I'm just assuming -- hoping, I guess -- this goes as planned and there's not some sort of crazy rules-lawyering that gives the nomination to a guy who got about 10% of the vote.

Which apparently is something some people really, really want. For Democracy. And for Freedom. Freedom from the will of the voters, I guess.

As people are tallying up the count in the last thread, I guess this is A Thing that should have a post.

I'm Late, As Usual: Apparently Mitt Romney just crossed 1,095 1,144 votes, which makes him the nominee.

Posted by: Ace at 01:42 PM | Comments (241)
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

Dennis Miller isn't having Jay Leno's "war on women."

Over at Newsbusters, Norah O'Donnell reveals herself as a hack, or as dumb, and likely both.

Romney has said six thousand times he intends to reduce rates while keeping effective rates the same for upper-income earners. He will do so, he says, by eliminating loopholes, shelters, and reductions. He has said, until he's blue in the face, that he intends this to be revenue-neutral, at least as far as top earners.

Norah O'Donnell was absent during the past year.

NORAH O'DONNELL: Can I ask you about Mitt Romney and his record and specifics? He says he's going to cut everybody's tax rates by 20%, he's going to increase defense spending, he's going to restore the Medicare cuts and he's going to balance the budget in eight years. How's he going to do that? Even Paul Ryan says it would take 'til 2040.

CHRISTIE: Well, I don't think he has said he's going to cut everybody's taxes.

O'DONNELL: Yes, he said he will cut everybody's taxes by 20%.

CHRISTIE: Except, Norah, I think what he said is the effective rate for folks at the highest levels will not change, so in terms of what you're paying because of the elimination of many deductions and other loopholes, that once the folks over --

O'DONNELL: So, he will cut the wealthiest Americans' taxes?

CHRISTIE: Well, that's not the way I read it. The way I read it is he says he'll lower rates, but that with the elimination of deductions, that those who are making more than $250,000 a year will essentially pay the same amount of money under Mitt Romney that they're paying right now under Barack Obama, but that others will pay less.

It was cute when you were cute, Norah.

Christie also shot down Charlie Rose:

CHARLIE ROSE: You are going to have an opportunity to talk about the Republican brand. Many people are saying that this party has to reach out to minorities more than it is. Many people are looking at the party and saying that the Republican brand is damaged.

CHRIS CHRISTIE: No, I don't think so, but I think -- you see, I think there's a fallacy, Charlie, about having to cater to a particular sector of the electorate.

ROSE: It's not cater. It's reaching out saying 'You have a home in this party.'

CHRISTIE: But the way you do that is through the message that you put out there. And, for instance, I hear people talking all the time about the female voters. They say, well, 'What are we going to do specifically to reach out to female voters?' Well, the same thing we're going to do to reach out to male voters. I think it's condescending to women to say that we have to have a different message for women than we have for men. This is the message of our party. I'm going to lay out a message for our party tonight that I think will resonate just as much with women voters as it will with men voters.

George Stephanolpolous also tries some Democratic talking points on Christie.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, the Democrats are already ready for you to talk about the New Jersey experience. They're pointing out, ahead of your speech, that New Jersey is near the bottom of states in unemployment. 48th in unemployment. 47th in economic growth.

CHRISTIE: Yeah. Except that in the last 12 months, George, we're ranked fourth in the country in terms of the number of private sector jobs that have been created, according to CNBC. That we've had 90,000 new private sector jobs created since I've been governor. And this is from a state where we've raised taxes and fees 115 times in eight years and had just stifled our economy. So, we're not going to turn that around overnight. But like I've said before, the New Jersey comeback has begun.

Another thing the media is trying to sell is that the Republicans had better be nice to Obama because, you know, Isaac.

If the Republicans aren't nice to Obama and the Democrats, then it's like Hurricane Katrina all over again.

Posted by: Ace at 01:20 PM | Comments (122)
Post contains 721 words, total size 5 kb.

Republicans aren't allowed to gerrymander. It's in the Constitution.

Voter maps used in the stateÂ’s general primary election for 2012 on May 29 was set by a San Antonio-based panel of three federal judges, who approved interim electoral maps while awaiting a decision from the Washington court.

During a two-week bench trial in January, judges heard testimony from Texas legislators, their staffs and expert witnesses who analyzed voter data in the state.

The Justice Department alleged at trial that Texas “purposely manipulated” proposed congressional districts in the Dallas-Fort Worth area to decrease current and future minority voter strength.

In years past, Democrats held power at the state level and gerrymandered districts to keep the party at near-parity in congressional representation, despite the fact the state voted overwhelmingly for Republicans on the federal level.

Now the Republicans hold power on the state level, too, and have drawn district lines to favor themselves for a change.

Again, that turns out to be imconstitutional. Only Democrats can avail themselves of gerrymandering tricks.

Via Dedicated 10ther.

Posted by: Ace at 12:39 PM | Comments (188)
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

Everything with the media is hype and dumb.

Read this breathless article.

"This is the weirdest I've ever found," said Greg Harris, the superintendent of the project for Sullivan-Cozart.



Two floors below Main Street, a large black and white logo displays the word "LATEX," presumably the name of the club, painted on the century old wall.

The wall is a century old, but the logo is decidedly not. But notice how those two concepts are used together in rapid suggestion to suggest maybe the club is a century old.

From deep inside the subterranean blackness, a series of oil paintings depict a series of bizarre images, sexual and violent.

"Very disturbing," Harris said.

Below one painting, a piece of equipment that appears fit for a torture chamber remains. A wooden rack large enough for one or two people includes a headrest and a rusted chain that can be turned by a handle. A gear resembling a saw blade is connected to the handle.

Okay. The name "Latex" suggests to me that this was an 80s club. Or even the 90s. So, it's not exactly ancient.

There is what appears to be a rack, but my guess it is used as a table, and was chosen to give an "edgy" vibe. Even though it's just used as a table. Like a dude who buys a coffin and uses it as a coffee table.

The "oil paintings" of "bizarre images, sexual and bizarre" turn out to be Goya's very famous Saturn Devouring His Child (explicit, violent painting warning) and Munch's equally famous The Scream.

You've probably seen them. On people's walls, in college. Pictures of the paintings are somewhere in the 20s in the slideshow that accompanies the article.

There's a third painting but the picture is taken at an oblique angle so I can't identify it.

Now, Goya's Black Paintings (of which Saturn Devours His Child is one) do have a kind of Call of Cthulhu feel to them, being uncomfortable images, and including one painting of the Devil at a coven. And there's a whole strange backstory to how he painted them on his walls and never told the public they even existed. (Which has led, as all interesting things must, to a conspiracy theory, that they are fakes and weren't even painted by Goya.)

But... you know, not exactly new. They date from like 1830. And not exactly arcane. And this is just the sort of vibe that an "edgy, happening" bar would like to swipe for itself.

My point is that this is probably just a seedy unlicensed bar from the 80s or 90s that tried to be all happening and edgy. Based on this thin evidence, there is really no reason to go screaming about a "Secret Underground Sex Club From Ancient Days."

Is this interesting? It's marginally interesting, I guess, to find a forgotten, dead bar from the 80s or 90s.

It is not nearly as interesting as "Secret Underground Sex Club Discovered In Old Civil War Mineshaft," which is the sort of vibe this sells.

The real deception comes in branding extremely well-known paintings (reproductions, of course) as "bizarre images, violent and sexual," as if this is some kind of Cthulhu cultists' representation of the First Ring of Hell.

Are they just that dumb? Or are they selling you dumb? I don't know.

Posted by: Ace at 11:58 AM | Comments (204)
Post contains 578 words, total size 4 kb.

Isaac is officially a hurricane, so there's that.

Beyond that, I got nothing.

I will have something later though. This morning I was in the audience at the American Legion convention for one of the most amazing speeches I've ever heard. Quick tease: Lt. Gen. John Kelly (USMC) had me alternatively ready to run through a wall for him and on the verge of tears as he talked about the young men and woman fighting and dying for our country.

Lt. Gen John Kelly (USMC)

The General covered a wide range of topics including the War on Terror ("I don't know why they hate us and I don't care") to the dark side of fixating on diversity but most movingly on how the majority of war related sacrifices have fallen on a very small percentage of the population.

Posted by: DrewM at 11:43 AM | Comments (94)
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

Jeeze Louise, now that they've officially made it A Thing it had better be somebody.

For this to be A Thing, the surprise has to have two dimensions:

1, it's not a guy you'd expect at the Convention. This is the easier hurdle to, um, hurdle.

2, it's not a guy you'd expect to endorse Romney.

If 2 isn't in the mix, then this is not A Thing, and we're going to sort of be let down. It would be a case of putting out a mystery but not having a satisfying resolution.

A lot of the guesses satisfy 1 but not 2.

Among the people I don't think it is, or I hope it's not, given the expectations now stoked:

1. Nancy Reagan. Not really a big surprise. Yes, it's nice to see her. Odds of this being A Big Thing? Pretty low. Doesn't satisfy hurdle 2.

2. Rush Limbaugh. I just don't see it. Rush has 40 million listeners but a lot of non-listeners, too. And doesn't satisfy hurdle 2.

3. Joe Lieberman. The days in which I cared what Joementum was up to have passed me. Satisfies hurdle 1 and 2, but barely, and I just don't care.

4. Colin Powell. Another one I just don't care about. And in Colin Powell's endorsement of Bush in 2000 (I think), he chided the party and the assembled delegates. An endorsement from Colin Powell is an insult from most other people.

5. Jon Voight. We all know where Jon Voight stands. Does not satisfy hurdle 2.

6. Tim Tebow. We can guess where he stands. Doesn't satisfy hurdle 2. In addition, I'm not sure if this would even be A Thing. Tebow is popular among people already inclined to vote against Obama. Plus, let's think about this: Tebow is the second-string quarterback on a team which is offensively impotent.

After his endorsement, he has to play the NFL season. I don't expect it to go well -- turning a prominent endorsement into something of a joke, if the Jets continue being the Jets (which, of course, they are always cursed to be).

People it could be (assuming this is actually A Thing and not just a mistaken case of elevated expectations):

1. Joe Manchin. Guy could switch parties on the spot. Would be A Thing.

2. Clint Eastwood. Doubtful as hell, because Clint Eastwood has always been a pretty standoffish guy as far as politics. Sure, he'll opine now and then, but he's never made a spectacle of himself in politics.

3. Gary Sinise. Sinise is believed (by who? Shut up, it's the media's passive voice trick) to be a conservative Republican who shuns making a spectacle about it, like Eastwood. He limits his public, prominent "political" activity to supporting the troops. (Which is something that should not be political, but it is.) (Updated: He maxed out to McCain in 2008, I'm told, so I added "public, prominent" to "political activity" as a caveat.)

Now, some believe there is tension in Sinise (who's "some"? Again, shut up) about what he owes his occupation -- being a crowd-pleasing actor -- and what he owes the country about adding his voice to the debate. So, who knows. Perhaps he's rethought this, and maybe he has enough F-U money from CSI: New York he doesn't care as much.

Even though it is generally suspected that Sinise leans right, it's not actually known for a stone-cold fact, so this would satisfy hurdle 2. At least among the general population.

4. Douglas Wilder. I like this one a lot. It would explain his appearance at the Ryan fundraiser, and then sudden disappearance of this story from the news, as if the Romney folks also wanted to keep it under wraps so they let the "wrong hotel" story propagate.

5. Sarah Palin. I actually could sort of see this one. Doesn't satisfy hurdle 2, but would be such a risky maneuver it would be worthy of the mystery.

Why could I see this? Two reasons: First, she gives a dynamite convention speech.

Second, she can ask: Was I right? Should the presidency be a "voyage of self-discovery"? (Obama's chief discovery: I'm not fit to be President.)

That said, this is a big gamble, as Palin has so much baggage, and is the media's favorite whipping boy (well, lady). But Romney seems to be into doing risky things lately.

I don't think this will happen. Her negatives are still extremely high. But it could happen (I guess), and it would be a big enough thing to be A Thing.

Update: Adam Carrolla? Via Christopher Taylor. I don't know if he's big enough.

Someone else mentions Arthur Davis. Well, that one's already baked in the cake. No surprise there.

Posted by: Ace at 11:03 AM | Comments (641)
Post contains 824 words, total size 5 kb.

@conartcritic and @laurww have been watching this one like hawks who don't like liberals.

Rasmussen put McMahon up by three last week. Quinnippiac now shows the same lead, 49-46.

In today's survey, McMahon's 54 - 42 percent lead among men swamps Murphy's small 50 - 46 percent lead among women. McMahon leads 88 - 10 percent among Republicans and 55 - 40 percent among independent voters, while Murphy takes Democrats 82 - 16 percent.

"Well it's great," you say, "that you can publish content that already appeared on Hot Air one hour ago; but can you publish content that appeared on Hot Air two hours ago?"

As a matter of fact, I can. Because a CBS-only (no NYT) poll of registered voters has Obama up by a single point, and only at 46.

Despite spending the summer attempting to demonize Romney, both men have nearly identical favorability gaps, -5 for Romney and -3 for Obama — and Romney has significantly more upside, with 32% undecided against 15% for Obama.

I don't think this favorability gap is predictive in the first place. All liberals love Obama (even if they think he's not done a good job) but in fact a lot of conservatives are planning to vote for Romney who don't like him at all. And yet, they will vote for him.

On this whole question of "Who likes who," which is very high-school, but whatever, it's the liberal talking point because no one's going to give Obama a solid rating on actual ability to do his job: Gabe is annoyed by liberals continuing to insist on something that just isn't true. The latest push is that Romney's likability is as low as Nixon's, but Gabe rebuts:

Maxwell [a liberal at Gabe's NYDN site] points to this February 2012 WaPo/ABC poll from the midst of the contentious GOP primary to draw her conclusions. Let's look at something a little more relevant -- say, CNN's most recent poll (PDF) on candidate favorability.

CNN found that registered voters didn't like Romney very much in February 2012, when only 36% viewed him favorably and 54% viewed him unfavorably. But then there's the latest data from August 22-23, when Romney's favorability rose to 48% among registered voters and the percentage viewing him unfavorably dropped to 46. That's a combined gain of 20% points in the right direction since February.

This is precisely the opposite of what Maxwell suggested. The more Americans have learned about Romney, the more they've come to like him. In the same time period, President Obama's favorability has simply hovered right around the same level. The President's numbers aren't sinking, but neither has he managed to move the electorate to view him more positively.

Partisans for either side are going to be partisan -- by definition -- but they ought not willfully assume that the wider public shares their fancies. On the liberal side of things, they cling to this fantasy that it's still October of 2008, and Hope and Change is still actually a thing.

It's not.

Speaking again of high school, it's like a bunch of gals who had a crush on the glib student body president, and who persist in this infatuation even twenty years later, even though he's a bit of a sad figure now. And compounding the pathos is their belief that you share in their infatuation as well.

Obama has not been popular since he passed ObamaCare. The polls said so, then we had a historic repudiation in the 2010 confirming that the polls were correct.

Let's update, huh? You sound like f***ing hippies who cannot ever shut up about Haight-Ashbury in 1968. The world's page has turned, and you should join us in the current chapter.

The Summer of Love is over, kids. I know you'd prefer to live in it always but that's just not possible, and the rest of us are starting to worry about you.

Posted by: Ace at 10:16 AM | Comments (239)
Post contains 663 words, total size 4 kb.

Even though there aren't many undecideds, the country is divided roughly equally between liberals and conservatives (in terms of voting, not self-identification), so movement in this small group can still swing the election. Sure, it's all about turnout; but what if turnout is roughly at parity?

Then these dummies get to weigh in. And, hooboy.

The sum total revealed a bizarre truth about swing voters. It’s not that they’re divided on any given issue, with half taking one side and half the other. Rather, everybody seemed to agree with everybody else about everything — and to disagree with them, too. Transitory coalitions formed and dissolved in what seemed a matter of milliseconds, like exotic particles in a supercollider. One minute, Latino Nose Spectacles was in complete agreement with Senior in Blazer. The next, they were at each other’s throats, and Young Yellow Dress had to team with Hair Gel to step in as the voice of reason. Working majorities seemingly assented to some premise, only to split a thousand ways on the most straightforward logical conclusion from said premise.

Everybody hates Congress, but most of these people either voted for their current congressmen or can’t name them. Everybody blames both parties for gridlock, but everyone also wants politicians brave enough to stand for their principles and against business as usual. Most call themselves moderates. One — one — describes himself as a liberal, and he voted for McCain and plans to vote for Romney. There were even those among them, reader, who liked Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan equally. Such people aren’t so much swing voters as they are schizophrenic. It’s Schrödinger’s electorate.

That said...

The bad news is that these people are going to determine the election.

The good news? The good news is that they are for Mitt. ThatÂ’s right, ladies and gentlemen. If Luntz picks his swing-voter focus groups as carefully as he claims, Romney/Ryan has this whole thing sewn up.

Even though they're skeptical of Romney and somewhat down on him, they're a lot more down on President Lower the Seas. Something I've been noting for a long time now. Most likely these broken-hearted dummies won't vote; but if we can get them to vote, they'll probably vote against President Altar-Jilt.

And that's why Obama's campaign is so negative. He wants to scare his own partisans into voting, and convince halfwits like you see here that this is just a big partisan spat and they should just be confused and indecisive in the comfort of their own homes.

Posted by: Ace at 09:32 AM | Comments (269)
Post contains 452 words, total size 3 kb.

Among its recent calls:

Its recent rulings on Medicare have demonstrated the point thrice over. PolitiFact said that Romney’s comment that Obama had “robbed” Medicare of $716 billion to pay for Obamacare was “mostly false.” Among its reasons: “The money was not robbed in any literal sense of the word.” So if Romney led anyone to believe that Obama had held Medicare at gunpoint and ordered it to hand over its wallet, they can now rest easy, because PolitiFact is on the case.

PolitiFact Did, Surprisingly, Note This One as True... "Romney gave away his inheritance."

I hope Romney doesn't overplay this. It's true, but his dad died when Mitt had already made a lot of money, and Mitt began his life with a lot of money and other advantages. It's a good point to make; just don't over-make it into something that can be attacked.

Posted by: Ace at 09:12 AM | Comments (90)
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

Someone is slated for Thursday "TBD," possibly speaking during the network's coverage. (Although that seems impossible, given that Rubio and Romney will speak during that time too, and it's just an hour.)

I wonder if it's Governor Wilder. There was that whole business of him showing up at a Ryan fundraiser for Romney, and then the claim he just accidentally showed up at the wrong hotel. Bryan Preston's sources say that's bunk. But there wasn't much pushback on the "wrong hotel" claim -- maybe they were trying to keep it quiet?

Posted by: Ace at 08:40 AM | Comments (375)
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.