'Frame-Fail' for the New York Times: Democrats Taking Steps to Narrow Romney's Gender Gap

There's some brutal political irony in this front-page New York Times report out today, "Romney Taking Steps to Narrow His Gender Gap."

Mitt Romney moved Wednesday to confront one of his most vexing general election problems — how to narrow the gender gap he faces against President Obama — but his campaign immediately found itself squeezed between its intensifying efforts to appeal to women and its need to avoid alienating conservatives.

Female voters have emerged as one of Mr. Romney’s largest vulnerabilities. A Washington Post/ABC News poll this week showed that women preferred Mr. Obama to Mr. Romney by 19 percentage points, and an earlier Gallup/USA Today poll of voters in 12 key swing states showed Mr. Obama leading over all, buoyed by independents and women — two critical voting blocs.

Now, in the face of mounting attacks from Democrats and the Obama campaign, Mr. Romney is taking steps to address that gender gap head on. In the past week, his campaign has devised a three-pronged strategy, which it finalized Tuesday night, advisers familiar with the internal discussions said. They will try to debunk the notion that Mr. Romney’s policies have hurt women, turn the criticism back on Mr. Obama and outline how they believe women have suffered under his administration, and brand those issues in a memorable way.

The article then goes on to suggest that Romney "stumbled" with his comments on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, but then continues:

As the Romney campaign shifts to the general election, his aides will reintroduce him to voters, warming up his image by emphasizing his role as a devoted father and husband. Mr. Romney’s wife, Ann, has already made several Web videos that feature her reminiscences, along with gauzy family photos; voters are likely to see more of these. Mrs. Romney will also increase her campaign appearances; she has already begun to talk about how women tell her they care deeply about the economy, where the campaign wants to keep its focus. Polls showed that as the Republican primary campaign dragged on, Mr. Romney began losing support with women, who may have been put off by the contest’s focus on social issues like Planned Parenthood, immigration and contraception.

“Women voters are pocketbook voters, and the highest casualties of President Obama’s failures on the economy have been among women,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior adviser to Mr. Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts. “Governor Romney has a good record on women’s issues. When he was in office, he was judged to have the best record of all governors in hiring women into senior positions.”

Well, no doubt Ann Romney is the Romney campaign's secret weapon! And she's taking off like lightning! Althouse notes the left's "frame-fail" in the Hilary Rosen backlash:

This is creating so much interest in Ann Romney now, shining a sudden bright light on her, and she is so ready. She's a great persona, better than Mitt at talking to people and generating warmth.

And here's Alana Goodman at Commentary, "Dems Retrench in the “War on Women”?":

From the staggering statistic released by the Republican National Committee that found women have lost 92.3 percent of all jobs lost since Obama took office, to yesterday’s scathing story on the gender pay gap in the Obama White House by the Washington Free Beacon, the GOP has started throwing the “war on women” rhetoric back into the faces of the Democrats who coined it.

And that was before the Hilary Rosen controversy erupted last night. Rosen has since apologized, and her statement appears to be more of a plea for a truce than a mea culpa...

There's more from Goodman at the link, but here's the icing on this beautiful "frame-fail" cake, at National Journal, "Obama Defends Ann Romney":

President Obama defended Ann Romney on Thursday, weighing in on a controversial comment made by Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen that the Republican presidential front-runner's wife “hadn’t worked a day in her life.”

“There’s no tougher job than being a mom," Obama told KCRG-TV9, an ABC affiliate in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, according to the network’s website. “Anybody who would argue otherwise, I think, probably needs to rethink their statement.”

Obama added that the families of presidential candidates shouldn’t be the targets of negative attacks. “I don’t have a lot of patience for commentary about the spouses of political candidates,” the president said.

Man, that's harsh.

And that's after Rosen has met Obama at least five times in person, among the at least 35 of her visits tracked at the White House visitors' logs.

As Tammy Bruce snarks on Twitter: "I wonder how Rosen likes the view from under the bus..."

And that gender gap the Times is talking about isn't quite so extreme, and is likely to close completely if the Democrats keep up the good work. See Fox News, "Fox News Poll: Romney Edges Obama as Approval of President Drops":

The poll shows the gender gap may not solely be a problem for the Republican candidate. Women are more likely to back Obama (by 49-41 percent), while men are even more likely to give their support to Romney (by 52-38 percent). The 2008 Fox News national exit poll showed women voted for Obama over Republican John McCain by 13 percentage points (56-43 percent). Historically, exit poll results show women have consistently backed the Democrat over the Republican in presidential elections.

So there you go, your Democrat Media Complex frame-fail for the day!

(And more really good news for Romney at that poll.)

Great job progs!

UPDATE: Linked at The Rhetorican! Thanks!

Also, linked at An Ex-Con's Views.

Bar Refaeli Smokin' Hot Bikini Photo-Shoot for Agua Bendita Swimwear

Well, how about a little timeout from the left's war on women?

See London's Daily Mail, "Big hair and bikinis: Bar Refaeli poses in stunning new swimwear shoot."

Hilary Rosen's 'Faux' Apology

She's not very apologetic, is she? Wolf Blitzer has to wrench that apology out like he's performing oral surgery.

CNN has this, "Rosen apologizes over comments against Ann Romney."

And Mediaite has more on the story, with a full video: "Wolf Blitzer Chastises Hilary Rosen Over Comment: Democrats Are Now ‘Throwing You Under The Bus’."

And see Michelle's response, "A non-apology apology from Hilary Rosen; prog haters spew venom at Ann Romney on Twitter":

She apologizes if she “offended” anyone with her attack on Ann Romney and women who stay at home to raise their children.

Spoken like a true good ol’ Beltway boy schooled in blame-avoiding politics as usual.

I especially love how her apology continues her attack on conservative women by accusing them of “faux” outrage…even as First Lady Michelle Obama herself chimed in this morning to make clear she supports all mothers and create cover for herself.

Keep digging, Ms. Rosen. Keep digging.

And Michelle links to the literally unbelievable Twitter outbursts of progressive misogyny, at Twitchy: "New Tone alert: Libs attack Ann Romney as ‘cunt,’ ‘bitch,’ ‘whore’."

BONUS: At The Other McCain, "Feminism, Careerism, Lesbianism."

Ann Romney Responds to Democrat Hilary Rosen's Disgusting Stay-at-Home Mom Remarks

Boy, look out Democrats!

Ann Romney is hot and she knows how the game is played!

Tiny Korbe has the full video: "Video: Ann Romney responds to stay-at-home mom controversy on “America’s Newsroom”."

More at Memeorandum. This story is hot!

The Left's War on Stay-at-Home Moms

This story has exploded overnight.

Michelle has an update, "Here’s who Democrat hitwoman Hilary Rosen visited at the White House, including at least 5 POTUS meetings."

White House visitor logs show that Hilary Rosen, the DC lobbyist/Anita Dunn colleague who attacked Ann Romney’s stay-at-home-mom status on CNN last night, visited 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. at least 35 times....

Bottom line: For the last three years, Hilary Rosen has met nearly three dozen times with top Obama communications and political strategists from Valerie Jarrett to David Axelrod to Anita Dunn to Jim Messina to the president himself.

Any notion that her frontal assault on GOP women was an accident or lone wolf move is contradicted by the long paper trail of her intimate working relationship with the White House campaign/media team. The data also puts the disavowals of Messina/Axelrod last night into much-needed perspective.

They can’t disassociate themselves from one of their most frequent visitors and associates.

They just never expected the fierce online/social media pushback they got from conservative women, who are beating them at their own medium.

Megyn Kelly is now reporting that Rosen has apologized.

I'll update when I have more on that.

George Zimmerman Charged With Second-Degree Murder in Trayvon Martin Shooting

The main story's at the New York Times, "Prosecutor Files Charge of 2nd-Degree Murder in Shooting of Martin."

And here's Nicholas Stix on developments:

Angela Corley is acceding to the demand made for almost one month by the black supremacist lawyer for Trayvon Martin’s parents, Benjamin Crump, along with Al Sharpton: Charge Zimmerman, and let him prove himself innocent in court. As I have pointed out repeatedly for almost one month, this is the opposite of the way the American legal system works, and is the same way that racist blacks, including law professor Irving Joyner of segregated, black, North Carolina Central University (racist rape hoaxer Crystal Gail Mangum’s school) and the NAACP demanded that the authorities proceed in the case of the innocent white Duke lacrosse players. But as far as blacks are concerned, whites, and those whom they have deemed white enough, are metaphysically guilty, and can never prove their innocence.

It is virtually impossible for George Zimmerman to get a fair trial anywhere in the United States. Just as in the unconstitutional, federal double jeopardy trial of the four LAPD officers who beat Rodney King, the jurors will be intimidated into sacrificing Zimmerman to “the 13th juror” – the racist black mob, threatening to riot. And blacks, with the implicit support of the John Doe calling himself Barack Obama—intend to murder George Zimmerman, anywhere he is, whether in jail, prison, or the street.

More at the link.

And see all the progressive race-hatred at Memeorandum.

Democrat Hilary Rosen Slams Ann Romney: 'Never Worked a Day in Her Life' (VIDEO)

Oh boy, it's going to be an ugly campaign.

From Dana Loesch at Big Journalism, "Dem Strategist: GOP Made Up 'War On Women'."

And see Maeve Reston at the Los Angeles Times, "Ann Romney gets into Twitter spat with Democratic strategist."

'Fairness' Over Growth: Obama's 'Buffet Rule' Was Never About Deficit Reduction

Read the whole thing, from the editors at the Wall Street Journal: "The Obama Rule."

Students for Justice in Palestine Post Fake Eviction Notices on Doors of Jewish Students at Florida Atlantic University

These people are terrorists.

At Gateway Pundit, "Palestinians Stalk Jewish Students at US University – Post “Eviction Notices” On Their Dorm Rooms."

Jennifer Lawrence: 'Screw PETA!'

She's being hailed as "America's Kick-Ass Sweetheart" at Rolling Stone, "Cover Story Excerpt: Jennifer Lawrence: How the 'Hunger Games' star became the coolest chick in Hollywood."

Apparently J-Law had choice words for PETA, as MTV reports, "Jennifer Lawrence's 'Screw PETA' Remark Peeves Animal Rights Org."

PHOTO CREDIT: Wikipedia.

Rep. Allen West Slams Congressional Progressive Caucus as Members of Communist Party

Well, they're not actually members of the CPUSA, but close.

See the Washington Post, "Republican Rep. Allen West says many congressional Democrats are Communists" (via Memeorandum).

More at Lonely Conservative, "Allen West is Right, There Are a Bunch of Commies in Congress."

Two Minutes Hate

I'm reading Nineteen Eighty-Four.

I read it back in the '80s. But I picked it up again the other day as I was taking my family to the Harrah's Rincon resort near San Diego. I might not have mentioned it if it hadn't been for Lawrence Auster, who links to a clip from the movie, on the "two-minutes hate." Watch it at the link.

The next moment a hideous, grinding speech, as of some monstrous machine running without oil, burst from the big telescreen at the end of the room. It was a noise that set one’s teeth on edge and bristled the hair at the back of one’s neck. The Hate had started.

As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed on to the screen. There were hisses here and there among the audience. The little sandy-haired woman gave a squeak of mingled fear and disgust. Goldstein was the renegade and backslider who once, long ago (how long ago, nobody quite remembered), had been one of the leading figures of the Party, almost on a level with Big Brother himself, and then had engaged in counter-revolutionary activities, had been condemned to death, and had mysteriously escaped and disappeared. The programmes of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party’s purity. All subsequent crimes against the Party, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations, sprang directly out of his teaching...

In its second minute the Hate rose to a frenzy. People were leaping up and down in their places and shouting at the tops of their voices in an effort to drown the maddening bleating voice that came from the screen. The little sandy-haired woman had turned bright pink, and her mouth was opening and shutting like that of a landed fish. Even O’Brien’s heavy face was flushed. He was sitting very straight in his chair, his powerful chest swelling and quivering as though he were standing up to the assault of a wave. The dark-haired girl behind Winston had begun crying out ‘Swine! Swine! Swine!’ and suddenly she picked up a heavy Newspeak dictionary and flung it at the screen. It struck Goldstein’s nose and bounced off; the voice continued inexorably. In a lucid moment Winston found that he was shouting with the others and kicking his heel violently against the rung of his chair. The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp. Thus, at one moment Winston’s hatred was not turned against Goldstein at all, but, on the contrary, against Big Brother, the Party, and the Thought Police; and at such moments his heart went out to the lonely, derided heretic on the screen, sole guardian of truth and sanity in a world of lies. And yet the very next instant he was at one with the people about him, and all that was said of Goldstein seemed to him to be true. At those moments his secret loathing of Big Brother changed into adoration, and Big Brother seemed to tower up, an invincible, fearless protector, standing like a rock against the hordes of Asia, and Goldstein, in spite of his isolation, his helplessness, and the doubt that hung about his very existence, seemed like some sinister enchanter, capable by the mere power of his voice of wrecking the structure of civilization.

And go back in read Protein Wisdom, ICYMI.

Obama's Us-Against-Them Message Won't Work

From Josh Kraushaar, at National Journal, "Obama, Not Holding the Center":

If President Obama loses reelection in November, the seeds of his defeat will have been planted in his fiery, populist campaign kickoff speech at the Associated Press luncheon last week. It was a negative, overly political address at sharp odds with his optimistic 2008 campaign message of hope and change. It seemed petty at times, mocking Mitt Romney for using the word “marvelous” and exaggerating proposed conservative entitlement reforms as “Social Darwinism.” All  of this while giving a supposedly nonpolitical, non-campaign address.

Ideologically, the speech was a throwback to the Democratic rhetoric of decades past. Despite sops to Ronald Reagan, Obama laid out his ideological argument at the outset, stating his “belief that, through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves.” That’s a far cry from “the era of big government is over” mantra that President Clinton advanced in his reelection campaign.

In one sense, the speech previewed how fiercely the president’s team will be fighting for another term and how nasty the expected contest between Obama and Romney is likely to be. As Obama’s advisers have indicated, the president’s campaign strategy is to portray the opposition as so extreme that voters will hold their noses and vote for the incumbent even if they’re dissatisfied with the country’s direction. To eke out a victory in a slow-growing economy, Obama needs to turn out his base and turn off independents to Romney.

But the president is seriously miscalculating if he believes that the key to winning the hearts and minds of independents is “us-against-them” rhetoric that hails back to a bygone Democratic era. He ably mounted a withering attack on the Republicans' austerity proposals but offered no alternative vision to deal with the growing debt. When Clinton campaigned for a second term in 1996, he likewise castigated congressional Republicans for proposing entitlement cuts and shutting down the government, but he also championed a just-passed bipartisan welfare-reform law and a balanced budget that reduced the size of government. With Obama’s speech, there was no centrist recalibrating to reassure worried independents that he’s not too ideological; no sugar to sweeten the tough talk.

That’s no trivial concern, according to the results of a poll analyzing the sentiments of the swingiest independents from battleground states, commissioned by the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way. The survey showed those voters narrowly favoring Obama (44 percent) over Romney (38 percent), and showed the president with respectable overall favorability scores. But it also revealed some red flags that if the campaign continues driving home the “people-versus-the-powerful” message, it could cost the president down the road. While these swing voters still like Obama personally, they are closer to Romney ideologically.

The polling found that a message centered on income inequality was a flop with these swing voters, who said they were much more anxious about rising debt and with regulations and taxes on businesses. A clear 57 percent majority said they thought the American economic system was “basically fair” and that the deck is not stacked against them. They didn’t primarily blame Wall Street or the wealthy for the country’s economic problems; they instead fingered congressional gridlock.  More than half (51 percent) of respondents said they preferred a candidate who advocates for an economy based on opportunity where “government lives within its means and economic growth is our top priority” while just 43 percent preferred a candidate backing “an economy based on fairness – where the rich pay their fair share, corporations play by the rules, and all Americans get a fair shot.” Those arguments closely mirror the Romney and Obama campaign messages unveiled last week, with the broad outlines of the GOP argument coming out on top.

PREVIOUSLY: "Obama Leads Romney by Double-Digits in New Washington Post-ABC News Poll, But 76% Believe U.S. Still in Recession."

The EITC 'Entitlement'

Okay, continuing my series on social policy, here's Steve Doocy and Stuart Varney discussing the federal campaign to promote the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit):

Actually, despite all the talk of taking other people's money, I'm not opposed to the EITC. It's not a social welfare handout, as are TANF and food stamps. When administered appropriately, the EITC encourages work and self-sufficiency. According to the Hoover Institution:

Protecting the long-term viability of this program is important for three reasons. First, the EITC significantly increases the fiscal resources available to working poor families. The program rewards labor earnings with a 40 percent match up to the first $10,000 in earnings (see figure 2). In many cases, EITC benefits are enough to raise a family above the poverty level. Second, the EITC encourages people to choose work over welfare. The program has built-in work incentives, especially at the lowest income levels, which encourage families to attain self-sufficiency. Some studies have shown that the increased availability of the EITC and more generous benefits helped contribute to the decline in welfare recipients after passage of the 1996 welfare reform act (accounting for as much as 20–30 percent of the decline in caseloads).

The key is the encouragement of workforce participation. If conservatives criticize dependency, the EITC should serve as a reasonable avenue to help the poor --- with the ultimate goal of increasing family earnings to obviate the need for the tax credit over time.

RELATED: At The Orlando Sentinel, "Earned-income tax credit: Ignorance is not bliss."

BONUS: From Reihan Salam, at National Review, "Thinking Through the Consequences of Welfare Reform."

The Myth of America's Decline

From Walter Russell Mead, at the Wall Street Journal:

The United States isn't in decline, but it is in the midst of a major rebalancing. The alliances and coalitions America built in the Cold War no longer suffice for the tasks ahead. As a result, under both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, American foreign policy has been moving toward the creation of new, sometimes difficult partnerships as it retools for the tasks ahead.

From the 1970s to the start of this decade, the world was in what future historians may call the Trilateral Era. In the early '70s, Americans responded to the defeat in Vietnam and the end of the Bretton Woods era by inviting key European allies and Japan to join in the creation of a trilateral system. Western Europe, Japan and the U.S. accounted for an overwhelming proportion of the international economy in the noncommunist world. With overlapping interests on a range of issues, the trilateral powers were able to set the global agenda on some key questions.

Currency policy, the promotion of free trade, integrating the developing world into the global financial system, assisting the transition of Warsaw Pact economies into the Western World—the trilateralists had a lot to show for their efforts.

The system worked particularly well for America. Europe and Japan shared a basic commitment to the type of world order that Americans wanted, and so a more cooperative approach to key policy questions enlisted the support of rich and powerful allies for efforts that tallied pretty closely with key long-term American goals.

It is this trilateral system—rather than American power per se—that is in decline today. Western Europe and Japan were seen as rising powers in the 1970s, and the assumption was that the trilateral partnership would become more powerful and effective as time passed. Something else happened instead.

More at that top link.

PREVIOUSLY: "Robert Kagan: American Power Preserves Freedom and Prosperity."

Michael Coren on the Left's Hatred of Democracy

He's a great guy, via Blazing Cat Fur:

Former President George W. Bush: 'I Wish They Weren't Called the Bush Tax Cuts'

At the Los Angeles Times, "Bush talks economics, says he won't 'undermine our president'":

Warning that “if you raise taxes on the so-called rich, you’re really raising taxes on the job creators,” Bush joked about the tax breaks that were enacted under his administration.

“I wish they weren’t called the Bush tax cuts,” he said. “If they were called some-other-body’s tax cuts, they’re probably less likely to be raised. But if you raise taxes, you’re taking money out of the pockets of consumers.”

Perhaps coincidentally, the quip came just hours before President Obama was to make a major speech promoting his “Buffett rule” proposal to raise taxes on the mega-rich.

“I don’t think it’s good, frankly, for our country, to undermine our president, and I don’t intend to do so,” Bush said.

Women Are Looking for Sex, Not Status

Well, bringing you the important news.

At Telegraph UK, "The days of women aiming to marry 'above their station' are over - and it's good news for all concerned, says Cristina Odone":

When a prosperous bachelor appears within a five-mile radius, I go into Mrs Bennet mode. I cluck, I plot, I schedule dinners and Sunday lunches. My match-making focuses on marrying off my women friends to the best possible man: preferably solvent, well-bred and amusing. In the process, I’ve tried to push together the most unsuitable of singles: the City workaholic and the ski bum; the tweed-clad grouse-slaughterer and the vegan Fair Trade nut.

Now, however, I can scale down my ambitions. A new study shows that women are in fact perfectly satisfied with men of their own standing. The watershed year, apparently, was 1970: whereas women born in the post-war decades aspired to marry up, those born more recently no longer seek to star in their own rags-to-riches fairy tale. Their ambitions are for their own careers, salary, and pensions. Put crudely, what they want from the men in their lives is not a leg up, but a leg over.

The role model here is not Kate Middleton, but Zara Phillips. When Princess Anne’s daughter wed a middle-class rugby player, she showed what I took to be a refreshing indifference to status. In truth, she was part of a trend. Kate, who improved her standing by marrying Wills, is the old-fashioned type; Zara, a top sportswoman, needs no man to lift her out of her circumstances. She took on Mike Tindall not to raise her status, but to set her pulse racing.

Continue reading.

And actually, nowadays, at least in the U.S., it's the women who're better educated and more successful. So, if we can generalize some of the findings, things should be looking up for the guys on this side of the Atlantic.

More here: "Aspirational marriages a 'thing of the past'."

Kim Kardashian Shows Off Sizzling Hour-Glass Figure on Holiday in Dominican Republic

Well, here's a wonderful photo roundup at London's Daily Mail, "She could be a Bond girl! Kim Kardashian reveals her hour-glass shape in studded bikini."

PREVIOUSLY: "Kim Kardashian and Sisters Khloe and Kourtney Promote Their Kardashian Kollection."

BONUS: At Pirate's Cove, "If All You See…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist..."

George Zimmerman's Lawyers No Longer Representing Him in Trayvon Martin Case

Wolf Blitzer and his commentators were speculating on whether George Zimmerman was about to be charged. And then this...

At CNN, "Legal team drops Zimmerman in Florida shooting case":

Sanford, Florida (CNN) -- Attorneys for neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, who authorities say fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Florida, said Tuesday they have lost contact with their client and will no longer represent him.

"He has gone on his own. I'm not sure what he's doing or who he's talking to," legal adviser Craig Sonner said. "If he wants us to come back as counsel, he will contact us."

Sonner, who said the last time they had contact with Zimmerman was Sunday, spoke to reporters in Florida with attorney Hal Uhrig.
Uhrig said Zimmerman contacted the office of the special prosecutor appointed to lead the investigation on his own.

"One of the things every defense attorney tells his client is don't talk to the prosecutors," said Uhrig, adding that he is concerned about his former client's "emotional and physical safety."

More at the link.

And also at Miami Herald, "George Zimmerman’s lawyers withdraw from case, lose contact with Trayvon-case shooter."

Rick Santorum Suspends Presidential Campaign

At the Los Angeles Times, "Santorum suspending presidential campaign: Decision clears path for Romney to become the GOP nominee."

Santorum's campaign represented the great hope of  "full-spectrum conservatives" in 2012, and his exit will leave a mark on the general election campaign, as social issues and working class concerns will continue to resonate with the electorate into the fall.

The Other McCain has updates, "SANTORUM DROPS OUT."

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin writes, "Santorum suspends campaign, but “we are not done fighting” to defeat Obama" (via Memeorandum and The Hill):

Rick Santorum fought hard, he fought well, and he gave voice to a large contingent of grass-roots conservative activists across the country who wanted a candidate who lived the values he preached. He held Mitt Romney’s feet to the fire on health care, challenged Newt Gingrich’s green flirtations and past support for the individual mandate, and took on Ron Paul’s foreign policy extremism. His presence improved everyone else’s game — and that will serve the GOP ticket well this fall, whoever ends up on it.

Newsweek Poll: Majority of Americans Says Country Still Divided by Race — 51% of Whites Say Obama's Been 'Unhelpful' in Bridging Racial Divide

Well, from the "you don't say" department.

At Daily Beast, "Newsweek/Daily Beast Poll Finds Majorities of Americans Think Country Divided by Race":

Majorities of both whites (72%) and blacks (89%) believe the country is divided by race, the poll finds. But twice as many blacks (40%) as whites (20%) say it is very divided. And just 19 percent of whites say that racism is a big problem in America, vs. 60 percent of blacks.

Meanwhile, the killing of 17-year old Trayvon Martin has further polarized America along racial lines, the Newsweek/Daily Beast Poll finds. In the survey, whites are divided over whether they think Martin’s death was racially motivated. Thirty-five percent of whites say Martin’s death was racially motivated, while 30 percent say Zimmerman acted in self-defense and 35 percent are not sure. African-Americans, however, are convinced it was racially motivated (80% vs. 2%).

Whites also are divided on the question of whether Martin was targeted because he was a young black man–41 percent say yes, while 34 percent say no and 21 percent are not sure. Blacks are convinced he was targeted because he was a young black man (85% vs. 4%).

There also is a significant split over President Obama’s handling of the Trayvon Martin controversy—with a majority (52%) of whites saying they disapprove of the way he has handled the shooting while only 38 percent approve.

Blacks say the opposite—with near unanimous (87% vs. 5%) approval for the president’s handling of the shooting.

Nearly four years after the election of the nation’s first African-American president, majorities of both whites and African Americans surveyed say that race relations in the country have either stayed the same or gotten worse. Sixty-three percent of whites and 58 percent of African-Americans say race relations have either stayed the same or worsened—while only 28 percent of whites and 38 percent of African-Americans say they have gotten better.

And see Andrew Romano, at Newsweek, "A Newsweek Poll Shows Americans Still Divided Over Race":

Back in 2008, 52 percent of Americans told Pew Research Center that they expected race relations to get better as a result of Obama’s election; only 9 percent anticipated a decline. But today that 43-point gap has vanished. According to the Newsweek survey, only 32 percent of Americans now think that race relations have improved since the president’s inauguration; roughly the same number (30 percent) believe they have gotten worse. Factor in those who say nothing has changed and the result is staggering: nearly 60 percent of Americans are now convinced that race relations have either deteriorated or stagnated under Obama.

Whites are especially critical of Obama’s approach: a majority (51 percent) actually believe he’s been unhelpful in bridging the country’s racial divide. Even blacks have concluded, by a 20-point margin, that race relations have not improved on Obama’s watch.

And of course, it's not like the Democrat Media Complex is working to improve things. See, "Not a 'Mistake': How NBC Edited Racism Into the George Zimmerman 911 Call."

Obama Leads Romney by Double-Digits in New Washington Post-ABC News Poll, But 76% Believe U.S. Still in Recession

Well, Romney trails the president on a number of measures, but if voters vote their pocketbooks come November, the findings can't be welcomed for the White House.

See, "Obama holds key leads on Romney, as economy malaise looms over reelection bid":

With the general-election campaign beginning to take shape, President Obama holds clear advantages over Mitt Romney on personal attributes and a number of key issues, but remains vulnerable to discontent with the pace of the economic recovery, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Obama has double-digit leads over the likely Republican presidential nominee on who would do a better job of protecting the middle class, addressing women’s issues, handling international affairs and dealing with health care.

On personal traits, the president’s edge is even bigger: He has a better than 2-to-1 advantage as the more friendly and likable of the two, and nearly that margin as “more inspiring.”

Romney faces a huge deficit among female voters, one that more than negates his advantage among men and represents one of the biggest challenges he and his advisers face as they turn toward the November election. Obama’s edge among women gives him a clear lead among all registered voters in a matchup with Romney.

But on the two most pressing issues of the campaign — the economy and jobs — the contest is considerably more competitive, with about as many trusting Romney on the issues as Obama. Despite positive economic indicators, Americans remain deeply pessimistic about the overall direction of the country and largely consider the economy still mired in a recession. The Romney campaign is hoping to take advantage by making the contest about Obama’s performance on these key concerns.

Obama’s overall approval rating stands at 50 percent, but he draws negative marks on how he has dealt with the economy and the recent increase in gasoline prices. Nearly half of all Americans say his handling of the economy is a major reason to oppose his reelection; far fewer see it as a big reason to support his bid....

Obama has argued that the economy is recovering, if slowly, but pessimism remains pervasive nearly four years after the economic collapse. An overwhelming majority of Americans — 76 percent — say the economy is still in recession, an assessment that is shared across partisan, ideological, racial, income and gender lines.

Moreover, as many Americans say their local economy is not even starting to get better as say the situation is improving.

Keep reading.

And see the Los Angeles Times, "Poll: Swing voters lean to Obama but identify closer with Romney":

Global Strategy Group surveyed 1,000 self-identified independent likely voters from March 8 through March 18 in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. The survey included only people who voted in the 2008 presidential election.  The margin of error for swing independents was plus or minus 5.1 percentage points.

The poll found that the “fairness argument,” which some Democrats have advocated as a message for the 2012 election, does not resonate with swing independents. This segment of voters does not consider income inequality a top concern, they generally think the existing system is fair, and they view themselves as haves, not have-nots.

Their top economic concerns are the deficit, growth and jobs, not economic equality.

Asked what was the most important way to make the economy stronger, 55% said providing “more economic opportunity for Americans to succeed through hard work.” Just 19% said “create more economic security so all Americans can withstand life’s misfortunes.”

“No matter what definition of fairness one chooses, swing independents are not wooed by a fairness message – rather, it often seemed to skirt their deepest economic concerns,” Diggles and Erickson wrote.

Instead, they argued, an effective message with swing independents would focus on an opportunity theme. Fifty-one percent of swing independents said they would select a candidate who argues that the country needs an economy based on opportunity while 43% said they would choose the candidate who argues for an economy based on fairness.

Well, there you go.

It's "game on," alright. Things are shaping up quite well for the GOP, actually.

More on this later...

Obama to Push His Millionaire Tax

At the Wall Street Journal, "Obama to Visit Swing State to Push His Millionaire Tax" (via Google):

President Barack Obama and fellow Democrats plan to pressure Republicans this week to support a minimum tax on millionaires to improve the tax system's fairness, though most economic analysts say the measure would do little to dent deficits or boost the economy.

A Senate vote on the measure—one of the Democrats' opening salvos of the 2012 general election campaign—is scheduled for Monday, the day before the annual deadline for filing individual income-tax returns. Democrats have lined up events ahead of the vote to raise the issue's profile: a speech on Tuesday by Mr. Obama in Florida, a swing state, and a campaign event Thursday with Vice President Joe Biden.

Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats aren't expected to win next week's procedural vote, and a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner alluded to the minimum tax on millionaires as a "gimmick." But Democrats want to put Senate Republicans on record voting against the tax. A number of recent public polls show support for raising taxes on millionaires running over 60%.

"Every senator who votes on it will have to examine for himself or herself whether or not they want to vote for a bill that says millionaires and billionaires should not pay taxes on their income at a lower rate than middle-class Americans," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters Monday. "And they will have to explain to their constituents why they don't agree with that principle."

Nicknamed the "Buffett Rule" for billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who complained that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary, the plan would impose a minimum 30% overall federal tax rate on people earning more than $1 million a year.

Democrats hope the debate can tarnish the GOP's presidential front-runner, Mitt Romney, a former private-equity executive who revealed in January that he paid a 14% effective tax rate in 2010 on income of $21.7 million. The top income-tax rate is 35%.

Proponents say the Buffett Rule is necessary for fairness, to force the wealthy to shoulder more of the deficit-reduction burden.

Actually, not everyone's thrilled with the "fairness" issue, so we'll see how this plays out.

Food Stamp Program Helping to Reduce Poverty Increase Entitlement

Well, as noted, if Obama's reelected we can expect a big new push for the expansion of the welfare state.

The system works, apparently, via New York Times, "Food Stamps Helped Reduce Poverty Rate, Study Finds."

Enrollment in the food stamp program grew substantially during the recession and immediately after, rising by 45 percent from January of 2009 to January of this year, according to monthly figures on the U.S.D.A. Web site. The stimulus package pushed by President Obama and enacted by Congress significantly boosted funding for the program as a temporary relief for families who had fallen on hard times in the recession.

But the steady rise tapered off in January, when enrollment was down slightly from December, a change in direction that Ms. Dean said could signal that the recovery was having an effect even among poor families.

The program’s effects have long been known among poverty researchers, and for Ms. Dean, the most interesting aspect of the report was the political context into which it was released. In a year of elections and rising budget pressures, social programs like food stamps are coming under increased scrutiny from Republican legislators, who argue that they create a kind of entitlement society.

In an e-mail to supporters on Monday, Representative Allen B. West, a Florida Republican, called the increase in food stamp use a “highly disturbing trend.” He said that he had noticed a sign outside a gas station in his district over the weekend alerting customers that food stamps were accepted.

“This is not something we should be proud to promote,” he said.

And I think that's key.

UPDATE: Okay, this story is now trending at Memeorandum, and David Dayen at Firedoglake makes the argument that welfare programs make poor people "richer." See, "Food Stamp Program Crucial to Alleviating Poverty":

The simple axiom here is that giving poor people money will help make poor people richer. We’re a wealthy enough country that we can afford to do this, and the result benefits not just the poor, but the economy. A family that can gets their food needs taken care of can purchase other items and contribute to a local economy...

The Great Recession has been horrible, but it’s also been a test of new ways to deliver broad social benefits. And the old standby of cash-transfer programs that expand as needed has won out.

Wrong.

You don't make people "richer" by giving them government handouts. That makes people dependent on the largesse of the state. But progressives love increasing state power, and if there's an attack on the evil capitalists in there too, well, then you've got a pro-dependency winner. See Eschaton, "Give People Free Money":

We give a lot of free money to rich people in this country. Much of the money we give to not rich people in this country we do so because they've paid for the insurance policy (unemployment, social security). Food stamps are a not so terrible substitute to free money, but the aren't quite as good as just giving people the money. That only crazy bloggers are willing to suggest "give money to people who aren't rich" as a pretty good solution both for poverty amelioration and boosting the economy generally tells us that our political system is basically not capable of responding to the country's problems and needs.

Wrong again.

First, there's no such thing as "free" money, and second, we've been giving the poor billions of dollars of "free" money for decades --- with little return on the investment in terms of poverty reduction.

Progressives hate individual initiative --- and they embrace government expansion as a lever to increase state-socialist power.

When I read the arguments in favor of increasing state dependency I don't even consider these as comments authored by my countrymen.

More at Memeorandum.

George Zimmerman Speaks Out on Trayvon Martin Case

At ABC News, "George Zimmerman Releases Statement, Speaking for First Time About Trayvon Martin Case."

And at London's Daily Mail, "Zimmerman breaks his silence: Trayvon shooter says he's been 'forced to leave my entire life' as he sets up website."

He's soliciting donations, "The Real George Zimmerman."

Well, again, if the forensics show that he killed Trayvon in cold blood, not in self-defense, then he should stand trial. But it's hard not to sympathize with him, given his prosecution by the Democrat Media Complex.

Modesto Teenager Jordan Powers Breaks Up With Ex-Teacher James Hooker After Sex Assault Arrest

Well, this is hardly surprising.

ABC News has the report, "California Student in Relationship With Teacher Moves Out After Sexual Assault Arrest."

And at the Fresno Bee, "Modesto teen leaves ex-teacher after his arrest."

SGP Action: 'They Don't Speak for Us'

From Smart Girl Politics:

And see Ross Kaminsky, at The American Spectator, "'War on Women' Rhetoric Shows That Lies Work."

Not a 'Mistake': How NBC Edited Racism Into the George Zimmerman 911 Call

Yesterday NBC News President Steve Capus told Reuters that the network's dirty editing of George Zimmerman's 911 call was a "a mistake and not a deliberate act to misrepresent the phone call..."

Well, it turns out that such a "mistake" is impossible, given how involved is the production of this kind of news segment.

See Instapundit, "PJTV: Trayvon Tragedy: Manufactured Racism? How NBC Edited Racism Into the George Zimmerman 911 Call."

RELATED: At Michelle's, "It’s time for NBC News to appoint an independent ethics watchdog":

Those of us in the blogosphere who were around during the CBS News/Rathergate scandal remember how the narrative arc went:

*CBS perpetuated journalistic fraud.

*Conservative bloggers and alternative media called out Dan Rather and his con artist producer Mary Mapes for their malpractice.

*CBS denied and delayed addressing the hoax.

*The mainstream media tried to shoot the messenger and discredit critics of CBS/Rather.

*The evidence of bias was overwhelming — forcing CBS to appoint an independent review panel that concluded that the network “failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of the piece,” was “rigid and blind” in its defense, and demonstrated “myopic zeal” in its manufacturing of the Bush/National Guard fraud. After the report was issued, Mapes and three executives were fired and the editorial practices at CBs were revamped.

History now repeats itself.

NBC News has attempted to deny, whitewash, and Friday news dump its way out of Editgate. Thanks to Breitbart.com, Newsbusters.org, Sean Hannity, and the conservative blogosphere, the story’s not going away.

Scapegoating an anonymous producer won’t do.

Check the link for more. And at Big Government, "EDITGATE: THREE STRIKES AND NBC'S STEVE CAPUS SHOULD BE OUT."

Election Worker Offers Eric Holder's Ballot to Project Veritas Investigator

Look, Democrat claims of the myth of voter fraud are the joke of our fundamentally corrupt political system. The U.S. Attorney General won't even investigate the New Black Panther Party after video evidence of voter intimidation went viral. Voter fraud is what keeps the Democrats in power. Michelle Malkin has this story covered, "The Democrats’ Election Forgery Racket."

And now here's this laugh-riot of a story from the James O'Keefe crew, "O'Keefe Voter Fraud Investigation: Young Man Offered Holder's Ballot" (via Memeorandum).

And here's the response, not surprisingly, "Holder's DOJ: Evidence of Voter Fraud 'Manufactured'."

From Hope to Hypocrisy: General Election Battle Lines Shaping Up

Here's the new RNC ad, via Hot Air:

More from Niall Ferguson at Newsweek, "Low Approval and Fragile Economy Spell Obama Reelection Trouble":

It must be the weather. For some reason, everyone thinks that the economy is recovering and so President Obama is going to be reelected. Just put a bit of blossom on the trees and people lose their minds.

Or maybe it’s not the weather. Maybe we’re all just fed up with the Republican Party’s interminable process of nominating Mitt Romney as its presidential candidate. Who needs The Hunger Games when you’ve got the Pennsylvania primary?

So let’s have a little reality check. First, according to Gallup, Obama’s approval rating right now is 46 percent. That’s better than the 40 percent he was scoring in the second half of 2010, but it’s still too low. Since Eisenhower, all two-term presidents have been above the 50 percent line at this stage in their first terms.

Second, don’t mistake that 22 percent stock market rally we’ve seen since November for a real economic recovery. Remember, this is the result of massive monetary stimulus, not only by the Federal Reserve but also by other central banks. Since fall 2008, the central banks of the E.U., the U.K., the U.S., and Japan have slashed interest rates to near zero and increased their balance sheets by a combined $8.76 trillion. The Fed believes that the recovery will eventually come through the “portfolio rebalancing channel” (PRC), whereby cheap money boosts asset prices, which boosts consumption via the so-called wealth effect, which boosts production, profits, capital spending, employment and—who knows, one day—maybe even home prices.

Continue reading.

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz Claims Republicans 'Rooting For Economic Failure'

She's the biggest bleedin' idiot and progressive gasbag.

At CNN, "DNC chair says Republicans rooting for bad economy."

And from Lonely Conservative, "Woman Whose Party Creates Economic Failure Slams Opponents for Pointing it Out":

Debbie Wasserman Schultz wants to capitalize politically off the rotten economy her party has created. Her party’s policies have prevented the economy from having a strong rebound, and led to the latest economic crisis in the first place. Now she wants to take the bad economy they played a large part in creating, and a sole part in perpetuating, to use against her opponents. She’s your typical progressive.

More: Here she is alleging a GOP "war on women":

See Weasel Zippers, "DNC Chief Wasserman Schultz: GOP Focused On “Turning Back The Clock For Women”…"

BONUS: At the Miami Herald, "'Jewbags; flap exposes rift in Barack Obama-Debbie Wasserman Schultz World." And Frontpage Magazine, "‘Jewbags’ and the Democrats’ Anti-Israel Liaison."

Pope Benedict XVI Calls for Peace in Easter 2012 Message

At Los Angeles Times, "Pope Benedict XVI calls for peace in his Easter message."

REPORTING FROM ROME -- Pope Benedict XVI on Sunday used his traditional Easter message to call for an end to bloodshed in Syria and for greater efforts to resolve other conflicts in the Middle East and Africa.

Before an estimated 100,000 pilgrims gathered in St. Peter’s Square, the pope called upon Israelis and Palestinians to "courageously take up anew the peace process."

Benedict expressed a desire that the hope symbolized by the resurrection of Jesus on Easter would allow for progress in the Middle East and "enable all the ethnic, cultural and religious groups in that region to work together to advance the common good and respect for human rights."

He mentioned Syria in particular, calling for an end to the violence with "an immediate commitment to the path of respect, dialogue and reconciliation" and humanitarian assistance to refugees.

Benedict is planning to travel to the region this year; the Vatican announced Sunday that he would visit Lebanon on Sept. 14-16.

The pontiff said in his Easter address that he wanted to send a message of hope to Christian communities in both the Middle East and Africa that are suffering from "discrimination and persecution." He singled out Nigeria as a country where Christians had suffered "savage terrorist attacks" recently.

Even as he spoke, news agencies reported an attack by Muslim extremists on Christians attending Easter services in northern Nigeria, in which about 20 people were believed killed.

Kate Upton Happy Easter Video

Via London's Daily Mail:

And while I'm at it, be sure to visit Maggie's Farm from some Easter blogging: "Easter Egg Links."

Also at Maggie's, Bruce Kesler's got some great Easter vacation blogging. And see especially, "Corporate Las Vegas on a Budget."

BONUS: At Maggie's Notebook, "Rule 5 Saturday Night: Beyonce," and Pirate's Cove, "If All You See…are shoes made from fossil fuels, you might just be a Warmist," and "Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup."

EXTRA: At Daley Gator, "DaleyGator DaleyBabe Nina Dobrev," and Bob Belvedere, "Rule 5 Saturday: Amiee Rickards."

And drop your links in the comments if you'd like to be added at the update...

The New York Times Wants to Bring Back Welfare Dependency

See Jason DeParle's report, "Welfare Limits Left Poor Adrift as Recession Hit." (Via Memeorandum.)

You'd have to recall the welfare policy debates at the time. Remember, Bill Clinton signed the 1996 reform bill into law, called the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). The old welfare program, in place since the New Deal, was AFDC, Aid to Families with Dependent Children. More than any other piece of federal legislation, "welfare" was responsible for accelerating the breakup of the black family and creating the mindless cycle of government dependency. People will often defend the old welfare system by noting that the typical recipient over the life of the program was a white mother of two who had either lost a breadwinner or had become unemployed. She stayed on the program for a period of a couple of years. What people didn't want you to notice (and you were attacked as racist when you did) was the huge growth of black dependency on the welfare rolls. AFDC contributed to family disintegration since the program was only available to single mothers. There were no time limits and benefits would increase with the number of children. While on welfare, families would receive a smorgasbord of public services in addition to cash payments. Public housing, health coverage for the poor through Medicaid, food stamps, etc. --- these programs combined provided families with so much public support there was literally no incentive to find a job. And those stuck on welfare were those with the least skills, especially blacks, and the entire regime came to symbolize the failures of the Great Society welfare state model. Conservative criticism became so significant that even prominent Democrats promoted the suggested reforms (see especially, Charles Murray, "Does welfare bring more babies?", and Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980). These efforts culminated in President Clinton's signature legislation, with its creation of the new limited welfare program TANF, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.

When Clinton signed the bill, Peter Edelman, who was Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation in the Department of Health and Human Services, resigned in protest. He now claims vindication, as the numbers of the poor have soared during the Great Recession. DeParle gladly quotes Edelman at the New York Times piece:

PHOENIX — Perhaps no law in the past generation has drawn more praise than the drive to “end welfare as we know it,” which joined the late-’90s economic boom to send caseloads plunging, employment rates rising and officials of both parties hailing the virtues of tough love.

But the distress of the last four years has added a cautionary postscript: much as overlooked critics of the restrictions once warned, a program that built its reputation when times were good offered little help when jobs disappeared. Despite the worst economy in decades, the cash welfare rolls have barely budged.

Faced with flat federal financing and rising need, Arizona is one of 16 states that have cut their welfare caseloads further since the start of the recession — in its case, by half. Even as it turned away the needy, Arizona spent most of its federal welfare dollars on other programs, using permissive rules to plug state budget gaps.

The poor people who were dropped from cash assistance here, mostly single mothers, talk with surprising openness about the desperate, and sometimes illegal, ways they make ends meet. They have sold food stamps, sold blood, skipped meals, shoplifted, doubled up with friends, scavenged trash bins for bottles and cans and returned to relationships with violent partners — all with children in tow.

Esmeralda Murillo, a 21-year-old mother of two, lost her welfare check, landed in a shelter and then returned to a boyfriend whose violent temper had driven her away. “You don’t know who to turn to,” she said.

Maria Thomas, 29, with four daughters, helps friends sell piles of brand-name clothes, taking pains not to ask if they are stolen. “I don’t know where they come from,” she said. “I’m just helping get rid of them.”

To keep her lights on, Rosa Pena, 24, sold the groceries she bought with food stamps and then kept her children fed with school lunches and help from neighbors. Her post-welfare credo is widely shared: “I’ll do what I have to do.”

Critics of the stringent system say stories like these vindicate warnings they made in 1996 when President Bill Clinton fulfilled his pledge to “end welfare as we know it”: the revamped law encourages states to withhold aid, especially when the economy turns bad.

The old program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, dates from the New Deal; it gave states unlimited matching funds and offered poor families extensive rights, with few requirements and no time limits. The new program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, created time limits and work rules, capped federal spending and allowed states to turn poor families away.

“My take on it was the states would push people off and not let them back on, and that’s just what they did,” said Peter B. Edelman, a law professor at Georgetown University who resigned from the Clinton administration to protest the law. “It’s been even worse than I thought it would be.”

Continue reading.

DeParle is the Times' lead social welfare policy correspondent and the author of American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation's Drive to End Welfare. He is married to Nancy-Ann DeParle, who is White House Deputy Chief of Staff in the Barack Obama administration. It should come as little surprise that the New York Times would resurrect the welfare policy debates on Easter Sunday, perhaps as the start of a new public information campaign for a new aggressive anti-poverty push in American politics.

DeParle also has a blog post up, "The Puzzle of Measuring Poverty." Interestingly, there's evidence of increased reliance on private support and charity among former recipients, which challenges leftist welfare entitlement advocacy:

Perhaps the very poorest families truly have lost income but kept up consumption by alternate means — relying on boyfriends, family, charity, loans, or street wits. That is consistent with what my article found among poor single mothers in Phoenix, who described selling food stamps, doubling up with friends, and recycling discarded cans.

Help from boyfriends can be especially important in filling the gaps, but it is also especially difficult to measure. People tend to keep vague count and deem the matter private.

“My friend, my good friend, he gives me like $40 or $50 a month,’’ said Maria Thomas, a single mother who has four children, no cash welfare, and no job.

The ability to replace lost welfare might be positive — showing the strength of private charity or extended families — but it could also be a danger sign. Several women interviewed for my article said the loss of aid made them more reliant on troubled men.

“He drinks too much but I stay, because where would I be without him?’’ said Julie Hammond, a single mother in Apache Junction, speaking of her boyfriend.

Given the intense racial politics were having of late, and the aggressive efforts on the left to destroy and criminalize conservative speech that's political incorrect, it's a logical development to see renewed progressive support for the repeal of TANF and the rebuilding of a left-wing dependency-style welfare state. As folks have been saying all year, this fall's election is most fundamentally about the size and scope of government. A defeat for ObamaCare at the Supreme Court would strengthen advocates of limited government and free markets. But a win for the White House could embolden progressives, and the reelection of President Obama would likely result in further efforts to expand the role of the state in social welfare and so-called anti-poverty relief. The most likely result of that will be the even greater political polarization of the country along class, race, and gender lines.

The 1996 welfare reform was a monumental success because it reaffirmed the founding principle of individual self-sufficiency in the American political economy. Progressives hate individualism, of course, They worked their best to bring about a system of European-style state socialism here at home with devastating results for the black community. Considering the kind of abuse and utter demonization heaped on people like Charles Murray (who is out with a new book) and now John Derbyshire, who was perhaps a bit overboard but nevertheless speaking ugly truths that can't obviously be spoken in our PC-soaked society, it may well be difficult for conservatives to stand against a possible renascent push for expanded social welfare. But it's a necessary fight on the right. We simply can't afford the types of social welfare expenditures that the left would demand. Frankly, we need to continue moving the way people like Paul Ryan are advocating on budget and entitlement reform. Either way, it's going to take some Breitbart-style political combat to hold back the progressive hordes on these things. So, gird your loins conservatives. The leftists are sharpening their knives.

John Derbyshire Cut Loose at National Review...

Look, I'm not sure why Derbyshire put up something like this, but he's kicked off that national conversation lefties are always talkin' about.

Rich Lowry puts up the announcement, "Parting Ways." And check Memeorandum for all the reactions.

See, for example, Protein Wisdom, "John Derbyshire, Eric Holder, and the aims of racial fearmongering."

I'll update if I can think of something. I'd like to know what Derbyshire was thinking.

(I'd write more but I think speaking freely these days is getting dangerous for one's existence.)

Los Angeles Times Faults Report On 'Crisis of Politicization' at University of California

The funny thing, of course, is that the Times publishes communist cartoonist Ted Rall's work, including his cartoon last week that poked fun at the very same report, "How to tell if your teacher is a leftist."

I've long become familiar with the left-wing response to evidence of left-wing bias and radicalization of major institutions: ridicule. Ted Rall's cartoon previews the Times editorial board's commentary on the report, "Little Evidence of UC Crisis."

I've been reading the report, "A Crisis of Competence: The Corrupting Effect of Political Activism in the University of California." It's basically like preaching to the choir in my case, but of course, I'm surrounded by progressive academics at my college. The Times editors find fault with the evidence of bias cited at the "Crisis of Competence" report. And in fact, it's indeed less quantification than inference from evidence. But folks only need to spend time on a campus these days to understand that entirely one-sided ideological environment.

See also Dr. Sanity, "AMERICA, THE INDOCTRI — NATION."

Plus, from Debra Saunders, "University echo chamber drowns out diverse voices."

RELATED: From Henry Olsen, "Dangers of academia’s ‘indoctrination mills’."

Navy F/A-18D Fighter Crashes in Virginia Beach

At Los Angeles Times, "'Boom, boom, boom!' Navy jet crash stuns Virginia neighborhood."

And London's Daily Mail, "Hero pilots dump fuel before Navy F-18 fighter jet crashes into Virginia Beach apartment block preventing massive deadly fireball."

Leftists Lie, Make False Allegations to Silence Pro-Israel Professors

Yeah, and what else is new?

At Ynet, "A new anti-Israel tactic."

Of late, we have seen a new methodology employed by sympathizers of the Palestinians cause where they accuse pro-Israel groups and individuals of violating the same free speech rights they regularly demand. For example, Israeli generals and politicians have been threatened in Europe that they will be sued for crimes against humanity; IDF veterans (which includes nearly every Israeli) have been disinvited from academic panels, and now pro-Israel professors are being accused of “intimidating” pro-Palestinian student groups.

The UCSD Case

A case in point: On Feb.29, 2012 the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) student government defeated for the third year running a pro-Palestinian resolution calling on the University system to divest from US companies that supply Israel’s defense forces. The Associated Students of UCSD (ASUCSD) heard public debate on a resolution brought forth by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) calling for UC to divest from General Electric and Northrop Grumman because they supply components of Apache Helicopters sold to Israel, which then uses them to “violate” Palestinian human rights and expand the “occupation.”

UCSD University Professor Shlomo Dubnov of the Music department, who heads the campus chapter of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, spoke out against the divestment. Consequently, on March 2, leaders of the pro-Palestinian students sent a letter of complaint to faculty, administration and members of the UCSD Campus Climate Council “to address the hostile campus climate being created for students of color and students from underserved and underrepresented communities.”

Five student organizations also made claims against UCSD professors and staff who spoke against the resolution, stating that “while we understand that it is a public meeting, for them to refer to themselves in their position as ‘UCSD staff’ or ‘UCSD professor’ is uncalled for. They used their positions as University employees to verbally attack students and to even erase the existence of many individuals in the room.”
This new tactic of silencing professors who are pro-Israel through claims of intimidation and legal threats is of great concern, not only to the individuals who might be forced to think twice before speaking out but to the universities themselves. Academic freedom has already been manipulated to mean that anti-Israel ideologues have nearly complete license to propagandize in the classroom. Now efforts to exercise free speech and push back are being criminalized as “intimidation.”

And see San Diego Jewish World, "Smear campaign launched against BDS opponents."

Bizarre Lindsay Lohan Morphing Face Video

Pretty unreal, and profoundly depressing.

Via Mark Tapson on Twitter:

@girlcottRUSH #Fail

You gotta check this Twitchy post on Dana Loesch hammering some idiotic feminazi losers: "Lefties of #GirlcottRush no match for Breitbart.com editor Dana Loesch."

And kudos to Dana @DLoesch.

You should be following her!

Angels Take Home Opener Against Kansas City 5-0

A clean win, with 5 runs in the eighth.

See the Los Angeles Times, "Angels beat the Royals in season opener, 5-0."

Albert Pujols got off to a rough start, but it's great to see him out there and the team looks outstanding. Especially hot was Jered Weaver for the win. More at the Angels Baseball's homepage.

Unnamed NBC Producer Fired Over Networks's 'He Looks Black' Report

Well, this is something else.

At the New York Times, "NBC Fires Producer of Misleading Zimmerman Tape" (via Memeorandum).

Also at NewsBusters, "Bozell on Hannity's 'Media Mash': NBC 'Apology' for 911 Call Editing Is 'Unacceptable' and Evasive."

Plus, at JustOneMinute, "NBC Producer Out But Unnamed."

Democrat Media Complex Under Fire for Trayvon Martin Reporting

Reuters has a report, "NBC probe centers on staffer in shooting story error." (At Memeorandum).

And William Jacobson has more, "CNN proves “beyond a reasonable doubt” why cases should not be tried in the media."

Anaheim Angels Opening Day!

The Orange County Register is going totally gonzo for opening day.

There's a lot at the link.

Here's a link to the Angels' blog at the newspaper, "Yes, it’s finally here … but first, take a look back."

Smokin' Jennifer Love Hewitt Gears Up for New Series 'The Client List'

She's in the news, and looking great.

See: "Jennifer Love Hewitt: I’m single, Adam Levine is single, we’d be cute."

And LAT, "'The Client List': Jennifer Love Hewitt decides to 'shake it up'."

Despicable Progressive 'Identity Theft' Attacks on Zilla of the Resistance

Well, here's an update to yesterday's post.

See Zilla's blog, "Identity Theft: Another Tool for the Politics of Personal Destruction from the “Tolerant” Left."

I've been dealing with despicable progressives for a long time, but I'm truly amazed at this latest method of vile left-wing attacks. Just freakin' unbelievable, really.

'Debt Suicide' in Greece

This is awful.

At New York Times, "Pensioner's Suicide Continues to Shake Greece":

ATHENS — The death of a 77-year-old Greek pensioner who shot himself in the head outside Parliament in despair over his financial problems has shaken this austerity-weary country and a crumbling political system struggling to assert its relevance amid an economic and social meltdown.

Dimitris Christoulas, a divorced and retired pharmacist, took his life on Wednesday in Syntagma Square, a focal point for frequent public demonstrations and protests, as hundreds of commuters passed nearby at a metro station and as lawmakers in Parliament debated last-minute budget amendments before elections, expected on May 6.

In a handwritten note found near the scene, the pensioner said he could not face the prospect “of scavenging through garbage bins for food and becoming a burden to my child,” blaming the government’s austerity policies for his decision.

The incident has prompted a public outpouring, with passers-by pinning notes of sympathy and protest to trees in the square, as well as comment from politicians across the spectrum. A solidarity rally on Wednesday night turned violent when the police clashed with hooded demonstrators in scuffles that left at least three people injured.

On Thursday, before the start of another rally, shocked Athenians visited the site of the shooting. Some expressed sadness at the desperation of a fellow citizen, but also anger.

And at CSM, "Athens suicide: a cry for dignity from downtrodden."

'Savages' Movie Trailer with Blake Lively

This looks gnarly.

At London's Daily Mail, "Bound and gagged: Blake Lively is far from her Gossip Girl alter ego Serena in gritty role for new violent film Savages."

Porsche 911 Designer Ferdinand Porsche Dead at 76

This is a fascinating obituary, at the New York Times, "Ferdinand A. Porsche, Designer of the 911, Dies at 76":

The Porsche 911 proved both an immediate and enduring hit, and the company has never replaced it, instead allowing the car to evolve over almost half a century. In spite of myriad design tweaks and updates in parts and technology, it remains an unmistakable descendant of F. A. Porsche’s original vision. Now in its seventh iteration, and starting at more than $80,000 for the least expensive version, the car remains a symbol of luxury, stellar engineering and sex appeal.

“The new version was mobbed and groped when it was unveiled in September at the Frankfurt auto show,” The Associated Press reported. “Showgoers left the doors and roof smeared with fingerprints as they scrambled for a chance to sit behind the wheel.”

The Porsche 911 is my ultimate dream car.

I posted on it recently, "Test-Driving the 2012 Porsche 911," and "Porsche 911 Test Drive With WSJ's Dan Neil."

Coca-Cola Caves to Left-Wing Intimidation, Drops Conservative Group Behind 'Stand Your Ground'

This is insidious.

At the Washington Examiner, "Coke caves in face of Democratic boycott threat."

And at Legal Insurrection, "Conservatives better wake up to anti-conservative boycott movements":

The group Color of Change just intimidated Coca-Cola into dropping its corporate sponsorship of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group which helps draft model state laws on a variety of conservative issues.

There has been a determined effort by left-wing groups in the past couple of years to demonize ALEC, and Color of Change seized on the issue of voter identification laws.

Here’s how it works.  An issue which is neutral, such as voter i.d. laws, is portrayed as racist and hostile to minorities.  The advertiser then is confronted with a flood of social media contracts threatening, sometimes implicitly and sometimes explicitly, with a boycott for supporting “racist” laws.

There are few corporations, not even ones as large as Coca-Cola, which can risk being labeled “racist” or as “supporting racism” regardless of how inaccurate and outlandish the accusations.  It is toxic, and groups like Media Matters and Color of Change know it.

Faced with the accusation and thousands or tens of thousands of people who are willing to spread the lie, the corporation caves in to the pressure and withdraws the advertising or sponsorship.

This is exactly what happened when Color of Change a organized a massive social media campaign against Coca Cola on April 4...

Keep reading.

This is all about bullying and lies, which makes for some particularly despicable politics.

MORE: At Maggie's Notebook, "Coke Pulls Support for Voter ID in Face of Dem Boycott: Folded in 5 Hours – James Clyburn Heads Voter ID Boycott."

Please Visit The Lonely Conservative Today

Karen at The Lonely Conservative has been getting the most despicable attacks from the progressive trolls. I'm almost speechless.

See, "Banning Trolls and Civility in the Comments," and "Juvenile Tricks From Our Friends on the Left – Updated."

I'm really new to this!

Progressives ares signing up conservatives to mailing lists and websites. I was signed up at Gawker and Change.org, with the emails coming in yesterday. Karen's been getting hundreds of these. Then some folks are impersonating conservatives in the comments there. Someone used my blog URL and it looked like my avatar with a comment that I was thinking we should have more James Byrd lynchings, "somebody go get a truck."

Unreal! I had to email Karen to let her know how horrified at seeing that.

There's good news, in any case.

Karen won the best blog mom award. See, "Thanks to All Voted in the Top 25 Political Moms Contest!"

I have been enjoying a respite from the murderous, libelous, demonic trolls for a couple of months now. I had to get the police involved and was preparing for a possible lawsuit to get Walter James Casper to cease and desist. Now I see my friends being attacked and it's really bothersome. We're just trying to have a voice out here, but progressives are so intolerant they'll shut anyone down by any means necessary.

More later.

Lawrence O'Donnell Attacks Mitt Romney's Religion

I'm really almost not believing I'm seeing this. Here's the quality of public deliberation we'll be having this year, 2012, with a presidential election coming up. MSNBC's going full anti-Mormon because Mitt Romney had some strong words about President Obama and secularism?

Kevin Williamson has this, "Lawrence O’Donnell, Bigot."

Legal Insurrection has been on this topic for months: "How nasty will the general election race card get?"

Keith Olbermann Remorseful on 'Late Show with David Letterman'

I didn't blog the Olbermann blowout at Current TV, so here you go.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Keith Olbermann tells David Letterman: 'I screwed up'."

Is It Ethical to Have Children?

My wife looked at me cross-eyed when I asked her if it was moral to have children. I think it's a stupid question too, but then again, it's a big area of scholarly concern.

See The New Yorker, "The Case Against Kids."

The Exploitation of Trayvon Martin

From Shelby Steele, at the Wall Street Journal:

If Trayvon Martin was a victim of white racism (hard to conceive since the shooter is apparently Hispanic), his murder would be an anomaly, not a commonplace. It would be a bizarre exception to the way so many young black males are murdered today. If there must be a generalization in all this—a call "to turn the moment into a movement"—it would have to be a movement against blacks who kill other blacks. The absurdity of Messrs. Jackson and Sharpton is that they want to make a movement out of an anomaly. Black teenagers today are afraid of other black teenagers, not whites.

So the idea that Trayvon Martin is today's Emmett Till, as the Rev. Jackson has said, suggests nothing less than a stubborn nostalgia for America's racist past. In that bygone era civil rights leaders and white liberals stood on the highest moral ground. They literally knew themselves—given their genuine longing to see racism overcome—as historically transformative people. If the world resisted them, as it surely did, it only made them larger than life.

It was a time when standing on the side of the good required true selflessness and so it ennobled people. And this chance to ennoble oneself through a courageous moral stand is what so many blacks and white liberals miss today—now that white racism is such a defeated idea. There is a nostalgia for that time when posture alone ennobled. So today even the hint of old-fashioned raw racism excites with its potential for ennoblement...

A great essay. Read it all.

Forty-Four Years Ago Today, April 4, 1968: The Assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Forty-four years later, and we're moving backwards on race relations.

The New York Times has the historical background: "April 4, 1968 | The Assassination of Martin Luther King."

And at the Los Angeles Times, "Remembering Martin Luther King Jr., killed 44 years ago today."