How's That Republi-CON Alternate Reality Workin Out For Ya

UPDATE:  Even The Great Lecherer has been forced to admit, "conservatives in general got in the habit of talking to themselves. . . they in a sense got isolated into their own little world. . . we believed that the other side was kidding themselves, it turned out in fact in the real world – this is a part of what makes politics so fascinating – it turned out in the real world we were kidding ourselves."  

Read Salon, "In the real world we were kidding ourselves". 

"Here it seems to me is the core problem: the big winners under the American fiscal system are the elderly, the rural, and the affluent—Republican constituencies. It's not easy to balance the budget or shrink government spending to any significant degree in ways that don't pinch Republican voters much harder than they pinch Democratic voters.

To escape that reality, some conservative thought leaders have constructed an alternative reality. In this alternative reality, 'welfare' not Medicare is the number one social spending cost.

In this alternative reality, government employment has not fallen by more than 500,000 since 2008.

In this alternative reality, half the country is deemed not to pay any tax—because this alternative reality refuses to count payroll taxes, excise taxes, and state and local taxes as taxes.

In this alternative reality, Medicare is counted as a program that is 'paid for' by its beneficiaries contributions while unemployment insurance is not—even though the latter statement would be much closer to true.

In this alternative reality, we are in imminent danger of losing our freedom—even though, as a matter of daily experience, more Americans of all races and both sexes face fewer legal constraints upon their ability to live as they please than ever before in the nation's history.

Inside this alternative reality, conservative thought leaders have substituted culture war for normal politics. They have succeeded only in isolating themselves from the country in which they live. Conservative politics and the Republican Party are on the wrong track."

Read Claremont Institute, Upon Further Review, A CRB discussion of Political Extremism.

"[I]t’s foolishness that the Republican Party has yoked itself to, and that requires it to make heroically absurd policy assumptions. Even Ryan’s budget can’t credibly argue that Medicare and Social Security spending won’t grow as a percentage of the economy. Both increase under the path he’s laid out. And so he instead argues that Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program will fall by half in the coming decades, which is not possible unless we are going to throw many millions of people out of those programs. Even less likely than that, he says that everything that isn’t health-care spending or Social Security will fall by about 75 percent. These aren’t reasonable assumptions, of course, but they’re also not popular ones. In order to protect seniors, he’s gutted everything else in the budget."

Read the Washington Post, How the aging of America is hurting the Republican Party. 

That Good Ol' Republi-CON 'Lame Stream Media' Myth

You hear it all the time from Republi-cons.

"If only the media were doing its job and accurately reporting on the White House we all would be as disenchanted with the administration as they are. If that argument seems familiar to you, it should. We've been hearing it from conservatives for a long, long time. . .

When Northern press turned its attention to the civil rights movement, the stories and photos they published helped shape the national debate about Jim Crow and arguably hastened its end.

The reaction of Southern conservatives to these news reports, however, was a little different. The problem, they said, isn't segregation, it's the way a Northern press infected with integrationist sympathies reports it. Of course, that was hogwash. Segregation was exposed and, eventually, ended. But in the embers of an ideological defeat, conservatives found a handy bit of linguistic Jujitsu. If the facts prove inconvenient, don't argue them. Instead, shift the focus and question the integrity of the fact-finder. If you're successful, then in one broad stroke you may be able to disqualify the facts without ever having to argue them on the merits.

Impugning the motives of those we've entrusted with separating fiction from fact has proven an effective strategy for the right. Don't agree with a judicial decision? Blame the 'activist' judge. Think an academic paper might be damaging to your cause? No worries. Academia is 'liberal' and 'elitist.' Worried that global warming might prove nettlesome? It's the product of scientists harboring a 'hidden agenda.' . .

Well, one might ask in return, have you taken a look at the ideas conservatives have championed over the years? Segregation is the way to go. Women shouldn't work. The government is filled with hidden communists. People on the lower end of the economic spectrum are there because they are lazy. Cutting taxes for the rich is the best economic program for everyone. America is one step removed from becoming a totalitarian state.  Etc.

In other words, my conservative friends, it may finally be time to come to terms with the following: Its your ideas that leave something to be desired, not the media's coverage of them."

Read U.S. News and World Report, Skepticism of Conservative Ideas Requires No Bias. 

Republi-CON Civil Rights Hypocrisy

Republi-cons may love one civil right, but disdain most others.

Locally, our Santa Rosa County Sheriff Wendell Hall supports the 2nd Amendment and endorses the right to bear arms to protect our freedoms. Read the Pensacola New Journal, Milton rally supports right to bear arms, Local leaders gather to show support for gun ownership in Saturday’s paper.

Coincidentally, several weeks ago a local law firm sent out an email highlighting a settlement on a high profile lawsuit against the Sheriff regarding another civil rights. The email noted:

“The case arose out of a nighttime confrontation between the Sheriffs' deputies and homeowners, shortly after Hurricane Ivan made landfall, in 2004. A private home, damaged by the storm and temporally abandoned by its owners, was apparently being broken into. Neighbors saw flashlights inside the upstairs of the house. The side door of the house was kicked in, and muddy boot prints were discovered on the door and leading up the stairway.

Neighbors confronted the two intruders with flashlights by asking them to get out of the house. The light-wielding individuals responded by yelling back inappropriate and threatening expletives. Convinced that the home was being looted, one of the neighbors fired a warning shot into the ground, a few feet in front of him, to alert others around, and to defend his neighborhood.

The prowlers brandishing flashlights turned out to be two sheriff's deputies-one from Santa Rosa County, and the other from Pinellas County. The Santa Rosa County Sheriff's office gave conflicting accounts as to why they were inside the house, or even if they were in the house at all. The two deputies abandoned the house and flanked some of the neighbors outside their homes.

The deputies ran at the neighbors in the street, and began to swear, yell and threaten them with their weapons drawn. The deputies did not identify themselves until just a few feet before they reached the homeowners. Once the deputies identified themselves, the homeowners quickly surrendered.

After the two homeowners surrendered by lying flat on the ground with their hands out, the officer from Pinellas County then brutally attacked one of them-a retired New York City Police Captain. The captain's wife reacted to the brutal attacks, and was herself fiercely tackled and permanently injured.

The responding police officers called to the scene attempted to cover up the misconduct and went as far as threatening the witnesses. When the homeowners refused to cooperate with the coverup, the Police Captain and the neighbor who fired the warning shot, a retired Air Force Colonel, were arrested and charged with attempted murder.

Despite formal protests from the Sheriff, all charges were quickly dropped by the State's Attorney's office. The Santa Rosa County Sheriff doggedly refused to even look into whether his deputies had engaged in misconduct that evening. When the two involved homeowners insisted, the Santa Rosa Sheriff retaliated by trying to bring new criminal charges against them.

The Federal Bureau of Investigations opened a case after the homeowners complained that the Sheriff was retaliating against them for filing a legitimate grievance. One Santa Rosa deputy resigned and the Pinellas County deputy went to federal prison for a year for violating the civil rights of the retired NYPD Police Captain.”

The citizens of Santa Rosa County might need those guns to protect themselves from assault, battery, threats, false arrest, fabricated charges, and retaliation by the Sheriff, who apparently has less regard for the 4th Amendment and little respect for the right to be free from unreasonable searches and unlawful arrests.

Budget Deficits Are To Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction As Republi-CON Obsession Is To Republi-CON What?

This is an analogies test,  Here is a hint:

"We’re just a few weeks away from a milestone I suspect most of Washington would like to forget: the start of the Iraq war. What I remember from that time is the utter impenetrability of the elite prowar consensus. If you tried to point out that the Bush administration was obviously cooking up a bogus case for war, one that didn’t bear even casual scrutiny; if you pointed out that the risks and likely costs of war were huge; well, you were dismissed as ignorant and irresponsible.

It didn’t seem to matter what evidence critics of the rush to war presented: Anyone who opposed the war was, by definition, a foolish hippie. Remarkably, that judgment didn’t change even after everything the war’s critics predicted came true. Those who cheered on this disastrous venture continued to be regarded as 'credible' on national security (why is John McCain still a fixture of the Sunday talk shows?), while those who opposed it remained suspect.

And, even more remarkably, a very similar story has played out over the past three years, this time about economic policy. Back then, all the important people decided that an unrelated war was an appropriate response to a terrorist attack; three years ago, they all decided that fiscal austerity was the appropriate response to an economic crisis caused by runaway bankers, with the supposedly imminent danger from budget deficits playing the role once played by Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction."

Read The New York Times, Ben Bernanke, Hippie. 

See the comments for the answer.

Republi-CON Judcial Activism Hypocrisy

 “THIS IS NOT the kind of a question you can leave to Congress,” Justice Antonin Scalia pronounced during a Supreme Court argument Wednesday.

The subject was the Voting Rights Act, one of the most successful pieces of civil rights legislation in U.S. history, and in particular its Section 5. That provision requires nine states and assorted jurisdictions in seven others to win Justice Department approval before changing their voting laws. The burden is on these 'covered' jurisdictions, unlike the rest of the country, to prove that such changes won’t adversely affect the right of African Americans and other minorities to vote. Shelby County, Ala., was in court Wednesday arguing that this pre-clearance requirement is an unfair infringement on Alabama’s sovereignty.

Congress adopted the Voting Rights Act in 1965 and has reauthorized it four times since, most recently in 2006. Each time it has extended Section 5 on the grounds that some jurisdictions, mostly but not only in the South, have particularly egregious records of interfering with blacks voting. Originally such interference took the form of 'literacy tests' and other blatant blocks to voter registration; these days it can involve more subtle ways of limiting minority turnout, such as moving polling stations. The reauthorization in 2006 was based on a voluminous record — thousands of pages of evidence — showing that the covered jurisdictions have a propensity toward discriminatory rules. The Senate agreed by a vote of 98 to 0; the House, 390 to 33."

Read the Washington Post, Justice Scalia’s contempt of Congress.

Which proves the point that it's only so-called judicial activism and judicial legislation when the other side does it.

Republi-CON McCarthyism is Alive and Well

"Chuck Hagel’s confirmation as secretary of defense ended as it began — with a smear. . .

It was one of many moments from the past few weeks that Joe McCarthy would have admired."

Read the Washington Post, A filibuster fit for McCarthy. 

If you forgot, "McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means 'the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism.'"

It was a technique used by the Republi-cons to attack critics of the Iraq war. 

So it should be no surprise to you that McCarthy was a Republican Senator. 

Is This the End of Our 'Free Lunch' Fantasy?

UPDATEV:  "If only the president’s $3 billion initiative to map human brain activity had been completed by now, we might have the tools to make sense of the carnival that pre-sequester Washington has become. Alas, since the science won’t be in for years, we can only hypothesize about what corner of the neocortex is driving our leaders’ behavior as this latest fiscal precipice draws near.

The first critical but virtually undiscussed question is what portion of the president’s brain (or brain trust) led him to extend 82 percent of the Bush tax cuts on Jan. 1. Recall that even as the sequester was kicked down the road then, President Obama could have let all the Bush tax cuts expire before coming back with big-sounding tax cuts of his own – tax cuts that would have involved far smaller revenue losses over time than had Bush’s. . .

The GOP’s confusion and denial are, if anything, more profound. Even as their attacks on government in the abstract remain as shrill as ever, big-name Republican governors are admitting that Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion (while imperfect) promises too much health security for too many of their struggling constituents to be spurned out of ideological pique. Again, purely as a matter of science, it would be great to know how Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s brains manage to order their mouths to rail against the feds while instructing their hands to pocket the cash.

The more comical GOP brain burp can be seen in the overdue effort by conservative thinkers to craft an agenda that might help average Americans improve their lives. The president is usually the one mocked as remote and Spock-like, but it’s Republican politicians now who seem mysteriously robotic and disengaged. “Hmmm,” Republican officials seem to be saying, as their policy wonks serve up relevant new ideas, “these humans apparently crave opportunity and security. Most interesting...”

Read the Washington Post, This is your brain on sequester.

UPDATE IV:  It is déjà Republi-cons all over again, they are trying once again "to escape responsibility for the adverse impact of automatic spending cuts'.

"Republicans didn’t want the president to raise the debt ceiling on his own because it would usurp their constitutional power of the purse, but they would like him to do sequester cuts on his own? Color me confused."

Read the Washington Post, The GOP’s recycled sequester gambit.  

UPDATE III:  "Congressional Republicans are considering a proposal that would give the Obama administration authority to choose what gets the axe under the automatic spending cuts required by sequestration"  Read The Examiner, Republicans considering bill to give Obama flexibility on sequester cuts.

But Senate Republicans are "against giving away congressional power in order to escape responsibility for the adverse impact of automatic spending cuts expected to go into effect Friday."  Read Politico, Senate GOP debates sequester plan.

I'm bettin that Obama doesn't fall for this Republi-CON.

UPDATE II:  "The Republicans have a remarkably incoherent position on the sequester: It is a terrible policy that must be replaced with a cuts-only solution, they say, but there is no actual GOP plan that fits this description. Republicans seem to be hoping that President Obama will negotiate with himself until they are satisfied.

But he has wisely called their bluff. After all, while spending cuts may poll well in the abstract, the implementation of these cuts will prove unpopular – and the public is prepared to blame the GOP. The Republicans deserve that blame: Regardless of the provenance of the sequestration scheme, only President Obama has been serious about defusing it. The Republican 'all-cuts' position is not a compromise or even a fleshed-out policy proposal; it’s an intransigent statement of a rejected ideology."

Read the Washington Post,  Republicans have only themselves to blame for the sequester.

UPDATE:  Do Republi-cons even know what they want?

"As I understand it, the GOP has five basic goals in the budget talks:

1) Cut the deficit.

2) Cut entitlement spending.

3) Protect defense spending, and possibly even increase it.

4) Simplify the tax code by cleaning out deductions and loopholes.

5) Lower tax rates.

The White House is willing to cut a deal with Republicans that will accomplish 1, 2, 3 and 4. But Republicans don’t want that deal. They’d prefer the sequester to that deal. That means they will get less on 1, basically nothing 2, 4, and 5, and they will actively hurt themselves on 3. So, rather than accomplishing four of their five goals, they’re accomplishing part of one. Some trade.

I’ve asked some Republicans sources to explain their thinking to me. But none of the answers quite seems to add up."

Read the Washington Post, I don’t understand the Republican position on the sequester. 

After years of tax cuts and spending increases, will sequestration be the crisis that focuses our attention?

"While there is widespread support for trimming federal spending, when it comes to the specifics of what should be cut, clarity disappears. In not one of the 19 (!) specific areas did a majority of the sample express support for a diminishing of federal spending. (The closest was the 48 percent who favored cutting 'aid to the world’s needy.' So, that happened.) Somewhat amazingly, of the 19 areas Pew asked people about cutting, Americans favored increasing spending over decreasing spending in 16 of them.

What those numbers make clear is that most people live in a fantasy world where overall federal spending decreases even as spending on virtually every federal program increases. Given that 'reality', it’s uniquely possible that only through crisis — manufactured or not — will people come to grips with the fundamental paradox at the center of their thinking of what the federal government should or shouldn’t do."

Read the Washington Post, Why we need the sequester. 

About Those So-Called CONspiracies

"You see it all over. If you’ve been watching the series 'House of Cards' on Netflix, it’s all about the myth of scheming. Things happen because the Rep. Frank Underwood has planned for them to happen. And when they don’t happen, it’s because someone has counterplanned against him.

This is the most pervasive of of all Washington legends: that politicians in Washington are ceaselessly, ruthlessly, effectively scheming. That everything that happens fits into somebody’s plan. It doesn’t. Maybe it started out with a scheme, but soon enough everyone is, at best, reacting, and at worst, failing to react, and always, always they’re doing it with less information than they need.

That’s been a key lesson I’ve learned working as a reporter and political observer in Washington: No one can carry out complicated plans. All parties and groups are fractious and bumbling. But everyone always thinks everyone else is efficiently and ruthlessly implementing long-term schemes. . .

Human beings like to think otherwise, but we’re not very good planners, at least not when matched up against reality."

Read the Washington Post, What China’s hackers get wrong about Washington. 

As I've said before in response to alleged government conspiracies, they're just not that smart.

It's Republi-CON Déjà Vu All Over Again

UPDATE II:  The "G.O.P. reply [to the SOTU speech], delivered by Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, was both interesting and revelatory. And I mean that in the worst way. For Mr. Rubio is a rising star, to such an extent that Time magazine put him on its cover, calling him 'The Republican Savior.' What we learned Tuesday, however, was that zombie economic ideas have eaten his brain."

Read The New York Times, Rubio and the Zombies.

UPDATE:  "The media consensus seems to be that Marco Rubio’s Big Gulp distracted from the message of his rebuttal, a circumstance that’s being broadly portrayed as a negative turn of events for him. But Brian Beutler speculates that perhaps this was a better outcome for the Florida Senator, because it distracted the public from the vacuousness [editorial note: means "lack of ideas or intelligence : stupid, inane"] of his message.

Beutler runs through the speech’s substance, such as it was. There was a wink at climate change denial; a fusillade of the same old anti-government bromindes; a nod towards the Fannie and Freddie theory of the financial crisis; and a rehash of the idea that lowering the top marginal tax rate will uncork a rush of growth. He concludes the public would have seen through the ruse if not for the Big Gulp . . .

[T]his seems like a truly epic gamble when you think about it. After all, the priorities laid out in both the Inaugural Address and in yesterday’s SOTU speech are very explicitly about intensifying the bond between the core constituencies that reelected Obama — minorities; young voters; college educated whites, especially women; and to some degree non-college white women — and the Democratic Party. The second term agenda Obama laid out in both those speeches is also explicitly designed to deepen GOP estrangement from these constituencies — which also happen to be growing as a share of the national vote. Is the GOP response to this really to do … nothing? . .


[But Republicans are betting that Obama's policies will fail and "current demographic trends won’t be quite as bad for them as they look now," that is angery old white guys are the future.]

In this context, the decision to change nothing suddenly makes sense. If these policies are bound to fail, simply continuing to argue against them, as Republicans are now doing, could conceivably be enough. Republicans would later be able to say: We told you so. We told you Obama’s Big Government policies would fail. Time to try the limited government approach we’ve been arguing for all along. Buying in to Obama’s policies by compromising would muddy these waters."

Read the Washington Post, The GOP’s epic gamble. 

Marco 'I've Got a Drinking Problem' Rubio's Republi-con response to the SOTU speech was nothing but "[t]he same old rhetorical tricks and tropes . . . paired with the same old policies. Despite being the frontman for the GOP on immigration reform, he barely mentioned the issue, and when he did, he emphasized border security. He called for more energy exploration on federal lands and tax reform. He wants less debt and less spending, but the only actual spending cuts he mentioned were the sequester’s cuts to defense — and he opposed those. . .

He’s trying to position himself as the future of the Republican Party. But his big speech evoked nothing but the past."

Read the Washington Post, Where were Marco Rubio’s new ideas?

But Marco 'I've Got a Drinking Problem' Rubio did try to reprise an old but popular Republi-con myth by blaming the housing crisis on “reckless government policies.”

“[T]his argument is very popular on the right, but there’s precious little to back it up. . .

1. Private markets, rather than the GSEs, created the subprime mortgage boom. . .

2. The Community Reinvestment Act and the GSE’s affordability mission didn’t cause the crisis. . .

3. There’s a lot of research to back this up and little against it. . .

4. Conservatives arguments tend to blur the definition of subprime. . .

5. The government policy that likely made an impact were deregulatory actions. . . “

Read the Washington Post, No, Marco Rubio, government did not cause the housing crisis.

Don't Be CON'ed by Republi-CON Deficiet and Debt Myths

UPDATE:  "Deficit talk is a rhetorical ploy -- a decoy justification for the unpopular-but-necessary component of both parties' larger political agendas.

How do we know? Ask any Republican leader what they think about the deficit. "Simply immoral," said Mitt Romney, the party's defeated presidential nominee. "The transcendent issue of our time," said Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader. Senator Marco Rubio, who delivered the Republican response to Obama's State of the Union address, called it "our nation's greatest challenge."

Then ask them how this uber-challenge should be addressed. Not by tax revenue, as House Speaker John Boehner has said. And not by cutting the defense spending that accounts for two-thirds of all federal consumption and investment, as Senator John McCain has demanded. Republicans are so concerned about the deficit that they're prepared to offer not a single major policy concession to address it.

Democrats aren't much better. . .

Here's what's really going on: a schizophrenic conversation about the proper size and role of government. It's really easy to win political support for lower taxes or for particular government spending. It's really hard, by contrast, to win support for the concomitant part of the Republican or Democratic agendas:  big cuts to specific federal programs or increases in average tax rates on the middle class.

Read Bloomberg, Almost Nobody in Washington Cares About the Deficit.

"David Leonhardt’s 'Here’s the Deal' is one of the calmest, clearest looks you’ll find at the deficit — both what it is and how to fix it. . .

Here are" several highlights, including:

"2. 'Eventually, the country will have to confront the deficit we have, rather than the deficit we imagine. The one we imagine is a deficit caused by waste, fraud, abuse, foreign aid, oil-industry subsidies and vague out-of-control spending. The one we have is caused by the world’s highest health costs (by far), the world’s largest military (by far), a Social Security program built when most people died by age 70—and, to pay for it all, the lowest tax rates in decades. . .

10. 'Perhaps the best news in the entire messy deficit debate is that the kind of tax increases needed to make a real difference are not very scary. Making changes so that the tax code would raise, say, an additional 2 percentage points of GDP over the next 25 years would be entirely in keeping with the direction of American history. The evidence strongly suggests that it would not derail economic growth. And a disproportionate share of the increase could come from a segment of society that has done very, very well.'"

Read the Washington Post, 10 great points from David Leonhardt’s 'Here’s the Deal'. 

Buy Properties, Build Houses and Hotels, Collect Rent, Repeat As Necessary Until Everyone Else Is Bankrupt

"Monopoly is America’s defining board game. . .

Where else will grandma grind down the grandkids until they make the land she wants? Or a spouse read deep into the rules to ensure the tax treatment of mortgaged property? It is raw capitalism, in boardgame form.

So maybe there’s something to learn about the evolution of economy in the decision to cast out the iron from the collection of official game tokens and add a kitty cat."

Read the Washington Post, What that new Monopoly piece tells us about the economy. 

Hasta La Vista, Baby

"The news that Fox News Channel has decided against renewing Sarah Palin’s contract means that the former Alaska governor’s time in the national spotlight is, at least for the moment, over. . .

The Palin story is, in the end, one of tremendous talent misused. Like any number of playground greats who never make the NBA or, when they do, wind up disappointing, Palin had as much natural ability as anyone this side of Barack Obama or John Edwards but was unable to translate that talent into results once the bright lights came on. That she never made good on her remarkable natural talents is a sign of how the political process can chew up and spit out those who aren’t ready for it."

Read the Washington Post, What Sarah Palin meant. 

Punnies

From an email:

Those who jump off Paris bridges are in Seine.

A man's home is his castle, in a manor of speaking.

Dijon vu - the same mustard as before.

Practice safe eating - always use condiments.

Shotgun wedding - A case of wife or death.

A man needs a mistress just to break the monogamy.

A hangover is: The wrath of grapes.

Dancing cheek-to-cheek is really a form of floor play.

Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?

Condoms should be used on every conceivable occasion.

Reading while sunbathing makes you well red.

When two egotists meet, it's an 'I' for an 'I'.

A bicycle can't stand on its own because it is two tired.

What's the definition of a will? (It's a dead give away.)

In democracy Your vote counts. In feudalism Your count votes.

She was engaged to a boy with a wooden leg but broke it off.

A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.

If you don't pay your exorcist will you get repossessed?

With her marriage, she got a new name and a dress..

The man who fell into an upholstery machine is now fully recovered.

You feel stuck with your debt, if you can't budge it.

Local Area Network In Australia –The LAN down under.

Every calendar's days are numbered.

A lot of money is tainted - taint yours and taint mine.

A boiled egg in the morning is hard to beat.

He had a photographic memory that was never developed.

A midget fortune-teller who escapes from prison is a small medium at large.

Once you've seen one shopping center, you've seen a mall.

Bakers trade bread recipes on a knead-to-know basis.

Santa's helpers are subordinate clauses.

Acupuncture is a jab well done.

What Happens If You Are Caught Laundering Money For Dictatorships, Terrorist, and Drug Dealer?

If you were a person, you'd go to jail, but if you are a bankster, you pay a small fine. Watch the Colbert Report, HSBC Laundering Charges:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

How Dare He Try To Prevent Another Massacre of Little Children

"Responding to reports that President Obama is considering signing as many as nineteen executive orders on gun control, Republicans in Congress unleashed a blistering attack on him today, accusing Mr. Obama of 'cynically and systematically using his position as President to lead the country.'

Spearheading the offensive was Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas), who charged the President with the 'wanton exploitation of powers that are legally granted to him under the U.S. Constitution.'"

Read The New Yorker, Republicans Accuse Obama of Using Position as President to Lead Country.

Then read the Washington Post, Reagan’s solicitor general dismisses right’s fantasy about Obama “tyranny”.

Will It Be Over The Cliff or/and Into the Ceiling

UPDATE XIII:  As noted below, don't be CON'ed by Republi-cons claims to the CONtrary, there has been "the emergence of an influential but unofficial group that could be called the Vote No/Hope Yes Caucus. 

These are the small but significant number of Republican representatives who, on the recent legislation to head off the broad tax increases and spending cuts mandated by the so-called fiscal cliff, voted no while privately hoping — and at times even lobbying — in favor of the bill’s passage, given the potential harmful economic consequences otherwise."

Read The New York Times,  Republicans May Offer Short-Term Extension of Borrowing Limit. 

UPDATE XII:  "The news of the morning is that House Republicans, at their retreat, are seriously weighing whether to agree to a short term debt limit increase. The idea appears to be that this would defer default and let Republicans stage another battle to get the spending cuts they want in a couple of months, when the deadline for the sequester looms.

At that point, the threat of default would again loom and again enter into the discussions somehow. But make no mistake: this is a major cave. It is further indication that the GOP simply isn’t willing to allow default. It reveals yet again that this whole debt ceiling hostage taking strategy is proving a major failure: After all, if you’re not willing to default, then you’re admitting the debt ceiling doesn’t give you any leverage. So why threaten to use it to get what you want in a couple of months? How will things be any different then?

As Jonathan Chait puts it: 'You have to ask yourself what the point is. If Republicans can’t threaten to shoot the hostage, what do they gain by holding new debt ceiling votes every few months? It’s either leverage or it isn’t.' The willingness to adopt a short term increase confirms that it isn’t.

Either Republicans are demanding deep spending cuts to popular programs in exchange for not destroying the economy, or they aren’t. They have fudged on this point, because they know they can’t be seen doing the former; but if they confirm the latter, the jig is up."

Read the Washington Post, No more games. Just release the hostage.

UPDATE XI:  "[T]here might be enough sane Republicans that the party will blink and stop making destructive threats.

Unless this last possibility materializes, however, it’s the president’s duty to do whatever it takes, no matter how offbeat or silly it may sound, to defuse this hostage situation. Mint that coin!"

Read The New York Times, Coins Against Crazies.

UPDATE X:  Watch as Colbert explains how "[m]inting trillion dollar platinum coins to pay off America's debt is legal in that it is not technically illegal."  Watch The Colbert Report, The Platinum Debt Ceiling Solution, in which he suggest a "bald eagle breathing fire while making love to the American flag" for the back of the coin, and for the front of the coin, the "Charmin bears, because when you pull an idea like this out of your ass, you're going to need something soft."

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

UPDATE IX:  "When the Treasury runs out of tricks it can deploy to avoid the debt ceiling next month, the president is in a bind: Congress has ordered him to spend more money than it has ordered him to tax. It has ordered him not to issue Treasury debt in excess of the $16.4 trillion cap. And 200 years of history, the 14th amendment, and good sense argue against the U.S. government simply not making good on its debts.

All of which is why people have turned to the platinum coin option as a way out of those constraints, should Congress not pass an increase to the debt ceiling. It relies on legislation designed to govern the issuance of commemorative coins, which allows the Treasury secretary to mint platinum coins in any denomination. $1 trillion, or $100 billion, or whatever giant number you may choose is, it might be noted, any denomination. . .

The best reason to oppose the platinum coin idea is this: It is not the way we do business here in the United States. It is the kind of insane, seemingly extra-constitutional gambit one expects of banana republics, not the wealthiest and most powerful nation to ever stride the earth. It is demeaning to all of us. . .

The platinum coin gambit could be terrible for the U.S. government’s long-term standing as a premier destination for global capital. This is a moment for Republicans to take responsibility for governing and to accept the fact that their leverage is limited with control of only one house of Congress. But if the alternative truly is default, a crazy coin option may indeed be less bad than the alternatives."

Read the Washington Post, The platinum coin idea is idiotic. That is the point.

UPDATE VIII:  If Republi-cons try to default the country by failing to raise the debt ceiling, could Obama "mint a one trillion dollar platinum coin and use it to pay the government's bills" and thereby save the world economy?  Read Gawker, Your Guide to the Trillion-Dollar Platinum Coin That Obama Can Mint to Save the World and Bloomberg, Why Platinum Coin Opponents Are All Wrong.

But even if he could legally mint the coin, should he?  The winner of the 2008 the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, Paul Krugman, an economist and professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times, says:

"Yes, absolutely. He will, after all, be faced with a choice between two alternatives: one that’s silly but benign, the other that’s equally silly but both vile and disastrous. The decision should be obvious. . .

It’s easy to make sententious remarks to the effect that we shouldn’t look for gimmicks, we should sit down like serious people and deal with our problems realistically. That may sound reasonable — if you’ve been living in a cave for the past four years.Given the realities of our political situation, and in particular the mixture of ruthlessness and craziness that now characterizes House Republicans, it’s just ridiculous — far more ridiculous than the notion of the coin.

So if the 14th amendment solution — simply declaring that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional — isn’t workable, go with the coin.

This still leaves the question of whose face goes on the coin — but that’s easy: John Boehner. Because without him and his colleagues, this wouldn’t be necessary."

Read The New York Times, Be Ready To Mint That Coin.

UPDATE VII:  And don't be CON'ed by Republi-cons claims to the CONtrary, "House Republicans supported the passage of the fiscal cliff deal. That’s why they let Boehner bring it to the floor. He offered them a chance to amend it, but warned that if the House altered the deal, it was unlikely the Senate would take up the new measure and House Republicans would be blamed for pushing the country over the fiscal cliff. His members blinked. They endorsed his plan to bring the final deal to the floor knowing that once it got to the floor, the Democrats would provide enough votes to ensure it would pass."  Read the Washington Post, Yes, House Republicans supported the fiscal cliff deal.  

UPDATE VI:  Next up, the debt ceiling.  "Are Republicans really prepared to let the country go into default and take the blame for crashing the economy? Sure, maybe some Tea Party Republicans are, but if GOP leaders aren’t, and the next compromise can be passed through the House with mostly Democratic votes, then all of a sudden the GOP position doesn’t look so strong, after all."

As the article notes,  even the Wall Street Journal has warned the Republi-cons, "You can’t take a hostage you aren’t prepared to shoot." And even has said "that a debt ceiling fight is a 'loser' for them."

Read the Washington Post, The debt ceiling isn’t Obama’s problem. It’s the GOP’s problem.

And since "[t]he use of hostage-taking imagery to describe the coming debt ceiling crisis is now so ubiquitous that [a writer asked] a veteran police hostage negotiator what he thinks of the looming standoff."  Read the Washington Post, A veteran hostage negotiator’s advice on handling the GOP.

As you can see, some Republi-cons enablers are concerned by the comparison. 

UPDATE V:  The so-called fiscal cliff deal failed in three ways, it did nothing about the terrible unemployment problem and big deficits, while ignoring "the advantage of the insanely cheap money the United States has access to right now."  Read the Washington Post, The December jobs report proves the fiscal cliff deal a farce. 

UPDATE IV:  "[T]he deal doesn’t solve any of the major issues haunting the economy: In the short run, it offers no large-scale stimulus to try to get the economy back to full employment. It offers no longer-run strategy to reduce the budget deficit to sustainable levels. And it leaves a situation in which policy uncertainty will hang over the economy, starting with the next fight, over raising the debt ceiling in about two months."  Read the Washington Post, Get used to more fiscal cliffs.

And also from the Washington Post, The fiscal cliff negotiations, in one chart, the final tally of offers and counteroffers:

UPDATE III:  From the Washington Post, All the fiscal cliff offers and counteroffers:

 

UPDATE II:  "Why won’t the Republicans get specific [about cuts to government programs]? Because they don’t know how. The truth is that, when it comes to spending, they’ve been faking it all along — not just in this election, but for decades. Which brings me to the nature of the current G.O.P. crisis.

Since the 1970s, the Republican Party has fallen increasingly under the influence of radical ideologues, whose goal is nothing less than the elimination of the welfare state — that is, the whole legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society. From the beginning, however, these ideologues have had a big problem: The programs they want to kill are very popular. Americans may nod their heads when you attack big government in the abstract, but they strongly support Social Security, Medicare, and even Medicaid. So what’s a radical to do?"

Read The New York Times, The G.O.P.’s Existential Crisis. 

UPDATE:  From the Washington Post, How the ‘fiscal cliff’ will affect your taxes, in one chart:

"Amid all the “fiscal cliff” negotiations, it’s easy to lose sight of the actual impact that various tax proposals will have on Americans.

The graph [below] summarizes the differences between various proposals on offer":

In case you were wondering, from the Washington Post, Where things really stand in the fiscal cliff negotiations:

"For the White House, the key to any deal is tax revenues — delivered at least partly through higher rates — and a long-term solution to the debt ceiling. Additionally, any big deal will have to include some stimulus, including an extension of unemployment insurance and either an extension of — or more likely, a replacement for — the payroll tax cut.

For Republicans, the key is some give on tax rates, as well as a few high-profile entitlement cuts, namely an increase in the Medicare eligibility age and chained-CPI.

It’s by no means certain the two sides will come to a 'grand bargain' before the end of the month. But if they do, the bargain will likely include either those policies outright, or instructions for Congress to work on those policies over the coming months."

But complicating the negotiations, also read the Washington Post, The GOP’s dangerous debt-ceiling gamble:

The debt ceiling, however, is proving a key sticking point, both in terms of politics and policy.

The political problem is that many Hill Republicans have convinced themselves that they’ll have the upper hand if they let the country topple fully or mostly over the cliff and then restart negotiations with a debt default looming in the background. They figure that although Obama really is willing to let the country go over the cliff, he’s not willing to let the country default and spark a global financial crisis. They are willing to do that, or they believe they can more credibly say they are, and that gives them leverage.

This increasingly influential theory is weakening Boehner’s hand, as it’s giving House Republicans who don’t want to cut a deal a way to argue that they just need to stand firm now and they’ll get a better deal later. Increasingly, there’s concern among Democrats that Boehner will cut a deal that he can’t deliver the votes for. Or that, at the last minute, he’ll back off of a deal because he won’t have the votes. That happened in 2011, when, the White House feels, Boehner cut off the negotiations over the debt ceiling after finding he didn’t have the votes to pass the deal.

Whatever House Republicans might think, the White House is all steel when it comes to the debt ceiling. Their position is simple, and it’s typically delivered in the tone of voice that Bruce Willis reserves for talking to terrorists: They’re happy to raise the debt ceiling on their own, as would be the case under their proposal to take authority for the debt ceiling away from Congress. But if Congress rejects that offer, then the debt ceiling is Congress’s problem, and the White House will not help.

The End of the World, Again

UPDATE X:  If history is any example, the next cosmic doomsday prediction is always right around the corner.  Read DiscoveryNews, When Is the Next Doomsday (Not) Going to Happen?

UPDATE IX: Wrong again. But expect another SHAMan prediction of the end of the world soon again.


UPDATE VIII: "Today, the world will end -- again." Read The Atlantic, Apocalypse Now, Apocalypse Then, Why prophets of doom will eternally return.


UPDATE VII: Don't forget, the new and improved Judgment Day will be Friday, following the Fact Free Friday show with Pastor Truthiness (formerly known as Pastor Poppins).


UPDATE VI: Colbert on the 'invisible' rapture:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Invisible Judgment
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

UPDATE V: Whoops! There was a five month calculation error. "[T]he Earth actually will be obliterated on Oct. 21." Read The New York Times, Radio Host Says World's End Actually Coming in Oct.

Til then, enjoy summer!


UPDATE IV: Are you ready for Apocalypse Saturday?

Read the San Fransisco Chronicle, May 21, 2011: rapture or party time?, which states:

Judgment Day will start in New Zealand, at 6 p.m. their time - "a great earthquake will shake the island asunder, triggering an apocalypse that rolls relentlessly our way. . . [it will] reach San Francisco around 6 p.m. PDT. The saved Christian souls will ascend to heaven, including those dead and buried. All others will remain as the Earth falls into fiery chaos."

In case you want to double check the calulations, see the Washington Post, May 21, 2011: Harold Camping’s calculations for the end of the world.

For Rapturees, I recommend an insurance plan for those furry family members that won't join you in heaven with Eternal Earth-bound Pets, "a group of dedicated animal lovers, and atheists. Each Eternal Earth-Bound Pet representative is a confirmed atheist, and as such will still be here on Earth after you've received your reward. Our network of animal activists are committed to step in when you step up to Jesus."

To help you sinners stay calm, I recommend, from EOnline, an R.E.M.-Free Doomsday Playlist, "[j]ust 13 songs to help make May 21 the most refreshing doomsday ever."

After the rapture, WEBY will cancel Sunday programing, it will be too late for you sinners.

Instead, you might join the "post rapture looting," signup online, because "[w]hen everyone is gone and god's not looking, we need to pick up some sweet stereo equipment and maybe some new furniture for the mansion we're going to squat in."

Sinners might also check out the CDC's new blog post on their website called Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse. Granted, this will be a Judgment Day Apocalypse not a Zombie Apocalypse, but the website should give you some good ideas for preparing.

Also, after the rapture, I will no longer be available to do this show.


UPDATE III: "Think you’ve got a prediction for when and how the world will end? Get in line." Read CNN, Doomsdays Throughout Time, which notes, there's always "another doomsday around the corner."


UPDATE II: "Robert Fitzpatrick. a retired NYC transit worker and Staten Island resident, has spent about $140,000" for doomsday ads. Read CNN, Doomsday Ads "Mystify" NYC Mass Transit Riders.


UPDATE: Afraid you might not be raptured. Then make your reservation now for the apocalypse bunker.

"Awesome News!" Judgment Day is coming on May 21.

"On that day, people who will be saved will be raptured up to heaven. The rest will endure exactly 153 days of death and horror before the world ends on October 21. . . The Bible guarantees it!" according to Family Radio, a Christian broadcasting ministry." So is it time for a road trip!?

Read CNN, Road trip to the end of the world.

It's Twenty-Twelve, the end is here!

UPDATE:  For the 2012 trends in news, pop culture, fashion, life style, etc., see also, Google, Zeitgeist 2012.

FYI, the term zeitgeist means "the intellectual fashion or dominant school of thought which typifies and influences the culture of a particular period in time."

"Hurricanes! The fiscal cliff! Honey Boo Boo Child! The bizarre events of 2012 look a lot like omens of the apocalypse! JibJab takes inspiration from the Mayan calendar in an animated musical extravaganza looking back at possibly the last year we'll ever have to review. It's 2012, the end is here!" Watch JibJab Year in Review 2012: The End is Here!:

Start Balancing the Budget, Vote Obama

UPDATE III:  "If we are going to have radical deficit reduction, the fiscal cliff may be the fairest, least harmful way it can be achieved. Expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts, for example, would restore rates on the top 2 percent of earners to the levels they paid during the 1990s boom. Any likely deal would raise those rates less, and require either other tax increases or spending cuts to offset the revenue loss. (You can guess who’ll be hit hardest by those.)

Likewise, non-defense discretionary funding, which supports everything from national parks to Head Start — and which was already slashed in the 2011 debt-limit deal — would almost certainly face deeper cuts than those required in the sequester. . .

[I]f the New Year’s Day changes remain in full force — the result would be sacrifice shared broadly among rich, middle-class and poor, and between domestic and military programs. Any bargain proposed to avoid the fiscal cliff should be judged against that standard."

Read The New York Times, Bring on the Fiscal Cliff.   

UPDATE II: "Grover Norquist, who’s led the anti-tax movement on the right, similarly hailed the election as a victory and affirmation of Paul Ryan’s approach toward taxes and the budget."

Read the Washington Post, How Republicans are trying to look on the bright side today. 

Fiscal cliff here we come!

UPDATE:  "If all you wanted to do was to reduce the deficit as quickly as possible, here’s one very simple way to get it done: Go off the fiscal cliff.

Do so would result in about $720 billion in total austerity in 2013, and it would bring down the deficit that year in some of major ways, including $180 billion from income tax hikes, $120 billion in revenue from the payroll tax, $110 billion from the sequester’s automatic spending cuts, and $160 billion from expiring tax breaks and other programs, according to Bank of America’s estimates."

Read the Washington Post, The fiscal cliff would cut the deficit by $720 billion in 2013, but even deficit hawks hate it. 

"If the Obama administration were to really lay out their plans, they would go something like this. In November, President Obama will reiterate, clearly and firmly, that he will veto any attempts to extend the high-income tax cuts or lift the big, dumb spending cuts without finding equivalent savings elsewhere. In fact, as my colleague Lori Montgomery reports, they’re already reiterating that promise.

That veto threat is the center of the Obama administration’s second-term strategizing. The Obama administration believes – and, just as importantly, they believe Republicans believe — that they’ve got the leverage here. The Republican position on taxes is less popular than the Democratic position. The outcome of gridlock is much higher taxes, which is more anathema to Republicans and arguably cheering to Democrats. The big, dumb spending cuts, despite being poorly timed and inanely constructed, are very progressive in their effect, falling heavily on military spending while exempting Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare beneficiaries.

I’ve called this the GOP’s dual-trigger nightmare. It’s bad for the economy, but it also effectively ends our deficits with a mix of tax increases and spending cuts more progressive than anything any Democrat has dared propose. Republicans absolutely can’t let it happen. But the only way they can stop it from happening is to make a deal."

Read the Washington Post, Obama’s plan: Push Republicans off the fiscal cliff, which includes this comparison of various proposals to start balancing the budget:

You might remember, almost a year ago I discussed 'the GOP's dual trigger nightmare' and asked: Did Obama Con the Republi-CONs?

More Premarital Sex and Another Shotgun Wedding for the Palin Clan

UPDATE:  Well, that didn't last long, but long enough to silence the questions of family hypocrisy.  Read The New York Daily News, Track Palin and wife, Britta Hanson, file jointly for divorce after one year of marriage.  

You do the math: "Track Palin, the eldest son of Alaska's favorite hockey mom, is expecting a child with his high school sweetheart, Britta Hanson, just two months after their wedding. . . [But photos from a recent baby show for Britta show her] well into the second trimester, around six months, even seven." Read The New York Daily News, Track Palin, son of Sarah Palin, expecting child with wife Britta Hanson two months after wedding, which notes:

"Mom Sarah Palin has been a staunch defender of waiting until marriage. She pushed for abstinence-only education during her 2006 run for governor of Alaska."

A Good Summary of the Delusions of Our Local Pastor and His Friends

"It was both a good year and a bad one for conspiracy theories and theorists. For one thing, Neil Armstrong died. That was sad for many reasons; included among them is that now he’ll never be able to reveal the secret about the moon landing. On the other hand, it was a Presidential-election year, a particularly fertile time for conspiracy theorizing. People are fixated on an enemy, and they just need to take the next step and imagine all of the diabolical things that enemy could be up to. They certainly did plenty of that in 2012. Here are twelve of the highlights of the year's conspiracy theories. For the record, none of them are true."

Read The New Yorker, 2012: The Year of the Attack of the Gay Muslim Kenyan Divorcee President.

The article is a good summary of the delusion of those like our local Pastor Egomaniacal (AKA Pastor 2+2 Does Not = 4, Pastor Dred Scott, Resident Pastor-to-the-Dictators, Pastor Truthiness, and Pastor Poppins), and his friends at WND who just can't admit that Obama was  ever elected President.

The Republi-CON 'Balanced Budget, Less Government' Fraud

UPDATE:  "For years, deficit scolds have held Washington in thrall with warnings of an imminent debt crisis, even though investors, who continue to buy U.S. bonds, clearly believe that such a crisis won’t happen; economic analysis says that such a crisis can’t happen; and the historical record shows no examples bearing any resemblance to our current situation in which such a crisis actually did happen."  Read The New York Times, Fighting Fiscal Phantoms.  

"So it turns out that federal spending is important to the economy after all. . .

Republican lawmakers demanded the cuts last year as part of their brinkmanship over the debt ceiling, and business lobbies have generally supported slashing the deficit. But now that the cuts are imminent, corporate executives seem to have realized that the last thing the economy needs is a large budget cut across the board. 

They’re right about that. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the combined impact of the automatic spending cuts plus the scheduled expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts — the so-called fiscal cliff — would cause the economy to contract in the first half of 2013. Some business leaders seem to think the solution is for Congress to act as soon as possible to avert the spending cuts and to extend all of the tax cuts. That would avoid an economic downturn next year, but it would also mean no progress toward long-term deficit reduction"

 Read The New York Times, Business Fears the Fiscal Cliff. 


Proving once again "Keynes’s basic point: slashing spending in a depressed economy depresses that economy further. 

It also proves that the Republi-cons are frauds.

BTW, since the 2010 elections I've been waiting for the promised balanced budget, but don't hold you breath because the Republi-CONs Con the Tea Party, there'll be no $100 billion budget cut, and let's admit the obvious, the Republi-CONs are not serious about deficits.

Dear God: It's Me, the Dog

A little post-election humor, from an email:

Dear God: Is it on purpose that our names are spelled the same, only in reverse?

Dear God: Why do humans smell the flowers, but seldom, if ever, smell one another?

Dear God: When we get to Heaven, can we sit on your couch? Or will it be the same old story?

Dear God: Why are there cars named after the jaguar, the cougar, the mustang, the colt, the stingray, and the rabbit, but not ONE named for a Dog? How often do you see a cougar riding around? We love a nice car ride! Would it be so hard to rename the 'Chrysler Eagle' the 'Chrysler Beagle'?

Dear God: If a Dog barks his head off in the forest and no human hears him, is he still a bad Dog?

Dear God: We Dogs can understand human verbal instructions, hand signals, whistles, horns, clickers, beepers, scent IDs, electromagnetic energy fields, and Frisbee flight paths. What do humans understand?

Dear God: More meatballs, less spaghetti, please.

Dear God: Are there mailmen in Heaven? If there are, will I have to apologize?

Dear God: Here is a list of just some of the things I must remember to be a good Dog:

1. I will not eat the cat's food before he eats it or after he throws it up.

2. I will not roll on dead seagulls, fish, crabs, etc., just because I like the way they smell.

3. The Litter Box is not a cookie jar.

4. The sofa is not a 'face towel'.

5. The garbage collector is not stealing our stuff.

6. I will not play tug-of-war with Dad's underwear when he's on the toilet.

7. Sticking my nose into someone's crotch is an unacceptable way of saying 'hello'.

8. I don't need to suddenly stand straight up when I'm under the coffee table.

9. I must shake the rainwater out of my fur before entering the house - not after.

10. I will not come in from outside, and immediately drag my butt across the carpet.

11. I will not sit in the middle of the living room, and lick my crotch.

12. The cat is not a 'squeaky toy', so when I play with him and he makes that noise, it's usually not a good thing.

 P.S. Dear God: When I get to Heaven, may I have my testicles back?

Romney Sings Concession!!!

A parody of "Romney’s concession speech in a cheery musical number currently making the Youtube rounds. The Gregory Brothers song, paired with real footage from Romney’s concession, pokes fun at the candidate’s wealth with lines like "I’m done pretending to have fun with the plebeians,' and 'besides, who on earth could possibly get by on $400,000 a year?'":



It's a great country! Where else would something like this be done and published freely and openly so soon after such a closely contested election.

Who Will Win?, the Final Stretch

UPDATE XIX:  "After disappointing results in Tuesday’s election, Mr. Priebus said that it was time for Republicans to become "'more tolerant of those with a math-and-science lifestyle.'"

Read The New Yorker, Republicans Consider Welcoming People Who Believe in Math and Science.

UPDATE XVIII:  And what organization had the most accurate polling?  Read Talking Points Memo, Public Policy Polling Deemed Most Accurate National Pollster In 2012, which notes that 'lamestream media' easily beat Hedgehog News.

As I said before, watch Hedgehog News, be dumber than the ill-informed

Channel surfing, I briefly watched Hedgehog last night and it was a hoot as the hosts realized reality trumped partisan delusion. Trump pun intended.

Hedgehog News brings to mind what George Orwell wrote in a famous essay, "In Front of Your Nose": "[W]e are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."  In this case, that battlefield was the 2012 election.

Speaking of Trump delusions, did ya hear about the Trump twitter meltdown, he even called for a 'revolution'!  You might remember that he's a birther and was once the next Republi-con celebrity candidate. 

UPDATE XVII:  Numbers (and facts) have such a liberal bias. 

Read the Washington Post, Guess what? The polls (and Nate Silver) were right., Forbes, Three Lessons From The Nate Silver Controversy, Bloomberg, Nate Silver-Led Statistics Men Crush Pundits in Election. , and The Atlantic, How Conservative Media Lost to the MSM and Failed the Rank and File, which notes that "Nate Silver was right. His ideological antagonists were wrong. And that's just the beginning of the right's self-created information disadvantage."

UPDATE XVI:  Try The New York Times, 512 Paths to the White House, which allows you to "[s]elect a winner in the most competitive states . . . to see all the paths to victory available for either candidate."  The interactive graph show that Obama has 431 paths to victory, Romney has 76, and 5 result in a tie, and each begins with who wins Florida.

UPDATE XV:  Here are several final forecasts for the Electoral College and, if any, the national two-party popular vote (Obama - Romney):

Jay DeSart and Tom Holbroo, Utah Valley University:  303 - 235 and 51.37 - 48.63%

Drew Linzer, Political Science, Emory University:  326 - 212

Sam Wang, Princeton Election Consortium: 312 to 226

Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight at The New York Times:  313 - 225 and 50.8 - 48.3%

Politico.com:  303 - 235.

Real Clear Politics:  303 - 235 and 48.8 - 48.1.

According to Robert Erikson, a prominent forecasting specialist at Columbia, and his colleague Karl Sigman, the polls would have to be wrong by four points for Romney to win.  The article notes that a win by Romeny would be unheard of, '"[u]nheard of' doesn’t mean 'impossible,' of course, but it does suggest that Romney has tough odds to overcome Tuesday."

For other forecasts and predictions, read the Washington Post, Pundit accountability: The official 2012 election prediction thread.

UPDATE XIV:  "The polls, taken together, are typically pretty accurate. Systemic problems, while possible, aren’t likely. There are a lot of pollsters producing a lot of polls and each and every one of them has every incentive to try and get it right. When they converge, it’s typically with good reason. And right now, they have converged. The 3-4 percentage point error necessary for Romney to be the real favorite in this race is extremely unlikely.

Critics of the polls, meanwhile, tend to be self-serving. You don’t hear Romney supporters arguing that the cell phone users really are undersampled, and their candidate’s position is even more dire than it seems. Similarly, no prominent Obama supporters have argued that the polls are assuming an electorate that looks too much like 2008, and as such, are undercounting Romney’s likely support. Frankly, I’d be much more likely to take a critique of the polls seriously if it cut against the critic’s self-interest. But somehow, it never does.

Self-serving critiques can be correct, of course, but because they’re motivated by what the critic wishes to see happen, or what the flack needs the media to think is happening, they deserve to be treated with suspicion. And because the pollsters themselves have clear incentives, more expertise, and a deeper understanding of the data, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.

So here’s my prediction for tomorrow: The polls will prove to be right. President Obama will win with 290 electoral votes. I’m not extremely confident in the precision of that estimate: Some swing states are close enough that it’s entirely possible for a good ground game to tip, say, Florida into Obama’s column, or Colorado into Romney’s. Virginia is basically tied, and I’m giving it to Romney based on the assumption that challenger wins in a tie, but it could easily go the other way. So if Obama ends up winning with 303, I won’t be surprised."

Read the Washington Post, Wonkblog, The polls will be right and Obama will win with 290 electoral votes.

UPDATE XIII:  If Obamney is so confident that he's going to win, why, in the final week of the campaign, do his campaign ads have an air of desperation?  Read The New Republic, Chrysler, GM to Romney: Stop Lying and the Washington Post, Mitt Romney’s Kamikaze strategy and Romney video blames Obama for death of barbecue joint.

Also read the comments on the last article.  It seems Romney didn't do his due diligence, the restaurant had crappy food, bad locations, and health violations, and, to quote one former customer, was "a dirty dump".  Really, does Obamney really think the president of the United States is responsible for failed restaurants, and that he's our great savior?

UPDATE XII:  With a week until the election, the chart below shows "'the estimated probabilities of an Obama victory and current Electoral College forecasts (where available) from the political scientists Jay DeSart and Tom Holbrook, Stanford’s Simon Jackman, Emory’s Drew Linzer, Silver, Princeton’s Sam Wang, the British sports book Betfair, and the Intrade futures market (here and here).'"

Read the Washington Post, Nate Silver and the forecasting consensus, in one chart, which quotes Columbia Journalism Review, Pundits versus probabilities, The misguided backlash against Nate Silver, and includes this chart:

We''l know next week whether these forecasts are correct, and whether the  Republi-cons  are just trying to create their own reality again.

UPDATE XI:  "[O]n June 7, the closest states were Colorado, Ohio and Virginia, each of which slightly favored Mr. Obama. In Florida and North Carolina, meanwhile, we had Mitt Romney listed as a modest favorite.

Pretty much the same could be said about the race today. In fact, our projected leader in all 50 states is the same as it was at our launch of the forecast in June."

Read The New York Times, Oct. 28: In Swing States, a Predictable Election?

UPDATE X:  "A straightforward read of the polls suggests we’re likely to see Mitt Romney win the popular vote and Barack Obama win the electoral college — and, thus, the presidency. But most pollsters don’t think that will happen."

Read the Washington Post, Will Romney win the popular vote but lose the presidency?

UPDATE IX:  As of October 25, just 12 days before the election, there is not "any continuously updated model that shows Romney ahead. Nate SIlver’s model gives Obama a 71 percent chance of winning. Sam Wang’s meta-analysis predicts 293 electoral votes for Obama. Drew Linzer’s Votamatic predicts 332 electoral votes for Obama."

Read the Washington Post, Where the 2012 presidential election is right now, which in addition to the election forecast models, summaries the national and state polls, the campaign ground games, enthusiasm, early voting, and the momentum narrative.

For earlier updates (July-October), see Who Will Win?

Who Won the The 2012 Presidential Candidate Wife Cookie Contest?

UPDATE II:  "Polls — who needs them? You want election-picking accuracy? Try World Series winners, school-kid polls, 7-Eleven coffee cups and more."

Read the Washington Post, Who will win the election? A few un­or­tho­dox indicators., which including the Chia hair growth forecast, the Redskins rule, and the Halloween mask predictor, as well as the cookie test below.

UPDATE:  And with "just 287 votes separated the two women, [the] smallest margin ever, the winner is . . .  Read Politico, Michelle Obama wins cookie contest.  

Was it the white and dark chocolate cookie made with "two sticks of butter and a stick of Crisco" or the "the 'healthier' non-Crisco, non-flour, heavy-on-the-oats M&M cookie?"

And which cookie was from which wife?

And did you know that "all winners since 1992 have ended up living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave—except Cindy McCain, whose borrowed recipe for oatmeal-butterscotch cookies beat Michelle’s lemon zest shortbread in 2008."

Read Time, Obama Wins Crucial Cookie-Related Precursor to Re-Election.

God Must Love Obama and Want Him Relected

UPDATE:  More proof that God must love Obama and sent a hurricane to rescue his campaign: "In a surprise announcement, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said Thursday that Hurricane Sandy had reshaped his thinking about the presidential campaign and that as a result he was endorsing President Obama."

Read The New York Times, Bloomberg Backs Obama, Citing Climate Change. 

Unemployment is closely related to presidential approval ratings and G.D.P. growth, which, as noted before, are two of the three factors important to the outcome of the election.

And "[t]he unusually warm winter in the United States gave payroll employment numbers a big boost this year. How big? Macroeconomic Advisers estimates that the warm weather, with below-average precipitation, boosted payroll employment in February by 72,000." (Read the Washington Post, How an unusually warm winter boosted the economy.)

Ergo, God must love Obama.

I am sure Pastor Poppins of Pensacola would agree.