Wednesday, November 06, 2013

Cruising the Web

Well, that's disappointing. I feel badly for Virginia which is now stuck with that cretin, Terry McAuliffe for four years. But some of the blame accrues to the Virginia GOP. They changed their nomination rules to get a more conservative candidate. And they got Cucinelli who wasn't a very strong candidate. It was clear from early on how the McAuliffe campaign was borrowing from the 2012 Obama campaign the strategy of defining Cucinelli as too conservative and too extreme on women's issues. Cucinelli and the Republicans should have known that was coming and have had some sort of tactics to combat that. I'm not sure what they should have done, but Republicans have to be ready for that sort of attack since they're going to see it over and over again since it has clearly been shown to work in driving women voters away from Republicans. One thing they could have done is run a short ad saying something like "Terry McAuliffe likes to pretend that he cares about women, but how much sincerity can you believe from a man who bragged in his own memoirs about leaving his wife while she was in labor so that he could go to a Democratic Party fundraiser and then later left his wife and newborn baby in the car on the way home from the hospital so that he could stop off at another fundraiser."

Republicans can be a bit heartened by the closeness of the final results compared to how McAuliffe seemed to have been coasting to victory in earlier polls, but the race apparently tightened up in the last couple of weeks due to fallout from the rollout of Obamacare. That doesn't augur well for Democratic Congressional candidates next year.

James Taranto refutes the idea that it was Republican opposition that "sabotaged" Obamacare.
The story Goldstein and Eilperin [Washington Post reporters] tell is one not of GOP sabotage but of Obama administration self-sabotage. The geniuses who were sure they were capable of running the entire medical industry were so unnerved by the prospect of political opposition that at every stage of the way they undermined the president's own signature "achievement."

This is in part a story of political incompetence and hubris. Obama and his allies in Congress were unable to win a single Republican vote--and it doesn't seem to have occurred to them that a monstrously complicated law enacted by a slender partisan minority might prove especially difficult to implement. As Obama himself admitted yesterday in a rare truthful statement: "Now, let's face it, a lot of us didn't realize that passing the law was the easy part."

That's what America gets for electing a president with charisma but no known skills apart (arguably) from delivering speeches.

We should note that this entire discussion has dealt only with the incompetent technical execution of ObamaCare, what we call Phase 1 of the disaster. Phases 2 and 3, respectively, are the exposure that ObamaCare is a massive consumer fraud and the economic inviability of the entire scheme.
Get ready to see support for Obamacare woven into popular TV shows. It's the worst sort of product placement.

The FCC seems to be trying to lay the groundwork to institute a new sort of Fairness Doctrine. If Democrats can't beat conservatives in talk radio, they can try to kill them through regulations.

American Crossroads is reminding us that Barack Obama wasn't the only Democrat making sure that people wouldn't be able to keep their own insurance even if they liked it. Expect to see such ads throughout the country next year.

Government seems to have a history of poorly run website failures.
While the ObamaCare website fiasco is disturbing, it is no isolated event. Dysfunctional information systems are endemic in the federal government. Officials' incessant talk about living in a 21st-century information society that can generate "big data" to help solve our problems diverts attention from the stubborn truth: Many government agencies and programs operate in an informational stone age.
And it doesn't help when the company hired to build a major part of the website is run by Democratic super-lobbyists.

Technology experts are pouring skepticism on administration claims that now protects people's private information.

Atlantic Magazine points to the marriage penalty in Obamacare.

I don't care what Rand Paul's excuses are, politicians shouldn't be plagiarizing in their published writing. Attribution is so easy to do; it's a sign of true intellectual laziness if politicians skip that low bar and it makes my job as a teacher working with students doing research papers that much harder. Except that I now have a Republican example to add to the story of Joe Biden when I talk about embarrassingly damaging such actions can be.

Charles C. W. Cooke wonders at the administration chutzpah in pretending that having nearly 20 million people visit is a huge, "overwhelming" number, but having 15 million people lose their health care policy is insignificant.

Hmmm. The 17-year pause in global warming that climate scientists hare having trouble explaining might last for 20 more years. Could it be because there are cyclical changes in temperature that have nothing to do with the theories put forward by the IPCC analysis?


mark said...

Gee, no mention that Cucinelli is also one of the "corrupt bastards" Sarah Palin talked about. Bob McDonnell wasn't the only one taking gifts from Star Scientific. Add to that Cucinelli's creepy obsession with what goes on in the bedroom (even between married, straight couples). Just more proof that conservatives are willing to overlook corruption and intrusive government when convenient.
The Virginia GOP deserves "some" of the blame? No they deserve all of the blame. It's called accountability.
Virginia stuck themselves with the choice of two "cretins". They went with the less repulsive.

Pat Patterson said...

And yet McAulife will still have to deal with both chambers with substantial Republican majorities. I wonder how many of the enlightened supporters will apprecite him turning into Arnold Schwarznegger.

Last, First, MI said...

Marky Mark!

Please provide evidence that Palin called Cucinelli a "corrupt bastard".

mark said...

Re-read my first sentence. Palin didn't mention him by name (nor did I claim she did), but Cucinelli fits into the category Palin set. He acknowledged taking gifts he shouldn't have, returning them (or their value) only under pressure. Of course, coming from a person who resigned from office partly due to ethics violations, it's just a tad ironic. I wonder what the female equivalent for "corrupt-bastard" is?

Last, First, MI said...

Hillary Clinton!

BA-dump - dump

I'll be here all week folks. Be sure to tip your servers.

Actually, I'll be in Virginia to check out that once fine southern state before the carpet-bagger McAwful takes them down the drain.

By the way, Mark, your poorly constructed sentence (that is your excuse, right?) states "that Cucinelli is also one of the 'corrupt bastards' Sarah Palin talked about." Are you going to try to redefine the meaning of "is" or will this be a dispute about a "period"? It's funny how lying creeps like to redefine terms when they are caught.

But then again, "at this point, what difference does it make?"

mark said...

Good for you, equitus. Given 12 hours, and you can come up with a decent quip. You must be exhausted. Next, "lfm" will be taking credit.

I suspect the transition to the slimy McCauliffe will be easy thanks to the corrupt McDonell and his family of looters. Nothing says "class" like stealing toilet paper from the Governors mansion.

Last, First, MI said...


Sorry to keep you waiting around all day but unlike so many people in this country today, I have a job. As I mentioned earlier, we're headed off for a weekend in Virginia, so there was some packing to do with the Jeep. I also have a couple of Labradors to pick up after and they can really mess up the yard. But once that dog poop was picked up, I was able to find a little time for you. (Thought you might like to know where you stand)

I have to admit I was surprised to see that moronic mistake from you. It was a softball of the type we normally see only given to Obama when he does an "interview" with one of the lickspittle toadies in the media. I can just see Obama huddling with his minions today - "Get me that butt-smooching Chuck Todd. I'll issue my "apology" for Obamacare with him today." A real journalist would have shredded him for that disgusting display.

That Obama would call in a loyal fanboy was no surprise but I am still a little amazed that you don't have the foggiest idea of who I am.


mark said...

Oh, I know who you are: You're the hypocrite who continues to stand by calling a man a rapist and pedophile based on the paid "testimony" of two prostitutes, while citing the Constitution when it serves you. You know you were wrong, but don't have the courage to admit it.
You're the pathetic soul who made the perverse crack that people who are pro-choice "enjoy abortion as a blood sport." I suspect there are people here who are pro-choice, or have friends, family and colleagues who are. Yet they remain quiet while you call insult them with insane accusations.
Glad you pick up the messes from your dogs. Too bad you don't have the decency to pick up your own messes. Apparently, you hold dog poop in higher esteem than the Constitution.

Rick Caird said...

The gnat is playing his games again. He says "Gee, no mention that Cucinelli is also one of the 'corrupt bastards' Sarah Palin talked about.", but then claims he never said Palin actually mentioned Cucinelli. There is no way to read that sentence except as a claim Palin was referencing him. When the gnat tells us he never actually made any claim about Cucinelli and Palin, he is lying like Obama saying he didn't really say "if you like your insurance, you can keep it".

Then, the gnat goes completely off the rails by claiming Palin resigned due to ethics violations. That is completely false, gnat. Let me help you understand what happened, gnat. Under Alaskan law, anyone could allege an ethics violations. Once that was done the state had to investigate and the target had to defend at his or her own expense. What was happening was that about 4 Democratic Party activists (or better, liars) were filing a series of ethics complaints that had no validity at all. For example, one complaint was that when Palin went to support her husband, Todd, at one of his races, she was wearing a parka that had an "Arctic Cat" logon on it. The liars then claimed she was endorsing a product. Every one of these so called "ethics violations " were dismissed as invalid. But, the net of all this was Palin was $500,000 in debt defending these false accusations. She did not resign for ethics violations. She resigned to prevent bankruptcy. Now, maybe the gnat thinks this "politics of personal destruction" is fair game, but if he does, that says far more about him than it does Palin. In any case the Alaskan law was changed to prevent this from happening again.

So, we have just caught the gnat in two lies in two posts. He really is a student of Obama.

mark said...

Palin didn't mention anyone by name. By your logic, that means she wasn't referring to anyone. Brilliant deduction!

The list of "corrupt bastards" is long and bi-partisan, and includes Palin herself:

It's amusing to see the enabling that goes on here. You accept equitus' perverted comments about pedophiles and abortion, and he ignores your bizarre comments about Obama's lack of nurturing and our need to earn our freedoms by complying with government mandates. And all you have to give up are whatever principles you once had.

Rick Caird said...

Really, the gnat needs to to some real research instead of relying on HuffPo propaganda. When questions about the defense fund came up in 2010, the defense fund was relaunched. The HuffPo story, complete with loaded words such as "crony" and "stinging rebuke", referred to the initial fund which had already been superseded.

Note, too, the story notes:

"... Petumenos ruled that even though Palin assigned the research of forming the fund to her former spokesperson Meghan Stapleton and even though Palin relied on extensive outside legal counsel, that "the Trust itself, as ultimately conceived, violates the Ethics Act."

This indicates Palin went to great effort to keep the fund legal. You will also note, the Palin defense fund mirrored the funds of John Kerry and Bill Clinton.

In the end, this is hardly an ethics violation, but merely running afoul of a technicality of Alaskan law. There was no need to appeal the decision or go to court because this ruling came a year after the initial fund was terminated and reconstituted. Since Palin was no longer governor, there was no state involvement at all. Note too, immediately after the ruling, one of those Democratic Party activists, "... Eagle River resident Kim Chatman filed an Ethics Act complaint charging Palin with misusing her official position for political gain and receiving improper gifts", but the suit seemed to have died an ignominious death. I am guessing because Chatman would actually have had to spend personal money to pursue the suit.

Here is Palin's interview on her resignation:

I repeat, this was not over ethics violations, but over ethics harassment by the "tolerant left", who are generally evil, but oh so self righteous, people.

I have no idea what you are accusing Equitus of, but it has nothing to do with me.

The rest of your comment is your normal nonsense that makes no sense at all. Are you still living in your mother's basement smoking weed? That is the only explanation for your random, train of thought comments that all too often have nothing to do with the topic at hand nor do they relate to anything that ever actually happened here except in your weed fogged mind.

BTW, I would love to see you use your full, real name, but I can see why you would be too embarrassed to do so.

mark said...

Poor Rick,
I have provided evidence of the lies/ethical problems of Palin, Cruz and Gov. Snyder, yet you have excused all three. If you were a ten yr. old and they were your parents, your belief in their purity would be adorable. Assuming you're not, it's a bit pathetic.
If you claim you know nothing of the Menendez disgrace, you're lying. Ashamed of not speaking out when it might have meant something? Oh, well.
As far as smoking "weed"? Nope. Just another lie.