Egypt Protesters Scale U.S. Embassy Wall

At the Los Angeles Times, "Egypt protesters pull down US flag at embassy in Cairo."

CAIRO — More than a dozen Egyptian protesters, angry over what they called an anti-Muslim video, scaled the outer wall of the fortress-like U.S. Embassy in Cairo on Tuesday and took down an American flag.

In its place, they raised a black flag that read: "There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet" before Egyptian security forces sought to tame the crowd.

And at the New York Times, "Obscure Film Mocking Muslim Prophet Sparks Anti-U.S. Protests in Egypt and Libya."

And In the Hour of Darkness ... She Is Standing Right In Front of Me...

From this afternoon's drive-time, at The Sound L.A., this seems appropriate given the 11th anniversary of the September 11th attacks:

Canelo vs. Lopez at MGM Grand

There's a big fight this Saturday at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas.

While we were visiting the hotel had placed the fight ring in the main entrance lobby.

And my oldest took a shot of your humble blogger:

PREVIOUSLY: "Labor Day Weekend in Las Vegas."

Lana Del Rey: 'Video Games'

Here's the viral video from the pop sensation:

PREVIOUSLY: "Lana Del Rey Nude GQ Photo Shoot."

Steven Spielberg 'Lincoln' Teaser

At Film, "First Footage From Steven Spielberg’s ‘Lincoln’ Features a Bit of the President’s Most Famous Speech" (via Memeorandum).

Also at the Wall Street Journal, "‘Lincoln’ Teaser Trailer Released."

Plus, Allahpundit has commentary, at Hot Air, "Video: “Lincoln” teaser trailer."

'Bachelor Pad'

I was figuring out this show as it was going along. My wife was watching as well. But by the conclusion, when host Chris Harrison explained the final rules, I could see what kind of strategic game was at hand. And man, what a payoff! A classic display of self-interested, Machiavellian television. A rare treat. Is Nick an asshole? Perhaps. But he played for keeps. Apparently he had no partners throughout and even Rachel wasn't committed to him at earlier points in the show. But that's all I can say because it's all new to me. Definitely an explosive finale.

I don't see video for last night's episode, but here's the website. And see Lincee Ray, at the Huffington Post, "'Bachelor Pad' Finale Recap: The Most Disturbing Finale Ever." Also at E! Online, "Bachelor Pad Finale: A Proposal, Betrayal and So Many Tears."

Tourists Run for Their Lives After Spooking Buffalo at Yellowstone National Park

The tourists are smiling after that little run down, but a brute animal like that will kill you if it gets the chance:

You can see how close the tourists were to the buffalo at The Blaze, "THE STUNNING MOMENT A WILD BISON CHARGES A CHILD IN YELLOWSTONE!"

Today's Poll Numbers

It was a big day for presidential horse race polling. And after all of it I'm still not convinced Obama's pulling out a decisive advantage at this point, but I'm honestly concerned that trends could be favoring the Democrats in Ohio, and perhaps some of the other swing states --- and that's taking into consideration the horrible media bias in both polling and reporting. And note I say could be.

Earlier this evening, Scott Pelley on CBS Evening News reported that Obama's up 6 points in Ohio. This would be the Quinnipiac/CBS/NYT swing states poll. I think it was 50 to 44 over Romney, but the survey's not posted yet at any of the websites. If that's correct (and I'll post the numbers when they're up), the findings would be within one point of the Public Policy Poll out today on Ohio, which has Obama up by 5 points in the Buckeye State. I don't trust either polling outfits, so there's that. And Ed Morrissey fisked PPP in any case, noting how the internals were off, with Democrats oversampled and independents undersampled: "PPP puts Obama up 5 in Ohio":

Ohio looks deadlocked if one considers the modeling used, and even perhaps edging toward Romney when looking at the independents. I’d wait on hitting panic buttons here until seeing something with a better likely-voter model.

And see William Bigelow at Big Government as well, "Despite Media Hype, No Bounce for Obama in Swing States":

Politico’s “Unnamed Sources” say Ohio is lost for Mitt Romney. Like hell it is. They say Obama got a serious bounce from the DNC. Like hell he did.

Whatever bounce Obama got was in the blue states. In the swing states, it’s still way too close to call. Today’s Rasmussen poll results show that in the eleven swing states, including Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin, which total 145 electoral votes, it’s Obama 46% and Romney 45%. In 2008, Obama won these states 53% to 46%. So how does the MSM try to spin the evidence so Obama looks like he’s unbeatable? Let’s look at Ohio, for example. Politico reported (using uncredited sources, of course), that Ohio is lost for Romney:

“Two officials intimately involved in the GOP campaign said Ohio leans clearly in Obama’s favor now.”

I didn’t know Axelrod and Plouffe were working for Romney, but hey, they’ll go where the money is.

But, as usual, Politico was relying on Obama-leaning polls to support their narrative; yesterday the PPP poll (which is always weighted toward Obama because of PPP’s affiliation with the SEIU) showed Obama up by five in Ohio. Hmmm. According to the Gravis marketing poll taken last Tuesday, Romney was up three in Ohio. Who’s telling the truth? ....

*****

Every race in the swing states is close right now, and the unconscionable skewing of the polls by the MSM shouldn’t discourage Republicans. The MSM has lied before, they are lying now, and they will lie in the future. The Obama campaign has thrown everything but the kitchen sink at Romney, they have the power of incumbency, and Romney simply is not going away. And all of this is before Romney has even attacked Obama in ads and the debates.

Hey, Dems, this show ain’t even close to over; we’re just getting warmed up.

For all that, I'm not going to just wave my hand and wish away the numbers. If the election were held today Romney would lose. So it's going to take some hard campaigning, winning debates for the GOP ticket, and reasonably fair media coverage down the final stretch (fingers crossed).

Still, I think progressives are foolish for preemptively spiking the football the way they have been. Martin Longman at Booman Tribune is especially cocky about a Democrat victory. There's no cost to being wrong, of course. Progressives will just claim the GOP stole the election anyway, so better to demoralize folks now.

But I'm not one to call it quits in any event, and I'm not sure exactly which conservatives are throwing in the towel, for all the hand-wringing. John Hinderaker simply backed off his predictions for a big Romney win, and the left immediately pounced. Really. Has anyone actually caved?

My hunch is that while Obama indeed pulled out a bit of a bounce (and props to Nate Silver, who I promised a shout out if his predictions proved correct), the race will settle back down to a rough dead heat over the next couple of weeks --- and then perhaps the October debates might have some impact on the campaign. See Stephen Hayes, at the Weekly Standard, for more along those lines, "Two More Months":

One day after the Democratic convention ended here, and a week after the Republican convention wrapped up in Tampa, and American politics is basically all tied up. Here’s the top line on Real Clear Politics 60 days before November 6: The RCP average for the presidential race shows a dead heat (Obama +0.7 percentage points), the Senate is 46-46 with 8 tossups, and the generic congressional ballot is tied....

Keep reading.

And see also Robert Stacy McCain, at American Spectator, "Omens of Doom?":

Sixty-four days remain in the 2012 presidential campaign. Election Day is nine weeks from tomorrow, both party conventions are now in the rearview mirror, and Mitt Romney's uphill battle to unseat President Obama has reached its most crucial phase. Everything that happened before today was merely prelude to this, the heart of the fall campaign season, and no "expert" can confidently predict today what the final result will be on November 6.

These basic facts are important to establish at the outset of any discussion of the current state of the race, because there are many influential people who would like you to believe that the outcome of the election has somehow already been determined, and that they have clairvoyant insight on what that outcome will be. But why bring Nate Silver into this?

Silver is the poll-analyzing guru of the New York Times, whose reputation as a wizard was developed in crunching baseball statistics before being applied to political campaigns. On Saturday afternoon, Silver published an analysis which asserted that Obama now has a nearly 80 percent chance of winning the election, with 317 Electoral College votes and 52 percent of the popular vote. All of which is very interesting -- and very important, if true.

However, baseball isn't politics, and public-opinion polls are not batting averages or on-base percentages or any other such metric of past performance. Readers of Michael Lewis's bestseller Moneyball may appreciate this distinction, especially if they have any extensive experience in following polls and election campaigns....

 To put it as bluntly as possible, the economy sucks, and the attempt by Democrats to exculpate Obama for this situation -- to place the blame on Republicans, or to say that the economy would suck even worse if Romney were elected -- is perhaps more difficult than Nate Silver's statistics suggest. If somebody were to offer you 4-to-1 odds on that proposition, how much would you bet? Mitt Romney's campaign reportedly raised $100 million last month, and the Obama campaign's embarrassed silence about its own August fundraising suggests that Democratic donors are less confident than the wizard of the New York Times.

And for good measure, check Bryan Preston as well, at PJ Media, "Seriously, Don't Panic About the Latest Polls."

It's going to be a hard fought campaign down to the wire. Neither side should get complacent, although I agree that Team Romney needs to clarify its message and hammer President Obama on his big-government radicalism. We've never had a president like this, and the point hasn't been driven home to the average man-on-the-street. No one else can do it. Romney has to get more personal and less managerial, lest he end up being the Michael Dukakis of 2012.

The Last Efforts of a Dying Ideology

If you read my post yesterday on the hubristic progressives, then consider this piece from Sarah Hoyt a continuation, but instead focusing on how some on the right have been suckered into the left's brazen propaganda of inevitable victory, "Spreading Fear and Despondency."

Progressives will attempt to demoralize you, they'll send you stuff like this to prove their inevitability, but mark my words: It's still a dead heat. The election is too close to call and there remain so many unaccounted for variables in play that to assume victory is outright folly. Don't be suckered.

I'll have more on this in the days ahead.

Supporters of Freedom Are All Zionists Now

From David Horowitz, at FrontPage Magazine, "Reflections of a Diaspora Jew on Zionism, America and the Fate of the Jews."

I looked for a good pullout quote, but it's all good, and classic Horowitz. Read it all at the link.

The Sadly Obligatory Biker Chick Sitting on Joe Biden's Lap Post

The photo was being wildly circulated on Twitter yesterday, so here's my contribution. Via Right Truth, "What Is It With Joe Biden Kissing Women and Having a Biker Chick Sit On His Lap?"

It wouldn't be that bad I suppose, but frankly the scene is fraught with more improper sexual tension than you could possibly imagine. Biden's practically making out with the lady. What a freak. And the looks on the gentlemen bikers next to them tell it all.

More at Twitchy, "Awkward: Joe Biden is photographed with a female biker in his lap."

Mitt Romney 'Meet The Press' Interview, September 9, 2012

Linkmaster Smith has it, at The Other McCain, "Mitt Romney Spars With David Gregory On Meet The Press."

Legal Battles on Voting May Be Critical Issue in Election

Something I haven't focused on much in my weekend analyses, at the New York Times, "A Tight Election May Be Tangled in Legal Battles":

The November presidential election, widely expected to rest on a final blitz of advertising and furious campaigning, may also hinge nearly as much on last-minute legal battles over when and how ballots should be cast and counted, particularly if the race remains tight in battleground states.

In the last few weeks, nearly a dozen decisions in federal and state courts on early voting, provisional ballots and voter identification requirements have driven the rules in conflicting directions, some favoring Republicans demanding that voters show more identification to guard against fraud and others backing Democrats who want to make voting as easy as possible.

The most closely watched cases — in the swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania — will see court arguments again this week, with the Ohio dispute possibly headed for a request for emergency review by the Supreme Court.

In Wisconsin, the home state of the Republican vice-presidential candidate, Representative Paul D. Ryan, the attorney general has just appealed to the State Supreme Court on an emergency basis to review two rulings barring its voter ID law. But even if all such cases are settled before Nov. 6 — there are others in Florida, Iowa and South Carolina — any truly tight race will most likely generate post-election litigation that could delay the final result.

“In any of these states there is the potential for disaster,” said Lawrence Norden of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. “You have close elections and the real possibility that people will say their votes were not counted when they should have been. That’s the nightmare scenario for the day after the election.”

More at that top link.

Senator Dianne Feinstein Walks Out of Interview When Asked Why She Won't Debate Her Oppenent

There's so much symbolism here the significance is astonishing. It's literally as if Feinstein believes there's no reason to be accountable to the political process. And keep in mind, why should she? California's the bluest of blue states and the power of incumbency practically guarantees reelection for a milquetoast placeholder like Feinstein. I cringe at how undemocratic it seems, but then again, change takes time, especially in California. Perhaps things won't go well for the state's Democrats in November, especially on Proposition 30, and the seeds could be sown for substantial political change going forward. We'll see. Via Instapundit:

Chicago Teachers Union Will Strike for First Time in 25 Years

The New York Times reports, "With No Contract Deal by Deadline in Chicago, Teachers Will Strike."

It turns out the communists and Occupy protesters are turning the strike into a class-warfare campaign for worker's solidarity. Here's the World Workers Party on Twitter:

Victory to the #CTU! Their strike will have implications for public education and teachers' unions across the U.S. #ctustrike
— Socialist Worker (@SocialistViews) September 10, 2012

A collection of articles from the Socialist Worker is here. And a commentary here, "The meaning of our struggle in Chicago."

Plus Marathon Pundit reports, "Strike out: Chicago public school teachers walk out; non-union charter schools still in session."

There should be marches and picketing tomorrow --- and thus plenty of photos and video of commies gone wild. I'll be updating. This ought to be something else.

Added: From Anne Sorock, at Legal Insurrection, "Chicago Teachers Union strikes, publishes Gloria Steinem endorsement."

The View From the Other Side: 'Anger and Denial' On the 'Wingnut Right'

Here's my previous entry, "A Two-Point Change in the Polls is Not a 'Bounce' — Especially With the Undercover Media Cognoscenti in the Tank."

I'm sure folks might quibble here and there with the analysis, but the fact is the election's been basically deadlocked for months. And while conservatives would love to see Mitt Romney holding a huge lead in the polls, it just ain't happening. What explains this? The country is nearly evenly divided, of course. Barack Obama remains popular among left-leaning voters (who give him the benefit of the doubt) and by reasonably objective indicators the mainstream press has been harder on Mitt Romney than it has on the incumbent (I could cite numerous media attacks on Romney, and untold numbers of underreported negative stories on Obama, but no need, since partisans will believe what they want to believe).

That said, I don't think the much dreaded "wingnut" right of the Republican coalition is inventing conspiracy theories as to why Obama remains competitive. And thus it's infinitely intriguing to see the left's response to John Hinderaker's piece, cited at my essay above, "Why Is This Election Close?" (at Memeorandum). Read the Hinderaker essay before some of the radical responses below. What amazes me is how dramatically divergent are the two sides. And also interesting is the caricatures that progressives use to describe the reviled "wingnuts," that, and the left's cocoon of psychological displacement and self-delusion.

Here's Mark Kleiman, for example, "From Denial to Anger: wingnuts v. the American people":

I’m always happy to see people dealing with reality, even if they do so badly. So it’s good to see a faction of the right-wing commentariat pivot from pretending that Clint Eastwood gave a great speech and the Democrats had a bad convention – while explaining that the polling results showing otherwise are rigged – to trying to figure out why their guy is losing an election they thought was a tap-in, and still think should by rights be a tap-in. They’ve moved on from Denial to Anger.

There are links to both Power Line and National Review at that entry, but again, it's the perception of reality that's striking. So to clarify: Eastwood didn't give a great speech, although he pushed just enough of the right buttons to have a huge impact; the Democrats didn't have a "bad convention," perhaps, but only if one ignores the completely FUBAR voice vote on God and Religion, the lies DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz told to deny her party's failures, and the stream of far-left wing activists and party hacks spouting hateful attacks on Republicans with nary a mention of the administration's failed policies. But again, it's all in the perceptions.

But checking further around the horn, what do we find?

Well, Booman Tribune's Martin Longman, who I noted yesterday lives truly in an alternative universe, has this, "Stupid Republicans":

It would be hard to exaggerate Assrocket's stupidity. If he believes anything he's saying, he's an idiot. I wonder whether his readers will punish him for being such a bad prognosticator, or not. Anyone who has predicted that not only would Mitt Romney win this election, but win it in convincing fashion, obviously cannot even figure out how to use an Electoral College calculator. Assrocket should know that the Democrats have a solid 247 Electoral College base. And if the Dems don't totally screw things up, they probably will enter the 2016 cycle with a solid base in excess of the 270 Electoral College majority required to win.

It is possible for Mitt Romney to win, but not by more than 291 votes, and that is not a decisive margin. You can look back at 2004 and see that as pretty much the best the modern Republican Party can do.

Stupid is as stupid does, I guess. It's not like Democrats have been winning landslide presidential elections, in recent decades, and that's if the Democrats even won. (And demography is not necessarily destiny, since people can change voting preferences, especially during an economic depression.) All that matters is 270-to-win, in any case, so this blather about how large an electoral vote is meaningless. All Romney has to do is win a few states that Obama took in 2008, especially Ohio and Florida, and things could be over for the Democrats. While Longman can act like an all-knowing political Solon, dissing Republicans as "stupid," President Obama doesn't have the luxury of hubris, and has in fact been shitting bricks according to some reports. (And for the record, keep Booman Tribune in mind if you're thinking about ramming a Republican victory down progressive throats after November 6.)

Now, how about over at No More Mr. Nice Blog, a colleague of Booman, "WHAT REPUBLICANS THINK OF AMERICA":

Verbatim John Hinderaker, from a Power Line post titled "Why Is This Election Close?":

I am afraid the problem in this year's race is economic self-interest: we are perilously close to the point where 50% of our population cares more about the money it gets (or expects to get) from government than about the well-being of the nation as a whole. Throw in a few confused students, pro-abortion fanatics, etc., and you have a Democratic majority.

Shorter Hinderaker:

Hey, American people, we think you're a bunch of leeches, bomb-throwers, and morons. Vote for us!

The mask is really off here: If you look forward to getting Social Security and Medicare benefits, or unemployment benefits if you lose your job, or Pell grants if you want to go to college, you're contemptible. You're not American. Sink-or-swim is the American way.

Oh boy!

Yeah, the mask is really off --- the welfare entitlement state! Steve M. practices the simple caricature I mentioned above. Now we could quibble with Hinderaker's phrasing, but the fact remains that, yes, 50 percent of Americans are receiving income from some kind of federal transfer program, and that fact weighs on the historic tradition of individualism and self-sufficiency in American politics. The question is whether all of those receiving benefits of some sort, especially among those who aren't Social Security retirees, consider this a lifelong dole with little care about returning to gainful employment of some sort. There's certainly no lack of evidence that large numbers of the Democrat base expect long-term welfare handouts, and these slackers in fact lovingly refer to the handouts as "Obama bucks." Other examples abound (remember Peggy Joseph upon the election of "The One"). So let's be honest: The average working wage-earner paying substantial portions of his or her income in taxes has all the right to be concerned about the basic moral "well-being of the nation as a whole" when it comes to hard work and personal responsibility. That's the kind of sweat that built this country, not the ever growing welfare state entitlement dole that Democrats will defend to the death.

Okay, how about over at Barbara "Mahablog" O'Brien, "Obama Pulling Away?":

The Right is genuinely baffled as to why their guy isn’t winning by a mile. Those of you with a morbid fascination with psycho-political pathology might get a kick out of some of their arguments today — see Power Tool John and Andrew McCarthy, for example. It’s beginning to dawn on them that they could lose. They are still hopeful that some reservoir of undecided voters will break to Romney at the last minute, but now they are entering the second-guessing phase. Have they been too “conservative,” or not “conservative” enough?

Although we may never solve the mystery of why Mitt Romney wants to be President, I am getting the impression that he, and much of the rest of the Right, thought this election would be easily winnable. All they had to do was present a candidate who looks like he could play a President on teevee, and all those folks disappointed in President Obama would flock to him. And it isn’t happening. And they are so lost inside their own echo chamber they have no idea why.

What I think is that the Democratic convention reflected what the electorate actually thinks and feels right now, and the Republicans missed that by a mile. The cut taxes/deregulate to create prosperity gag is old, and tired, and no one outside the rightie echo chamber believes it any more. And every local, state, and national candidate for office for the past several election cycles has been promising jobs, jobs, jobs, and the promises don’t cut it. Without a credible, clearly articulated plan, they might as well promise fairy dust and unicorns.

While I can't speak for "every local, state, and national candidate" running for office this year, the fact is that it was President Obama's speech that was hammered by people on the left for being extremely short on specifics and vision. Indeed, far-left blogger Kevin Drum dissed Obama for "phoning it in." And Ryan Lizza at the New Yorker, clearly no friend of the GOP ticket, hammered Obama's speech, noting that "There’s still plenty of time left for Obama to live up to his promise to tell us the truth. Let’s hope we hear a lot more detail in the weeks ahead about what he really means when he implores us 'forward'." So again, it's all about perception, and if Barbara O'Brien wants to attack conservatives as stuck in the echo chamber bubble, she might first step outside herself and draw a deep breath of reality.

Alright, I'm just getting started here! Let's see what Zandar the Stupid's got up his sleeves, "Your Insanity Is Exquisite, Sir":

John Hinderaker's clean break with political reality is so snowflake-intricate, so crystalline perfect in its construction, that part of me feels bad stomping all over the thing like a drunken brontosaurus with a restless leg syndrome having a panic attack during an earthquake. I mean, it takes serious and sustained, considerable effort to build a Fortress of Denial like this, each brick lovingly collected from the fetid swamps of internet bullshit that he resides in, much like Yoda's Dagobah home (only without all the personable rustic charm) and held in the hefty walls by the mortar of utter cluelessness...

Zandar is one of those progressives who virtually speaks a foreign language decipherable almost exclusively to the scummiest dirtbag trolls of the progressive fever swamps. Folks can continue reading Zandar the Stupid at the link. He hasn't debunked Hinderaker so much as pissed on him. And as is the case with political blogging, Zandar eschews any self-reflection as to the weaknesses of his side. As mentioned, Team Obama is worried about reelection. The race is tight and things could still go against the Democrats. All this left-wing victory stomping is badly premature at this point, and exceedingly self-absorbed, as if that needed to be pointed out.

Now, last but not least, check out the diarist "Armando" at Daily Kos, "Wingnuts argue conservatism being failed: by the American People." The post is mostly a cut-and-paste from some of the bloggers I've cited here already, but the kicker is the Ayn Rand theme with the picture of the Objectivist philosopher at the entry. I don't actually hear too many folks on the right quoting Ayn Rand to make the case against Obama. There's been a resurgence of her work, no doubt, and we had some buzz a few years back about people "going Galt," but the fact is veep-nominee Paul Ryan has renounced Rand's theories as atheist and I can't think of a single mainstream Republican who wants to abandon the basic outlines of the safety net as we have it today. What folks like Ryan want to do is put that safety net on sure footing. They want to modernize the American welfare state for a society and post-industrial economy that bear little resemblance to the American economy and demographics of the Great Depression and New Deal. It's the Democrats who are stuck in a time warp. It's the denizens of the fevered leftist redoubts who're in denial about what it's going to take to revitalize the country, put our economy on sound footing, and get people back to work (and off the dole). And on that note, and in detail, don't miss Walter Russell Mead, "Noise vs. Knowledge: America’s Longest Presidential Campaign."

The Democrats offered virtually nothing of substance at the convention in Charlotte. And the president in particular was just going through the motions, giving what many panned as a barely warmed-over State-of-the-Union leftover address.

The progressives used to call themselves "the reality-based community." And some still do, I'm sure. The problem is the left's reality is not the objective reality that people usually refer to when they speak of realistic-based, reality-driven thinking. Is Mitt Romney going to win? Who knows? But he's certainly not out of the ball game, not by a long shot. And by implication, President Obama's not pulling away. I laid out how I felt at my earlier essay on Nate Silver and the purported Democrat convention bounce. My hunch at this point is that Obama has a very good chance to win, but it could be a squeaker, cobbling together just enough of his 2008 electoral coalition to go over the top. And to be really accurate here I'd need to go back and look at the state level data, for example, in Florida (where Obama holds a 1.7 percent lead in the RCP average) and Ohio (where Obama holds a 1.5 percent lead in the RCP average); and we'd have to factor in other things like campaign spending, and GOTV efforts, and voter enthusiasm (see Charlie Cook on the latter, "Obama’s Enthusiasm Deficit Could Soon Haunt Him"). Consider it basically a dead heat. Or at least consider the reality that it could be a dead heat and that Team Obama's freaking out that it's a dead heat, and that "The One" could well be packing his bags for a permanent golf vacation come January.

So there you go. Neither side needs to be over-confident at this point, but if I were a concern troll I'd warn the progressives not to get too cocky.

RELATED: See Jennifer Rubin, "Whistling past the graveyard at the Democratic convention."

CARTOON CREDIT: Dr. Sanity, "DENIAL, DENIAL, AND STILL MORE DENIAL!"

Jay Whiston, British 17-Year-Old, Killed After House Party Crashed by Facebook 'Friends'

Another one of those incredible teen tragedies you couldn't imagine happening when you were a kid.

At Telegraph UK, "Teenager stabbed to death after Facebook party is gatecrashed":

A promising A-level student was stabbed to death after a quiet house party spiralled out of control when gatecrashers spotted an invite on Facebook.

Jay Whiston, 17, collapsed after being stabbed in the stomach during an altercation over a mobile phone at the party in a quiet suburb of Colchester, Essex.

Partygoers described how the well-behaved teenage gathering, at which the host’s parents were present, descended into chaos as a large number of uninvited guests turned up and began to cause trouble.

According to witnesses, Mr Whiston, who lived with his family in Clacton, was stabbed when he attempted to intervene in a row over a mobile phone.

Paramedics, who were called to Marlowe Way in Colchester shortly after 10pm on Saturday evening, rushed Mr Whiston to Colchester General Hospital but he was pronounced a short time later.

Last night his grieving mother Caroline Shearer, 47, warned parents everywhere of the devastating impact of knife crime.

See also London's Daily Mail, "Boy, 17, stabbed to death as Facebook gatecrashers storm suburban house party supervised by parents of teenage girl."

A Two-Point Change in the Polls is Not a 'Bounce' — Especially With the Undercover Media Cognoscenti in the Tank

President Obama has seen at most a two or three point change in the polls from two weeks ago, in the days just before the GOP convention. Frankly, the changes are practically imperceptible. The polls are basically where they were in early August, when Mitt Romney selected Paul Ryan as his running-mate --- when at that time it could've been said that the GOP ticket got a small bounce (and nobody in the MSM was saying any such thing, surprise). As I reported earlier, the so called "convention bounce" phenomenon is essentially ephemeral. Looking back at earlier election years, the gains after the conventions evaporated as the general election campaign wore on in the last couple of months. In other words, the final leg of the presidential race matters. The last stages of the campaigns will turn undecided voters into "decidedes" and one of the campaigns will emerge as the clear leader at the final stretch.

So that's why I'm getting some good laughs from Nate Silver, the so-called wonder kid of horse race polling. Poor Nate has been jonesing horribly for even the slightest blip of an Obama-Biden bounce. He squeezed out a "hint" of a bounce in his writing the other day, and last night he went all out with a major commitment in political analysis: "Sept. 8: Conventions May Put Obama in Front-Runner’s Position." Oh my! Talk about iconoclastic political reporting! Step back from the ledge, Nate. Think of the children!!

But the fact is that Obama's a wildly likable incumbent who's had virtually the entire MSM establishment in the tank. Yeah, he's the front-runner alright, doh. The big story is why the Democrat ticket hasn't pulled out a prohibitive lead by now. Lord knows the press is trying. They even went undercover to pick up some Obama swag from the convention in Charlotte: "Too good to check: Media buying Obama swag under fake names at Democratic convention?"

The wonder kid reports that Obama might ultimately pull out a five-point post-convention bounce --- we won't know until later this week, when the tracking poll surveys catch up with sample respondents queried after the convention. I'll give Silver a big shout out later in the week if he's on the money. But in the end, any bounce won't matter much. The race will be neck-and-neck down to the wire of November 6. We have boatloads of political advertising to expect by then, and of course the presidential debates, which could make a big difference. Indeed, Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg have more on that, at the Times, "Five Crucial Factors to Watch, Just 58 Days From the Election" (via Memeorandum):

WASHINGTON — Two months before the election, President Obama and Mitt Romney agree on one thing: the collection of states where the race will be decided.

As Mr. Obama opened a two-day bus tour of Florida on Saturday, Mr. Romney set his sights on trying to put Virginia back in the Republican column. Television advertisements from both sides were filling the airwaves in those two vital states and six others from Nevada to New Hampshire, while outside groups supporting the candidates tested for traction elsewhere.

With the political conventions over, the battle to determine whether Mr. Obama will win re-election or Mr. Romney will become the 45th president of the United States is fully engaged. The race has been deadlocked, according to many measures, and each side was predicting that it would see no lift from its convention. That seems to have been true in Mr. Romney’s case, while Mr. Obama’s aides were hopeful that new polls due out this week would prove them wrong.

But for now, Mr. Obama may hold a slight edge because the race remains essentially tied, which means voter disappointment has not turned into a resounding call for his defeat despite the challenging economic climate.

“Now, our friends at the other convention were more than happy to talk about what was wrong with America but not talking about what they’d do to make it right,” he told supporters on Saturday in Seminole, Fla., only a few miles from the site of the Republican convention.

Mr. Romney, speaking to veterans in Virginia Beach on Saturday, referred to the disappointing jobs report released a day earlier. “This week has not been a lot of good news,” he said. “But I’m here to tell you things are about to get a lot better.”

Continue reading.

The five factors: The electoral map, the debates, the ads and messaging, possible third party bids in some states, and campaign finance.

I'm making no bets at this point. I mostly think that Obama could lose and lose badly, but there's so much that can happen between now and election day. And I don't trust the media to get the real story out about who the president really is and how badly his administration has led the country. My gut instinct is that the wisdom of the American people will prevail, and that we'll see a political retrenchment in November in the furtherance of good government and basic political decency. That would mean, obviously, that voters will throw the Democrat bums out on their sorry asses.

So, keep checking back here for all your political reporting and analysis needs.

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Denies Accusing Republicans of 'Undermining Israel Security' in Interview With CNN's Don Lemon

Israel Matzav has the video, "Dumb Dumb Debbie claims to be 'misunderstood'.'

Watch it at the link. Wasserman Schultz repeatedly lies that she was "misrepresented" by Philip Klein at the Washington Examiner, which she tries to blow off as a "conservative blog."

But Klein has responded, "Confronted with audio, DWS makes another erroneous statement about the Washington Examiner." That's a detailed fisking of Wasserman Schultz's lies, but this part is key:

Asked by CNN anchor Don Lemon if she had any regrets about this episode, Wasserman Schultz said she did not. “I regret that the Examiner has repeatedly taken what I said out of context,” she added. “If they had printed the entire quote, and if they had actually told ambassador Oren what I actually said, I think his response would have been different.”

But when I posted audio of her comments, I actually included the 28 seconds leading up to her Oren quote and the 38 seconds after it. I did so to purposely bend over backwards to provide even more context to her quote than was even needed to show I transcribed her accurately in my initial report.

For what it’s worth, it isn’t just the conservative media that is saying I quoted her accurately. The Washington Post looked at her initial accusation of a misquote and concluded: “Klein’s quote was exactly accurate, meaning Wasserman Schultz falsely accused the Examiner of misquoting her. The DNC chair earns Four Pinocchios.” The fact checkers at PolitiFact gave her their “pants on fire” rating.

What’s odd about this whole episode is that Wasserman Schultz could have put this issue largely to rest initially by simply clarifying her point and saying that her statement was misunderstood. Instead, she keeps digging in – claiming that I reported things that I didn’t and accusing me of misquoting her when I went out of my way to provide full context of her remarks.

Well, she wouldn't do that, because then she'd have to admit that she was wrong in the first place. Leftists don't to that, especially Israel-bashing leftists like the DNC chair, whose own office has been under fire previously for attacking American Israel supporters as "Jewbags."

PREVIOUSLY: "'Not All Democrats Are Anti-Israel, But Almost All Anti-Israelis Are Democrats."

How Big Is the Student Loan Default Problem?

The New York Times reports, "A Big Default Problem, but How Big?":

Long-range projections by the Department of Education estimate that the default rate over 20 years, for borrowers who began repayment in 2009, is 17 percent; among students who attended profit-making colleges, the predicted default rate is 49 percent.

It is messy, though, to compare those long-range estimates with the official default rate published by the Department of Education. The long-range estimates are calculated on the dollar amount of loans in default, while the official rate is based on the number of borrowers in default.

Looking at defaults another way, about 15 percent of all borrowers have been in default at the end of the last six fiscal years, which ends Sept. 30, according to Department of Education data. Currently, 16 percent of borrowers are in default, nearly twice the official default rate.

Actually, you can't really default on government loans. They can't be wiped out through bankruptcy, for example. You're on the hook for the money you borrowed, no matter what. More on that from the Times, "Degrees of Debt: Debt Collectors Cashing In on Student Loan Roundup" (via Memeorandum):

Unlike private lenders, the federal government has extraordinary tools for collection that it has extended to the collection firms. Ms. [Amanda] Cordeiro has already had two tax refunds seized, and other debtors have had their paychecks or Social Security payments garnisheed. Over all, the government recoups about 80 cents for every dollar that goes into default — an astounding rate, considering most lenders are lucky to recover 20 cents on the dollar on defaulted credit cards.

I've probably said this before, but I'm not sympathetic to students who take out too much debt. I worked my way through college and didn't take loans until graduate school. I borrowed a ton of money, but my payments are commensurate with my career and earnings. I don't know what young people are thinking when they take out nearly $100 thousand in loans for some worthless degree in post-epistemology gender collectivist studies, or whatever the going discipline these days. Half of these idiots end up at the Occupy Wall Street protests looking like abject progressive scum. It's ridiculous.

More at Memeorandum.