But of course she blames it on lower-level advisers.

She says "I am responsible" for the security of State's 60,000 workers, but then says she's not responsible at all:

"The decision about security aspects are made by security professionals."

Source: Wendell Goler on FoxNews, about 40 minutes ago. The quote was printed on screen.

I'm responsible, but then again, I'm not; the buck stops with me, but not really, it was this low-level political appointee scapegoat who's going to claim he "shielded" me from these demands for additional security on his own authority.

But don't blame the President. See, I've taken responsibility.

I was responsible for the low-level scapegoat whose fault this really is.

Okay, Ms. Clinton: What are the names of these "security professionals" you say made this decision? Forgive my suspicions, but I'd like to ask them for their side of the story.

I'd also like documentary evidence for all of these claims.

Bonus: In April, the consulate was attacked.

The State Department suspected their very own guards carried out the attack.

State Department officials suspected that two Libyan guards hired by its own security contractor were behind an April incident in which a homemade bomb was hurled over the wall of the special mission in Benghazi, according to official emails obtained by ReutersÂ…

The April attack illustrated concerns among some U.S. officials in Libya that hiring local residents for embassy guard duties could in itself raise security issues.

The emails identified one of the suspects in that incident as a former employee of Blue Mountain Group who had been fired four days earlier for vandalism, and said the other was still working for the company. Both were unarmed guards who performed routine security tasks, such as screening visitors.

An assessment of the guards stated that they were of "extremely low caliber."

Question Time. Questions for Obama -- and now, Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Ace at 04:00 PM | Comments (394)
Post contains 340 words, total size 3 kb.

I've been advocating this shift for months and months. Arguing Romney should declare a Reaganite foreign policy, not a Bushian one.

The difference? Well, Reagan is thought to be a Warrior but he didn't actually commit America to any major wars.

Plus, this idea of Bush's -- that we'll nation build and nation build and nation build -- costs too much in terms of money, let alone American life, and is extremely unpopular.

And this just isn't politics-- It's so unpopular the public will not permit a President to pursue it. So why leave any doubt that you intend to do that? You're not going to; what is the purpose of hinting you might do something so unpopular you won't be permitted to do it at all?

Rhetorically, it is a useful thing to say "My policy is Reaganite." There are few in the conservative movement that alienates, and most independents and even many Democrats think well enough of Reagan's foreign policy.

Romney has never been very forward-leaning on the use of force. He speaks very vaguely about it. If he had a McCain foreign policy in mind -- intervene everywhere; we are the world's policeman -- he could have announced it when it was still semi-popular in 2007.

He didn't.

I'm surprised it's taken this long.

A senior Republican strategist close to the campaign said Romney was groping for a "version 2.0" of the foreign policy of the Bush era, but one that would more resemble President Reagan's in the Cold War. It would seek to assert American leadership and values with a powerful military and bold rhetoric, but "with a more cautious view of where and when we use force."

The imperative is to avoid "the mistakes and miscalculations of the last decade," said the strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak about internal deliberations. "The Bush foreign policy is a terrible brand."

I don't mind bombing countries.

I don't mind decapitating regimes.

My problem comes with the United States cleaning up the messes that foreign despots have brought upon themselves. Filling the "power vacuum" with American troops, who will wind up being killed for no very good reason.

These countries will rebuild themselves -- just as they always have. Perhaps they will rebuild more slowly than with American aid; perhaps more civilians will be killed in ensuing power struggles.

Let's be grown up about this: That's not our problem unless we agree that it should be our problem.

When you go to war, you reap the whirlwind. I wouldn't mind if the citizens of regimes hostile to us understood that a little better.

And attempting to spare Iraqis and Afghans the full horror of war has just wound up shifting the horror of war to Americans -- and has prevented us from taking critical actions in our own national security interests.

Posted by: Ace at 03:25 PM | Comments (222)
Post contains 501 words, total size 3 kb.

Obama really wants you to know he's prepared -- nay, eager -- to make another Gutsy Call (TM).

The White House has put special operations strike forces on standby and moved drones into the skies above Africa, ready to strike militant targets from Libya to Mali — if investigators can find the Al Qaeda-linked group responsible for the death of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya.
...

Details on the administration's position and on its search for a possible target were provided by three current and one former administration official, as well as an analyst who was approached by the White House for help. All four spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the high-level debates publicly.

Um, I think they are so authorized, and are claiming otherwise.

Let me point out something obvious and deadly: Obama's inner circle leaks politically-helpful, but very top secret, information with gusto.

But when it comes to the politically unhelpful details of the Libya debacle-- notice how they all know how to avoid the press.

But a flag-waving Election Bombing? That they're willing to telegraph.

...

Vice President Joe Biden pledged in his debate last week with Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan to find those responsible for the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

"We will find and bring to justice the men who did this," Biden said in response to a question about whether intelligence failures led to lax security around Stevens and the consulate. Referring back to the raid that killed Osama bin Laden last year, Biden said American counterterror policy should be, "if you do harm to America, we will track you to the gates of hell if need be."

And that's a bunch of malarkey, in this sense: No one has any doubt that any president would kill terrorists if he could find them and get to them.

That is not even a political issue. It's not a Gutsy Call (TM) to follow the stated policy of the United States, a policy, incidentally, which is quite popular. Even with Democrats (so long as a Democrat can grab credit, at least).

Biden and Obama are trying to shift the conversation to the future, rather than, as it should be, the past. They still won't come clean on how they permitted Al Qaeda to slaughter four men. Nor will they discuss why they claimed something which they later admitted was "self-evidently" false.

So, Obama would kill these terrorists. So would Romney. So, it seems, would the Libyan government, actually, which makes this talk of airstrikes seem rather curious.

But flags need to wave and tails need to wag the dog.

So Obama's security team once again starts planting deliberate, approved leaks to the press.

Hey, Did You Hear Obama Killed OBL? Just in case you'd forgotten.

By the Way: Most of the weapons being shipped into Syria are going into the hands of jihadists.

Perfect, huh?

Posted by: Ace at 02:50 PM | Comments (245)
Post contains 536 words, total size 4 kb.

Pat F'n Caddell.

[I]f you look at the front page of the New York Times on Monday morning, Libya is nowhere to be found. Yet, the Benghazi attack on 9/11 that killed our ambassador and three others was the topic of every Sunday talk show this weekend.

The New York Times still thinks of itself as "the paper of record"; itÂ’s the one paper every network newscast consults on a daily basis. So why isn't Libya on the front page Monday morning?

HereÂ’s why: The Times is so in the tank for the Obama administration it's scary. I've never seen anything like it. They are doing everything they can to protect the Obama White House over this disaster.

When are Republicans -- and all Americans -- going to call on the press to look into this outrage?

Will the NYT pay for this? I don't think they'll pay for it in terms of subscription, but they are quickly becoming a joke.

A playwright who has a smash-hit play doesn't have to pay for his drinks for 20 years after. So too a one-time boxing champion. They don't have to buy dinner for a long, long time. They can coast for a while on past laurels.

The New York Times is doing that. The problem for them is this: They've already been coasting on past glory for about 10-15 years.

When's the last time the New York Times really made a difference?

It's been a while, huh?

Partisans do not get punished for their partisanship by their partisan audience. As I've noted before, I spun McCain's chances of winning in 2008. I knew (or pretty much completely knew) he had no realistic chance, but I spun it that it was a close race.

Did any readers get mad at me for this? No, of course not. If I'm going to be wrong, be wrong in our team's favor. Everyone understands this. Everyone understands the concept of Game Faces.

Including the advocacy rag the New York Times.

Their partisans want to be fed a partisan line, and they'll gladly pay the New York Times for that dish.

The New York Times is no longer the "Paper of Record," if it ever really was, and hasn't been for at least coming on its second decade.

It's MSNBC in print form. As I wrote earlier, about the NYT's (and other major liberal rags') absolute refusal to note Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day, it's "news" as a "boutique" offering:

It's a phenomenon we now know well, and yet it is still worth pointing out how astonishing this all is. Simply because we have become inured to a perfectly bizarre situation does not mean we should not make frequent note of how truly bizarre this situation is.

The situation is this: The last place -- not the first place, not the second, not the sixth -- you'd want to go to find coverage of news is an American newspaper or an American news broadcast.

They're not in the business of news any longer. The analogue that strikes me is, if you pardon this weird neologism (and pardon it because what I'm trying to describe is itself weird), news fashion.

See, I wouldn't expect a boutique fashion store to be catholic in the clothing it displays and sells. I'd expect it to be highly selective, skewing to the proprietor's own sense of style, his own insistence on what Good Taste consists of. I'd expect that in that fashion shop, what isn't available is as large a statement of principle than what is available.

And that is perfectly understandable for a tony, boutique, specific-taste fashion shop.

But this same mentality is bizarre when applied to the business of informing the public of the events of the day. The news media seem to be employing the fashionista's sense of style and taste -- the fashionista's overwrought, half-kidding concealing of her eyes and exclamation of "I do not see that!" when confronted with a dress not to her liking -- to the news.

The fashionista is right to "edit" the reality of her fashion shop to accord with her specific, idiosyncratic sense of the aesthetic. In doing so, she creates not only a brand identity for herself, but puts forth a manifesto, and aspiration, a declaration that "This is what the world should look like."

But a newsman? Is a newsman equally right to edit the reality of the daily record of the world's events so that it, too confirms with their sense of style, their aspiration as to what the world should look like?

I know the people lining up for Chick-fil-A on Wednesday were not the quite the clientele (I'm pronouncing that in as French a manner as I can) the media considers worthy. And yet, unless my eyes deceive, they do in fact exist and furthermore act in the tangible, real world we inhabit.

Fashion editing is expected in a fashion shop, but is reality editing acceptable in a newspaper? What is the purpose? To create, like the fashionista did, a small, heavily stylized and artificial world where a select clientele may visit, by invitation only? So that they may glimpse your manifesto of What Makes The World Pretty?

It's not All the News anymore; it's a sampling of Maddow-like News Substitute for people who wish to be bathed & swathed in Liberal Happy-Talk.

It's for soft thinkers-- weak thinkers.

And its credibility is nearly gone. It is more and more understood not to be a newspaper at all, but a Democratic Party newsletter with a good crossword puzzle.

They'll still get free drinks. But people understand they are the champ no more, and they're simply no longer what they once were.

Posted by: Ace at 01:48 PM | Comments (247)
Post contains 983 words, total size 6 kb.

Because those who questioned methodology, partisan split, and turnout assumptions when polls showed Obama ahead were crazy Denialists in a war with Media-Approved Narrative Reality.

But now that the polls are turning against Obama, the Obama campaign itself is questioning party ID and such.

Well, Team Obama is apparently freaked out by this poll and the traction itÂ’s getting because I just got a long memo from them, written by Joel Benenson, president of the Benenson Strategy Group, questioning the accuracy of GallupÂ’s likely voter sample:

The latest Gallup/ USA Today Battleground survey showing President Obama and Governor Romney tied with women in battleground states (48-4 is an extreme outlier, defying the trends seen in every other battleground and national poll.

This result underscores deep flaws in GallupÂ’s likely voter screen.

Only 2 years ago the distortions in GallupÂ’s likely voter screen were exposed, leaving GallupÂ’s survey 9 points off the mark just days before the election.

...

We believe the problem with GallupÂ’s outlying data is rooted in their 7 question likely voter screen, which distorts the composition of likely voters, leading to erratic and inaccurate results.

In GallupÂ’s current survey, Obama leads women by 53-44 among registered voters in the Battleground States, which is closely aligned with results from other pollsters.

It is only when the likely voter screen is applied that their results become so out of step.

The Obama Poll Truther claims the registered voter poll is much closer to "reality" (for some ranges of reality).

As I pointed out in the last post, the USAToday article about the poll addressed this:

Gallup notes that its likely voter model predicted a slightly more Democratic outcome than the actual results in the last two presidential elections, in 2008 and 2004. In both, the likely voter model more accurately predicted the final outcome than the registered-voter sample.

But What If Obama's Firewall Is Actually On Fire? Media rushes in to repair Obama's firewall.

Posted by: Ace at 01:16 PM | Comments (191)
Post contains 351 words, total size 3 kb.

For a while, the Narrative being pushed by Team Obama is that Obama may be in a little trouble per the national polls, but he enjoys a stronger position in the actual swing states that will determine this election.

The Gallup/USAToday poll suggests that's not true.

Romney's surge is courtesy of... the wimmens, or, as the DNC thinks of them, "Vagina-Based Life Forms."

Mitt Romney leads President Obama by five percentage points among likely voters in the nation's top battlegrounds, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, and he has growing enthusiasm among women to thank.

As the presidential campaign heads into its final weeks, the survey of voters in 12 crucial swing states finds female voters much more engaged in the election and increasingly concerned about the deficit and debt issues that favor Romney. The Republican nominee now ties the president among women who are likely voters, 48%-48%, while he leads by 12 points among men.

...

"In every poll, we've seen a major surge among women in favorability for Romney" since his strong performance in the first debate, veteran Democratic pollster Celinda Lake says. "Women went into the debate actively disliking Romney, and they came out thinking he might understand their lives and might be able to get something done for them."

While Lake believes Obama retains an edge among women voters, the changed views of Romney could be "a precursor to movement" to the Republican candidate, she says. "It opens them up to take a second look, and that's the danger for Obama."

I heard Rush say something that sounded hopeful -- that while the polls in the Wisconsin recall suggested a tight race, the actual outcome was a "landslide" against recall.

I looked that up hoping it was true -- But it's not really true. Although some polls, like PPP, claimed a tight race, the RCP average put the margin at 6.7 points, in favor of Walker; the actual outcome was 6.8 points, in favor of Walker.

It seems like those who had no opinion -- around 3% -- split more or less evenly for Walker and Barrett at the end. Each man gained about 1.5% support. (Walker actually gained 1.6%.)

One point to note, in Rush's favor: That final RCP tally is skewed a bit by a WeAskAmerica poll, showing a +12 lead for Walker. Most people discounted this result, so people actually thought of the election as +4 or +5 for Walker-- still winnable for Barrett.

But it wasn't, and Walker's actual victory margin exceeded that.

Update: Actually, the more I look into this the more it seems Rush was righter than he was wrong. RCP included that WeAskAmerica poll, but no one else included it in their mental figuring of the race. Politco, for example, ran this late-stage headline:

Wisconsin recall: Nail-biting finish

It noted that virtually all polls had Walker ahead -- but labeled him "only a marginal favorite."

So it does seem that that the Narrative was that this was a nail-biter, and Walker was only barely favored to win.

And he won pretty big.

In the Gallup/USAToday article, Gallup itself notes that its Likely Voter model has tended to understate Republican strength and overstate Democratic strength. Even with the LV screen, there are still too many Democrats in the polls.

By the way, thanks to @drewmtips for the USAToday poll. Drew's been an Eeyore, but today he says:

Starting to look 1980ish. It's not going to be a Reaganesque landslide but a weak incumbent who looked ok until mid-October then...not

I don't think it will be a landslide but Obama's numbers are collapsing in key spots. http://ow.ly/euG4v

Just to repeat..I do NOT think Mitt will win in a landslide. Just noting the similarity to how Carter seemed to hang in and then fell apart.

Obama seems to be crashing not nationally but in the states he needs to win.

Optimism from Drew? Well well well. Maybe we are ahead.

Posted by: Ace at 12:26 PM | Comments (248)
Post contains 679 words, total size 5 kb.

That second part first:

Danish wind turbine maker Vestas said the impending expiry of a U.S. tax credit had exacerbated a fall in orders for next year, forcing it to make more than 800 job cuts in the United States and Canada so far this year.

With the Production Tax Credit (PTC) on renewable energy set to expire at the end of the year, Vestas Wind Systems A/S had previously said it could be forced to lay off a total of 1,600 employees in North America if the scheme is not renewed.

Hit the link -- Steven Chu was a big fan of the "economic opportunities" Vesta offered us (for $50 million in your money).

Meanwhile, there's no hiding the decline.

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

he new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.

Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Two points: The warming phase was only 16 years long; why was that enough to make very firm ("The science is settled") predictions into the future?

And this is delicious. In previous years Phil Jones has said he would only be "worried" about global non-warming -- that is, "worried" that his models and predictions were wrong -- only if the non-warming trend continued for a period of time.

That period of time? Fifteen years.

Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.

Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

Science (TM). Make a prediction, set a definite set of circumstances which would require you to adjust your prediction... then completely ignore that when it actually arrives.

By the way, if you want tip-top Science coverage, you really must watch MSNBC.

Felix Baumgartner, they inform us, broke the speed of light barrier.

Sweet.

MSNBC should change their slogan from "Lean Forward" to "Engage."

Posted by: Ace at 11:54 AM | Comments (209)
Post contains 573 words, total size 4 kb.

Get caught soliciting mob-run prostitutes while a serving governor and they'll give you a whole TV show!

“David screwed up, admitted he screwed up and paid the price of losing his job for screwing up. He certainly would have been held accountable for the lapse in judgment had he been on the Politico staff at the time,” Harris told Politico. “He’s made clear that remark did not reflect his personal views or professional standards. This is a journalist who carries with him more than a decade of accomplishment and a well-earned reputation for fairness. We do not believe that lapse in one moment negates a reputation held in high regard by political professionals in both parties.”

Liars.

Meanwhile: Will Paul Ryan be undone by DishGate?

At a soup kitchen...

Ryan and his family donned some aprons and offered to wash some dishes. The metal pans they washed appeared to be mostly clean, though—
Felicia Sonmez (@feliciasonmez) October 13, 2012

Posted by: Ace at 11:21 AM | Comments (217)
Post contains 207 words, total size 2 kb.

Short version: It's a bitch and a half.

He'd have to win Florida, NC, and Virginia. He leads there.

He'd then have to win New Hampshire and Colorado. He barely leads there.

We assume he wins Indiana -- a state that went for Obama in 2008 but isn't considered competitive anymore.

He'd then have to win either Wisconsin -- where he actually doesn't lead -- or both Nevada and Iowa. Nevada seems doable, but Iowa is such a bluish state it's barely a swing state.

That, or he'd have to Go Big and swipe Michigan or Pennsylvania.

I'm thinking it's time to Go Big and make a play for those states.

Chuck Todd, though, mentions "private data" showing a "structural shift" making Romney the favorite.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:47 AM | Comments (506)
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.

I was thinking about this. Bill Maher whined that Republicans wouldn't "admit" Biden won the debate.

I had no idea what he was talking about. I thought Ryan won -- but not by as many points as some people expected him to. I did think he was less effective than I hoped he would be, and left a lot of chips on the table.

But I think he won.

So I was wondering how on earth liberals could imagine that Biden won.

There are two answers here, I think. The first is that they knew they had to claim, as a group and with one voice, that Biden destroyed Ryan, in order to try to push that particular interpretation. As Ryan said, they were all "under duress" to make up ground from the Romney demolition of Obama.

That's certainly true.

But I also think they're employing a crude metric to call the debate for Biden. Biden definitely "won" in one sense -- he contradicted everything Ryan said. Whether it was chuckling, sneering, interrupting, or just stating "That's a bunch of malarkey" to everything, Biden did contradict everything Ryan said.

I think what they think is this: Romney won the first debate because he contradicted everything Obama said. Hence, the winner of any debate is the one who contradicts the most. Biden contradicted the most, ergo he wins.

But... that's not the rule, of course. That's, what's the word?, stupid.

And that's not what Romney did. Romney didn't just contradict Obama -- he contradicted him and then offered a series of facts which supported his contradiction. In many exchanges, Obama would make an assertion -- just an assertion, unsupported, and just one -- and then Romney would make three supported claims undermining Obama's assertion.

Just to mention one particularly effective response by Romney: Obama contended that Dodd-Frank was just perfect and anyone calling for a repeal (plus replacement) of that bill must be some kind of crazyperson. Romney supported his position of repeal by noting first that the law made five banks "too big to fail" and guaranteed their survival, thus encouraging the exact same consequences-be-damned bets that came to a head in 2008.

Then he followed that up -- as an afterthought, no less -- by noting the law required banks to only grant mortgage loans to "qualified" borrower, but then failed to define what a "qualified" borrower might be. Thus freezing the banks from lending, paralyzing them by leveling a vague diktat upon them without letting them know, as a law should, what is lawful and what is not.

And that fact -- that banks are not lending -- is a major factor contributing to the moribund state of the economy.

Now-- is that merely a "contradiction"? Is that merely, as Python had it, "an automatic gainsaying of whatever the other man says"?

No, that is much more than that. That is a proper argument, with a premises, support for those premises, and conclusion. It is not merely the automatic gainsaying of whatever one's opponent says.

Which is... mostly what Biden did. Simply gainsaying whatever Ryan said, but, more often than not, not offering any particular reason for believing Biden's contradiction, apart from "Trust me" and "Trust your instincts" and so forth.

But to liberals like Maher, this is apparently an effective form of argumentation. I think they believe that for three reasons:

1. Because they have to, in order to explain to themselves how Biden "won." Bonus: It cheapens Romney's demolition of Obama by reducing it to a childish metric of "Romney contradicted Obama more so he won."

2. Because they are attempting to "get inside the minds" of voters, and they believe, as an article of religious faith, that they are smarter than the voters, and the voters are stupid, and therefore simple contradiction must appeal to such people, who are very stupid and think that an argument is won by he who says "No it isn't!" the most.

3. Because they themselves just want to hear Biden and Obama call Romney and Ryan "liars" and so actually are pretty cheap dates on this front. If you just contradict Ryan and Romney, who are by the way lying monsters, then that's awesome, that's "tough," and you win.

Romney did not win his debate because he contradicted Obama a lot. Obama contradicted Romney just as much, of course. Romney won the debate because he was in command, fluent with facts, clear and persuasive in explaining his underlying understanding of the economy, friendly, warm, intelligent, and... extremely presidential.

Was Biden any of those things?

Or was he a confused old man riding a broken-down horse into the Alzheimer's sunset of fading intellect (and his never burned that brightly to begin with)?

Everything That Guy Just Said Is Bullshit. A funny and effective gambit from My Cousin Vinnie. Does it work for Biden?

I would say not. For one thing, Vinnie is a fictional character in a comedy.

For another thing, charismatic people can get away with this sort of thing. They can even win on it. Because charisma is more persuasive than any argument.

Does Biden have that kind of charisma? He does, I think, appeal to people who frankly are not all that intelligent and, more importantly, whose lives are not exactly what they'd like them to be. To such people, government is a Rich Uncle Who Loans You Money When You Need It (which is constantly).

For that sort of person, Biden's vigorous defense of taking other people's money to give it to Democratic clients probably seemed pretty decent.

For anyone not a Democratic Client, however: It was all just a "bunch of stuff."

Sneaking in Gallup: Despite a couple of polls showing Romney's bump fading, Gallup has the race unchanged -- Romney 49, Obama 47. more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:53 AM | Comments (390)
Post contains 1001 words, total size 6 kb.