At SooperMexican.

Media MattersÂ’ founder David Brock, noted for his erratic and paranoid behavior, also heads SuperPAC American Bridge, which received a million dollar contribution from George Soros, and both organizations orchestrate attacks on religion while decrying conservatives in popular media.

So why are there howls in the media about the influence of contributors on the right, such as the Koch brothers, but not those on the left, when there appears to be collusion to manipulate news media, lie to the public, and subvert honest political debate?

Liberal activists tied to these subversive shadowy campaigns target individual bloggers, and may even be abusing social media to completely shut down accounts that dare to express a conservative opinion....

All the while, ObamaÂ’s communications head David Axelrod whines about SuperPACs destroying America:

Obama campaign senior strategist David Axelrod said Thursday that free-spending super PACs were hurting the fabric of democracy — and that President Obama’s administration would move to reform the campaign finance system in a possible second term.

If we had any kind of responsible mainstream press with a twinge of integrity, they would demand answers from the Obama re-election campaign. But there isnÂ’t.

As Sheldon Adelson said: George Soros has been doing this for ten years. Why the media hubbub when Adelson chooses to donate to a PAC?

And his PAC isn't creating sockpuppet accounts to silence dissent.

Posted by: Ace at 03:27 PM | Comments (292)
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

Whuh?

Benjamin --

For the first 10 years of our marriage, Barack and I lived in an apartment in my hometown of Chicago.

The winters there can be pretty harsh, but no matter how snowy or icy it got, Barack would head out into the cold -- shovel in hand -- to dig my car out before I went to work.

In all our years of marriage, he's always looked out for me. Now, I see that same commitment every day to you and to this country.

In a way, he is like my husband. He doesn't do anything I want him to do and spends all day on the golfcourse. JoyBehar OFF.

Eh, Joy Behar back ON. And look at my neck. I've got wattles. My neck is jigglier than my chest. Take my backfat, please.

Okay, off again.

These emails to supporters have been creepy for years. "Benjamin -- Barack would like so much to have dinner with you! Please donate $3 to be entered into a Dream Dinner with Obama Sweepstakes."

Always this absurdly inappropriate pretending that the emails come from Barack and Michelle, and that they have any idea who they're being sent to.

But this is a new escalation in creepiness.

Show us on the doll how the President touched you. -- nickless

Posted by: Ace at 01:21 PM | Comments (395)
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

The Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012 is now headed to the House. $969 billion. ("Hey, guys, whatever you do, don't go over a trillion dollars, okay? Otherwise, people might notice.") It covers programs for five years, but so what? 16 Republicans joined with 46 Democrats.

Look, even Frank Lautenberg and Mary Landrieu voted against this fat thing.

I understand that it will cut 23.6 billion in spending and shift aid to crop-insurance programs, but why is the taxpayer on the hook for any of this? And on that 23 billion dollars in savings? Why is it calculated over a ten year period? Is that to make the saving appear larger than they really are?

So, $23.6 billion in cuts over ten years on a five-year $969 billion dollar bill.

Farmers don't need jack squat from taxpayers. They don't occupy some higher ground that makes them more deserving than any other person. But it's not just farmers. And, of course, the "farmers" aren't like Uncle Jed from The Beverly Hillbillies just before he struck oil; they're huge corporations.

Although he voted against it, Senator McConnell said it was "one of the finest moments in the Senate in recent times in terms of how you pass a bill." Well, hopefully someone will explain why this was such a fine bill.

The Senate rejected a "handful" of anti-bio-fuel amendments. Why? Aren't we done throwing money at bio-fuel?

By the way, they voted down an amendment that would have prohibited the EPA from using drones. Did someone think the EPA needed more power?

So, really, I'd like to know exactly why this bill was needed so badly. Since we can't pay for it. Maybe one of these 16 Republicans would care to explain:

• Lamar Alexander (TN)
• John Barrasso (WY)
• Roy Blunt (MO)
• Scott Brown (MA)
• Dan Coats (IN)
• Susan Collins (ME)
• Mike Enzi (WY)
• Charles Grassley (IA)
• John Hoeven (ND)
• Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX)
• Mike Johanns (NE)
• Dick "Dick" Lugar (IN)
• Jerry Moran (KS)
• Pat Roberts (KS)
• Olympia Snowe (ME)
• John Thune (SD)

The usual suspects. Plus some surprises. Look at all those red wall, plains states senators. more...

Posted by: rdbrewer at 12:57 PM | Comments (149)
Post contains 374 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, science fiction, dystopia, and guns. I guess I'll see it.

Again, I mean.

Trailer below. The initial tones you hear sound a lot like Vangelis' score for Blade Runner, which shouldn't be a concern, because plainly the entire project is derivative anyway.

Starring McCoy from Star Trek and Queen Cersie from Game of Thrones. more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:21 PM | Comments (153)
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

@rdbrewer4 had the bullying video in the sidebar. It's pretty awful. Content Warning, as the little wolfpack eventually gets around to Aristocrats-style sexual threats.

Well, a guy has now raised $300,000 for her, via the internet, and of course thousands of people donating.

The blogger who started the donation campaign planned to give her a vacation, but now she'll be able to retire, most likely.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:02 PM | Comments (221)
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

They don't say the region has fallen into contraction, or a new recession.

I don't see how that statement is untrue, though.

Manufacturing in the Philadelphia region shrank in June at the fastest pace in almost a year, showing the global economic slowdown is holding factories back.

The Federal Reserve Bank of PhiladelphiaÂ’s general economic index fell to minus 16.6 in June, the lowest level since August, from minus 5.8 the previous month. Economists forecast the gauge would improve to zero, the dividing line between growth and contraction....

Unexpectedly.

US manufacturing (nation wide, not regional) totters on the dividing line between expansion and contraction:

Another report today showed manufacturing in the U.S. grew at a slower pace. The Markit Economics index fell to 52.9 in June from 53.9, the London-based group said in its preliminary estimate today. A reading above 50 in the purchasing managersÂ’ measure indicates expansion.

And that's especially bad, because manufacturing has been one of the only bright spots in this ongoing depression.

For the second straight month, weaker demand from Europe and large emerging markets such as China dented sales. Markit said U.S. manufacturers reported the second largest decline in new export orders since September 2009.

The index's new orders component fell to 54.1 from 54.6.

Manufacturing has been one of the strongest links in an otherwise frail U.S. economic recovery, but Markit said weaker overseas demand may be starting to slow hiring in the sector.

The employment component fell in June to 53.1, reflecting the weakest rate of hiring in eight months. It stood at 54.3 at the end of May.

An analyst quoted in that piece says that June hiring will "rebound," but weakly, and won't be greater than 150,000 (which is bad).

Anyone want to take a bet against me that it will be "unexpectedly" lower?

World stocks fell more than 1% on growth worries.

Worries?

Oil prices have fallen, too -- they fall when people realize they won't need as much energy, because there won't be as much economic activity.

Or, as the media calls it: The silver lining of a recession!

This Doom courtesy of @comradearthur.

Posted by: Ace at 11:29 AM | Comments (192)
Post contains 381 words, total size 3 kb.

Post-Wisconsin I've been working with JohnE on expanding the Decision Desk to 50-state coverage. In the meantime, I've kept my eye on polling data and will continue to reveal the current projection of the Presidential race.

Today, we introduce the likely states, those which will go to the indicated party with the exception of a 1988/1980/1964 landslide.

With this category added, Romney leads 206 to Obama's 168 electoral votes, a total of 374 EV's not contested in the race in any reasonable scenario. How do the remaining states fall? I'll roll those subsequent maps out in coming threads.

Map below the fold. more...

Posted by: CAC at 11:18 AM | Comments (56)
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.

If you haven't seen the ads for this three bus collision, check it out. Because you haven't been annoyed enough today.

Washington Post:

[A] twist for Sorkin (but not for viewers), is that Will is a Republican who has taken it upon himself to challenge the party’s rightward fringe, providing a novel new way to present a Democratic fantasia. “I’m a registered Republican,” Will says in a prime example of elegant Sorkinese. “I only seem liberal because I believe hurricanes are caused by high barometric pressure and not by gay marriage.”

...

The word pile that once seemed so melodious in Sorkin’s other projects — especially that millennial anti-anxiety medication known as the “The West Wing” — now has the effect of tinnitus.

...

At one point in the first episode, MacKenzie delivers not one, not two but three grandiloquent monologues to Will, one right after the other. SorkinÂ’s writing lapses into self-parody, leaving savvier viewers to marvel at how quickly the show goes awry...

This makes “The Newsroom” an exponentially tedious undertaking for the viewer, when really all the show needs to be is slightly sardonic, occasionally frantic and mildly amusing.

...

This preachiness is itself a kind of guilty pleasure, but with not nearly as much pleasure as it once had.

The New Yorker:

In “The Newsroom,” clever people take turns admiring one another. They sing arias of facts. They aim to remake television news: “This is a new show, and there are new rules,” a maverick executive producer announces, several times, in several ways. Their outrage is so inflamed that it amounts to a form of moral eczema—only it makes the viewer itch.

...

Some of this banter is intelligent; just as often, however, itÂ’s artificial intelligence, predicated on the notion that more words equals smarter.

...

Sorkin’s shows are the type that people who never watch TV are always claiming are better than anything else on TV. The shows’ air of defiant intellectual superiority is rarely backed up by what’s inside—all those Wagnerian rants, fingers poked in chests, palms slammed on desks, and so on. In fact, “The Newsroom” treats the audience as though we were extremely stupid.

...

The Newsroom” is the inverse of “Veep”: it’s so naïve it’s cynical. Sorkin’s fantasy is of a cabal of proud, disdainful brainiacs, a “media élite” who swallow accusations of arrogance and shoot them back as lava. But if the storytelling were more confident, it could take a breath and deliver drama, not just talking points. Instead, the deck stays stacked. Whenever McAvoy delivers a speech or slices up a right-winger, the ensemble beams at him, their eyes glowing as if they were cultists... Can you blame me for rooting for McAvoy’s enemies, all those flyover morons, venal bean-counters, sorority girls, and gun-toting bimbos? Like a political party, a TV show is nothing without a loyal opposition.

In an interview, Sorkin explains that he's interested in "storytelling" more than politics (mmm-hm) and will not be saddled with the "fairness" baggage of our right-wing media. (Uh-huh.)

For inspiration, he turns to three great men:

For the last year or so, but really since Obama got elected, IÂ’ve found the most interesting op-ed political writing to be from Republicans who are looking at the extreme right and saying, "Those guys arenÂ’t with us. I donÂ’t know what happened here, but theyÂ’ve kind of co-opted our brand name. But these arenÂ’t Republican values." Guys like David Frum, Mark McKinnon, Andrew Sullivan.

Posted by: Ace at 10:51 AM | Comments (201)
Post contains 621 words, total size 4 kb.

And this Investors Business Daily editorial agrees.

Back in February 2011, Assistant Attorney General Ron Welch, in response to the investigations by Rep. Issa and Sen. Chuck Grassley of the Fast and Furious gun-"walking" program run out of ATF's Phoenix office, wrote a letter stating that the "allegation that ATF 'sanctioned' or otherwise knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons ... is false."

Later, Deputy Attorney General Cole, in another letter to Congress, wrote: "Facts have come to light during the course of this investigation that indicate the Feb. 4 letter contains inaccuracies." In other words, the Department of Justice lied to Congress. The cover-up continues with the invocation of executive privilege.

Committee member Rep. Patrick Meehan, R-Pa., spoke in written remarks about the active intimidation of ATF agents and potential witnesses in the Fast and Furious probe by high officials at the Department of Justice. As we have reported, some ATF agents have already testified that Fast and Furious and its variants were no accident.

"Allowing loads of weapons that we knew to be destined for criminals — this was the plan," ATF Agent John Dodson told Issa's committee. "It was so mandated." ATF agent Olindo James Casa said that "on several occasions I personally requested to interdict or seize firearms, but I was always ordered to stand down and not to seize the firearms."

Fast and Furious has become worse than Watergate. No one died at Watergate. Just what is in those documents that Obama and Holder so desperately want to hide? Brian Terry's family and the American people deserve answers.

A third-rate gun-running operation?

The claim from the left is that this is just a case of "criminalizing policy differences."

But that's absurd. Does either wing of American politics support giving assault weapons to Mexican druglords?

I didn't think either did, but if it's "policy differences" we're criminalizing, that's the policy difference in question.

And, as a matter of fact: Selling guns to Mexican drug lords is criminal.

So is the United States' government's involvement in the murders of 200+ Mexicans and two Americans.

Posted by: Ace at 09:42 AM | Comments (368)
Post contains 369 words, total size 2 kb.

I know-- why is it so high?

Well, he's got a baked-in 40% minimum approval rate from his partisans.

But 43% will not cut it in a re-election campaign.

Sorry, this post sucks, but I had to get something up here.

Yesterday's News: $10 billion (with a b) was spent to create 355 (with a 3, a 5, and another 5) jobs.

$10 billion for 355 jobs.

Posted by: Ace at 09:21 AM | Comments (146)
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.