[HT:VR]
I can't believe that no one believes me.
.
.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Omission Watch: ABC, CBS and NBC Ignore Pelosi’s Torture Hypocrisy
ABC, CBS and NBC have said nothing about the Speaker’s shifting stories, or the potential hypocrisy of her once supporting (or at least not objecting to) policies that she would later condemn as illegal “torture.”
The current round of stories began April 22, after the Obama administration released selected memos from the Bush administration on the legal limits to interrogation. That night, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell offered a brief mention of how Pelosi was one of those who had been told:“Members of Congress were briefed at the time and reportedly didn’t dissent, including intelligence committee leaders Nancy Pelosi, Porter Goss, Bob Graham and Richard Shelby.”
ABC and CBS said nothing about Pelosi that night.
READ MORE
Still the Biggest Missing Story in Politics
.
In August of last year I wrote an article, "The Biggest Missing Story in Politics," which reviewed the single most important datum in the last thirteen Battleground Polls over a period stretching from early 2002 to late 2008. The critical fact, completely ignored by almost everyone, was that in answering Question D3, which asked the respondent what he considered his ideology to be, sixty percent of the American people described themselves as "conservative" or "very conservative."
In every single Battleground Poll, conservatives vastly outnumbered not only liberals, but moderates and undecided respondents combined. The Battleground Poll itself is a bipartisan poll, combining the resources of the Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners. Unlike many polls driven by newspapers, networks, or other agenda driven organizations, this poll is one of the few which has no ideological agenda or partisan bias.
The last Battleground Poll, which came out after my article, no longer revealed the answer to Question D3. Did that mean that America, suddenly, stopped being an overwhelmingly conservative nation and had been seduced by Obama into being moderate or Leftist? No. The Tarrance Group did reveal the ideological breakdown of Americans, although in a different way than in the thirteen prior Battleground Polls.
Those earlier polls had asked people to describe themselves as "very conservative," "somewhat conservative," "moderate," "don't know," "somewhat liberal," or "very liberal." Those who chose "very conservative" or "somewhat conservative" were as low in some of the thirteen polls as 58% of the nation and as high in other polls as 63% of the nation, and the average of the polls was a rock solid 60%, year in and year out.
The Tarrance Group chose to look at ideology differently in its post-election poll. Respondents were asked to refine their definition of "conservative." So instead of being asked about the intensity of their ideology (i.e. "very conservative" versus "somewhat conservative"), the Battleground Poll changed the question.
Two questions replace the old Question D3. Now Americans were asked on social issues if they were "very conservative," "somewhat conservative," "moderate," "somewhat liberal" or "very liberal" as well as on fiscal issues if they were "very conservative," "somewhat conservative," "moderate," "somewhat liberal," or "very liberal." The Tarrance Group also provided data on the answers to this question within political parties.
The responses illuminated some aspects of the prior polls, but the over all result was the same: Americans, overwhelmingly, are conservative. There were some differences between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. Twenty-six percent of Americans call themselves "very conservative" on fiscal issues and forty-three percent consider themselves "somewhat conservative" on fiscal issues. One percent of America is moderate on fiscal issues -- that vital "center" of American politics! -- and three percent "don't know." Twenty-two percent of Americans are "somewhat liberal" on fiscal issues, and a piddling five percent of Americans are "very liberal" on fiscal issues. When the mushy "moderate" and "don't know" respondents are excluded, fiscal conservatives outnumber fiscal liberals by seventy-four percent to twenty-six percent.
Social conservatives are the clear majority of America too, although the numbers are not quite as overwhelming. Thirty-four percent of America, more than one person in three, is "very conservative" on social issues and nineteen percent are "somewhat conservative" on social issues. One percent is moderate on social issues - again, that vital "center" of American politics! - and seven percent "don't know." Twenty percent are "somewhat liberal" on social issues and nineteen percent are "very liberal" on social issues. When the mushy "don't know" and moderates are taken out, social conservatives outnumber social liberals fifty-nine percent to forty-one percent.
Tarrance also helps explain what Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are so popular with Republicans. Seventy-four percent of Republicans are both social and fiscal conservatives. Ninety-one percent of Republicans are fiscal conservative. And seventy-seven percent of Republicans are social conservatives.
Any effort to change the Republican brand ought to begin with that dramatic fact.
What about Obama's own political party, the Democrats? Only forty-two percent of Democrats are both social liberals and fiscal liberals. Perhaps more amazing, twenty-three percent of Democrats, almost one in four, describe themselves as both social conservative and fiscal conservative. Forty-seven percent of Democrats describe themselves as fiscal conservatives, and thirty-four percent of Democrats describe themselves as social conservatives. Fifty-eight percent of Democrats consider themselves either a fiscal conservative or a social conservative or both.
These results, more detailed and more informative than past responses to Question D3 in previous Battleground Polls, do not alter the profoundly conservative character of the American electorate at all.
A social conservative, who was perceived as a social conservative running against a social liberal, would win an easy majority of the American people in any election. A fiscal conservative, who was perceived as a fiscal conservative running against a fiscal liberal, would win a landslide greater than any in the history of these two political parties. A candidate perceive as both a social conservative and a fiscal conservative would win one quarter of the Democrat Party vote, if the Democrat was perceived as a liberal, and sweep the nation easily.
In fact, if a Democrat ran for his party's nomination as a conservative - and if the other candidates for the nomination were perceived as liberals - he ought to be able to compete for the fifty-eight percent of Democrats who were social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, or both. The biggest story in American politics has been answered again, with the data even more detailed and refined.
The answer is the same - just the same - America is still, in every way and from every vantage, a conservative nation.
[So how in the world do liberals compete ideologically?
A: Because so many Americans get their news from TV, where all things are contorted.
This is also why the MSM is working overtime portraying conservatism as the Republican party's 'problem', and ceaselessly attacking folks like Sarah Palin: because if the party can nurture another Reagan, they know what will happen...]
READ MORE
'Many Republicans Wince' at Cheney -- And They're All Anonymous?
On the occasion of President Obama reversing course on plans to release photographs "depicting the abuse of detainees," a decision wildly unpopular on the hard left, The Washington Post's lead story Thursday was "As Cheney Seizes Spotlight, Many Republicans Wince." There's only one obvious problem with Dan Balz's front-pager. Those "many Republicans" are too timid to attach their names to all the wincing.
[It's all horse pucky: the left fears the true conservative {reference Palin} because they know we're essentially a center-right country by a near 2:1 ratio - hence plan B: depict the Republican party as needing to move left to be re-elected - you know, just as it worked out with McCain...]
READ MORE
APs Cheney Analysis: We Read His Mind And Decided What He Really Means
Did you know that former vice president Dick Cheney is speaking out only because he is trying to protect his legacy? Well just in case you wondered about it Steven Hurst for the Associated Press wants to assure that he has read Cheney's mind and it's all settled. This is what passes for "analysis" at the AP.
The AP has also decided that Cheney speaking out causes "chagrin" in a GOP trying to "rebuild the tattered party." Additionally, he AP throws out that much bandied liberal canard that Cheney is dishonoring "protocol" by speaking out because, you see, former chief executives always remain silent about presidents that follow them. Right Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore? Riiiight?
Oh, and one more thing: did you know that Cheney was "unpopular"? Well, just in case you forgot, the AP kindly reminds you. After reading this anti-Cheney attack piece, one wonders if the AP is now just letting White House flacks write its copy for it. It probably saves the AP some time, anyway.
READ MORE
Psychologists Told CIA Waterboarding Was Safe
There is new scrutiny into the role of two psychologists who oversaw and and advised the CIA's interrogation of captured terrorists.
Both men, doctors Jim Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, assured the CIA that their methods could 'break' a terrorist and would be safe, according to two former high-ranking CIA officials and a collection of recently declassified Bush administration memos.
READ MORE
Nobody Wants a Terrorist For a Neighbor
President Barack Obama made a serious mistake when he decided to close the U.S. prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without first figuring out where to put the 240 detainees held there.
Most of these people are hard-core jihadists whose main goal in life is to kill Americans. Obama can call it an “overseas contingency operation,” but for the Gitmo detainees it is a declared war against us and terrorism is their weapon of choice...
READ MORE
Foreign 'Torture' Probe's Threat to US
PRESIDENT Obama's passivity before the threatened foreign prosecution of Bush administration officials achieves by inaction what he fears doing directly. This may be smart politics in the Democratic Party, but it risks grave long-term damage to America...
[Party before country.]
READ MORE
Obama: Islam Has Shaped the U.S.A.
Undeniably the Islamic faith has done a great deal to shape the world – a statement that makes no value judgment about exactly how it has shaped the world. It has formed the dominant culture in what is known as the Islamic world for centuries. But what on earth could Obama mean when he says that Islam has also “done so much” to shape his own country?
Surveying the whole tapestry of American history, one would be hard-pressed to find any significant way in which the Islamic faith has shaped the United States in terms of its governing principles and the nature of American society. Meanwhile, there are numerous ways in which, if there had been a significant Muslim presence in the country at the time, some of the most cherished and important principles of American society and law may have met fierce resistance, and may never have seen the light of day.
So in what way has the Islamic faith shaped Obama’s country? The most significant event connected to the Islamic faith that has shaped the character of the United States was the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
The Islamic faith has shaped the U.S. since 9/11 in leading to the spending of billions on anti-terror measures, and to the ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to Guantanamo, and to so many features of the modern political and social landscape that they cannot be enumerated within the space of a single article...
READ MORE
'Angels & Demons' Film Adaptation Scratches Muslim Villain
In the forthcoming release of "Angels & Demons", there's a politically correct element to the movie adaptation of the Dan Brown novel that's worth noting: Hollywood's aversion to portraying radical Muslims as the bad guys.
From Christian film critic Dr. Ted Baehr's May 14 review (h/t Townhall's Greg Hengler; emphasis mine):
... Also unlike the book, the assassin henchman of the mad clergyman in the movie is not a rabid Muslim as he is in the novel, but a very lapsed Catholic.
This is nothing new, of course.
Take, for example, 2002's "Sum of All Fears," an adaptation of the Tom Clancy novel by the same name, where the novel's chief villains were changed from Palestinians bent on subverting American support for Israel to neo-Nazis hoping to trigger a nuclear war that would destroy the U.S. and Russia out of a desire to avenge the demise of Hitler's Third Reich.
READ MORE
Poll: Pick Supreme Court Justice Based On Experience
Americans think judicial experience should be the most important factor in selecting the next Supreme Court justice, far outdistancing other qualities such as the nominee's race, gender, sexual preference, and issue positions.
60 percent to 26 percent Americans think the Supreme Court should interpret the U.S. Constitution based on what the Framers meant when they wrote it rather than on what feels appropriate in today's world.
READ MORE
AP Blows The Deficit Reporting, Part II: The Invisible April Receipts Dive
In Part I of my coverage of Martin Crutsinger's Associated Press report about Uncle Sam's Monthly Treasury Statement and the Obama administration's deficit projections, I noted that the government "miraculously" shrunk the deficit through March, the first six months of its fiscal year, by $175 billion, by employing an "accounting change."
Even though this "accounting change," which does not report TARP disbursements as outlays because they are considered "investments," violates fundamental cash-flow reporting principles, Crutsinger gave the change an unskeptical treatment. He also failed to tell readers whether the administration used the old or new method in calculating its latest full-year deficit projection of $1.84 trillion.
If Team Obama used the new method to determine it, the deficit under the old and more correct method will more than likely be over $2 trillion.
Crutsinger also failed to report the steep dive in federal receipts that took place in April, which is the government's highest month for collections, compared to last year's all-time record April haul, which I referred to as the "Supply-Side Stunner," and which Crutsinger and others also failed to report when it occurred last year.
Here is how April 2009 collections compared to April of 2008...
[Anyone who thinks Obama's tax and spend policies are working isn't looking past them to businesses' interpretation of his plans: they're bailing.]
READ MORE
Trash the environment or give up on green
As the idea of "renewable" energy gets its first serious vetting, many are pointing out that there are environmental tradeoffs in going green just as there are in drilling or transporting oil:
Renewable-energy development, which the Obama administration has made a priority, is posing conflicts between economic interests and environmental concerns, not entirely unlike the way offshore oil and gas development pits economics against environment. But because of 'concerns about climate', many environmentalists and government agencies could find themselves straddling both sides, especially in Western states where the federal government is a major landowner.
This is a dirty little secret that outfits like NRDC has known for years but somehow never managed to mention it when trashing oil and gas development. The cost to the environment is relative when you begin to calculate the enormous size that these more inefficient methods of producing energy are used.
And what about the manufacture of solar cells? The process uses extremely hazardous chemicals and as we know, accidents happen in both the manufacturing and storage process.
It's why liberals never debated this subject honestly.
READ MORE
Obama energy options may be long wait
President Obama's plan to move quickly to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources relies on technology that analysts agree is neither affordable nor available on a commercial scale and won't be for many years to come.
Expensive, small-scale pilot projects are under way that convert vegetation into fuel for cars (snip)have not been proved at levels that would make even a dent in the U.S. appetite for fossil fuels...
READ MORE
Let's get real about alternative energy
(CNN) -- We need to introduce simple arithmetic into our discussions of energy. Our failure to talk straight about the numbers is allowing people to persist in wishful thinking, inspired by inane sayings such as "every little bit helps." [snip]
In total, the European lifestyle uses 125 kWh per day per person for transport, heating, manufacturing, and electricity. That's equivalent to every person having 125 light bulbs switched on all the time. The average American uses 250 kWh per day: 250 light bulbs.
And most of this energy today comes from fossil fuels. What are our post-fossil-fuel options? [snip]
- To supply 42 kWh per day per person from solar power requires roughly 80 square meters per person of solar panels.
- To deliver 42 kWh per day per person from wind for everyone in the United States would require wind farms with a total area roughly equal to the area of California, a 200-fold increase in United States wind power.
- To get 42 kWh per day per person from nuclear power would require 525 one-gigawatt nuclear power stations, a roughly five-fold increase over today's levels.
I hope these numbers convey the scale of action required to put in place a sustainable energy solution. The sober message about wind and solar applies to all renewables: All renewables, much as I love them, deliver only a small power per unit area, so if we want renewable facilities to supply power on a scale at all comparable to our consumption, those facilities must be vast.
The public discussion of energy options tends to be emotional, polarized, mistrustful and destructive. I hope that focusing attention on the numbers may make it possible to develop honest and constructive conversations about energy.
David MacKay is a professor of physics at the University of Cambridge. His book, "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air," is published by UIT Cambridge and is also available in electronic form for free from http://www.withouthotair.com/.
READ MORE
When Doctors Opt Out
We already know what government-run health care looks like.
Here's something that has gotten lost in the drive to institute universal health insurance: Health insurance doesn't automatically lead to health care. And with more and more doctors dropping out of one insurance plan or another, especially government plans, there is no guarantee that you will be able to see a physician no matter what coverage you have.
Consider that the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission reported in 2008 that 28% of Medicare beneficiaries looking for a primary care physician had trouble finding one, up from 24% the year before. The reasons are clear: A 2008 survey by the Texas Medical Association, for example, found that only 38% of primary-care doctors in Texas took new Medicare patients. The statistics are similar in New York state, where I practice medicine.
More and more of my fellow doctors are turning away Medicare patients because of the diminished reimbursements and the growing delay in payments. The problem is even worse with Medicaid. A 2005 Community Tracking Physician survey showed that only 50% of physicians accept this insurance. I am now one of the ones who doesn't take it. I realized a few years ago that it wasn't worth the money to file the paperwork for the $25 or less that I received for an office visit. [snip]
Bottom line: None of the current plans, government or private, provide my patients with the care they need. And the care that is provided is increasingly expensive and requires a big battle for approvals.
Of course, we're promised by the Obama administration that universal health insurance will avoid all these problems. But how is that possible when you consider that the medical turnstiles will be the same as they are now, only they will be clogged with more and more patients?
The doctors that remain in this expanded system will be even more overwhelmed than we are now. I wouldn't want to be a patient when that happens.
READ MORE
Senate eyes tax change to pay for health insurance
WASHINGTON - Experts urged Congress on Tuesday to cut tax breaks for employer-sponsored health insurance as a way to help pay to cover people without benefits.
The Senate Finance Committee, which is taking a lead in writing legislation to overhaul the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system, is weighing spending cuts and tax increases to help cover the cost of expanding coverage to uninsured people...
READ MORE
Smokers, drinkers to carry tax burden?
If you make big bucks — or enjoy alcohol, cigarettes and Coke — the government might hit you up to pay for fixing the nation’s health care system.
On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee peeked into vending machines and liquor stores, company payrolls and health savings accounts, looking for a mix of tax increases to pay for a health overhaul — which could cost more than $1.5 trillion over 10 years.
Experts thought the big debate might be public plan vs. no public plan. But that may well pale in comparison to the difficulty of settling on a way to finance health care reform.“I wish there were a number of painless options,”
Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, wrote in his prepared testimony.
“There aren’t.”
[We're going to ruin the worlds best health care system for the overwhelming majority of us and give our government unimagined power over our lives in the process. We really shouldn't let them do it.]
READ MORE
[Then ACT >
"Oppose government run healthcare"
Obama transition http://www.change.gov/page/s/contact
Your Congressman https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml
Your Senator http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
.
[for now....]
image toon - lbrty bdd libs - Children alarmed by Dems taxing bad behavior
White House Czar Calls for End to 'War on Drugs'
The Obama administration's new drug czar says he wants to banish the idea that the U.S. is fighting "a war on drugs," a move that would underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce illicit drug use. (Snip) Gil Kerlikowske said Wednesday the bellicose analogy was a barrier to dealing with the nation's drug issues.
[Another war magically ended - if only we'd known it was that easy.]
READ MORE
Left can't stand right-thinking beauty
SHE was not stripped of her crown. But Miss California Carrie Prejean -- the beauty queen who had the gall to speak out against gay marriage -- was stripped of her innocence.
There is no free speech in politically correct America.
[Untrue: there is for some...]
READ MORE
Couple's 'buy black' experiment becomes a movement
ATLANTA (AP) - It's been two months since 2-year-old Cori pulled the gold stud from her left earlobe, and the piercing is threatening to close as her mother, Maggie Anderson, hunts for a replacement. It's not that the earring was all that rare—but finding the right store has become a quest of Quixotic proportions. (snip)would try to patronize only black-owned businesses.
[And if a white couple did likewise?]
READ MORE
A slogan for our times
Was walking up Broadway and saw a sign touting a group called Earth Justice. Their slogan: “Because the earth needs a good lawyer.” I thought that this combined two important elements of modern life nicely, and chillingly: environmentalism, probably of an extreme variety; and litigation. Could there be anything more American, in 2009? Environmental litigation?
By the way, people — real live people — need good lawyers, too. For example, to protect them from environmentalist takings. Will those lawyers be supplied?
READ MORE
Cheney Advises GOP Against Moderation
“I think it would be a mistake for us to moderate. This is about fundamental beliefs and values and ideas … what the role of government should be in our society, and our commitment to the Constitution and constitutional principles.
You know, when you add all those things up, the idea that we ought to moderate basically means we ought to fundamentally change our philosophy. I for one am not prepared to do that, and I think most of us aren’t.
Most Republicans have a pretty good idea of values, and aren’t eager to have someone come along and say, 'Well, the only way you can win is if you start to act more like a Democrat.'"
READ MORE
Liberal Taliban Issues Fatwa Against Miss California
Not even Dick Cheney can incite the blood-curdling rage of liberals at the sight of a sexy Evangelical Christian. Paula Jones, Katherine Harris, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin and, most recently, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, have all come under a frenzy of attacks from liberals.
Christians are supposed to be fat, balding sweaty little men with bad complexions. It's liberals who are supposed to be the sexy ones...
READ MORE
[The less humorous aspect to the above point is that all the 'testicular fortitude' in the Republican party seems to be in the sole possession of the fairer sex - it's in serious need of Wilsonizing.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
