Banner ad

Friday, November 02, 2012

Cruising the Web

Charles Krauthammer hits home what is at stake in this election.

Jake Tapper writes of the steady "drip, drip, drip" of information that we've received on the attack on Benghazi and all the questions that the White House is refusing to answer. Sadly, Obama is getting away with stonewalling while pretending to wait for an investigation to be completed after the election. But he doesn't need much of an investigation to tell us what was done in the White House, State Department, Pentagon, and CIA here in Washington, D.C. He should be demanding answers not waiting a couple of months for the news to come out. Sadly, the media have been mostly compliant in allowing Obama to continue his stonewall in order to allow the election to proceed without a full accounting to the American people of what did and didn't happen. But there are cracks in that stonewall so CBS, as well as Fox, reported last night that Obama never convened the Counterterrorism Security Group which is the rapid-reaction group set up to coordinate action in such a foreign emergency.
Information shared with CBS News from top counterterrorism sources in the government and military reveal keen frustration over the U.S. response on Sept. 11, the night Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in a coordinated attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya.

The circumstances of the attack, including the intelligence and security situation there, will be the subject of a Senate Intelligence Committee closed hearing on Nov. 15, with additional hearings to follow.

Counterterrorism sources and internal emails reviewed by CBS News express frustration that key responders were ready to deploy, but were not called upon to help in the attack.
Perhaps the very name of the group as "Counterterrorism" was why he didn't convene it. Obama started off wanting to deny that the attack on the consulate was terrorism. It's hard to continue saying it is about a video if you've convened the Counterterrorism Security Group.

Peggy Noonan laments how Barack Obama squandered the opportunity facing him when he first came into office. It all comes down to Obama's arrogance and self-love.
It is one thing to think you're Lebron. Its another thing to keep missing the basket and losing games and still think you're Lebron.

And that really was the problem: He had the confidence without the full capability. And he gathered around him friends and associates who adored him, who were themselves talented but maybe not quite big enough for the game they were in. They understood the Democratic Party, its facts and assumptions. But they weren't America-sized. They didn't get the country so well.

It is a mystery why the president didn't second-guess himself more, doubt himself. Instead he kept going forward as if it were working.
Matthew Continetti has a sobering look at the challenges facing whichever candidate wins on Tuesday and makes the argument how Romney is better suited to tackle the mess awaiting the winner.

Reid Wilson has a dispassionate look at how the parties have different assumptions built into their turnout models for the election and that is why we've seen such striking differences in polls. In Ohio, the Republicans are in the position of trying to argue that all the polls showing Obama ahead are working from a poor turnout model that assumes Obama will replicate the turnout of Democratic voters that he had in 2008. And the rest of us are left trying to game out which side's vision of turnout is correct.

Meanwhile, Jay Cost says, don't look at the head-to-head matchups in the polls. Look at how each candidate stands on the economy and who is winning independents.

Charlie Cook argues that the difference between the swing state polls and the national polls is that the swing states saw all those negative ads attacking Romney all summer long and so it is harder for those voters to be comfortable voting for Romney. Whichever way the election turns out, there will be a lot of second guessing about that Obama strategy and the Romney choice to hold his fire in the face of that barrage. If Romney wins, it will look like a smart decision. If he loses, it will look like a major error.

It's the battle of the candy lobby against the sugar lobby and the consumer is losing.

The Obama administration is trying to stave off further media questions with a "modified limited hang out."

Lovely. Non-union utility crews who came up from Alabama to help restore power in New Jersey were turned away from helping by N.J. crews because they aren't union members. Virginia crews are ready to come up and help but have been told their non-union help isn't needed. Now we see what union workers truly care about. Doesn't Chris Christie have something to say about that?

9 comments:

mark said...

Fortunate for Krauthammer that repubs pulled the study showing the fallacy of tax cuts stimulating the economy.


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-01/news/sns-rt-us-usa-taxesbre8a01nv-20121101_1_crs-kim-dixon-tax-report

mark said...

Then again, perhaps the non-unions story is just another lie fabricated by conservatives and passed on as fact:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/02/1154298/-Utility-companies-and-electrical-union-reject-rumors-that-non-union-crews-banned-from-storm-relief

pumping-irony said...

Gee, do you think that it's stretching the bounds of credulity a bit to refute stories produced by "biased" conservative sources by quoting the Daily Kos? What's the matter, Media Matters too busy researching dog yawning?

BTW, the non-union story also appeared on Yahoo, hardly a bastion of conservative bias.

mark said...

pumping-iron,
You're quite the sleuth. Are you sure your initials don't stand for Private Investigator?
No, of course Daily Kos is not unbiased. However, it linked to a story by an Alabama news site, which quoted a utility spokesman who exposed the lie repubs are trying to sell.
Of course, perhaps he's a liberal "agent provocateur". I've heard Alabama is crazy with 'em.

Dr Weevil said...

If anyone is wondering why 'mark' didn't link directly to the "Alabama news site", it may be because the second paragraph of the story confirmed what Betsy wrote. The original stories never claimed that all Alabama crews were turned away from all disaster areas. They said that one company's crews were told that they couldn't do repair work at a particular location in New Jersey because they were non-union. So what does the story 'mark' fails to link to say? (Here's the link.) The first paragraph quotes managers from two Alabama companies denying that they had been prevented from helping, but one of them was working in Long Island, not New Jersey, and the other is already unionized. The second paragraph (omitted by DailyKos) reads:

"The general manager of the other department mentioned, Decatur Utilities, has since verified claims that his workers were asked to affiliate with a union."

That's a namby-pamby way of confirming the original story, which said that Alabama workers were told that if they did not pay the local union, they would not be allowed to work.

Now let's see if 'mark' can continue this argument without dragging in and grossly misrepresenting anything I wrote on entirely different subjects months or years ago. I don't think he can, but I'm ready to be proved wrong.

mark said...

Weevil,
Perhaps you need P.I.'S investigative skills. Daily Kos linked to the same article you did. It did not omit anything.

The beauty of freedom of speech is that you and I can say pretty much whatever we like. Because I think it pertains to your judgment and honesty, I can continue to bring up your bizarre speculation that the Secret Service left Obama surrounded by children because they thought a terrorist dressed as a teacher or janitor might be lurking in the school on 9/11. And I can mock your pathetic "debunking" of the harm of climate change by calculating people spitting x number of times per day x number of years. Perhaps you're embarrassed, but don't lie about what you wrote.
You on the other hand, can call me a vile, despicable, stupid person, and then whine "what have I done to mark? why does he hate me?". Worse than being a lie, it's a pathetic one.
Stop sniveling, and appreciate all our great country offers two dopes like us.

Dr Weevil said...

'mark' once again demonstrates what a "vile, despicable, stupid person" he really is. Does that sound harsh? Consider the evidence:

1. It is simply untrue to say that Daily Kos "did not omit anything". As I pointed out, they omitted the second paragraph of the Alabama story, which refutes their whole story and demonstrates that they were wrong to accuse Republicans of lying about what happened in NJ. Anyone can follow the links and see that this is so.

2. Even after I predicted that he would resort to his usual ad hominems, he couldn't restrain himself from doing just that, not even for one comment, but trotted out the same stale misrepresentations of what I have written in the past about other topics. Even if I were wrong on those matters, that wouldn't make me wrong here. 'mark' always trots out the same two examples: even someone who has been wrong twice before (I wasn't) may still be right on the point at hand, and it is dishonest to avoid argument with ridiculous ad hominems. I addressed his arguments, why can't he address mine? Are they really so irrefutable as that?

3. As he always does, he reverses the sequence and pretends that I have earned his insults by calling him a liar. I never call him a liar until he lies. He routinely calls me a liar, as he does here, to avoid meeting my arguments, and I always give him another chance, criticizing him (as I did on this thread) in measured tones and only pointing out his stupid lies after he replies with stupid lies (as he did here). What a disgusting little man he is.

mark said...

Oh, weevil,
As I stated, the daily kos linked to the entire article, not just part of it. If you clicked on the words "it's not true" in the original post, you opened the whole article.

"But at least two of the southern utility companies being mentioned in these rumors say it's not true:"

Strange how you always initiate communication with me, and then whine about what a terrible person I am.
Are you one of those people who seeks abusive relationships?

Dr Weevil said...

Strange how 'mark' hasn't noticed that I only "initiate communication" with him by sometimes politely criticizing things he writes here that are untrue. I dislike seeing blatant untruths disseminated.

Even stranger that he's already forgotten that he went out of his way to insult me in the previous comment thread (8:23pm comment), on which I had not, and still have not, commented. Is he "one of those people who seeks [sic] abusive relationships"? His complaint here looks like pure projection. When I criticize him, he insults me and lies about me. When I ignore what he has to say on some subject, he insults me and lies about me anyway, as if he's trying to bait me into replying. Perhaps 'mark' should seek professional help. His diagnosis skills are sometimes acute, though always ill-aimed.

As for Daily Kos, I never denied that they linked to the Alabama website, I simply pointed out that the second paragraph of the story they linked to refuted the whole point of their story, a fact which they, and 'mark', can't seem to admit. They quoted the first paragraph, in which two utilities (one of them unionized!) denied that they had been prevented from working in the storm area, but carefully omitted the second paragraph, in which a third company, Decatur Utilities, confirmed that its employees "were asked to affiliate with a union", apparently as a condition of working there - just what the original stories reported. So when 'mark' refers to "a utility spokesman who exposed the lie repubs are trying to sell" he fails to mention the other utility spokesman who demonstrated that it was not in fact a lie. That was a deeply dishonest thing to do.

Will 'mark' continue his obsession with insulting me and lying about me, whether I argue with him or not? All signs point to 'yes'. I will continue to politely object to things he says about politics that are blatantly untrue, and less politely reply to his filthy lies about me. If he wants to avoid arguing with me, all he has to do is (a) stop trying to drag me into arguments I haven't joined, and (b) don't make demonstrably false claims about (e.g.) who's lying in the story about non-union workers trying to help with storm damage. If he can't do that and ends up arguing with me, he should argue like a grownup when challenged on his 'facts' instead of resorting to stupid ad hominems, insults, and lies. His choice.