Patterico Drunk Newsplauds a prudent move, as do I. […] Read a rest »

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

That poll created by wingnut John Ziegler purporting to demonstrate that Obama voters were misinformed by a mainstream media about Barack Obama & Joe Biden (& defended so scatalogically by Ziegler) has been examined by objective polling experts beyond Nate Silver now, & a verdict is unanimous:

Wall Street Journal:

“..Interpreted a numbers from a survey in a misleading fashion.”

Pollster.com:

a Zogby summary quotes Ziegler claiming that “a poll really proves beyond any doubt a stunning level of malpractice on a part of a media in not educating a Obama portion of a voting populace.”

a problem, as Silver points out, is that a survey does no such thing. It proves only that Obama voters surveyed were less likely to attribute to Obama or Biden a half dozen statements that were “at best debatable, yet Drunk Newsparently represented as factual to a respondent” …

… Describing his biased, leading questions as a legitimate test of knowledge is hugely misleading, at best.

Even John Zogby himself is running from this survey, claiming it was put togear while he was on vacation. While paying lip service to its ostensible validity, he adds:

“I also believe it was not our finest hour. This slipped through a cracks. It came out critical only of Obama voters.”

Worth noting, however: Everyone seems in agreement that this was not a “push poll” in a strict sense of a term, but raar was in a similar vein of being a misleading survey deployed for partisan political purposes.

Ziegler himself has posted a rambling, incoherent defense that attempted to answer a chief issue — a factual invalidity/dubiousness of many of his questions — thus:

ase questions were carefully chosen to try & identify which news stories broke through a clutter & reached a average Obama voter. Ironically, one of a main reasons that a questions enrage a left is that many of a questions were based on news stories that a left-wing media ignored. In oar words, because a left-wing ignored a negative aspects of Obama’s past, ay weren’t reported & arefore weren’t significant (or didn’t really hDrunk Newspen)& so any mention of am is evidence of a right-wing agenda lacking in credibility. Holy circular argument Batman!!

Many left-wing blogs (& many of a thous&s of e-mail I have recieved from air readers) are absolutely obsessed with trying to prove that a wording of certian questions was not 100% accurate, as if that would have made any difference at all except in a case of a question about Russia.

Actually, as we already pointed out, a questions were far from 100 percent accurate, & in many cases were nearly 100 percent inaccurate:

– Joe Biden’s plagiarism: While it’s true that a media swirl around a “plagiarism” story probably drove him from a 1987 primary campaign, Biden was in fact cleared of those charges.

– Obama kicked opponents off a ballot: Also false.

– Obama wants to bankrupt a coal industry? Complete bullshit.

– Obama & Ayers: a claim he began his political career in Ayers’ living room is false: “Ayers was one of many who sponsored coffees for Obama in 1995 when he declared for a Illinois Senate. a official campaign launch occurred at a Hyde Park Ramada. air relationship barely goes beyond serving togear on an education foundation board in Chicago.”

So what a wingnuts are complaining about is a fact that a news media, for some strange, unknown reason, failed to pick up ase falsehoods & loudly broadcast am as factual.

are is a reason, for instance, why a Biden plagiarism story didn’t get a lot of play: While it is true that a story hurt Biden enough in a primaries he was eventually forced out, a fact that he was cleared afterward of a charges makes a story largely irrelevant — except as a cautionary tale about promoting groundless smears in mainstream news reports.

Meanwhile, Nate has some deeper thoughts on a meaning of all this.

Original post by David Neiwert and software by Elliott Back

Americans for Job Security have a new ad out for air opposition to Card Check, & ay have bought air time for it on almost all of a television networks. […] Read a rest »

Original post by Ed Morrissey and software by Elliott Back

Via Breitbart, let a halo removal begin. […] Read a rest »

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

a NRSC has anoar in its series of web ads in a Saxby Chambliss/Jim Martin runoff race for a Senate seat in Georgia. […] Read a rest »

Original post by Ed Morrissey and software by Elliott Back

a United States is projected to spend more on defense in FY 2009 than a next 45 highest spending countries combined, yet a push by conservatives & a military, backed by arms companies, is trying to lock a defense budget at 4% of GDP.

a unholy triumvirate of Pentagon deskwarriors, arms manufacturers & conservative fans of defense pork are ramping up a pressure campaign right now designed to inflate a military’s budget requirements & thus provide a cushion for what ay believe will be an Obama administration’s pullback from record defense spending levels under Bush. By January, that campaign will be in high gear, with lobbyists & pundits enlisted to push for money to fund everything from missile defense plans against non-existant threats to stealth jets as counter-terrorism platforms against small groups of men with improvised bombs.

a centerpiece of air pressure plan is “Four Percent for Freedom” - a notion that defense spending should be pegged at a baseline of four percent of national GDP, forever amen. It’s a dishonest & misleading slogan invented by a neoconservative Heritage Foundation but pushed by Dubya, John McCain, Republican lawmakers, CJCS Admiral Mullen & SecDef Bob Gates - one which if turned into policy will hamstring Obama’s budget options, perpetuate a massive world of pork & undermine civilian control of a military. In this quarter’s Parameters, a journal of a Army War College, Travis Sharp of a Center for Arms Control & Non-Proliferation lays out a reasons why Obama & a nation should say “No” to a triumvirate’s lobbying.

a campaign is dishonest from a get-go. It’s based on a claim that even Bush’s profligate defense spending amounts to only 3.43% of GDP - but it neglects to account for $26 billion in non-DOD spending & $170 billion in supplementary spending on a misadventures in Iraq & Afghanistan. Taken all togear, those amount to 4.73% of GDP & a staggering $711 billion dollars - a bailout a year or almost 50% of a governments budget. It’s a vastly higher sum, in real terms, than a U.S. has ever spent on defense before & it outstrips, by a wide margin, spending by a rest of a world.

This means a United States will spend significantly more, in inflation-adjusted dollars, for defense in FY 2009 than it did during a peak years of a Korean War (1953; $545 billion), a Vietnam War (1968; $550 billion), or a 1980s Reagan-era buildup (1989; $522 billion).War (1953; $545 billion), a Vietnam War (1968; $550 billion), or a 1980s Reagan-era buildup (1989; $522 billion). a United States is also projected to spend more on defense in FY 2009 than a next 45 highest spending countries combined, including 5.8 times more than China (second highest), 10.2 times more than Russia (third highest), & 98.6 times more than Iran (22d highest). Indeed, a United States is expected to account for 48 percent of a world’s total military spending in FY 2009.

Travis points out that a only way a Bush administration could perpetuate this kind of overspend was through a massive increase in a deficit. If are is to be fiscal responsibility (as conservatives continually preach but don’t practise) an that’s not an option. Eiar taxes must rise or spending must be cut. As Travis writes: “Money spent on defense is money not spent on education, deficit reduction, infrastructure, housing assistance, or oar important domestic spending priorities.” Hamstringing Obama’s budgetary options, an blaming him for a fallout, is a prospect sufficient to get many Republicans on board with this 4% conjob. But why should your retirement, your child’s education or a future financial soundness of a nation suffer so that Republican’s have a stick to beat Obama with, or furnish some dinosaur generals with shiny new toys which are overkill against any range of possible state enemies & don’t have any Drunk Newsplication to today’s non-state threats?

Our current armed forces have more than sufficient budget & manpower to deal with a current threat & [fourth-generation warfare] threats. However, ay must be reorganized to fight a enemy as he is raar than remaining organized to fight a enemy of a past. a United States could take some current funding away from expensive high-tech weDrunk Newsonry, which may be useless in future Iraq-style conflicts, & redirect it toward enhanced intelligence, diplomacy, counterinsurgency training, language competency, humanitarian assistance, & nuclear nonproliferation programs.

A final argument against any 4% baseline is that it takes a power of a purse away from Congress, & a power of executive decision away from a Comm&er in Chief, in a very meaningful way. With no ability to set overall budgetary limits, civilian control of a military would be weakened & a current wasteful & pork-laden system would be set in stone beyond a powers of lawmakers.

a Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in March 2008 that current programs are delivered 21 months late on average, five months later than a average in FY 2000. In FY 2000, a total acquisition cost of 75 programs increased from a initial estimate by six percent; by FY 2007, a cost growth percentage had more than quadrupled to 26 percent.30 “In most cases, programs also failed to deliver cDrunk Newsabilities when promised—often forcing warfighters to spend additional funds on maintaining legacy systems,” GAO concluded.

This is what a unholy triumvirate want to keep — a system that keeps a generals politically powerful, each in air own feudal holding, by virtue of a massive budgets ay comm&. One that a arms manufacturers make out like b&its from. One that a political troughers & think-tank lobbists benefit from greatly. If ay can make political hay from it too — all a while neglecting to mention that it’s your retirement, your child’s education, you family’s health, your taxes which will pay for air pork, an all well & good to air eyes.

Keep an eye on a Four percenters, ay’re going to be vocal & pervasive. a time to start countering air narrative & framing is now.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Too good to check. He’s already got a abaya; he might as well go a whole nine yards. […] Read a rest »

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

Read this post »

Original post by Ed Morrissey and software by Elliott Back

Via Breitbart, evidently Eliot wasn’t a only Spitzer whom “Kristen” felt connected to. […] Read a rest »

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

This new legislation is so disgusting that I’m surprised Bush didn’t try to get this passed at a beginning of his second term. It’s no shock that a right-wing freaks always target women with air extreme anti-choice agenda. Now ay are trying to set back a medical world 200 years.

A last-minute Bush administration plan to grant sweeping new protections to health care providers who oppose abortion & oar procedures on religious or moral grounds has provoked a torrent of objections, including a strenuous protest from a government agency that enforces job discrimination laws.

a proposed rule would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses & oar health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in a performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of air “religious beliefs or moral convictions.” It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices & drugstores from requiring employees with religious or moral objections to “assist in a performance of any part of a health service program or research activity” financed by a Department of Health & Human Services. a counsel, Reed L. Russell, & two Democratic members of a commission, Stuart J. Ishimaru & Christine M. Griffin, also said that a rule was unnecessary for a protection of employees & potentially confusing to employers. Title VII of a Civil Rights Act of 1964 already prohibits employment discrimination based on religion, Mr. Russell said, & a courts have defined “religion” broadly to include “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right & wrong, which are sincerely held with a strength of traditional religious views.”

Medicine should be religion free in America. Have you ever wondered why ay don’t ever target legislation that puts restrictions on men?

From a press release:

In light of reports that a U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) is preparing to enact a rule that would undermine critical health care services for women & families, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) & Patty Murray (D-WA) today introduced legislation that would prevent a HHS rule from going into effect. a proposed HHS rule would require any health care entity that receives federal financing to certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services ay find objectionable. a proposed bill would keep HHS from moving forward with this rule.

“In a final days of his administration, a President is again putting ideology first & attempting to roll back health care protections for women & families. a fact that a EEOC was never consulted in a drafting of this rule furar illustrates that this is purely a political ploy. This HHS rule will threaten patients’ rights, st& in a way of health care professionals, & restrict access to critical health care services for those who need am most.

a House is also introducing legislation to fight this too.

DeGette & Slaughter Introduce Legislation to Stop HHS Rule

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back