Wednesday, November 13, 2013

StupidiNews!

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Last Call For The Cooch

Stuart Rothenberg makes the argument that it wasn't women or black voters that won Virginia for Terry McAulliffe, but Romney voters who lost Virginia for Ken Cuccinelli, and that Virginia isn't blue or even purple, but still red and the GOP's to lose (and apparently they did).

The survey data are pretty clear on why Cuccinelli lost. He lost because he was unable to match Romney’s percentages with key demographic groups that almost always vote Republican. Those voters showed up at the polls, but too many Romney voters crossed over to cast ballots for McAuliffe or Libertarian Robert Sarvis
The Republican nominee for governor won a plurality of male voters (48 percent), but well below the 51 percent that Romney won in the state last year. Cuccinelli would have gained an additional 48,000 votes if he had matched Romney’s percentage, much of which would have come from McAuliffe, thereby completely erasing the Democrat’s 55,100 victory margin. (See Virginia’s total vote here.) 
Add in white women (Romney won 59 percent of them in the state in 2012, while Cuccinelli won only 54 percent this year) or wealthy voters (Romney won 51 percent of voters earning at least $100,000 a year in Virginia in 2012, while Cuccinelli drew just 43 percent of them and lost the category to McAuliffe) and the Republican would have had a comfortable victory last week. 
And if you don’t want to focus on gender, the marital status numbers tell the same story. Romney won 55 percent of married voters in Virginia last year, while Cuccinelli won only 50 percent of them this year. That’s about 75,400 fewer married voters than a Romney-like Republican gubernatorial nominee should have drawn. 
Though you hear a lot about the changing face of the electorate, both nationally and in Virginia, that’s not why Cuccinelli lost last week. 
The Virginia election in 2013 was one where the Republican nominee would have won merely by attracting the votes of the same people who voted for Mitt Romney. The party’s candidate for governor did not need to improve his showing among young voters, African-Americans, Hispanics or unmarried women. He just needed to get white guys and their wives
That conclusion, which is based on an evaluation of all of the data, not on merely cherry-picking one or two variables, ought to be little comfort for Democratic strategists worrying about the makeup of the midterm electorate.

The real lesson is Cuccinelli was so awful a candidate, he lost Romney voters to Terry McAullffe.  Also, Rothenberg is trying to draw 2014 turnout from 2013 numbers?  Seems bizarre to me.

Personally, drawing too many lessons other than the one major one is pointless: when Dems show up and vote, they win.  When they don't, the GOP does.

Big Dog Tears Up The Furniture Again

The closer we get to a 2016 Hillary Clinton run, the more likely Big Dog Bill seems to take pot shots at President Obama.  This time around it's Obamacare, and of course the former president just has to take a swing at this pinata.

Former President Bill Clinton said in an interview published Tuesday that President Barack Obama should make sure Americans can keep their existing health plans, even if that means tweaking the Affordable Care Act.

"I personally believe, even if it takes a change to the law, the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got," Clinton told the site OZY in a recent interview
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) has introduced a bill that the House will vote on later this week. It would "grandfather" in all health insurance plans that existed as of Jan. 1, 2013, not March 23, 2010, meaning that insurers could continue to offer a number of plans that they have been forced to cancel under the Affordable Care Act. 
Clinton preceded his comments by telling the story of a man he met last week, who he said doesn't qualify for subsidies because he makes more than 400% above the federal poverty level. He has a wife and two children, and Clinton said his policy was canceled and replaced by one that doubled his premium.

"They are the ones who heard the promise, 'If you like what you've got, you can keep it,'" Clinton said.

Yanno Billy Boy, I distinctly recall you trying to fix the health care system about 20 years back when I was in college, and it blowing up in your face.  Glass presidencies, stones, man.

And people wonder why DEMOCRATS IN DISARRAY is a permanent fixture of our pundit class. Clinton is far from the only Democrat taking pot shots at Obamacare, too, but he's the one who should definitely know better.


Bad Stuff On The Internet Is Obama's Fault Too

The Wall Street Journal's editorial board does its part for fair, levelheaded assessment of the Most Hated Man In The History Of Everything, blaming Obamacare web site phishing scams on the President.

The tech squeeze is apparently so bad that chief U.S. technology officer Todd Park is too busy to testify before Congress. The House Oversight Committee is probing what went wrong in the development process, but Mr. Park can't attend the Wednesday hearing because he's "occupied full time on the critically important work of improving the website," according to a White House letter rebuffing the invitation.

Is Mr. Park personally rewriting code? Chairman Darrell Issa issued a subpoena compelling him to appear, and maybe he can also address the emerging problem of ObamaCare fraud. That includes the way the law was sold and rolled out, but especially the profusion of identity thieves and scam-artist pages that are now pretending to be Healthcare.gov and are tricking people into divulging sensitive information or buying fake products. Important consumer warning: If an insurance shopping website is usable, it's not the federal government's.

Durr hurr Obamacare is fraud!  Duur hurr anyone who got through got scammed!  We're so infinitely clever!

Look guys, what's your big plan to replace Obamacare that's so much better?  Maybe you should devote a few columns to that, instead of this junk.

StupidiNews!


Monday, November 11, 2013

Last Call For 40 Acres And A Moose Lady

Sarah Palin bravely compares the national debt to slavery because they're totally the same when your brain has frostbite.

In Iowa, Sarah Palin compared the federal debt she says shackles Americans to slavery.

The government, like a slick marketer, seductively offers “free” services, said Palin, a conservative provocateur and former vice presidential candidate who makes occasional, high-profile trips to politically-important Iowa.

“Our free stuff today is being paid for by taking money from our children and borrowing from China,” she said at the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition's fall fundraiser at the State Fairgrounds Saturday night. “When that money comes due – and this isn’t racist, but it’ll be like slavery when that note is due. We are going to beholden to the foreign master.”

Cause what's a little slavery comparison that smacks of anti-Chinese racism between friends?

She said told the Iowans, who have the ear of presidential candidates, that they reflect what’s good about America. "You’re unpretentious, hardworking, humble, very candid. You tell it like it is and you’ll tell a politician exactly what it is that you’re thinking," she said.

Conservatism, she said, is partly about “moving the poor and the underemployed out of poverty and out from the shackles of dependency on government.”

“We’re not wards of the state but free men and women who can live good and productive lives without D.C.’s appointed best and brightest telling us what to do,” she said.

To recap, long-time government employee is telling everyone that government is evil, so vote for these people who promise not to govern to run your government.  This advice coming from Gov. Quitty McHalfterm, who couldn't handle running Alaska.  Sure, you can trust her judgment!


The Next Battle For Our Veterans

Just a reminder this Veterans Day that the last decade has not been particularly kind to our men and women coming home from overseas or from stateside service, and that they face serious economic issues when transitioning back to civilian life.  Bryce Covert at Think Progress recaps the new battles our vets now face:

1. Unemployment: While all veterans currently have an unemployment rate of 6.9 percent compared to the national average of 7.3 percent, recent vets are clearly having a tough time getting a job. Those serving since September 2001 to the present have a rate of 10 percent, meaning 246,000 recent vets are out of work, a figure that has risen by 37,000 since last year. Recent female vets also have a higher rate than male ones, 11.6 percent compared to 9.6. Recent vets are also more likely to have a service-related disability than past periods — 28 percent versus 14 percent of all veterans — and of those, around 70 percent were in the workforce, compared to 87 percent of those without disabilities. While the unemployment rate for returning vets has been declining, the challenges they have faced in returning to the civilian workforce have been devastating and may be linked to higher suicide rates.

2. Poverty: In 2010, more than 986,000 veterans under age 64 had been in poverty during the previous year. Their exposure to poverty makes the safety net all the more crucial for veterans: One in five households that relies on the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) has a veteran in it, and they also rely on food stamps from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). That’s why the recent automatic SNAP cut is impacting about 900,000 veterans. LIHEAP is on the sequestration chopping block, while food stamps are likely to be cut even further during negotiations over the farm bill.

3. Homelessness: Veterans are disproportionately likely to experience homelessness. While they make up 7 percent of the general population, they are 13 percent of adults who are homeless. In a recent survey of homeless people in San Francisco, more than a quarter had served in the military, and on a given night in 2012, the Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates that over 62,000 veterans were without a home. While overall homeless vets tend to be heavily male, female veterans make up the fastest growing segment of the homeless population.

4. Mortgage problems: Foreclosure rates among members of the military have been very high since the crash in 2008, with more than 20,000 active-duty veterans and reservists with government-sponsored mortgages losing their homes in 2010. That figure was up 32 percent from 2008 and was the largest loss since 2003. Worse, up to 5,000 active members of the military may have been improperly foreclosed on thanks to robosigning and falsified paperwork and others were overcharged on their mortgages. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is on the case in protecting veterans, and President Obama announced a plan to address improper foreclosures in early 2012 that had a particular emphasis on helping military veterans.

America's veterans deserve better.  We asked them to sacrifice for our country and then we turned our backs on them.  While we're celebrating what it means to have served, let's remember that the contract with our country goes both ways, and that we as taxpayers need to return that favor.

It's Always About Power

What better way to signal you don't agree with a meeting of gun control activists in Dallas than gathering outside the meeting point, ready to ambush them with your open-carry firearms in order to terrorize the entire group?

On Saturday, nearly 40 armed men, women, and children waited outside a Dallas, Texas area restaurant to protest a membership meeting for the state chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a gun safety advocacy group formed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

According to a spokeswoman for Moms Demand Action (MDA), the moms were inside the Blue Mesa Grill when members of Open Carry Texas (OCT) — an open carry advocacy group — “pull[ed] up in the parking lot and start[ed] getting guns out of their trunks.” The group then waited in the parking lot for the four MDA members to come out. The spokeswoman said that the restaurant manager did not want to call 911, for fear of “inciting a riot” and waited for the gun advocates to leave. The group moved to a nearby Hooters after approximately two hours.

MDA later released a statement calling OCT “gun bullies” who “disagree[d] with our goal of changing America’s gun laws and policies to protect our children and families.” The statement added that the members and restaurant customers were “terrified by what appeared to be an armed ambush.” A member of OCT responded by tweeting, “I guess I’m a #gunbullies #Comeandtakeit.

This is not the first time that gun advocates have rallied at MDA events. In March, a group of armed men crashed a MDA gun-control rally in Indianapolis. Other gun advocate groups will hold rallies this upcoming December 14th, the anniversary date of the Sandy Hook shooting. 

This is all about power, like most bullying stories.  The message from OCT is simple: if you dare to hold a public meeting about gun control in the state, you're going to be harassed by a platoon of armed "concerned citizens".  That's not a recipe for disaster or anything, right?


open carry texas moms demand action gun

I wonder what the reaction of police would have been if all these "responsible gun owners" had been, you know, black or Latino.  Probably "Obama's Thug Army!11!!" all over Breitbart and Drudge, how there were now "roving gangs of Obama New Black Panther thugs" terrorizing the good white people of Texas, and Obama's DHS is clearly arming black people for a national uprising against Whitey.

40 white guys with guns in a parking lot?  Open carry protest because FREEDOM and who needs the government anyway?  40 black guys with guns in a parking lot?  They'd all have been killed and the government couldn't have gotten there fast enough to take care of the situation, and by "take care of" I mean shoot all the obvious dark-skinned terrorists.

So yes, this was domestic terrorism.  This was the response to say "Our second amendment right to bear arms beat your first amendment freedom of peaceful assembly rights because we have the guns, so screw you."  Also, the fact that we had multiple men with guns versus four unarmed women in a restaurant shouldn't be lost on anyone.

It's always about power with bullies.

[UPDATE]  As the Rumproast crew reminds us, Texas is NOT an open carry state for handguns, so some of these assholes were openly breaking the law on top of everything else.  So yes, everything in the above three paragraphs goes triple in that case.

StupidiNews, Veteran's Day Edition!


Sunday, November 10, 2013

Last Call For Breaking All The Rules

Can you imagine the uproar if Democrats in Virginia did this?

Already shaping up to be one of the closest races in state history, a last-minute rule change is stirring up the recount to decide who will become Virginia's next attorney general. 
The Daily Press of Newport News, Va. reported Friday that Republican candidate Mark Obenshain had an unofficial lead of just under 1,300 votes over Democratic challenger Mark Herring. That tally did not include full provisional ballot totals, and as of Saturday, a fresh rule change was complicating matters. 
According to a report by WTOP radio, the Virginia State Board Of Elections decided Friday to change rules relevant to Fairfax County, banning legal representatives from helping count votes, unless the associated voter was actually present. The board changing the rules is dominated by Republicans.

What that means is any provisional ballots in Fairfax County will only now be counted if the person who voted shows up in person to confirm they cast it.  Wonder why?  It's a county where the election board is controlled by the GOP, but the county voted 60%+ for Obama in 2012.  It's safe to say Republicans fully expect to disenfranchise more Democratic votes than Republican ones, and in a race that could be decided by a handful votes, that's all that may be necessary to give Republican Mark Obenshain the victory as the state's next Attorney General.

By the way, Mark's sister Kate is a Fox News commentator and author of Divider-in-Chief: The Fraud of Hope and Change, another fine book from the wonderful folks at wingnut crack house Regnery Publishing. Apparently she has no problem with her brother cheating to win.  Funny how that works.

But remember, eeeeeeevil Obama and his buddies are the real fascists who will do anything to gain power because ACORN.

Post-Racial America Update

Remember, the Supreme Court says that we live in a post-racial society, so legal protections based on race aren't necessary anymore.

A controversial neo-Nazi rally was held in downtown Kansas City Saturday afternoon. 
The National Socialist Movement said it was protesting America's immigration laws. 
KMBC's Matt Evans said the protest was scheduled for 3 p.m. at the Jackson County Courthouse, but the majority of the group did not show up until 4 p.m. 
The National Socialist Movement said it picked Kansas City because of what it calls strong support. 
"We're strong in the state and in the area, so naturally we go into areas where we are quite strong and have a good base of support," said Jeff Schoep, of the National Socialist Movement. "The Kansas City area has been very good to us and we have a lot of supporters and a lot of friends here. It's a good location for us and that's why we're here."

Gosh, isn't it nice that we live in a society where hardcore racists can safely and freely express their views that non-whites like me are sub-human animals that need to be driven out of America?  Should you agree with that, apparently Kansas City is the place to live.  Quite the selling point, having a "good base of support" for neo-Nazi militia types.

But hey, there's no evidence of organized efforts to go after non-whites in 2013 America, so you don't need any civil rights or voting rights legislation.  We're past that now, you see.

The New Bar For Stupidity

National Review's Andrew McCarthy lives up to his last name and calls for the impeachment of President Obama over "If you like your health plan".  Also, Benghazi!

Barack Obama is guilty of fraud — serial fraud — that is orders of magnitude more serious than frauds the Justice Department routinely prosecutes, and that courts punish harshly. The victims will be out billions of dollars, quite apart from other anxiety and disruption that will befall them. 
The president will not be prosecuted, of course, but that is immaterial. As discussed here before, the remedy for profound presidential corruption is political, not legal. It is impeachment and removal. “High crimes and misdemeanors” — the Constitution’s predicate for impeachment — need not be indictable offenses under the criminal code. “They relate chiefly,” Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 65, “to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” They involve scandalous breaches of the public trust by officials in whom solemn fiduciary duties are reposed — like a president who looks Americans in the eye and declares, repeatedly, that they can keep their health insurance plans . . . even as he studiously orchestrates the regulatory termination of those plans; even as he shifts blame to the insurance companies for his malfeasance — just as he shifted blame to a hapless video producer for his shocking dereliction of duty during the Benghazi massacre.

He then goes on to complain that cowardly Republicans don't have "the stomach" to do it, but the Democrats should still be really scared because voters will certainly remove anyone who backs the President in 2014 and 2016.

Of course McCarthy's right.  Just ask Presidents McCain and Romney.

Saturday, November 9, 2013

60 Minutes Left In Your Credibility

Looks like last Sunday's 60 Minutes hatchet job on Benghazi is falling apart faster than CBS reporter Lara Logan's reputation.

CBS correspondent Lara Logan apologized to viewers Friday for a disputed "60 Minutes" report on the Benghazi attack and said the program would issue a correction. 
"Today the truth is that we made a mistake," Logan said on "CBS This Morning." 
At the center of the dispute is Dylan Davies, a British security contractor who under a pseudonym gave "60 Minutes" a heroic account of his involvement in the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya. After the program aired, the Washington Postand the New York Times discovered contradictions between the account Davies gave "60 Minutes" and the descriptions of the attack the contractor gave to his employer and to the FBI. 
Those reports raised questions about whether Davies was actually present at the Benghazi compound on the night of the attack, casting doubt onto the contractor's credibility as a source. 
CBS issued a statement Thursday that said the network had learned of "new information" undercutting Davies' account and was looking into the matter. 
Logan told viewers that the program took Davies' vetting "very seriously," but that the contractor "misled" them. 
"We were wrong to put him on air," Logan said.

Of course, the real issue is that this now discredited Benghazi bombshell was cited by several Republicans as the reason they were going to filibuster judicial nominations this week, and did so, blocking nominations for one DC Circuit Court judge and threatening more.

But no big deal, right?  Media's in the tank for Obama, right?  Oh, but it gets worse for CBS.  The book that Davies wrote?  CBS owns publisher Simon and Schuster, who printed the book.

Simon & Schuster has pulled The Embassy House after author "Morgan Jones" (real name Dylan Davies) was exposed as giving contradictory statements about his whereabouts on the night of the 2012 Benghazi attacks. Earlier today, 60 Minutes reporter Lara Logan apologized for airing Davies' account in an October 27 report. 
Threshold Editions, a conservative imprint of Simon & Schuster, said in a statement from spokesperson Jennifer Robinson: "In light of information that has been brought to our attention since the initial publication of THE EMBASSY HOUSE, we have withdrawn from publication and sale all formats of this book, and are recommending that booksellers do the same. We also are notifying accounts that they may return the book to us."

Threshold Editions released The Embassy House on October 29, two days after 60 Minutes ran a segment featuring Davies and his claims about his activities on September 11, 2012. The 60 Minutes report rehashed old myths about Benghazi, including the debunked claim that there's a "lingering question" about why no U.S. military forces from outside the Libya were able to help the diplomatic facilities.

60 Minutes' report on Davies and Benghazi failed to disclose that Simon & Schuster is owned by CBS. Lara Logan later conceded to The New York Times that the program should have disclosed the financial connection.

So yes, the "exclusive interview" with the author of the book that was Logan's "Benghazi bombshell" was really CBS just hyping the book it owned the publisher for, with an imprint dedicated to putting out right-wing propaganda, and CBS then knowingly ran with a false story to attack Democrats.

The network cooked this Benghazi falsehood up from conception, published the book, then hyped the book and its garbage on 60 Minutes in order to appeal to wingers.

A former "60 Minutes" producer who was fired over a 2004 story about then-President George W. Bush's service in the Air National Guard said Friday that CBS' now retracted story about the attack in Benghazi, Libya was done to appeal to conservatives.

"My concern is that the story was done very pointedly to appeal to a more conservative audience's beliefs about what happened at Benghazi," Mary Mapes told Media Matters. "They appear to have done that story to appeal specifically to a politically conservative audience that is obsessed with Benghazi and believes that Benghazi was much more than a tragedy."

But "liberal media" and everything.

Healthcare Dot Hack

When anything and everything the government does becomes "an affront on individual freedom" to some, then the enemy becomes government itself.  That of course justifies any and every measure in response, morality be damned.

Researchers have uncovered software available on the Internet designed to overload the struggling Healthcare.gov website with more traffic than it can handle.

"ObamaCare is an affront to the Constitutional rights of the people," a screenshot from the tool, which was acquired by researchers at Arbor Networks, declares. "We HAVE the right to CIVIL disobedience!"

In a blog post published Thursday, Arbor researcher Marc Eisenbarth said there's no evidence Healthcare.gov has withstood any significant denial-of-service attacks since going live last month. He also said the limited request rate, the lack of significant distribution, and other features of the tool's underlying code made it unlikely that it could play a significant role in taking down the site. The tool is designed to put a strain on the site by repeatedly alternating requests to the https://www.healthcare.gov and https:www.healthcare.gov/contact-us addresses. If enough requests are made over a short period of time, it can overload some of the "layer 7" applications that the site relies on to make timely responses.

A relatively simple tool designed to specifically break the federal health care exchange web site.




People trying to sign up for health insurance? Who cares when you can watch the world burn and "Destroy Obama Care"?

StupidiNews, Weekend Edition!


Related Posts with Thumbnails