The first clip is Louis Gohmert. Earlier Holder had apparently said "there is a political aspect to this job." He references that, and then demands documents regarding the Holy Land Foundation prosecution. His point-- which is hard to refute-- is that the DoJ has disclosed documents to the convicted terrorists in the Holy Land Foundation prosecution, and yet refuses to disclose them to Congress.

So his question, which is great, is, "Can we at least get the documents you provided to convicted terrorists?"

Then he turns to Fast and Furious, and wants to know if Holder is any closer to finding out (wink, wink) who authorized the operation. Holder claims he still doesn't know, and avoids the question of whether he's any closer in his Big Investigation.

Holder's already announced the "investigation's" findings: "We may never know who authorized Fast and Furious."

So I'm sure he's right on top of exposing the guy he already knows authorized it.

Gohmert's a bit baffled that a major covert drug-running operation could be authorized... by no one, and no one putting his signature to that.

Um, I don't want to go Hitler, but people avoid signing off on things when they know there will be a problem with it later. Evidence of the guilty mind. No one objects to signing a credit card receipt for Domino's. But at a strip club, everyone brings cash.

Next, Issa continues demanding documents that Holder's refused to disclose for years. Issa specifically wants to know if he has prepared a list of documents which are responsive, but withheld -- Holder refuses to answer.

One more clip, unrelated: Issa did a funny thing, asking the administration what precisely the Obama Administration called a "green job" when compiling its statistics. Turns out, everything's a green job. Including any bus driver, bicycle shop clerk, and antique dealer ("recycled goods").

Oh: Holder admits White House helped craft Fast & Furious PR strategy.

I thought the truth was their strategy? Apparently not.

“We [Holder, Axelrod and the White House] have certainly talked about ways in which we could deal with the interaction between the Justice Department and Congress — about ways in which we would,” Holder said in questioning before the House Judiciary Committee.

Virginia Republican Rep. Randy Forbes pressed Holder further by asking him if Axelrod, Obama’s re-election campaign and the White House were involved in crafting the DOJ’s policy for dealing with press. He said they were. “In terms of trying to get any message out that was consistent with facts and make sure it was done in an appropriate way, I’ve had conversations like that with people in the White House.”

The Truth

It always needs a crafty PR campaign. more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:05 PM | Comments (256)
Post contains 473 words, total size 4 kb.

This is pretty interesting. This isn't a rah-rah, Romney will win thing. Because the trouble is, even while harboring a negative view of Obama, they're still swing voters. They are not willing, at least not yet, to say they support Romney.

This is more of an insight into campaign strategy. Fact: "Swing voters" who have a negative opinion of Obama -- nearly as negative as Romney supporters -- are not yet willing to choose between Obama and Romney.

Problem, then: How do you get them to choose? If you can get them to choose -- and vote -- it seems likely that most will cast ballots for Romney. Given a negative impression of Obama, they seem on the cusp of making that decision. And yet only -- frustratingly, tantalizingly -- on the cusp.

Sabato's interesting conclusion: It is not in Barack Obama's interests to try to persuade these voters, or push them to the polls. They will probably vote against him if they do.

On the other hand, it is in Romney's interest to attempt to persuade them and mobilize them. The majority of them probably would vote for him (even if not particularly enthusiastically).

The data in Table 1 show that compared with voters supporting a candidate, swing voters were disproportionately white and female. They were also much more likely to describe themselves as completely independent and much less likely to describe themselves as Democrats or independents leaning toward the Democratic Party. But the most dramatic differences between swing voters and voters supporting a candidate involved their opinions about President Obama and their enthusiasm about voting in 2012.

Swing voters had much more negative opinions of President ObamaÂ’s job performance than other voters. In fact, their opinions were almost as negative as those of Romney supporters. Only 11% of swing voters approved of ObamaÂ’s job performance compared with 6% of Romney voters. In contrast, 92% of Obama voters approved of the presidentÂ’s job performance.

But while swing voters were similar to Romney voters in their evaluation of President ObamaÂ’s job performance, they were much less enthusiastic about voting. Only 19% of swing voters described themselves as extremely or very enthusiastic about voting in 2012 compared with 47% of Romney supporters and 50% of Obama supporters. And 58% of swing voters described themselves as not too enthusiastic or not at all enthusiastic about voting compared with only 27% of Romney supporters and 21% of Obama supporters.

Obama, in fact, may be hoping for a rather low turnout election -- or at least a low turnout among these voters. His base, as ever, he wants to greatly turnout. But these voters -- he'd prefer keeping them bored and on the fence and not bothered with voting.

A couple days back, Brit Hume appeared on O'Reilly. O'Reilly argued (in the simplified version) that all Romney needed to do was run attack ads against Obama's economic performance. Hume disagreed:

"My thought about that would be that Romney will undoubtedly run a lot of ads that add up to saying that, and he will say it a lot himself and so will his surrogates on the campaign trail,” Hume said. “I think Romney has — look, I think Obama’s record is such a burden to him that he has no real choice but to go negative and go negative hard, which to a great extent he has.”

The reason Romney shouldnÂ’t go as negative, Hume said, was to set up a contrast between him and the negativity of Obama.

“I think Romney is in a different position because when people turn to the prospect of, ‘Well OK, what happens if we elect him’ — he needs to radiate something of a positive spirit … I would just say that people need to believe that if they turn to him, he can make things better. And if he seems morose and negative all the time, he’ll fail to convey that sunny spirit. He needs a bit of sunlight in his message and I think that’s important to him. In a way that’s the game and it’s too late for Obama. He can have all the sunlight in his message that he wants. The results kind of speak for themselves.”

Sabato's analysis may seem to back up Hume's prescription, if we make assumptions about the bulk of the swing voters -- that they'd want something to vote for rather than just against, and sunlight and optimism are the best chances of doing so.

That is indeed the conventional take, and when I say that, I don't mean it in a negative way. I'm not so foolish to think that all conventional wisdom became so just because people are dumb.

The conventional wisdom has been that a winning presidential candidate is sunny, rather than sour, and bright, rather than bitter.

I think that's largely right.

One thing, though: Many conservatives believe that when we talk about swing voters, we're not merely talking about squishy moderates. We're also talking about harder-core conservatives who will not vote for what they consider to be a lightweight.

In this analysis, Romney needs to do more than project sunny confidence. He needs to announce and unapologetically hard-core conservative message.

I'm pretty sure we're not going to get the sort of "Repudiate Socialism" message that some might want, so that seems out.

However, Romney could manage a trick Sarah Palin did:* Connect tonally with such voters, by going hard after Obama, at least on the things that Romney is most willing to go after Obama on: His miserable failure on the economy.

(*Why do I say that's a trick? I don't mean it's a deceit; I mean it's a difficult play to execute. Sarah Palin united the party in 2008 because she excited two diverging blocs -- libertarians, who took her Alaskan independence and winking sexiness to indicate she was one of them, and social conservatives, who embraced her for her decisions on Trig and her general background. It's very hard to excite two different blocs with divergent views. Sometimes you give something to one bloc on paper, and make a tonal appeal to the other. I think Sarah Palin, wittingly or not, achieved this.)

What Romney does depends on the precise ratios of "squish moderates" and "Red-hearted conservatives" in this swing voter mix. Of course it's a mix, but the proportions will make his decision for him. He'll try to win both, but at the end of the day, the numbers will dictate how much of A is attempted and how much of B.

Charles Krauthammer, who often gets an undeserved reputation as some kind of RINO, actually seems to lean towards the bold agenda.

"But I think the lesson for the presidential campaign is for Romney, that he is extremely risk-averse by nature. There is nothing wrong with that but I think this is showing him that you don't have to be to win this election. You can try to win by going minimal, by running against Obama's stewardship on the bad economy and your credential as a businessman."

"But there's another option," Krauthammer explained. "And that is to do as well to add on to that the ideological element of it. This election showed, in Wisconsin, that kind spirit of 2010, the kind of if you like Constitutional conservative philosophy; smaller government is still alive and well and can be used in this election."

"And I think there are elements of the Ryan plan that Romney might want to highlight, either tax reform or entitlement reform, but something that is risky and bold and strong. I'm not sure he would do it but it would help him and Wisconsin is saying this is going to work. The electorate has grown up and they can take it," Mr. Krauthammer said.

I'd really like to know more about this very small cadre (10%) of swing voters.

Posted by: Ace at 12:24 PM | Comments (227)
Post contains 1342 words, total size 8 kb.

I'm glad AP noted this. One of the few non-rah-rah-rah articles we've seen from the groupie media.

An article that actually might help Democrats, rather than killing them with Mad Love.

It recounts the bad jobs figures, Walker's triumph in Wisconsin (but it doesn't call it that-- which I'm about to talk about), and the perils (for the Democrats) of an anticipated Supreme Court repeal of ObamaCare.

So, what's wrong with this article?

Look at the headline.

Who's the hero?

There were two ways to write this headline.

June a Cruel Month for Democrats -- And It Could Get Worse

That's one way. That's the way they chose. In fact, that's almost always the way they choose.

The other way is this:

Republicans Optimistic After Recent Victories and Bad News for Democrats

Who's the hero in that headline? With whom does that headline suggest you ought to identify with?

This is perspective bias. I have written about this once before -- a good article, now that I go back and read it.

I think it's worth reading again. This is a kind of bias which, as I said before, I'm not sure how much to make of it, because the actual effect of it might be so subtle as to not be worth discussing.

On the other hand, the effect could be profound. The novelistic technique of perspective -- which character you're "with," which character whose eyes you see the world through, which character you're invited to be concerned about -- is one of the most powerful techniques in all of fiction. (Arguably, it's the most powerful technique -- I can't, off the top of my head, think of one that has more of an impact on how the reader consumes a narrative. But maybe I'm missing one.)

Ever see the underrated 80s caper movie Shock to the System with Michael Caine? It was about Michael Caine murdering a series of people. Innocent people, basically. Just inconvenient to him. A wife he didn't care for, a young buck who got a promotion he wanted.

So he murdered them.

And you rooted for him the entire time. You were actually rooting for Michael Caine to outwit the detective, and not for the detective (ably played by the great Will Patton) to catch the cold-blooded murderer.

Why? Perspective. The movie forced you to view the world through Michael Caine's perspective. You saw his wife, Swoozie Kurtz, and were "with" him as the thought went through his head, "If she were dead, I could date my cute assistant Elizabeth McGovern."

He even murders a sad-sack friend to pin the crimes on!

But by the simple trick of perspective, viewers of this film wind up cheering when the cold-blooded wife-killer (and serial killer) gets away with it all and gets the girl in the end.

At any rate, be on the lookout for this -- and see if you don't agree that the Democrats are always the Active-Voice Heroes in almost every news story, and Republicans the Object Case opponents or objects in every single one.

"The Other."

The ones who don't count.

The ones who exist merely to give the Heroes a dramatic arc.

The villains.

Why is every news story written from a Democratic perspective?

No, no, I know the reason for it, of course. Because the media are Democrats. The stories are from a Democratic perspective, the perspective of the reporter, who is a Democrat and liberal (93% of the time, and when he's not, his editor and headline writer are).

But they're supposed to be unbiased.

And if they're unbiased, shouldn't about half of all stories be written from the Republican perspective? Where we're the Active-Voice Heroes, and the Democrats are the objects and our opponents?

Read it all, and tell me I'm crazy.

Posted by: Ace at 11:47 AM | Comments (184)
Post contains 662 words, total size 4 kb.

Eh, that's not what this article is about but Romney has beaten Obama in fundraising for May.

$76.8 million to $60 million. The RNC has $107 million cash on hand. The article doesn't note the DNC figure.

This also comes after Romney almost tying Obama in April ($40 million to $43 and change million).

It also doesn't include Super-PAC money.

I've been delaying posting this, searching for a quote I saw, but now can't find. Can't find it. The basics of it were thus: An Obamoid said "we always expected this would happen." Or anticipated. You get the drift.

No, you didn't. You really didn't. Not when you were talking up your billion-dollar campaign.

I understand why the campaign would put a brave face on this, and I won't even call it a lie. It's not a lie when you bluff in poker. It's the rules of the game. You're supposed to.

But I will blame someone for this: The Media.

Rock stars know they're flawed human beings. Rock stars know, for example, that their last album kinda sucked but was only partly saved at the last moment by bringing in a hired-gun songwriter and top-notch producer to salvage something from their recording sessions.

You know who doesn't know that? Groupies. Groupies are just full of Mad Love and don't think about things like that. They just worship their Guitar Heroes.

Now what would happen if Rock Stars got all their information from infatuated groupies? Well, if that happened -- if a Rock Star's pre-existing narcissistic impulses were turned to 11 by living in a world reported on exclusively by smitten groupies who really want the band to finally exxxplode! -- that Rock Star might just start forgetting that, that last album? Kind of bad. Might start thinking that last album was great. Might not understand that if he wants to continue the Rock N Roll dream, the next album will have to be better. Much better.

Although we on the right get angry about media cocooning and constant media boosterism and unrelenting media optimism about Democrats' positions (both policy and polling), we shouldn't forget the real victims of this cockeyed view of the world:

The Democrats themselves.

They just never see these things coming.

And they can thank their media groupies for that. Their media groupies are, unwittingly, loving them to death. Loving them to ruin.

Loving them to catastrophe.

ObamaCare has been unpopular since before it was passed.

Has the media ever called it "unpopular"? How about "polarizing"? How about "controversial"? How about "divisive"?

How about "generally rejected by a majority of the public"?

No.

And that last album rrreally rrrokked too, didn't it?

You almost can't blame these guys.

Almost.

But you can, because Rock Stars really ought to know the world is not made up only of their most devoted groupies. Smart Rock Stars know that. Smart Rock Stars know to never believe your own press clippings.

Dumb Rock Stars -- Rock Stars headed for a career skid -- don't.

Speaking of: Compare Groupie Organization The Washington Post's headlines on Obama's 2008 win (about 7 points) to Walker's 2012 win (also 7 points).

Rock on!

Smitten Groupie Attends Rock Star's Concert, But Insists: "I'm Not with the Band!" Leslie Moonves, president of CBS and its news division, stood on line to get his wristband for Obama's sixty-seven bazillionth fundraiser.

He acknowledges...

Before the event began, a long line of partygoers waited on the sidewalk outside the hotel to check in. CBS chief Les Moonves and his wife, Julie Chen, waited patiently for their wristbands. Obama, Moonves said, “has shown great leadership” on the issue of gay marriage.

Though he heads a news division, Moonves said, “ultimately journalism has changed … partisanship is very much a part of journalism now.”

He hastened to add that despite his presence, “I run a news division. I’ve given no money to any candidate.”

Why is this whispered, when it should be prominently disclosed?

Posted by: Ace at 10:59 AM | Comments (236)
Post contains 705 words, total size 5 kb.

What was the spin from two months ago...?

Ah yes. The Supreme Court must not strike down ObamaCare, or it will lose authority in the public's eyes.

Authority. Authority. /alcapone

27% want just the individual mandate struck; 41% want the entire bill struck; only 24% want the Court to uphold the entire law as written.

It gets better from there. First of all, this is a poll of adults, which should skew +7 more Democratic than a poll of likely voters.

(In this sort of poll I think "adults" are the right sample, because no one gets to vote on this, really, but politicians should bear in mind that actual voters do want this law gone.)

Further...

There was greater Republican opposition to the law than Democratic support. About two-thirds of Republicans in the recent survey said the entire law should be overturned, while 43 percent of Democrats said all of the law should be upheld.

More than 70 percent of independent voters said they wanted to see some or all of the law struck down, with a majority saying they hoped to see the whole law overturned.

Yup. Can't have the Supreme Court knocking this law off the books. Why, the public would be in open revolt.

Open revolt, I sayz.

Oh, I Got It! Maybe the public still doesn't "understand" the law.

Posted by: Ace at 09:48 AM | Comments (234)
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

Holy Crap. Am I a Precog or what? Yesterday I wrote:

Oh, Here's a Better Analogy: Every have a very old relation who says racist things and embarrasses the family?

And then people say two things: "He's very set in his ways" and "He just doesn't care anymore."

I don't, but Adam Carolla was talking about that last month.

So: Bill Clinton's retired. He earned his federal pension. It's Golf City for him now.

He'll show up at family gatherings if you insist on it, but don't get him started on his Dominican Maid Who Steals His Pills.

He may say embarrassing things, but he's very set in his ways, and he just doesn't care anymore.

Today, in order to help walk back Clinton's remarks to benefit Obama, Clinton's "associates" now say:

Clinton, say associates, while mentally sharp, is older and a step off his political game, less attuned to the need for clarity and message-discipline during interviews.

“He’s 65 years old,” said one adviser, explaining how Clinton in a CNBC interview managed to say that the economy was in recession when it is not.

You know... my analogy was meant as a joke. All I meant is that Clinton has earned the right to be a Loose Cannon Codger if he likes. The guy was president. He doesn't have to "coordinate" his remarks with anybody. If he's asked his opinion, he's earned the right to offer it, without checking with Barack Hussein Obama to see if it's useful to him.

But his own associates are now playing the senility card?

Yes, he's "off his political game." Because he's no longer an active politician. He doesn't have to play the game anymore.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but: Leave Bill Clinton alone, you partisan ideological-extremist monsters.

What the hell is this?

If I were Clinton, I'd be angry. And if I were Clinton and I were angry, I'd have every right to be angry.

If Clinton's words help Obama, so be it. If his honest opinion undermines Obama some -- so be it.

Is Clinton now just Paul Begala, workin' for the next idiot seeking office?

Apparently Obama thinks Clinton is Paul Begala, and apparently so do some of Clinton's associates.

But I don't think Bill Clinton thinks he's Paul Begala.

One More Thing: I pointed out a week ago that Steny Hoyer was not "agreeing" with Clinton's remarks, but endeavoring to recast them into something Clinton simply never said.

In the clip at Hot Air, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz proves this, by claiming the exact same thing.

Clinton said Romney's career was "sterling" and that he was qualified to be president. He said the only questions left were about Romney's policies, versus Obama's policies.

Since then, Steny Hoyer and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz have claimed that Clinton said something entirely different-- that while private equity may be good or bad, it's a good thing to look into the "bad" practices at Bain.

Clinton simply did not say this.

To claim Clinton said this is a... "Wish-Lie." You wish he said that, so you lie that he did.

He said Romney's career at Bain was "sterling," and that any attack on it was useless.

All this other crap, about the "bad practices" at Bain, is what the Democratic Talking Points said.

Which is fine.

But Bill Clinton did not repeat the Talking Points.

Posted by: Ace at 08:56 AM | Comments (284)
Post contains 586 words, total size 4 kb.

This is for Texas, right?

Texas is the state with Detroit, Flint, and the upper peninsula, right?

Because otherwise I would say it is very, very bad for the President to be trailing in a state he won solidly and hasn't gone to the Republicans since 1988.

The Blue "Wall" no more.

Posted by: CAC at 08:13 AM | Comments (212)
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.

No celebrities needed.

Democrat superiority in GOTV

Democrat superiority in fundraising

The script from 2008 changes radically when you have a Republican who actually wants to win, hunh?

Posted by: CAC at 08:04 AM | Comments (57)
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

Here is a map of party control state by state:

Wisconsin barely flipped it's senate last night, but that won't hold per November elections thanks to redistricting, and Walker got his reforms anyway.

This map gets uglier for the Democrat-PEU complex when you consider:
Minnesota is more controlled by its overwhelmingly Republican statehouse than it's ineffective man-child Governor.

New York's Governor Cuomo has no qualms about curbing pensions and even some public employee "rights", and has a Republican-controlled Senate to help.

New Jersey is the effectively the kingdom of Sir Fat Man of Rinodom, whose reforms have worked well enough and convinced enough folks normally apprehensive to such changes that he is likely to coast to re-election, a feat unheard of for a Republican in the Garden State in decades.

Several states are expected to shift even more Republican in the fall, including Montana, North Carolina, and New Hampshire.

Three of the largest cities in the country: San Jose, San Diego, and Chicago(!), are currently or will shortly be mayored by men ready and willing to put a boot on the neck of unions to stop the pension bombs (Rahm's fight will be the most interesting).

Listening to the usually contradictory Bill Handel yesterday morning on KFI, he called Tuesday's results a "sea change", and stated bluntly that the era of public union power is effectively over. I have heard and read this assessment numerous times since the recall (and in the days leading up to it), and think it's fairly accurate when you look at the numbers now against them. They still own and control enough state legislatures to stagger about, but the survival of Walker has yanked their teeth out, neutered them, took an arm, a foot, and half a face along with it.

The progressive mayor of San Jose described the pension bomb as a cancer. Walker's reforms are chemo. They will cause lots of nasty reactions, but they are necessary, they work, and they are popular. While there was pushback last year in Ohio and a bit in Michigan, recent developments show the trend is back in favor of the taxpayer, for the first time in years (and in some states, decades).

I've never felt better about the fiscal health on a state-by-state level of this country in years. It's almost anti-doomy, and for a few fleeting moments I forget how screwed we are on the federal level.

Posted by: CAC at 07:30 AM | Comments (87)
Post contains 420 words, total size 3 kb.

Wow.

You have to just read the whole thing.

Long story short:

State Attorney Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the George Zimmerman case, recently called the Dean of Harvard Law School to complain about my criticism of some of her actions.

She was transferred to the Office of Communications and proceeded to engage in a 40-minute rant, during which she threatened to sue Harvard Law School, to try to get me disciplined by the Bar Association and to file charges against me for libel and slander.

She said that because I work for Harvard and am identified as a professor she had the right to sue Harvard.

When the communications official explained to her that I have a right to express my opinion as “a matter of academic freedom,” and that Harvard has no control over what I say, she did not seem to understand.

Derschowitz claimed it was unethical for her to file a charging document telling half the truth -- for example, deliberately omitting the photos showing George Zimmerman bruised and bloody.

She disagrees, claiming she can file the half-truths so long as she discloses the actual full truths to the defense.

Derschowitz does not agree, as the charging document itself must be true-- not half-true, not misleading.

In any event, that's a sideshow-- what's remarkable is that she believes she can sue Alan Derschowitz for his academic, expert opinion, or that she could sue Harvard for it.

Or that she'd even threaten to.

If I had any confidence at all in Angela Corey's professionalism and judgement (and, straight-up, I didn't; I wasn't sure if her press conference was designed to announce a murder 2 indictment or a Homeowner's Sweepstakes winner), I don't any longer.

Thanks to @comradearthur and @gabrielmalor.

Posted by: Ace at 05:00 AM | Comments (603)
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.