******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Sunday, October 31, 2010

David Brock of Media Matters Issues A Challenge, And I Challenge Back

David Brock, the founder of Media Matters, has a really important demand which requires everyone's immediate attention:
Media Matters' Brock challenges Palin to release tapes
"Sarah Palin has made serious accusations of journalistic malfeasance. Either Palin accurately described the tapes, or she did not. America's news consumers need to know the truth about these serious accusations. The public in Alaska needs to know the truth so they are fully and correctly informed before they cast their ballots Tuesday. Palin has a responsibility to release the full, unedited tapes publicly and to all media."
Now David Brock is not stupid.  He knows that there are no "tapes" to release.  The recording was left on the voicemail of a Joe Miller staffer, who has released the entire voicemail.  Even Greg Sargent has given up on the "release the tapes" meme.

There is nothing Sarah Palin could release even if she wanted to.  The recording speaks for itself and shows that the CBS affiliate in Alaska was hoping to find "registered sex offenders" at a Joe Miller rally or a fight, so that it could report that angle as the Joe Miller story of the day.

Is this the best Media Matters, with all its Soros money, can do?

I have a challenge, as well:
"Legal Insurrection Blog challenges David Brock to refuse to accept donations to Media Matters from currency manipulators and speculators who want to undermine our national sovereignty."
--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Media Matters Is The Symptom, Not The Disease
Juan Williams Was Fox News' "Lawn Jockey"
NY Times Breaks Cone of Silence On Maurice Hinchey Assault! (Sorta)

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Closing Argument - It's Our Turn

If Sharron Angle had the money and the campaign staff in June that she had in October, this would not have been a close race.

But she can't change the past, so her closing argument to the voters is to change the future.



--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Greg Sargent Demands, But Doesn't Give, Context for Alaska CBS Tape

Greg Sargent, who for months has used his megaphone at The Washington Post to twist and turn almost every statement by Sharron Angle into a supposed call for violence or some other thing it was not, now demands Context! for the audio recording in which a CBS station in Alaska was caught planning negative coverage of a Joe Miller event.

Sargent misleadingly titles his blog post Alaska station says Breitbart Web site audio attack is bogus, but if you actually read his post, the quote from the Alaska station actually verifies that the recording was real.  So why the title?

Sargent goes on to suggest that the audio recording may be incomplete, but then acknowledges in an update (without updating the post title) that:
It's possible that the audio Big Journalism posted is all that was recorded on the cell phone. But even if this were the case, running with this audio alone, if that was all that existed, seems pretty questionable.
So what else should they have run with, other than the complete audio recording?

That recording is pretty clear on its face that the reporters were hoping to find a "registered sex offender" in the crowd or capture a scuffle about which they could tweet and report.  Here is the relevant part of the transcript (full transcript available at Left Coast Rebel)(emphasis mine):
FEMALE VOICE: We know that out of all the people that will show up tonight, at least one of
them will be a registered sex offender.

[Laughter]

MALE REPORTER: You have to find that one person...

[INAUDIBLE]

FEMALE REPORTER: And the one thing we can do is ....we won’t know....we won’t know but if there is any sort of chaos whatsoever we can put out a twitter/facebook alert: saying what the... ‘Hey Joe Miller punched at rally.’

FEMALE REPORTER: Kinda like Rand Paul...I like that.

[Laughter]

FEMALE REPORTER: That’s a good one.
Notice the reporters are talking about what they are doing to do, not what someone else is going to do.  They will look for registered sex offenders in the crowd, or a fight, so that they can report on it.

That's the context.  WaPo readers would know it if Sargent printed the transcript, which he has not done.

Once again, context is demanded for we, but not for thee.

Update:  Big Journalism makes the same point that the "context" actually contradicts the station's defense.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Greg Sargent Demands Context (for Rick Sanchez)
Greg Sargent Targets Sharron Angle, Hits WaPo
The War Against Sharron Angle Comes To WaPo

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

This Is Just A (Pre-Election) Test

Update 1:30 p.m. - Test over. Everything seemed to work well.  See you Tuesday.

Just testing out the new version of Cover-It-Live software in preparation for Tuesday's Live Event.  The event will be turned live in the morning (probably around 9 a.m. E.S.T.) and remain open until well after midnight until the West Coast returns come in.

This new version (available only to special people - heh) requires you to log in if you want to comment, but the comments will not be moderated (users still can be blocked, so trolls need not apply). 

You can log in using pre-existing accounts, OpenID (Google, Blogger, etc.), Facebook, Twitter, or MySpaceID (if you are not too embarrassed to admit you still have a MySpace account).  If you are able to post a comment on this blog, you should be able to comment on the Live Event.

PLEASE let me know if you experience any problems with logging in by leaving a Comment to this blog post.

You do not need to log in to read the feed.

I've also included some Twitter feeds of people I follow who seem to be awake as of 11 a.m. E.S.T.  If you want your Twitter feed included in the Live Event on Tuesday, leave a comment or e-mail or Direct Message me (there is a limit to how many feeds can be included).  I'm looking particularly for people who can keep track of races and events around the country for other readers to see, as opposed to the usual Twitter bitchin' and moanin'.

Feel free to comment, watch, whatever. Remember, this is just a test.



--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Failed Attempt To Remove Failed Bumper Sticker

Spotted this morning in Ithaca, on a Prius with Connecticut New Jersey plates. 

Mere faded glory, or a failed attempt to remove a failure?


--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Bumper Stickers - The Series

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

MoveOn.Org Rand Paul Provocation Inspires Anti-Joe Miller TV Station in Alaska

The MoveOn.org provocation against Rand Paul, has inspired an anti-Joe Miller CBS news station in Alaska.

The CBS station inadverently left a voice message disclosing its pre-planned coverage of a Miller appearance in the hopes of obtaining footage either of "child molesters" in the crowd or of an incident which would be similar to the scuffle which broke out when the MoveOn.org provocateur twice charged at Paul.

The tape was first obtained by Big Journalism, which has the full transcript.  Here is the audio:



Left Coast Rebel is following the story and has more background.

The media is corrupt, and we all know it.  It is rare, however, that we get proof.  Now we have it.

Update:  Per Ben Smith, the television station is denying any wrongdoing, claiming the staffers were talking only about what others would do.  But the transcript (available at Left Coast Rebel)  is to the contrary, and talks about what "we can do" and "You have to find that one person...."

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
New Video Exposes The False Narrative of the "Stomping" Victim
The Gulf of Paducah Incident

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Ithaca Falls

Ithaca Falls and Fall Creek, a short walk from my house, on a typical gray Ithaca day.  Not to worry, the Sun will come out in, oh, about six months.


--------------------------------------------
Related Post:
My Hometown

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Saturday Night Card Game (Bill Maher Out Juan-Williamses Juan Williams, Media Silence Erupts)

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

Unless you spent the past 10 days high in the Himalayas worshipping the Aqua Buddha, you are aware that Juan Williams was fired from NPR, and subjected to howls of "racist" from the left-blogosphere and media, for expressing that he becomes uncomfortable when he sees people in "Muslim garb" on airplanes (he acknowledged at the same time that such fears were based on unfair stereotypes).

One high-traffic left-wing blog even referred to Williams as Fox News' "lawn jockey."  (Which was not the first time that slur was used by the left against Williams.)

Yet, there have not been similar howls regarding left-wing superstar Bill Maher, who recently expressed concern about the spread of Islam in the West, as reported by Mediaite:
Those who accuse the once libertarian Bill Maher of becoming too much of a liberal apologist might want to clean their ears. Maher made a Juan Williams-esque confession on his program when he apprehensively noted that Mohammed has just become the most popular baby name in Britain. “Am I a racist to feel alarmed by that?” Maher asked his panel. “Because I am. And it’s not because of the race, it’s because of the religion. I don’t have to apologize, do I, for not wanting the Western world to be taken over by Islam in 300 years?”




Maher will get a pass because he serves other purposes.  Maher attacks Christians, Republicans, conservatives and Tea Partiers with even more vigor than he attacks Islam. 

And of course, Maher is most famous of late for attempting to smite the dreaded O'Donnell of Delaware.

It seems that in the eyes of the left-blogosphere and media, "Islamophobia" is in the eye of the beholder, and that beholding is strictly partisan.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Media Matters Is The Symptom, Not The Disease
Juan Williams Was Fox News' "Lawn Jockey"
Juan Williams Fired For Acknowledging Negative Stereotypes

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

NY Times Breaks Cone of Silence On Maurice Hinchey Assault! (Sorta)

As my readers know, we have been on a New York Time's cone of silence watch as relates to allegations by an upstate reporter (corroborated at least in part by others) that Congressman Maurice Hinchey assaulted the reporter after the reporter asked tough questions regarding a possible Hinchey federal funding conflict of interest.

Despite the graphic details of the assault, and the news reports in smaller market upstate papers, the NYT was silent (although it dutifully reported on incidents involving Joe Miller and Rand Paul supporters).

Now, at long last, The Times has broken its cone of silence in an article published yesterday (h/t HotAir) regarding natural gas "fracking" in Hinchey's district (which includes Ithaca), Fracking Pumps Up Pressure in Upstate N.Y. Congressional Race.

If you read really deep down in the article, you will see that The Times exposes the assault in all it's infamy, well, sorta.  As reported (emphasis mine, so you don't miss it):

Hinchey has also been hurt by former New York Mayor Ed Koch's endorsement of Phillips -- because Koch says Hinchey is not sufficiently supportive of Israel -- and a video of a mild verbal altercation between Hinchey and a local reporter that has attracted attention on YouTube.
That's it.  A "mild verbal altercation," even though the allegation that Hinchey repeatedly pushed the reporter was corroborated by others, and the reporter also alleged that Hinchey started to grab the reporter by the throat before quickly backing off.

Cone of silence broken, cone of deception firmly in place.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

What Kind Of Person Posts A Tweet Like This?

What kind of person posts a tweet like this?


The same kind of person responsible for running (and still defending) the Christine O'Donnell "one night stand" story. 

There is a sickness in our media, and Gawker is one of its primary homes.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Feministe: O'Donnell Getting What She Deserves
Not Buying The Crocodile Tears From Gawker's Enablers
Palin Haters Killed and Field Dressed Liberal Feminism



Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Do Not Approach Drowning Democrats

There is a key difference between Republican and Democratic attacks ads this year. 

As I previously noted, Republican attacks focus mainly on policy, such as Obamacare, stimulus, and national deficits and debt.  That's not to say that there are not individual ads which may get personal, but the Republican believe they can win on the issues.

Democrats, by contrast, have a deliberate strategy of basing their campaigns on opposition research to personalize attacks, frequently based on gross exaggerations of incidents from a candidate's past. 

Ithaca shares the Syracuse television market, so I've witnessed this phenomenon in two hotly contested races where Democratic incumbents are at risk.

The DCCC is running around-the-clock ads misleadingly saying that Republican Richard Hanna (running in NY-24) received $4 million in government handouts (in fact, his construction company was the successful bidder on municipal construction contracts) and caused tens of thousands of dollars in cost overruns (in fact, there were normal work-order changes which increased the cost of the project.)  The DCCC also is running ads against Republican Matt Doheny (running in NY-23) focused entirely on two six-year-old old charges for boating under the influence (for which he received administrative fines only).  No policy here, folks.

This anecdotal evidence is supported by a study which documents that while both sides are running "negative" ads at approximately the same rate, Republicans focus on policy and Democrats on personal attacks.  As reported by ABC News:
As you watch this year's ads -- and I've been watching all too many lately -- you'll notice a striking difference between Democratic and Republican attack ads: Democrats are attacking over personal issues, Republicans are attacking over policy.

There are, of course, many exceptions, but the overall trend is clear. Democrats are hitting their Republican opponents over past legal transgressions, shady business deals and even speeding tickets. Republicans are hammering Democrats over "Obamacare," Nancy Pelosi and the economy.
ABC News highlights one such Democratic attack:
In one typical example, Democratic ads have transformed Kentucky Republican House candidate Andy Barr into "a convicted criminal" -- complete with images yellow police tape and fuzzy video of crime scenes. Not mentioned is his crime: As a college student 19 years ago, he was caught using a fake ID during spring break.
ABC's report is based on a study conducted at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, which found, among other things:

In 2010, pro-Democratic ad sponsors focused on the personal characteristics of Republican candidates in 21% of their attack ads. This is up from the 12% of Democratic attack ads in 2008 that were focused on personal characteristics. Republicans have mentioned candidate characteristics in 11 percent of their attack ads this year.[*] 
Those percentages seem low to me for Democratic personal attacks, perhaps because the study does not break out the percentages by district.  In the central New York television market, where there are multiple at-risk Democratic incumbents, the Democratic personal attacks ads are predominant.  It may be that there are other markets where the attack ads are less personal, but I'm not seeing it here.

Nonetheless, the study documents a 2-1 ratio of Democratic personal attacks over similar Republican attacks nationwide.

Democrats are desperate.  They are drowning in their own policy failures, and they are lashing out.  Which makes them very dangerous.

Just let them drown.

[* These percentages are for pure personal attacks without any policy issue being raised; if you add to these figures ads which combine personal and policy attacks, the total figures are 51.32% (Dem.) versus 30.79% (Rep.).]
-------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
CQ Politics: Hanna v. Arcuri (NY-24) Tightening
I'm Doubling Down On My Top 10
I Ask Just One More Favor (Support Richard Hanna)

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Not A Play On Words

When I saw the headline Meek: I Turned Down Crist Cross, I thought it was a play on words reflecting that Charlie Crist was double-crossing his political opponents.

But no, Charlie Crist actually offered Kendrick Meek Crist's sister's cross if Meek would drop out of the Senate race, as reported at the link:
Florida independent Senate candidate Charlie Crist personally lobbied Democratic candidate Kendrick Meek to exit the race this week, offering him a cross that had been a gift from his sister, Mr. Meek said Friday.

The gesture occurred Monday as Mr. Crist and Mr. Meek were surrounded by local Jewish leaders at a Hollywood, Fla., meeting of the pro-Israel lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee.  [Added by me - what a strange place to make the offer.]

“I was shocked when he did it,” Mr. Meek said in an interview late Friday. “I told him to keep the cross and that I carry my Christianity in my heart.”

Crist spokesman Danny Kanner said he would not comment on a private conversation.
Oh boy, what else would Charlie give up to become Senator?  Certainly not his pride or honor, because those were given up long ago.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Friday, October 29, 2010

Finally, Jon Ralston Stars In Harry Reid Commercial

Nevada reporter Jon Ralston, who accused me of being a "disgrace to [his] alma mater" because I pointed out his pro-Harry Reid tilt, finally has made the big time by starring [at 0:14] in Harry Reid's most outlandish commercial yet (as to which even Greg Sargent expresses amazement):



It's just coincidence, of course, because to suggest otherwise would be crazy.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Jon Ralston Finally Comes Out for Harry Reid
Jon Ralston: Angle Ad "Offensive, Disgusting and Lowbrow"
John Ralston: Me! Me Me! Me Me Me!

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Who Let The Bumper Stickers Out?

A reader's very own truck, from near Ithaca no less:


--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Bumper Stickers - The Series

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Feministe: O'Donnell Getting What She Deserves

"Jill" at Feministe was one of the first to jump on the bandwagon mocking Christine O'Donnell's sexuality (or actually, lack thereof), as I documented in my first post on the subject in September, Rachel Maddow Sexualizes Christine O'Donnell.

I'll give her one thing, Jill is not jumping on the phony chorus of left-bloggers defending O'Donnell against the Gawker attack. 

Jill condemns the sexist "code" in the attack on O'Donnell, but not the fact that O'Donnell's sex life was  exposed (emphasis mine):
This is a story, apparently, because O’Donnell is a big proponent of abstinence — not just from sex, but from sexual activity generally — until marriage. And I’m a big fan of political hypocrisy stories, so it doesn’t bother me all that much when hypocrites like O’Donnell are exposed. She goes around saying that no one should have sex; if elected she’ll push for policies that teach kids in school that sex is sinful outside of marriage and condoms and contraceptives don’t work; and if elected she’ll vote against abortion rights. At the same time as she’s condemning sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriages — and using her political platform to promote laws and policies that condemn sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriages — she’s engaging in it. Exposing that, I think, is fair game, just like I think it’s fair game to expose anti-gay bigots who sleep with people of the same sex, or “family values” men who cheat on their wives....
The O’Donnell story rubs me the wrong way not because her sex life is totally off-limits — sorry, sister, but when you start using your own purity and sexual mores to try and dictate everyone else’s, and when you want to be the sex police and violate everyone else’s privacy, you lose the right to your own — but because the whole story is coded in a very specific, very sexist way.... The point of the story isn’t to expose O’Donnell as a person who says one thing and does another; the point is to shame and humiliate her, and to shame humiliate her in an expressly sexualized way that is really only directed at women.
This meme, that because O'Donnell has certain views as to sexuality she must want to impose those views on everyone else, is plainly false, as Dave Weigel writes (emphasis mine):
I'm aware that Christine O'Donnell's public commentary career started with her going on TV to talk about how kids shouldn't have sex or masturbate before marriage. But not only has she never called for that behavior to be punished legally, I'm unaware of her ever coming out against the actions mentioned here -- which, let's remember are drinking, fooling around, and not having sex. There is no hypocrisy being exposed here. This is anonymous creep shaming a woman who wouldn't sleep with him, and doing so because she's a celebrity now.
There was no hypocrisy in O'Donnell's conduct, but what if there were? 

Should a female who advocates teaching "safe" sex in schools be outed if she doesn't practice safe sex?  Shall we have a condom police, as well as the Gawker waxing police?  Where do we draw the line on exposing female sexual engagement if "hypocrisy" is the standard?

Jill's logic is not logic at all.  She doesn't like the choices Christine O'Donnell has made, or O'Donnell's politics, and wraps that political view in a blanket of supposed opposition to "hypocrisy."  But this entirely is a one way street, applied only to conservative women.

That said, while I disagree with Jill, at least she's being honest, unlike so many of those defending O'Donnell for tactical political purposes.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Not Buying The Crocodile Tears From Gawker's Enablers

Rachel Maddow Sexualizes Christine O'Donnell
"What's up w/obsession about O'Donnell's opinions on sex?"



Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

New Poll In RI-01 - Dead Heat for Patrick Kennedy's Seat

A new poll released in my home district (RI-01) confirms what I have been telling you for weeks, this race is winnable for Republican John Loughlin.  As reported by The Providence Journal:

For much of the campaign season, Providence Mayor David N. Cicilline has raised much more money and earned far higher poll results than his Republican challenger, state Rep. John J. Loughlin II. Now, according to the latest poll, the two are suddenly very close.

Cicilline has 42 percent of the vote, while Loughlin is only 2 points behind, at 40 percent, according to polling by WJAR Channel 10....
The new results for District 1 are a dramatic departure from earlier polls.
The last Channel 10 poll on the race had Cicilline up by 47 to 36 percent, with 13 percent undecided. An earlier Channel 10 poll had an even wider margin, with Cicilline winning by 49 percent to 26 percent. That poll had 25 percent undecided.

Just three weeks ago, a Brown University poll had Cicilline getting nearly twice as much support as Loughlin. A Channel 12 poll around the same period found Cicilline getting 48 percent of the support, compared with 29 percent for Loughlin. A total of 22 percent were undecided.
Please support John Loughlin.  Your dollars in these closing days could make a difference.

Read my prior posts on the RI-01 race:
--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Not Buying The Crocodile Tears From Gawker's Enablers

I'm not buying all the phony expressions of outrage from left-bloggers and pundits over the Gawker article about Christine O'Donnell.

From the moment she won the primary, O'Donnell was sexualized by the left with the excuse being O'Donnell's 1996 video regarding masturbation.  That 14-year old tape has been the focus of jokes and ridicule without let up.

Rachel Maddow started it off on election night with much fanfare by announcing she had uncovered the video and the left blogosphere followed right along, including liberal feminists (image right).

The New York Times started its lead article about O'Donnell's primary victory by talking about, you guessed it, masturbation.

The attacks from the left-blogpshere based on O'Donnell's sexuality were so intense that columnist Kirsten Powers demanded the bloggers and media "grow up."

The media is so obsessed that as I am writing this post while listening to Jay Leno on television, Leno is joking about how if O'Donnell is elected she will push her "anti-masturbation agenda."

I have no doubt that the people who run Gawker thought they would be heroes for taking another sexual pound of flesh out of O'Donnell, just as Rachel Maddow became a hero for taking the 1996 video national. 

And why wouldn't Gawker think it would be greeted with joyous laughter, after all, exposing and mocking O'Donnell's sexuality had gone mainstream.

But Gawker went too far, with the overstated title of the article (it was not a "one night stand" as that term usually is used) and the details of O'Donnell's pubic hair.

The backlash was inevitable.

I don't believe for a second that the criticisms of Gawker by most of the left-blogosphere are genuine. 

These are crocodile tears from people who are afraid that the backlash will help O'Donnell politically, so they are pretending to unite in her defense on this limited point.  Just read almost any of their posts, and they condemn Gawker while taking pains to point out that O'Donnell still is crazy and dangerous.

The left-blogosphere and media enabled Gawker, and if there is any justice, the monster they created will come back to bite them in the voting booth on November 2.

Update:  I should point out that even before primary night and before the 1996 video was outed by Maddow, I predicted this would happen, Nuts and Sluts In Delaware.  And of course, Gawker led the way in sexualized attacks on Sarah Palin, to the great cheers from the people who now are claiming Gawker has gone too far.  Gawker's attack on O'Donnell is the culmination of two years of misogynistic attacks on conservative women by the left-blogosphere and media.  Gawker is you.

And NOW deserves little credit.  NOW originally refused to condemn Gawker:

“We’re going to pass on this one,” Mai Shiozaki told The Examiner. I asked if this is generally a topic they try to stay away from. “Thanks, we’re passing.”
NOW only issued a statement (in which it also accused O'Donnell of taking positions which are "dangerous for women") after the heat grew too intense.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Rachel Maddow Sexualizes Christine O'Donnell
"What's up w/obsession about O'Donnell's opinions on sex?"

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Dems Fund Misleading "Real Conservative" Mailer In Indiana-09

Democrats across the country have been engaged in various deceptive actions to siphon votes from conservative Republican candidates.

In New Jersey, a Democratic candidate helped a phony Tea Party candidate get on the ballot, and the Democratic Party has a nationwide "divide and conquer" strategy of lending support to similar candidates.

Now comes news that the Democratic Party in Indiana is misleadingly supporting a Libertarian Party candidate in order to take votes away from conservative Republican Todd Young who is running even with or ahead of incumbent Baron Hill.

The Democrats have laid out $15,000 for a mass mailing urging voters to vote for "The Real Conservative"  who is identified in the mailer as the Libertarian candidate Greg Knott:


The Libertarian candidate recognized the misleading nature of the mailing, as reported by the Louisville Courier-Journal:
...Knott also said he knew that Democrats were simply using him to try to hurt Young and said his agenda is actually more progressive than it is conservative.
The Democrats cannot win on their own ideas so they have to try to trick voters.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Dead Heat in Indiana-09 (Todd Young v. Baron Hill)
Proof Joe Sestak Is In Deep (You Know What)

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Another Protected Minority Was Just Born

They were born that way.  They didn't choose it; no one would make such a choice.  It's not a lifestyle. 

They are entitled to the same protected status as other recognized minority groups. 

While the framers of the 14th Amendment may not have had them in mind during the drafting and ratification process, there is no historical evidence of an intent to exclude them.  And anyway, that was then and this is now.

This means we have to live with them even when we don't want to, have to share bathrooms with them, have to hire them, and can't fire them unless we have a clearly documented reason.

In other words, we're stuck.

Via The Telegraph, 'Liberal gene' discovered by scientists:
The research suggests that some people have an inherent bias against conservative thinking, that is independent of their education or upbringing.

The effect is caused by a neurotransmitter in the brain called DRD4 which could be stimulated by the novelty value of left of centre opinions, say US researchers.
In people who are naturally outgoing, the feature encourages them to seek out companions with unconventional views as they grow up.

This in turn means they tend to form less conventional political viewpoints as adults, according to the study by the University of California and Harvard.
Question of the Day:
If they could test for it in utero, would it change your view on abortion?
-------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

5 Days

Time to bring it home...


Remember November: The Final Act
from Republican Governors Association on Vimeo.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

New New Dem Low

The New Dem Low is not lowest anymore.

These really are shameless evil people, I Had a One-Night Stand With Christine O'Donnell, complete with anatomical descriptions.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Inevitable: Damn Those Homophobic Anti-Pot Bigots

Those anti-pot folks are really just anti-gay bigots anyway, via AlterNet:


"Predictably, the anti-pot forces have brought everything they have — mostly hyperbole, in other words — to the battle. To hear them tell it, California’s very future is at stake, and not only that but perhaps the fate of civilization as well. It’d be a lot easier to smile about it if these folks weren’t completely serious — as serious as they were a couple years ago in their successful campaign to make Prop 8 the law of the land in California, banning gay marriages.

And yes, one of the biggest anti-Prop 19 groups has pretty much the same people as ran one of the pro-Prop 8 groups that stunk up the election last time with their innuendoes, anti-gay bias and snidely ignorant talking points. This time pot’s the demon, instead of gay couples."
I know just what this calls for:
Boycott!!
--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Proof Joe Sestak Is In Deep (You Know What)

Wow, Joe Sestak's internal polling must be really awful for him to start running commercials (h/t Gateway Pundit via HotAir) in which he holds up a sack of dog poop to symbolize all the troubles he's had as a Democrat picking up after Republicans.


How desperate.  A symbol of the Democratic Party circa 2010.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Dead Heat in Indiana-09 (Todd Young v. Baron Hill)

Todd Young is on my Top 10 List, running against incumbent Baron Hill in Indiana-09 district.

Hill embodies the arrogance which has characterized Democratic Party control of Congress for the past several years:



New polling shows that the race is a toss-up.  Via The Hill,
Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.) holds a slim, two-point lead, 46 percent to 44, against Republican Todd Young, with 9 percent of likely voters undecided, according to The Hill 2010 Midterm Election Poll.... The Hill poll was conducted Oct. 16-19 by Penn Schoen Berland. The survey consisted of 400 phone interviews among likely voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percent.

Young's own internal polling has Young ahead.

This race is winnable for Young.  The DCCC is worried, and is putting another $374k into the district in support of Hill.

Young is very talented, with a strong fiscally conservative message:



Please support Young, I already have.

Update:  Since Young features Milton Friedman in his video, it's time for me to re-post one of my favorite Milton Friedman clips:



--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

I Can't Believe I Forgot My Anniversary

My first blog post was October 12, 2008, Obama is "Door No. 2":
As in Let's Make a Deal, choosing Door No. 2 carries great risks. So does choosing Obama.

Obama may be a post-racial healer, or he may be someone who carefully uses race and false accusations of racism to advance his political career. Obama may not have known about Jeremiah Wright's political race-baiting, or he may have known but not cared. Obama may be someone who views this country as inherently good, or he may secretly share the views of his political enabler, William Ayers, that this country is inherently bad. We may know Obama better than Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers know Obama, or we may not know Obama at all.

Obama may be everything good, or the promise Obama embodies may just be a figment of our own imagination.
Can I now get the Nobel Prize for Being Right?

The motivation for that first post is here.

-------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

New Video Exposes The False Narrative of the "Stomping" Victim

I will not repeat all the facts in my prior posts, you are familiar by now with the scenario.  Let's just say my instincts were right on this one.

As I suspected, provocateur Lauren Valle was not so innocent. 

In an amazing videotape obtained by Redstate, Valle is shown rushing Rand Paul's car and shoving something into the window before it had come to a stop and again charging him as he exited the vehicle -- clearly provocative and threatening actions which should have alerted bystanders that she posed a danger. 

This completely debunks the left-blogosphere's narrative that Valle was an innocent bystander who just happened to speak out against Paul when she was attacked by "Brownshirts."

Valle's deliberately provocative and hostile actions led to her being pulled away from Paul.  This does not excuse the foot to the shoulders after the fact, but it does explain how the scuffle developed, contrary to the over-the-top narrative.

My instincts also tell me also that the criminal charges against the "stomper" will not stick because he will claim (as he has) that he viewed Valle as a threat to Paul, and that he was trying to keep her down until the police could arrive.



Update:  The scenario is crystal clear in this video.  Valle charges the car for the first time (at 0:25) and pushes something into the open front passenger window where Paul was seated, she was then pulled back by security, she circled around the rear of the vehicle and approached from the front as Paul was exiting the car, ran towards him again and was pulled away again (0:55).  It is that second charge by her that led to her either tripping or being pulled to the ground, and the now famous foot to the upper back and shoulder to push her back down when she tried to get up.

We have seen these provocateurs before in the environmental and other left-wing movements and particularly in the anti-Israel movement.  They are often young women who are ideologically driven to create a scene for the cameras.  Unfortunately, these stunts sometimes create unintended consequences in a highly charged circumstance, as happened here.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
This Will Work As Well As Aqua Buddha
The Gulf of Paducah Incident

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Media Bias In Action: Providence Journal Politicizes PolitiFact

The Providence Journal, the only statewide daily newspaper in Rhode Island which dominates news coverage, has endorsed Democrat David Cicilline for Congress in the RI-01 District, running against John Loughlin.  As my readers know, this is my home district and I support Loughlin.

Unfortunately, the PolitiFact feature at ProJo reflects these political leanings, as substantially identical analyses result in PolitiFact ratings more favorable to Cicilline.  I'll assume this bias is unintended, but the bias is there nonetheless.

Here is the official PolitiFact ratings system for its Truth-O-Meter:
True – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing.
Mostly True – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.
Half True – The statement is accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.
Barely True – The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.
False – The statement is not accurate.
Pants on Fire – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.
I first noticed the bias in the ProJo's application of these ratings earlier this month, when Cicilline was touring senior centers in Rhode Island falsely claiming Loughlin and Republicans wanted to privatize social security and give the money to Wall Street to invest in the stock market.  A Politifact analysis of an identical claim -- this is a standard DCCC talking point after all -- in Wisconsin had resulted in a "Pants on Fire" false rating.

So I contacted ProJo to get them to rate the claim by Cicilline being lodged against Loughlin.  ProJo took up the issue, but rated Cicilline's charge "Half True." 

To get a "Half True" rating, ProJo framed the issue as Ciciline claiming that "The Republican candidate [John Loughlin] has talked about privatizing Social Security ... so we know where he stands on the issue."

ProJo found that indeed Loughlin talks about privatization, but that when Loughlin talks about it, he is against it.  This, of course, is an absurd way to analyze an issue to get to a Half True.  If David Cicilline "talked about" child abuse, but what he said was against child abuse, would ProJo rate as "Half True" the charge that Cicilline "has talked about child abuse ... so we know where he stands on the issue"?  Of course not, it is the substance of what is said that matters, not whether a candidate "talked about" something. 
 
When Cicilline goes to senior centers and says Loughlin "has talked about privatizing Social Security," he clearly is sending a message to seniors that Loughlin wants to privatize Social Security.  Nonetheless, on this central focus of Cicilline's campaign, ProJo used a ridiculous formulation of the issue to give Cicilline's charge a Half True rating.

A day later, ProJo ran a PolitiFact story rating as False Loughlin's claim that "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme." Projo's analysis found that on one of the central aspects of a Ponzi scheme -- new investors pay old investors -- Loughlin was right, but that since Social Security was not created with an "intent to deceive" Loughlin's claim was not credible:
"Without that key element of deceit, we find it hard to find Loughlin's analogy -- or that of anyone who uses it -- credible."
So Loughlin was at least partly right, but ProJo's PolitiFact rated the claim a full False, rather than a Half True as it did with Cicilline's charge that Loughlin "has talked about" privatization.


I wrote to ProJo about this discrepancy, and here is the response from its PolitiFact editor (emphasis in original):
Mr. Jacobson,
We rated David Cicilline’s claim Half-True in part because of the way he worded it. He said John Loughlin “has talked about privatizing Social Security,” which is literally true. Loughlin has talked about it. Many times. But as the item points out at length, Loughlin has talked about limited voluntary private accounts, not the broad privatization that Cicilline’s statement implies.

As for the Ponzi scheme item, you incorrectly say that we found his comments to be substantively true. In fact, we found the opposite.

A Ponzi scheme is an opaque, fraudulent investment scam that, by design, will collapse after enriching the perpetrator and defrauding the unknowing victims. Social Security is a retirement funding system that is transparent and backed by the U.S. government. There is a plan in place to pay benefits to retirees. You can argue whether the funding system is sound or not. But it, in our opinion, does not have the key elements of a Ponzi scheme.
Why did we issue a different ruling than PolitiFact Wisconsin?

Each PolitiFact partner has its own reporters and editors. And each has its own panel of three senior editors who read the items and decide the ruling. Our panel of editors decided that Mr. Loughlin’s claim was False.
I wasn't going to write about this, but on the ProJo's website today, there are two new PolitiFact articles which once again use different standards in applying ratings more favorably to Cicilline.


ProJo looks at the charge by Cicilline that "John Loughlin voted to let people accused of domestic violence keep their guns."  ProJo rates the charge Mostly True because Loughlin voted against a bill in the state legislature on civil (not criminal) restraining orders because, according to a Loughlin spokesman, "John is a supporter of the Second Amendment and he voted against this bill because it was too broad and he was concerned that there was no distinction made between handguns and antique collectibles or family heirlooms."  Loughlin felt the law was overly broad and would have unintended consequences, so he voted against it.

Yet Projo only rates as Barely True a third-party group advertisement that Cicilline "argued against Megan's Law and voted against mandatory registration of sex offenders."  ProJo asserts that the ad is misleading because Cicilline voted against the Meghan's law proposal only because the proposal contained a condition (it applied to teenagers) with which Cicilline did not agree, and that it was misleading to assert that Cicilline was against Meghan's law in general.  Cicilline felt the law was overly broad and would have unintended consequences, so he voted against it.

In these latest examples the circumstances are virtually identical -- both candidates voted against a law they generally supported because the laws were overly broad and would have unintended consequences -- but the ratings applied are much more favorable to Cicilline.

In all of the cases above, the ProJo's substantive analysis was pretty accurate and fair.  The problem is the rating was not fairly applied, which of course is what people focus on.

I'm not claiming a conscious bias on the part of the ProJo PolitiFact analysts.  I'm sure they think they are being fair.  The facts, however, say otherwise.

Implicit media biases can be just as harmful as conscious bias, and ProJo needs to reconsider how it rates candidates during contentious campaigns, when such ratings can have an impact.

-------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

CQ Politics: Hanna v. Arcuri (NY-24) Tightening

Add the race in NY-24 to the list of my Top 10 races (also RI-01 and NY-22) which are tightening in the final two weeks.

From CQ Politics, Richard Hanna has pulled within 5 points of Democrat incumbent Michael Arcuri, down from 8 points just a few weeks ago:
In the 24th district, Arcuri is leading Hanna, 48 to 43 percent. That is slightly down from a poll conducted six weeks ago by Siena, in which Arcuri led 48 to 40 percent. The survey found that Hanna is better known than he was in September.

The tough campaign appears to have taken its toll on both candidates. Six weeks ago they were both viewed favorably by a two to one margin. Now each has unfavorable ratings that are almost as great as their favorable ratings.

"The negative advertising proliferating the airwaves and mailboxes of the 24th CD is having an effect on the way both candidates are viewed by voters," Greenberg said. He also said that there is significant gender gap, with men favoring Hanna 49 to 42 percent and women backing Arcuri 54 to 36 percent.
While Ithaca is not in the district, we are in the same television market.  Arcuri and the DCCC are running around-the-clock ads against Hanna, with pathetic fear-mongering about social security and outright lies (DCCC) about Hanna's business record.

The Democrats are worried about NY-24.  Richard Hanna could use your support in this final week.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

HuffPo: Phillips v. Hinchey (NY-22) Surprisingly Tight

Via Amanda Terkel (of Think Progress fame) writing at HuffPo:
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D), first elected to Congress in 1992, hasn't seen a tough re-election battle since 1994, the year of the Republican revolution that swept so many Democrats out of power. He has been a solid progressive in Congress, voting for health care reform and the stimulus. But this year, he is facing a serious challenge from Republican George Phillips and a well-funded advertising blitz from conservative independent expenditure organizations, making the race tighter than many Democrats would like to see it.
As they say, read the whole thing.

This race is winnable for George Phillips, who is on my Top 10 List.  Phillips could use your support.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Day 5 Of NY Times Cone of Silence On Maurice Hinchey Assault
How Long Will MSM Ignore Assault By NY Congressman Maurice Hinchey On Reporter?

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Obama/Cicilline Dems v. Clinton/Caprio Dems in Rhode Island

The fiasco of Obama's visit to Rhode Island -- which led Frank Caprio, the Democratic candidate for Governor, to tell Obama to "shove" his endorsement -- holds tremendous potential to split the Democratic base.

Obama came to Rhode Island to raise funds for the national Democratic Party and for David Cicilline, who is in a surprisingly tight race in my home district (RI-01) against Republican John Loughlin for the seat previously held by Patrick Kennedy.

Cicilline, the Mayor of Providence, is a divisive figure in Democratic circles to begin with.  The Democratic primary was brutal, with Cicilline getting only 37% of the vote.  Cicilline was hit hard by his Democratic opponents with some sharp television advertising.

Now comes word that in the wake of Obama's visit, Bill Clinton is coming to Rhode Island to campaign for Caprio.  While this will be spun as an attempt to unify Democrats, with Clinton serving as peacemaker, the effect will be the opposite.

While Cicilline is not running against Caprio, the two now are on opposite sides of the Democratic divide in Rhode Island.  Cicilline inevitably will suffer some measure of collateral damage from his association with the fundraising fiasco and Obama's dismissive treatment of Caprio.

John Loughlin needs a few things to come together to beat Cicilline, who has more money and better name recognition.

A split in the Democratic coalition, with a strong protest vote by Caprio supporters against Obama/Cicilline, may be just what the doctor ordered.

[Loughlin is on my Top 10 List.  He could use your support.]
--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Obama Works The Reverse-Midas Touch In Rhode Island
Obama Tries To Stop The "Miracle in RI-01"

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

This Will Work As Well As Aqua Buddha

The left-blogosphere and punditry have been hoping for right-wing political violence for two years now with no success. 

From Bill Sparkman to countless others, these people have been waiting for the fire to justify all the smoke they have been blowing about "extremist" and "crazy" and "violent" and "un-American" Tea Partiers and conservatives.

Memeorandum is overflowing right now with overblown accounts of what amounted to a brief scuffle when a professional provocateur on the payroll of MoveOn.org attempted as a publicity stunt to "present" Rand Paul with a phony MoveOn.org "award" as Paul exited his car to enter the debate forum in Paducah, Ky.

The people around Paul had no way of knowing that this person intended only to present an "award."  Some of their actions may have been unwarranted and possibly criminal, such as the person who pushed her down with his foot, but make no mistake about it, this was a deliberate provocation intended to create a scene. 

We can at the same time condemn criminal conduct and call this incident for the provocation that it was; the two are not mutually exclusive.

In this highly charged political atmosphere -- Jack Conway supporters had surrounded Paul shouting "we want Jack" as Paul exited his car and Paul's security was attempting to hold back the crowd -- the usual sophomoric publicity stunts such as pie throwing create a risk of violence.

While the left-blogosphere is sucking on this incident like a crack addict who has gone days without a fix, the reality is that most Americans will recognize this for what it was and is:  A provocation by an organization known for provocation intended to create a publicity stunt to be used to distract the public from the abject failure of the Democrats who are standing for election.

This publicity stunt gone bad will work about as well as Jack Conway's Aqua Buddha strategy, which has allowed Rand Paul to pull away in the polls.

Keep it up.  Your disconnect grows larger every day.

Update:  As I suspected, provocateur was not so innocent.  In an amazing videotape obtained by Redstate, she is shown rushing Paul's car and shoving something into the window before it had come to a stop and again charging him as he exited the vehicle -- a clearly provocative action which should have alerted bystanders that she posed a danger.  This completely debunks the foaming at the mouth narrative that this was anything other than a deliberate provocation (which does not excuse the foot to the shoulders after the fact, but does explain why she was pulled away by Paul supporters).

See my new post, New Video Exposes The False Narrative of the "Stomping" Victim.


--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
The Gulf of Paducah Incident
Count Frankula's Blood Lust
All As One Now

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share