really aren't. He came prepared to evade an unpleasant question, why did your campaign team implode? with an attack on the press. It got him some applause and notice. Mission Accomplished.

Herman Cain- He's what he's been throughout the campaign, engaging, funny and honest. Oh and woefully unprepared to be President. He spoke a lot about the things he's learned on issues like Afghanistan and the Mideast throughout the course of the campaign. Learning is good but for Cain it's been more like "introduced for the first time to some pretty obvious things". His early South Carolina momentum has pretty much run its course.

Ron Paul- He's still Ron Paul. That's not a compliment.

Rick Santorum- This is a guy that should be a serious candidate but he's just not. I don't know if it's his social conservatism or what that terms some folks off but he's just not there.

He had a few good lines, mostly when taking a whack at Ron Paul's Pinata of Foreign Policy Stupidity. He was most effective in countering Paul's disinterest in Iran's drive for nuclear weapons.

Santorum also landed a good shot by pointing out it's Iran that executes gays for being gay. Considering all the crap he takes about his stance on gay rights and same sex marriage, it was a good reminder to people that supporting traditional values in the American context isn't exactly the same as what happens in other places around the world and maybe the Dan Savage fan boys should think about that.

Again, Santorum given his command of the issues and conservative record should be more of a factor but he's just not. Personally, I can't forgive him for supporting Arleen Specter over Pat Toomey but that's just me, I doubt that's an issue in Iowa.

And that wraps up the field. Of course, the 800lbs gorilla not in the room was Rick Perry. We'll see how that plays out starting tomorrow.

Who did you guys like or not like last night?

(Oh wait, I'm told someone named Jon Huntsman was also on the stage. I can't vouch for this myself but I'll go back and check the tape.)

Posted by: DrewM at 08:00 AM | Comments (281)
Post contains 1023 words, total size 6 kb.

The United States Postal Service has made it clear that they need to reduce their overhead, 80% of which is employee salary and benefits. FYI, the postal service is 60% unionized with an average hourly income of $41.15.[Update: I want to make note I think this includes benefits, but I'm not certain]

Their plan is twofold. First up on the chopping block are 120,000 employees that need to be laid off by 2015. Then, in order to further reduce operating costs they need to withdraw from the federal healthcare system imposed on them by Congress.

But not to worry, they have plenty of time to implement this plan. Wait, did I say plenty of time? I meant to say one month.

The Postal Service said, “We will be insolvent next month due to significant declines in mail volume and retiree health benefit pre-funding costs imposed by Congress.”

The biggest obstacles to reform and layoffs are the American Postal Workers Union and Congress. The APWU has a clause in their contract that prohibits layoffs. This agreement can only be voided by congress. It seems unlikely Democrats will support such an action, but they might not have much of a choice:

How Congress will respond to the postal proposals remains to be seen. Many Republicans, including those who have sponsored legislation that labor considers anti-union, may support the plan. Some Democrats probably would back union opposition. But the Postal ServiceÂ’s critical financial situation could make Democrats have second thoughts.

The USPS hasn't been a profitable organization for some time(if they ever were). As a matter of fact in the past four years they've run up a 20 Billion dollar deficit. In 2010 alone they lost 8.5 billion.

It's easier to understand how they could lose so much money when you consider they have 600,000 employees and 480,000 pensioners. I reckon it's hard to be profitable when you have (almost) a 1:1 ratio of retirees to employees.

I can only surmise that along with layoffs, we'll be seeing higher stamp prices and shortened delivery weeks. more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 06:45 AM | Comments (232)
Post contains 374 words, total size 3 kb.

Found in Hot Air's headlines, Victor Davis Hanson talks about the need to go after Obama:

Obama is being blamed for not being liberal enough — after federalizing much of the health care delivery system, expanding government faster than at any time since 1933, borrowing more money in two and a half years than any president in history, absorbing companies, jawboning the wealthy, going after Boeing, reversing the order of the Chrysler creditors, adding vast new financial and environmental regulations, appointing progressives like a Van Jones or Cass Sunstein, and institutionalizing liberal protocols across the cabinet and bureaucracy, from the EPA to the Attorney General’s Office.

In other words, there is now an elite liberal effort to disentangle Obama from liberalism itself, and to suggest that his sagging polls are not a reflection of Obama’s breakneck efforts to take the country leftward — but either his inability or unwillingness to do so!

. . .

Partly, the anger is quite savvy: if one suddenly blames Obama the man, rather than Obama the ideologue, then his unpopularity is his own, not liberalismÂ’s. There is a clever effort to raise the dichotomy of the inept Carter and the politically savvy Clinton, but in the most improbable fashion: Clinton supposedly was a success not because he was personable, sometimes compromising, and often centrist, and Carter was a failure not because he was sanctimoniously and stubbornly ideological, but just the opposite: Clinton is now reinvented as the true liberal who succeeded because of his principled leftwing politics; Carter like Obama was a bumbling compromiser and waffler.

(Emphasis added.) It can never be about the policies. It can never be the public's rejection of liberal ideas. It's always about the candidate or the packaging--i.e., the "messaging"--a communication problem. Ace has written about this several times. We saw it during the lead-up to the 2010 election and for some time thereafter. It wasn't that the public disliked or misunderstood liberalism; it was that the GOP's packaging was superior. And that if Democrats could simply package, brand, and message their ideas better, then they would be an Instant Hit with the public.

The unstated flipside of the messaging argument is that the public is simply too ignorant to get it. Unstated by some, that is. James Taranto writes about the collapse of "the Cult of Obama" and points out that some are lashing out at the American people for being unworthy of Obama. Taranto adds that there are still others who are experiencing moments of clarity. He mentions Drew Westen's op-ed in the New York Times yesterday wherein Westen acknowledged being "bewitched" and "enthralled" by the Obama candidacy. Westen didn't mention whether he thought Obama's pants were perfectly creased, though.

Dave in Texas called it a form of enial.

The need to round on Obama is likely to grow worse, especially if his polling doesn't improve significantly. Talk of a primary challenge will grow concurrently. But since many discount the feasibility of such a move, a serious primary challenge is unlikely. Likewise, although this liberal need to defensively attack Obama will grow, most of it will be saved for after the election--in the event of a loss.

Follow me on Twitter.

Posted by: rdbrewer at 05:22 AM | Comments (187)
Post contains 548 words, total size 5 kb.

FRIDAY!!! more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:51 AM | Comments (224)
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.

Never let it be said that the ONT wasn't all edumacational and stuff...

The History of the English Language in Ten Minutes

Got 10 minutes? Then you've got time to hit the head AND learn how the English Language got to be so wonderfully expressive...and screwed up. Personally I blame the French but then that's my go-to reason for most things that are all effed up.

Here's the first part - a mere 78 seconds - covering the beginning: Anglo-Saxon (Jutes got dissed). You can watch the whole series here.

Also the Land Where Old English Survives. Here Eddie Izzard goes to Friesland, Holland (where they still speak Frisian, a language very similar to Old English) and attempts to buy a cow just using Old English. This would probably also succeed in certain areas of Jutland, Denmark. Which is not all that surprising when you consider where the Anglo-Saxons (and Jutes!) came from.

[video below fold] more...

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:17 PM | Comments (512)
Post contains 790 words, total size 7 kb.

The Ames, Iowa debate airs at 9pm Eastern on Fox News (Live Stream Here). Hopefully Russ from Winterset, Jay in Ames and some other Iowa morons will be here to put us some local f'n knowledge.

Participants are Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich

A field of dreams? I wish. But I think we can find a decent runner-up to Rick Perry in there somewhere.

Suggested drinking game terms:

• Unsustainable


• Bipartisan


• Compromise


• Federal reserve (if said by anyone but On-pay Aul-ray, shotgun a beer)


• Full faith and credit

Don't forget to keep your sidecar handy, and I also suggest pre-gaming this goat rodeo with a shot or two.

The usual procedure whereby comments are moderated by the cobloggers (until they pass out, anyway) is in effect.

Let's do this thing!

Liveblog app below the fold. more...

Posted by: andy at 04:40 PM | Comments (770)
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.

Although I'll be able to post a little (from airport, from hotel), I'll mostly be traveling tomorrow.

Posted by: Ace at 03:20 PM | Comments (296)
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

Is that high? That sure seems high to me.

The Washington Post buried that poll finding (naturally) the other day.

Now one of their bloggers breaks the embargo.

More than four in 10 Americans say they "definitely will not" support Obama in 2012, while fewer than half as many, just two in 10, are certain to back the president for reelection. The number of “definite” Obama voters marks a low in polls since November 2009 and has dropped four percentage points since a Post-ABC poll in June, and eight points since April.

It's 46% of registered voters, dude. I don't even know why the fuck you're talking about "Americans."

Look at the independent line here:

Right now 45% of independents will definitely vote against Obama; last time around, only 48% of independents voted against him (I presume, based on the 52% share Obama got).

For comparison, last September, a Battleground poll also found that 44% would vote against Obama -- but at that time, his reelect number was 38%. Now only 20% say the'd definitely vote for him.

I found an old column claiming that Obama's March reelect numbers in some poll (47% for Obama/37% for the Republican challenger) were "strong."

Okay.

Well if those are strong for Obama, than what is 46% Republican challenger/20% Obama?

Strong for the challenger, right?

Regarding independents -- Romney actually wins them.

In a hypothetical matchup with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the GOP raceÂ’s front-runner, the president loses the all-important independents 53% to 41%. Among the larger survey of registered voters, Messrs Obama and Romney are running neck and neck, 49% to 48%.

In a matchup with Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Mr. Obama is ahead 51% to 46%, while independents split evenly –46% –for the two men.

I think Romney's faring better because he's worked hard to make himself the Acceptable Republican Replacement for the Quivering Pile of Failure. I continue assuming that Perry could do the same thing, but has not done so, yet.

That's my assumption, at least. If ninety days from now Romney continues being the Only Guy beating Obama, well then. That's different.

And if you're sick of polls, try this.

This Presid.... This Man in the White House, is Intolerable

By Quin Hillyer on 8.11.11 @ 3:06PM

Barack Obama is intolerable. I watch right now as, yet again, he blames the bad economy, and now specifically the S&P downgrade, on "brinksmanship" in Washington and "an unwillingness to compromise" -- as if he has absolutely nothing to do with either brinksmanship or unwillingness to compromise. Who was it who, just at the verge of a deal, suddenly insisted on an extra $400 billion in taxes, thus killing the "compromise"? Obama. Who was it who vowed to veto a debt-ceiling deal even if it made it through both branches of Congress, including a Democratic Senate, if it would require another debt-ceiling increase vote again before the next election? Obama. For that matter, Obama just said that the problem is people worrying too much about winning the next election rather than getting policy right. What a joke. Again, he is the guy who, on the debt ceiling (as just described) and on several other items has insisted that the next move must, absolutely must, not occur until after the next election. He's the guy governing based on the next election.

He just said several times that "our politics is the problem." As if he isn't playing politics. He said it's time to stop the attacks -- even as his campaign says its goal is to "kill Romney."

...

This man is a hypcocrite, an egocentric louse, a liar, and a thoroughly unpleasant personality. He attacks, attacks, attacks, attacks -- and then says that the problem is politicians who attack.

BTW: There will be a liveblog of the debate, thanks to Andy for setting it all up.

Oh, and Byron York is one of the questioners there. Finally a real debate.

Posted by: Ace at 03:00 PM | Comments (109)
Post contains 689 words, total size 5 kb.

Laughably skewed pollsters cry foul.
Bookmark this thread.
Save this link.

Without further ado, Party Affiliation by State (January through June, 2011) from Gallup: more...

Posted by: CAC at 02:44 PM | Comments (69)
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

Compromise, like yardwork, is best done by others, and observed from a remote distance.

Here's one guy, Chris VanHollen, for instance:

TonightÂ’s vote was a political stunt. Republicans are demagoguing the debt ceiling increase for political gain, but their own budget would add $8.8 trillion to the debt over the next decade. By threatening to default, they are simply holding jobs and the economy hostage in order to pass their extreme budget that dismantles the Medicare guarantee. Indeed Republicans have now embraced the argument that they will pay China and foreign creditors, but not cover Medicare and Social Security. Republicans have doubled down on their plan to end the Medicare guarantee, and it is amazing what they will do to impose what Newt Gingrich rightly described as 'right wing social engineering.Â’

You can almost taste the bipartisan spirit.

Obama meanwhile speaks about undefined persons needing to put country ahead of party.

No mention of Van Hollen. Oddly enough it only seems to be one party which needs to put country above party, while the other party is free to put socialist ideology above all else.

Posted by: Ace at 01:44 PM | Comments (164)
Post contains 205 words, total size 2 kb.