“I am thoroughly convinced that while Obama is somewhat vulnerable (if the economy improves, he wins big, if it stays the same, he wins very small, if it gets worse, he loses big), Sarah Palin has less of a chance to beat him than just about anyone else who is currently considered in contention… [...] Read the rest »

Via Weasel Zippers, the apology tour continues. [...] Read the rest »

I’m trying hard to convince myself that this is actually a devilishly clever scheme by Graham to set a political trap for Democrats by pushing the issue now. [...] Read the rest »

This was Rangel’s excuse, wasn’t it? [...] Read the rest »

I’m surprised. Granted, it won’t sell remotely as well as Palin’s book did, but for a guy who sometimes seems lost in the shuffle of outsized conservative personalities, it’s a nice prize. [...] Read the rest »

Even sadder? [...] Read the rest »

Via Defense Industry Daily I learned that China’s PLA is not the first to paint their vehicles with digital camouflage. Apparently the Jordanians might be the trendsetters, applying “fractal” camo to their vehicles back in 2006 (follow the DID link for a larger image). Honestly though, compared to the Chinese, the Jordanian camo pattern is pretty weak stuff.

– Greg

Read this post »

CNN's Jim Acosta omitted the left-wing affiliation of pro-ObamaCare protesters during a report on Wednesday's American Morning, referring to them as only "health care advocates and labor groups." Acosta, like his colleague Nancy Cordes at CBS, also highlighted child protester Marcelas Owens, and labeled him a "brave young man."

Kiran Chetry and John Roberts introduced Acosta's report, and the anchors also failed to mention the political bent of the protest, which was organized by the Health Care for America Now coalition (HCAN's members include the AFL-CIO, NAACP, and Planned Parenthood). Chetry remarked that "thousands though rallied in Washington against what they call 'insurance industry bullying.'" Roberts stated that the demonstration was "one for the books."

The correspondent continued the generic language, using his "health care advocates and labor groups" label at the beginning of the report. He twice noted how the target of the protesters, health insurance executives, were meeting in a high-end hotel: "They [the protesters] wanted the health insurance industry to learn one thing at their conference this week- renting out space inside a big luxury hotel doesn't mean you can keep the reform debate from getting really loud....the protesters tried to push and shove their way inside this ritzy hotel- that's where the industry was holding its annual policy conference."

Near the end of the report, Acosta played a clip of his interview of Owens, whom he questioned as the fifth-grader was demonstrating outside the hotel:
ACOSTA (voice-over): Among the demonstrators, 10-year-old Marcelas Owens was protesting for his mother who he says lost a battle with a lung condition that got worse right after she lost her job and her health insurance.

ACOSTA (on-camera): Does any of it make any sense to you?

MARCELAS OWENS, HEALTH CARE REFORM ACTIVIST: Not really, because my mother, she was sick, and she was sick to the point that she should have gotten the medical attention, even if she didn't have health care or not.

ACOSTA (live): Brave young man there

The network has a track record of slanting towards pro-ObamaCare protesters. Back in August 2009, CNN ran a glowing documentary-style segment on another pro-ObamaCare rally organized by the HCAN coalition.

The full transcript of Jim Acosta's report, which aired 41 minutes into the 6 am Eastern hour of Wednesday's American Morning:

CHETRY: President Obama, as we know, is rolling up his sleeves, hitting the streets, talking up his final push for health care reform. Meantime, thousands though rallied in Washington against what they call 'insurance industry bullying.'

ROBERTS: They were there to make a mass citizens' arrest.

Our Jim Acosta is live in Washington for us this morning. Jim, you're awfully familiar with the health care debate. You've done a lot of coverage.

ACOSTA: Yeah.

ROBERTS: This was one for the books, wasn't it?

ACOSTA: It got a little wild out there, John and Kiran, and the health care advocates and labor groups who staged this rally, they wanted the health insurance industry to learn one thing at their conference this week- renting out space inside a big luxury hotel doesn't mean you can keep the reform debate from getting really loud.

ACOSTA (voice-over): (protesters chanting) The swarms of protesters marching through the streets of Washington in favor of health care reform wanted to do more than just make some noise.

RICHARD KIRSCH, HEALTH CARE FOR AMERICA NOW: Are we going to arrest these corporate criminals?

CROWD: Yes!

KIRSCH: Are we going to send them packing?

CROWD: Yes!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, raise your right hand, and repeat after me-

ACOSTA: The organizers of the rally informally deputized the crowd to make a citizens' arrest of the executives of several major health insurance companies. Then, carrying wild West-style 'wanted' posters, showing the faces of insurance companies' CEOs, the protesters tried to push and shove their way inside this ritzy hotel- that's where the industry was holding its annual policy conference.

ACOSTA (on-camera): Where we're standing right now is where the protesters are actually trying to enter the conference that the insurance industry is holding right here in Washington. Police are standing in the way trying to hold back what is a massive crowd.

ACOSTA (voice-over): Police did grab a few protesters but released them minutes later. The insurance industry spokesman said he's seen these tactics before.

ACOSTA (on-camera): Do you think this is getting out of control when you see 'wanted' posters for insurance companies' CEOs? Isn't that getting out of control?

ROBERT ZIRCHELBACH, SPOKESMAN, AMERICA'S HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS: You know, we don't pay a lot of attention to all the different things that people are posting on websites and on the blogs, and the different attention. You know, we're focused on what we can do as an industry to make the health care system work better.

ACOSTA (voice-over): Not everybody at the conference was from the industry. Health care expert Mark Pauly said the current reform bill before Congress would actually be better than nothing.

MARK PAULY, WHARTON SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, UNIV. OF PENNSYLVANIA: A better attitude is probably to pass something and fix it up later. Although-

ACOSTA (on-camera): It's not the perspective of the folks who are running this conference.

PAULY: I guess not. I mean, it's gotten to the point where it's a dear thing, I think, whether it be better to scrap it and start over. But I'd be willing to work with anything.

ACOSTA (voice-over): Among the demonstrators, 10-year-old Marcelas Owens was protesting for his mother who he says lost a battle with a lung condition that got worse right after she lost her job and her health insurance.

ACOSTA (on-camera): Does any of it make any sense to you?

MARCELAS OWENS, HEALTH CARE REFORM ACTIVIST: Not really, because my mother, she was sick, and she was sick to the point that she should have gotten the medical attention, even if she didn't have health care or not.

ACOSTA (live): Brave young man there, and the insurance industry is well aware that Congress is closing in on a vote on health care. The closing session at the industry's conference this week is on public opinion on reform. John and Kiran, they are well aware that the Congress is closing in on what is a very crucial vote.

CHETRY: All right. Maybe we'll see more protests like that one.

ACOSTA: And we will later today. We're expecting a week of this stuff here in Washington. So, fasten your seat belts.

ROBERTS: All right. Jim, thanks so much for that.

Go figure that a scion of Camelot, who’s lived up to the family legacy in so many ways, would look dimly upon press coverage of politicians’ misbehavior. [...] Read the rest »

We learned today that Massachusetts senator Scott Brown, who's been a senator for just 35 days, has a book deal! According to the Wall Street Journal, Brown's expected to write about his upbringing, his early career, and how he beat Martha Coakley to win his Senate seat.

Maybe he could call it, "It's Not About the Truck."  Just a thought, but, didn't people used to write their memoirs after their careers? This guy's been in office, what, a month?

Of course, this comes almost two years to the day after Matthews effusively praised Barack Obama's memoir, "Dreams From My Father" -- originally published in 1995 when Obama was gearing up to run for the Illinois State Senate -- on the March 13, 2008 "Hardball":

CHRIS MATTHEWS: It's unique because he's a politician and not since U.S. Grant has a politician written his own book.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, radio talk show host: Exactly.

MATTHEWS: And that is refreshing.

SMERCONISH: Yes.

MATTHEWS: And you're thoughts here? Did you read the book? Once you read it you have a different take. It's almost like Mark Twain. It's so American, it's so textured. It's so, almost sounding like great fiction because it reads like us. It's picturesque. Is that the right word? Picturesque? I think it's got that quality.

"Don't we have a constitutional ban against setting religious tests for public office? I've never heard somebody scoff [sic] up votes by saying he's better at his religion than the other guy," Matthews huffed.

But in 1980, when Chris Matthews was working for then-President Jimmy Carter, the Democratic incumbent ran a TV ad in which he touted his religious faith:

Yes, even the wonder twins from Maine and the blogosphere’s favorite Massachusetts RINO. [...] Read the rest »

I know, I know, he never had a back wax. [...] Read the rest »

In his "Notebook" segment at the end of the 3PM ET hour on MSNBC Wednesday, anchor David Shuster took a moment to commemorate the passing of a "hero" of his, well-known liberal advocate Doris 'Granny D' Haddock, a staunch supporter of campaign finance reform.

Shuster celebrated how she "at the age of 89...decided to walk across the nation....All in all, 3,200 miles to underscore her message that we need to change our current campaign donation system and have publicly financed elections instead." He proclaimed that Haddock "was committed to fair and open democracy" and declared her to be "an American treasure" for her activism.

Granny D was certainly a media hero back in March of 2000, when she completed her cross-country walk for campaign finance reform in Washington D.C.. On the March 1 broadcast of NBC's Today, co-host Matt Lauer excitedly announced: "I love Granny D!" Then co-host, now CBS Evening News anchor, Katie Couric, followed Lauer's exuberance, calling her an "amazing role model" and adding: "She's great!"

In a speech on September 22, 2001, Granny D launched into a bizarre rant against the Bush administration and its response to the September 11th attacks:
This is not a time for all good Americans to forget their political differences and rally behind the man in the White House. The man in the White House should apologize for the most serious breach of internal security in the nation's history, not disguise his failure in calls for war. Can he hope that the fiery explosions in New York and Washington and Pennsylvania will be more acceptable to us if they are placed in a larger context of explosions of our own making? I do not rally around that idea. It is "wag the dog" taken to an extreme level, for he is not covering up his failure with a fake war, but with a real one. 

Normally I’d say “shocking new details,” but c’mon. [...] Read the rest »

Via Breitbart, a pitiful morale booster from Madam Speaker and not the first time she’s claimed to have the votes when she really didn’t. [...] Read the rest »

The sour economy has forced many Americans to tighten belts, and everyday Americans expect the same from their government. But that's practically unconscionable to the Washington Post as witnessed by its March 10 article, "Va.budget plan would shrink general spending to 2006 levels."*

Here's how Post staffers Rosalind Helderman and Fredrick Kunkle launched into their lament of the pending budget cutbacks:

RICHMOND -- Virginia will do less for its residents, and expect local governments and private charities to do more, under a new state budget likely to have an impact for years to come. 

With Virginia facing what lawmakers say is the grimmest financial picture in memory, the House of Delegates and Senate adopted budgets last week that would shrink general spending to about $15 billion, or no more than was spent four years ago. In other words, Virginia would spend about the same amount on services as it did when there were 100,000 fewer residents and many fewer were in economic distress. 

What followed was a typical laundry list of scenarios the writers insisted "could" happen, including "[c]riminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney appear[ing] in court without one." Of course, seeing as the Constitution requires that indigent defendants be provided a public defender, it's quite odd for the Post to conclude any judge "could" let a trial proceed with a defendant unrepresented for lack of counsel. At any rate, National Review's Kevin Williamson has an excellent takedown of the article and its numerous liberal assumptions, which I've excerpted below (emphases mine):

"A new state budget likely to have an impact for years to come"? What could those words possibly hope to indicate? Does not every state budget have an impact for years to come? How does one spend $15 billion and not have an impact for years to come? Meaningless verbiage is one reason why people don't read old-fashioned newspapers.

But never mind the banal journalese; check out the question-begging: "Virginia will do less for its residents ...." Really? Is it impossible to spend more intelligently? Was the Virginia state budget such an unassailable masterpiece that a cut of $1 translates into an exactly representative amount of service forgone? What about $10? What about $1,000? Is there no room at all for economizing in Virginia?

And what about the other side of the spending/revenue question? If Virginia spends more, it has to tax more. Tax whom? Tax Virginians, that's whom. It's perfectly reasonable to have a debate about balancing the "do less" with the "take less," but the reporters and editors of the Washington Post do not even recognize that such a question exists. It's as though revenue comes into commonwealth coffers ex nihilo.

You can predict what comes next: The reporters call every interest group dependent upon state handouts — oh, the poor arts administrators! the agony of the MFAs! — and give them a forum to whinge about how horrible it will be to have spending reduced all the way down to 2006 levels. Does anybody in the world, anybody in Virginia, think a little fiscal restraint is in order? Down in the seventeenth (!) paragraph — which is to say, down in the part of the story that's only going to be read by these reporters' mothers, the people quoted in the story, and me — yes, we learn that "conservatives applaud attempts to hold the line on state spending on health care," and get a quote from Americans for Prosperity. But those parasites on the public purse protesting the proposed cuts — how many are identified as liberal groups? Zero, though organizations such as the Legal Aid Justice Center obviously merit such a description.

For the full critique by Williamson, click here.

*That was the online headline. The Metro section print edition headline reads "Va. lawmakers plan to do less with less."