The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Giuliani 2012? Crazy.

Posted on | May 24, 2011 | 6 Comments

You gotta be kidding me. Rudy Giuliani raised and spent tens of millions of dollars, sucked up vast volumes of media oxygen and won exactly one delegate during his 2008 Republican presidential primary campaign.

That Rudy would be considering a run in 2012 is absurd, and anyone who takes this seriously is daft.

You know what this is about? It’s the same thing as the bogus Trump-for-president campaign. This is about New York-based media wanting a New York-area political celebrity candidate to write about — something to sell copies of the New York Post and the Daily Mail. If they can’t talk Chris Christie into a running, they’ll try to gin up a phony “Giuliani 2012” groundswell.

Category: Election 2012

NY-26 Election Day: Are Crazy Jack’s Supporters Breaking Toward Democrat?

Posted on | May 24, 2011 | 9 Comments

Jazz Shaw points out in the Hot Air Green Room that, contrary to some expectations, the erosion of fake “Tea Party” candidate Jack Davis’s support has not translated to poll gains for Republican Jane Corwin. This adds doubt to Politico‘s prediction that a low vote for Crazy Jack would necessarily portend a Corwin victory in today’s New York congressional election.

But what Jazz points out is, upon reflection, quite logical: Jack Davis ran as a Democrat three times — in 2004, 2006 and 2008 — and it only makes sense that most of his “soft” support would be Democratic voters. Once these voters became aware that Kathy Hochul was the actual Democrat candidate in the 26th District special election, most of them quite naturally switched their preference to her.

Therefore, those voters who actually do vote for Crazy Jack — however small their number — will come almost entirely from the ranks of Republican voters or independents who, in most years, lean toward the GOP. Jazz correctly points out that it is still impossible to predict tonight’s outcome:

As Nate Silver pointed out this week, polling single House races for a special election is notoriously difficult. Turnout is almost uniformly low compared to a general election, particularly when a governorship or the presidency is on the line. Low turnout races increase the margin of error, and while this race is likely to still be very close, it could flip either way by tonight.

This was something I kept pointing out last fall: Polling a congressional race is harder than polling a statewide election or a presidential election, and a low-turnout election like this one will hinge on which party can get its voters to the polls.

It’s not particularly encouraging that the Republican Party of New York is so incompetent as to allow their volunteer phone bank to be infiltrated by leftist provocateurs.

More news at Memeorandum. Polls in NY-26 close tonight at 9 p.m. If you live there, vote Corwin. And we’ll have the results tonight.

PREVIOUSLY:

Category: Congress, Election, New York

News From the HuffPo ‘Veal Pen’

Posted on | May 24, 2011 | 22 Comments

In 2009, lefty blogger Jane Hamsher used the phrase “veal pen” to describe the way liberals had surrendered their autonomy to the Obama administration.

Lefty blogger Matt Osborne invoked the phrase while describing his decision to delete his archived articles at Huffington Post:

I see the point many of the 9,000 or so unpaid contributors have made about deserving some kind of compensation, even at a token rate per post, as thanks for building the product she has sold for a fortune. But it wasn’t personal avarice that led me to this; I don’t desire any part of Arianna Huffington’s AOL millions, for in my mind that money is cursed. Just ask Ted Turner.
Instead, my participation in HuffPuff — the growing online rebellion against Arianna and her newly-mintworthy media empire that began at the Adbusters website in February — is the culmination of many months of disillusionment and growing disgust. The sale of Huffington Post represents exactly the sort of “veal pen captivation scheme” that firebagging lefties constantly project on anyone with the temerity to question their paranoid conspiracy theories and character assassinations.

Exactly what Osborne intends to signify by the expression “firebagging lefties,” I’m not sure. Obsorne seems to have an overblown sense of his own importance, and his interpretations of Arianna Huffington’s politics are dubious. Nevertheless, Osborne is correct that what Huffington sold to AOL was a readership, including readers of  uncompensated contributors such as himself. Rather than filing lawsuits against HuffPo, however, he has asserted his own autonomy by deleting his previous HuffPo contributions (transferring the posts to his own domain) and encouraging others to do the same.

Let Arianna choke on her ill-gotten gains. Just don’t let her claim ownership of your uncompensated work. Ayn Rand would understand.

Category: Huffington Post

Dept. of Bad Analogies

Posted on | May 24, 2011 | 4 Comments

“Last Friday, Kansas legislators approved a ban on insurance companies offering abortion coverage as part of their general health plans.”

This is in itself problematic. I’m pro-life, but I don’t like the idea of government bossing around insurance companies, telling them who and what they should or should not cover. And this description of the rationale behind the bill seems confusing:

If the bill becomes law as expected, starting in July, individuals and employers who want abortion coverage would have to buy supplemental policies that cover only abortion. Supporters of the bill argue that it will protect employers who oppose abortion rights from having to pay for policies that cover the procedures.

But don’t different companies offer different policies? I mean, if an employer didn’t want to provide abortion coverage, couldn’t the employer shop around to find a company that offered the kind of coverage he wanted? There must be some background to this story I don’t understand.

Whatever the policy logic of this law, it doesn’t help the pro-life cause to have it defended by idiots:

Rep. Barbara Bollier, a Mission Hills Republican who supports abortion rights, questioned whether women would buy abortion-only policies long before they have crisis or unwanted pregnancies or are rape victims.
During the House’s debate, Rep. Pete DeGraaf, a Mulvane Republican who supports the bill, told her: “We do need to plan ahead, don’t we, in life?”
Bollier asked him, “And so women need to plan ahead for issues that they have no control over with a pregnancy?”
DeGraaf drew groans of protest from some House members when he responded, “I have spare tire on my car.”
“I also have life insurance,” he added. “I have a lot of things that I plan ahead for.”

“Groans of protest,” indeed. A much better argument: The fee for a first-trimester abortion isn’t so steep as to be prohibitive to the uninsured. It is a relatively inexpensive procedure. This is also a valid argument against taxpayer subsidies for abortion providers like Planned Parenthood: Even if you are enthusiastically “pro-choice,” there is no compelling economic need that justifies such subsidies.

Exactly why the Kansas legislature felt the need to interfere this way with the insurance companies, I don’t know. But spare us the spare-tire analogies.

Category: Abortion

Never Burn a Source

Posted on | May 24, 2011 | 34 Comments

Nothing is more essential to a newsman’s craft than trust. If your sources can’t trust you to keep a secret, they’re not going to tell you everything you need to know, because sometimes you need to know more than you can actually report. Therefore, to breach confidentiality — to burn a source by reporting what were supposed to be off-the-record conversations — is to destroy the kind of trust that is necessary to the practice of your trade.

At the Daily Caller, Jonathan Strong has done something vaguely akin to burning a source: He published confidential Twitter direct messages between Sarah Palin spokeswoman Rebecca Mansour and someone else.

We learn from Ben Smith that the source for Strong’s “scoop” had previously tried to sell this information. Smith says he refused to pay, but wanted the scoop:

“Does Politico pay for exclusives? Cause I’m looking to sell. I have 122 direct messages from Sarah Palin staffer Rebecca Mansour,” the person emailed, eventually sending along sample direct messages identical to a couple the Caller posted. They were forwarded from the account of one improbably named Toki de la Vega, a contributor to some pro-Palin sites, though there was a man’s name attached to one of the tweets as well.
I responded with a counter-offer of lunch and “undying gratitude.”
“Sorry, Ben, but it’s going to take more than a happy meal and a hand shake to get me to betray someone’s confidence. Only freshly printed 100 dollar bills help me get over feelings of guilt,” wrote the emailer, who continued, “Would it violate some fake journalistic ethics and standards to get me in contact someone who does pay? I know that the thought of blogging about this is making your panties wet. The topics range from Chuck Hagel to Ricky Hollywood and everything else in between. It’s a f***ing blogger’s gold mine.”

Good Lord! If I went to press with every unguarded opinion expressed privately to me by political operatives, what untold havoc could I wreak? But that havoc would be short-lived, of course, because once a reporter burns a source, nobody would ever trust him again. Ed Morrissey writes:

Well, having been around a few election cycles, I can attest that every campaign likes to push negative information about their opponents.  I’ve probably received a couple of those types of messages already this morning, and I’m sure I’ll get more by the end of the day, too.  “Leaking damaging information” is what they do.  Being shocked by that, or even considering it news, is approaching Captain Louis Renault territory.

Agreed. And I will add that it has been observed by more than a few conservatives that the only time the Daily Caller ever seems to get a scoop, it is a scoop that damages conservatives.  Read more

Category: Journalism, Sarah Palin

Christina Hendricks Talks About Her Breasts: ‘They’re So Obviously Real …’

Posted on | May 24, 2011 | 27 Comments

“It was reported this year that there had been a sharp rise in breast augmentation in the UK because British women were longing to look more like Christina, though she says: ‘I hope I’m not encouraging that. If there’s anything to be learned from me it’s that I’m learning to celebrate what I was born with, even though it’s sometimes been inconvenient. Having larger breasts has made it harder for me to shop throughout the years, but I’ve learnt to love it. It’s so bizarre that people are constantly asking if my breasts are real or fake,’ she adds. ‘They’re so obviously real that anyone who’s ever seen or touched a breast would know.’ “
— U.K. Daily Mail, May 24

Because the voluptuous star of Mad Men was the original inspiration for Rule 5, I felt it important to share this news with readers. And if we can take the lady at her word, this probably settles a few bets.

Category: Celebrities, Rule 5

Everybody’s Talking 2012

Posted on | May 24, 2011 | 55 Comments

Instapundit had an uncharacteristically long post about the 2012 Republican presidential field, my favorite reaction being Professor Stephen Clark’s remark:

“Rove and Krauthammer amuse me with their response to Herman Cain. Since when has it become self-evident that a man with the professional accomplishments of Herman Cain is unfit to hold the office of President for not having spent the better part of his life as an elected politician and has, unforgivably, remained unknown to the likes of Rove and Krauthammer? Paging Professor Codevilla.”

Karl Rove is the Architect of . . . what, really? A campaign that squeaked past Al Gore by the barest of margins in 2000, and scored a slim majority against John Kerry in 2004. Looking back on it, Gore and Kerry weren’t the most formidable candidates the Democrats ever fielded, and yet Rove’s reputation as a strategic genius rests on his management of campaigns that just barely beat them.

Rove’s disparagement of Cain, then, is to be taken with a grain of salt. Charles Krauthammer once worked for Walter Mondale. ‘Nuff said. 

Bill Kristol’s pining for the Great Rescuer is, I think, apt to be unrequited. He clearly wants either Chris Christie or Jeb Bush, and neither of them is likely to jump in this late.

Is Sarah Palin in or out? That’s the biggest question mark at this point. The next major televised GOP debate is in August, and I’d expect she’ll give a definite “yes” or “no” by then. But think about this: If Palin waits until August, she’d be spotting her opposition at least a 100-day lead on organizing campaigns in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and other early states. Practically, then, her apparent indecision points strongly toward a “no” for 2012.

A poll from New Hampshire seems to show Mitt Romney with a commanding advantage there, but 87% of Republicans there say they have no idea who they’ll vote for, so it’s really wide open.

Can America resist the frenzied hysteria of T-Paw fever? To ask the question is, I think, to answer it. And if Dave Weigel wants Republicans to nominate Pawlenty . . . ?

Eric Cantor wants Paul Ryan to run for president — and who doesn’t like Paul Ryan? I think he’s an obvious favorite for the vice-presidential nomination, regardless of who gets the presidential bid. For any sitting member of the House to run a presidential campaign is, however, a long row to hoe.

Finally, Monday on Sean Hannity’s show, Herman Cain admitted to blowing the “right of return” question on Sunday:

“[‘Fox News Sunday’ host Chris Wallace] caught me off-guard. I didn’t understand the right of return. That came out of left field, out of all the questions I anticipated him asking me, I didn’t even conceive of him asking me about the right of return. I now know what that is.”

Ace was impressed. It’s probably not enough to win over Krauthammer. But then again, Krauthammer isn’t an Iowa caucus voter.

And there’s a new Zogby poll.

UPDATE: Don Surber tells the story of how Karl Rove was unwisely willing to write off West Virginia in 2000.


Category: Election 2012, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, New Hampshire, Paul Ryan, Polls, Sarah Palin, Video

Shocking Media News

Posted on | May 24, 2011 | 8 Comments

When the New York Times announced an addition to its op-ed pages, one blog headlined the story:

Frank Bruni to Be First Gay NYT
Op-Ed Columnist in Paper’s History

To which I’m sure I wasn’t the only reader to respond, “Wait a minute! Are you trying to tell me Frank Rich is straight?”

Category: Gays, New York Times
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin