The White House Disinformation Campaign on Libya

A devastating clip, via Carl in Jerusalem:

"Forty five years ago this week, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara got a major dose of his own medicine..."

From Humberto Fontova, at Towhnall, "'Don’t Shoot!—I’m Che!' (A Glorious Anniversary)" (via Fausta).

Andrew Sullivan, the Left's Leading Forensic Gynecologist, on Suicide Watch!

Boom!

That Pew Research poll put RAWMUSCLEGLUTES into meltdown mode.

Here's the headline at Jammie Wearing Fool, "Andrew Sullivan on Suicide Watch." Folks can click through at the link, but here's the opening graf at RMG's:

The Pew poll is devastating, just devastating. Before the debate, Obama had a 51 - 43 lead; now, Romney has a 49 - 45 lead. That's a simply unprecedented reversal for a candidate in October. Before Obama had leads on every policy issue and personal characteristic; now Romney leads in almost all of them. Obama's performance gave Romney a 12 point swing! I repeat: a 12 point swing.

It's an AIDS-related freak-out, no doubt. RMG can't believe Romney's got the advantage among women, and here's the chart on Romney's gains on helping  even greater likelihood to help the middle class:

It's terrible, just terrible.

Jammie snarks: "Just roll one up and get stoned, Andy."

October is Here!

From A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection:

Romney Closes 8-Point Gap in Latest Pew Research Poll

I saw the new Pew survey earlier today, and when I got home, as I walked in to turn on the television, I found Ashleigh Banfield on CNN discussing it, with the banner across the bottom of the screen, "Obama's Slide: Romney Leads 49-45 Among Likely Voters."

Here's the Pew report, "Romney's Strong Debate Performance Erases Obama's Lead: GOP Challenger Viewed as Candidate with New Ideas."

Obama held an 8-point lead in Pew's last survey in September, and I blogged it: "Pew Research Center Poll: Obama Up by Eight in New Nationwide Survey." As I noted at the post, "Pew's one of the better polling organizations. Very reputable."

Interestingly, that's not what the lefties are saying now that the numbers have their guy under water. Banfield reported that Team Obama was whining about the partisan breakdown at the poll, and Cornell Belcher, interviewed at the CNN segment, gave the most mealy-mouth excuses for O's collapse, going so far to claim that likely-voter sampling is "more of an art than science." It was completely ridiculous. I'll post that clip when it comes available later.

But to give an idea of how really bad the numbers are for the Democrats, compare Ed Kilgore's responses to both of the Pew surveys, at the Washington Monthly. Here's Kilgore on the September survey: "Really Bad News For Mitt From Pew." And here's his response today: "Pew’s Perfect Post-Debate Window." To be consistent, and credible, Kilgore should have written a post today entitled, "Really Bad News For Obama From Pew." Because the news is bad, really bad, and there's no way to spin it for the president. Especially not with some f-king retarded excuse about how Pew perfectly polled respondents in the four-day window since last Wednesday's debate. Hello. It wouldn't be an accurate post-debate poll without surveying respondents after the debate. Someone should crush this guy's skull with one of Obama's teleprompters. I can hardly believe the mendacity.

In any case, two weeks ago I was captioning my posts at the bottom with the disclaimer, "no sugarcoating." You'll get spin around here alright, but at least the spin here's reasonably rooted in reality. The latest surveys --- and remember Gallup today also shows Romney pulling even in the horse race --- don't mean that Obama's now about to lose. The polls are showing a genuinely tight race, with the built-in Obama-Media bias favoring the Democrats now excluded. Americans saw the real thing last week, and it wasn't pretty. Democrats literally wished that O had been able to used his teleprompter, and that's after years of mocking conservatives who had been mocking the president as TOTUS.

The shit has hit the fan. I can't recall as significant an effect from any one presidential debate in the last 25 years of watching these things. Perhaps there's been as big an impact from one or another, but this time the dramatic shift has been to see what was largely looking like a flailing, possibly hopeless, GOP campaign being transformed into a surging juggernaut of Republican confidence and grassroots enthusiasm. It's been an amazing week.

There are, of course, still three debates to go, the veeps debate Thursday night and two more presidential debates. The RNC has been lowering expectations for the Biden-Ryan debate, which I think is smart. There's some chatter on the right that Ryan's going to clean the gaffe-master's clock. And I hope he does. But the real game is with the remaining top-of-the-ticket debates on October 16 and October 22. The former will be a town hall style debate on both domestic and foreign issues; the latter will be in the traditional format and will focus exclusively on foreign policy. The administration's extremely vulnerable on foreign policy, which explains why the knives are out on the left today following Mitt's formidable foreign policy address today at the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington. Seriously. It's so bad that this morning's New York Times went with a preemptive strike on the front-page, looking to deflate Romney in world affairs: "Romney Remains Vague on Foreign Policy Details." That's all bullshit, naturally. Romney's been strong on foreign policy for years. He never stopped campaigning after 2008, released a campaign book in 2009, visited Europe and Israel recently, and has a detailed foreign policy page at his website. He's got some problems with his approach, as Barry Rubin points out quite well today regarding the speech, but the main thing is Romney's distinctive vision and refusal to apologize for American power. That's a core component of any realistic approach to foreign affairs, despite the harsh denial afflicting Romney's detractors on the left. There's going to be some fireworks in that debate on the 22nd. I'm especially eager to see how the president handles Romney's attacks on his administration's completely FUBAR response to the death of Ambassador Stevens in Libya.

I'll have more on this later...

Obama's Post-Debate Negativity Shows He's Got Nothing

As I was saying in my previous entry, the dude's got nothing.

And here's a clip with Amelia Chasse from this morning, slamming the administration's negativity, at the New Hampshire Journal, "Chasse on Fox & Friends: Obama’s post-debate negativity shows he has nothing to say" (via Instapundit).

More later...

Obama Ties-Up Traffic With Multiple Morning Fundraisers in Los Angeles

And these are $25,000 per plate fundraisers. Screw the little people who need to get to work.

The Los Angeles Times reports, "Traffic delays seen as Obama leaves L.A. after celebrity fundraisers":

Traffic delays are expected Monday morning as President Obama leaves Los Angeles after a series of fundraisers.

Street closures are planned in Beverly Hills and other Westside areas, including Avenue of the Stars between Santa Monica and Pico boulevards.

In a two-day swing, Obama raised millions of dollars during several fundraisers in the state, including two downtown L.A. events packed with celebrities.

As he took the stage Sunday night at the Nokia Theatre after a star-studded "30 Days to Victory" concert, the president praised the performers who entertained a crowd of 6,000, with a nod to "old school" Earth, Wind and Fire and "new school" Katy Perry.

"My understanding is it was an incredible show," said Obama, who whisked downtown only moments before he took the stage.

"They just perform flawlessly night after night. I can't always say the same," he joked, a reference to his performance in the recent presidential debate, which was criticized as lackluster.

I'm seeing updated news reports on the local networks. O snarled traffic, the prick.

And his campaign pitch is now, "You don't want Romney in there bringing back those policies that got us in this mess in the first place. So reelect me, a laggard, a lightweight, and a loser. I got nothing, but it least it ain't what the other guy's gonna do."

Meanwhile, here's the big news nationally, at Gallup, "Romney Narrows Vote Gap After Historic Debate Win." (Via Memeorandum.) Gallup's post-debate polling shows the race tied at 47 percent. And remember, people have been telling us all week that Romney lied, and that debates don't matter historically. This is just a blip in the road for the Obama steamroller.

Right.

More at Politico, "Battleground Tracking Poll: Dems less enthusiastic." (Via Memeorandum.)

Team Obama Plotting Comeback After Debate Debacle

ICYMI, William Jacobson had an essential post yesterday, "Preview of VP Debate."

And here's the spin at the New York Times, "With Biden Up Next to Debate, Obama’s Aides Plot Comeback":

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s campaign is working feverishly to restore its momentum after a lackluster debate performance last week, an effort that began with a conference call 10 minutes before the debate even ended and led to new advertisements, a rewritten stump speech, a carefully timed leak and a reversal of months-old strategy.

Perhaps most important as the president’s team struggles to put his campaign back on track is a renewed effort to win the three remaining debates, starting with Thursday’s face-off between Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Representative Paul D. Ryan. Mr. Biden moved into a Delaware hotel on Sunday for three days of debate camp.

Under the tutelage of David Axelrod, the president’s chief strategist who is personally overseeing the preparations, Mr. Biden will be counseled on how to avoid Mr. Obama’s mistakes and even correct them with a more aggressive prosecution of the Republican ticket. Mr. Axelrod’s involvement highlights the stakes the Obama campaign places on the debate, and Mr. Biden has been reading “Young Guns,” the book co-written by Mr. Ryan, and practicing attack lines that Mr. Obama avoided.

The focus on Mr. Biden comes as the campaign tries to diagnose what went wrong in Denver and what to do about it. Advisers had seen two presidents during practice debates, one who had been listless and passive two nights before and another energetic and aggressive the next night. It turned out the former was the one who showed up in Denver. He kept looking down and was not using the lines they had practiced assailing Mitt Romney, who kept the president on the defensive and presented a forceful case against his re-election.

For Mr. Obama, it was arguably the lowest point in his campaign for a second term. The campaign’s own focus groups and research indicated that he lost. Mr. Obama did not fully realize as he walked off the stage just how badly it had gone, but aides said he resolved to step up his game. “He doesn’t brood — he acts,” Mr. Axelrod said. “Whatever the concerns were about yesterday, he wakes up the next day ready to take it on again.”

Paul Ryan will more than hold his own. Even Sarah Palin did well against Biden in 2008, so Thursday could hold some surprises. That said, Republicans are lowering expectations just in case. Biden's a long-time Washington insider. Personally, I doubt he'll flop like President Clusterf-k.

More at the link.

Mila Kunis Is the Sexiest Woman Alive

An excellent choice.

At Esquire.

Venezuelans Vote to Oust Reelect Socialist Hugo Chávez

Here's George Moneo at Babalú, "The beginning of the end?": "Exit polls have Chavez behind Capriles, 51.3% to 48.06%. In Spanish at ABC.es."

And at Fausta's, "#Venezuela: The results – it’s Chavez."

And check the background report at the Wall Street Journal, "Venezuelans Turn Out to Pick a Leader: Tensions Run High in Polarized South American Nation, as Leftist Chávez Faces Toughest Election in His 14-Year Presidency."

Added: Here's Reuters, "Venezuela's Chavez re-elected to extend socialist rule":

Venezuela's socialist President Hugo Chavez won re-election on Sunday, quashing the opposition's best chance at unseating him in 14 years and cementing himself as a dominant figure in modern Latin American history.

The 58-year-old Chavez took 54.42 percent of the vote, with 90 percent of the ballots counted, to 44.97 percent for the young opposition candidate Henrique Capriles, official results showed.

Chavez's victory would extend his rule of the OPEC member state to two decades, though he is recovering from cancer and the possibility of a recurrence hangs over his political future.

Jubilant supporters poured onto the streets of Caracas to celebrate the victory of a man who has near-Messianic status among Venezuela's poor, and there was relief too among leftist allies around the region - from Cuba to Bolivia - who rely on his oil-financed generosity.

"I'm celebrating with a big heart," said Mary Reina, a 62-year-old Chavez supporter who lives in the hillside slum where the president cast his vote.

"Chavez is the hope of the people and of Latin America."

California Redemption Scam: Consumers Ripped-Off as State's Recycling Program Hit With $40 Million in Annual Fraud

I remember the first time I ever paid the "California Redemtion Value." It was back in 1989, in Fresno. I walked over to the Save Mart supermarket and bought some sodas, and I looked at the receipt and said, "what the...?" So I ask the cashier, "What is this, an extra tax"? He's says it's the new redemption value, "Do you vote"? As if that mattered. The state's environmental bureaucracy just squeezes this stuff by the electorate. Who knows when there's a new regulation? And they've been increasing the refund value to the point where it's almost 5 cents on a regular 12 ounce container. Unreal.

Of course, the promise of the "recycling" program is too good to be true. Redemption rates are in excess of 100 percent, with all kinds of scammers taking the state to the cleaners.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Recycling fraud costs state millions":

Just over 8.5 billion recyclable cans were sold in California last year. The number redeemed for a nickel under California's recycling law: 8.3 billion.

That's a return rate of nearly 100%.

That kind of success isn't just impressive, it's unbelievable. But the recycling rate for certain plastic containers was even higher: 104%.

California's generous recycling redemption program has led to rampant fraud. Crafty entrepreneurs are driving semi-trailers full of cans from Nevada or Arizona, which don't have deposit laws, across the border and transforming their cargo into truckfuls of nickels. In addition, recyclers inside the state are claiming redemptions for the same containers several times over, or for containers that never existed.

The illicit trade is draining the state's $1.1-billion recycling fund. Government officials recently estimated the fraud at $40 million a year, and an industry expert said it could exceed $200 million. It's one reason the strapped fund paid out $100 million more in expenses last year than it took in from deposits and other sources.

"The law says California has to make it easy to recycle … so anyone with a devious mind, it's so easy, they can just go right in," said Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy Dave Chapman, who has investigated fraud rings in recent months.

Under the state's 25-year-old recycling law, California charges consumers a deposit on most beverage containers sold within its borders. Anyone who brings empty containers back to one of about 2,300 privately run recycling centers can collect 5 cents for most cans and bottles and 10 cents for larger containers.

Only products sold in California are eligible. But a can is a can — and many recycling centers in California aren't that interested in where they come from.

Hence the influx from out of state. Last summer, the state Department of Food and Agriculture counted all vehicles driving into the state with used beverage containers through 16 border stations. The three-month tally was 3,500, including 505 rental trucks filled to capacity with cans.

Officials with the state Department of Justice said they have filed approximately 10 criminal cases this year against fraud rings bringing in cans from outside California.

Investigators looking into one case sometimes stumble across another.

More at the link.

The CRV is just one more unaccountable tax as far as I'm concerned. I pay it and grumble. Someone else is recouping the "deposits," and now there's evidence that it's criminals taking advantage of hard-working people. I blame the profligate state bureaucracy, a Democrat state bureaucracy.

Busty Elisabetta Canalis Almost Busts Out of Tight-Fitting Top While Out for Evening in Milan

Now that's some beautiful scenery.

At London's Daily Mail, "Wardrobe malfunction alert: Elisabetta Canalis almost reveals too much after she steps out in tight outfit."

'Rolling Stone'

From The Weeknd:

And at NME, "The Weeknd unveils 'Rolling Stone' video and writes open letter to fans - watch."

Unexpectedly! Gas Prices Rise Overnight to New Record

At the Los Angeles Times, "Gas prices in California rise to another new record."

And Bob Owens gets apocalyptic:

The polimedia seems to be vastly underestimating (or at least, under reporting) that at least some of the conditions for widespread civic unrest are coming to a head in California. When people miss just a few meals, society quickly falls apart. How much more stress can the overburdened system handle before falling apart? I’d say that I hope we don’t have to find out, but with California’s unavoidable bankruptcy and insurmountable bureaucracy, it is more likely that we’re really just facing a matter of “when.”

The New York Times is even on this story, "Gas Prices Rise Again Overnight in California" (via Memeorandum).

BONUS: At American Thinker, "Obama's gasoline prices; a highly regressive tax."

IMAGE CREDIT: Director Blue, "Yes, you can get $1.84 gallon gas in Cincinnati! Just ask!"

Sunday Cartoons

At Flopping Aces, "Sunday Funnies."

Also at Reaganite Republican, "Reaganite's Sunday Funnies," and Theo Spark, "Cartoon Round Up..."

More at Legal Insurrection, "Branco Cartoon – A Chainsaw We Can Believe In."

CARTOON CREDIT: William Warren.

BONUS: At LAT, "Awakened in Venezuela capital by reveille, voters head for polls."

BWAHAHA! Progressives Freak Out After Mary Matalin Calls Out 'NOBEL PRIZE-WINNING' Economist Paul Krugman

Check the links at Memeorandum, especially the stooge Heather Parton at Digby's. These people can't stand a GOP woman --- a strong woman, who progs are supposed to embrace --- slapping down the idiot NOBEL PRIZE-WINNING economist Paul Krugman as a dirty liar. And Krugman's facial expressions completely give up the game: he's been found out as the dishonest New York Times hack that he is. Watch it:

MATALIN: You have mischaracterized and you have lied about every position and every particular of the Ryan plan on Medicare, from the efficiency of Medicare administration, to calling it a voucher plan, so you’re hardly credible on calling somebody else a liar.

The full video is here: "Vice Presidential Debate 2012, Paul Ryan Vs Joe Biden; 'This Week' Roundtable." Matalin's dropping her head in disbelief listening to Krugman's bullshit bloviating.

Robert Gibbs Doubles Down on Obama's '$5 Trillion' Lies

At The Hill, "Gibbs: Mitt Romney delivered ‘dishonest’ debate performance."

At the caption at the video:

On ABC's "This Week" on October 7, Obama campaign senior adviser Robert Gibbs doubles down on false $5 trillion tax attack even after being confronted with his own campaign's admission the attack was false.

The Democrats are the biggest lying assholes. Like children, gawd. Just awful people.

New Romney Ad Hammers Obama's '$5 Trillion' Lies

At The Hill (via Memeorandum).

I love the supreme irony of lying liar Stephanie Cutter debunking President Obama's lying lies. They're both lying freakin' assholes.

Crooked Timber's Chris Bertram is 'Very Sad' That Communist Historian Eric Hobsbawm Has Died

Chris Bertram is professor of philosophy at University of Bristol, in Southwest England. He's an expert on Rousseau, apparently, and, from what I gather, a fan of Karl Marx as well, or some variation of Marxism. Most interestingly, he's a defender of Joseph Stalin, or at least the Stalinist model of Soviet Communism, from what appears in the comments at his post at Crooked Timber, "Eric Hobsbawm is dead."

Perhaps he's just being playful, but Bertram's sense of humor is rather Stalinist as well:

Jonathan, ajay …

Annoying as our commenters often are, I’m not persuaded that it would less bad to murder them if there were more people around.

But especially interesting is Bertram's response to A.N. Wilson indictment of Hobsbawm at London's Daily Mail, "He hated Britain and excused Stalin's genocide. But was hero of the BBC and the Guardian, Eric Hobsbawm a TRAITOR too?"

Read that, and then Bertram's comment here:

That Daily Mail piece is truly marvellous. One of the upsides of the death of someone like Hobsbawm is that all the real arseholes are given an opportunity to remind us all what arseholes they are, and A.N. Wilson is no exception. The DM, of course, was rather partial to the Third Reich.

He doesn't dispute the facts in evidence regarding the Communist Hobsbawm. He simply, rather childishly, calls Wilson an asshole and the Daily Mail a Nazi organ.

Of course, this is Crooked Timber, an extreme left-wing academic blog, with contributors such as the socialist crank political scientist Henry Farrell, who I've blogged about many times. (Farrell got all butt-hurt when Glenn Beck singled out violent socialist Frances Fox Piven in his broadcasts a couple of years back.)

In any case, recall the comments from Bret Stephens' essay previously, "Eric Hobsbawm and the Details of History."

Contemporary leftists embrace their extremists and totalitarians, from the Occupy Movement to dictators like Fidel Castro. And for some, even Joseph Stalin wasn't too extreme. You simply cannot find comparable affinity to far-right extremism among today's conservatives in American politics. And it says something that it's the right that the mainstream press has attacked remorselessly this last few years as essentially white supremacists and Klansmen, while we have a president who was trained by Communist Party members and who palled around with Weather Underground terrorists in the radical leftist marination of Chicago's community organizing thug politics. All of these points are facts. The left has no problem with socialism and Communist Party politics --- for progressives and Democrat Party hacks, there are no enemies on the left, as I've long argued at this blog. Indeed, one of the lasting implications of the Obama interregnum will be the degree to which the extreme left ideological fringe has been mainstreamed in current political life.

Ambassador Susan Rice Denies Lying About Libya Attacks

At the Washington Post, "UN Ambassador Susan Rice denies she was trying to mislead Congress about attack in Libya."

But see the Wall Street Journal, "Discord Skewed Benghazi Response: Divergent Views, Agency Infighting Slow White House Efforts to Address the Cause of Deadly Strike on Consulate in Libya":

WASHINGTON—New details are emerging of discord among federal agencies that has complicated the Obama administration's response to last month's deadly attack on the American consulate in Libya, creating intense political pressure for the White House just weeks ahead of the presidential election.

More than three weeks after the attack on Sept. 11, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents finally reached the scene in Benghazi on Thursday—amid an emerging picture of confusion and competing narratives within the administration and intelligence community about what happened there.

Shifting views within the intelligence community have further complicated the administration's ability to firm up its conclusions about the attack. White House officials were initially aware of intelligence reports that suggested a possible connection to al Qaeda, administration officials said.

But the Office of the Director of National Intelligence discounted those reports in its initial statements about the attack, and the White House stuck to those conclusions, making it appear, at least to the public, like it was behind the curve.

Critics of that response paint a picture of a White House preoccupied with the president's re-election campaign and determined to take the most cautious approach possible. White House officials strongly reject suggestions that politics were at play in its response to the crisis.

On Friday, the administration continued to face criticism that those initial statements were misleading, including comments on Sept. 16 by Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, that the attack was a spontaneous uprising prompted by an inflammatory video.

"Elements of the intelligence community apparently told the administration within hours of the attack that militants connected with al Qaeda were involved, yet Ambassador Rice claims her comments five days later reflected the 'best' and 'current' assessment of the intelligence community," Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz) said Friday. "Either the Obama administration is misleading Congress and the American people, or it is blaming the entire failure on the intelligence community."

Two weeks after the incident, which led to the first killing of a U.S. ambassador in a generation, the administration called it an organized attack by terrorists with links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

After the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the U.S. overhauled the way it collects and analyzes intelligence to ensure contrary views are considered and assessments from across the government properly aired.

Among the post-2001 changes was the creation of the DNI to oversee the 16 U.S. spy agencies. The office is responsible for collating agencies' intelligence and reaching a consensus view to present to the president.

The DNI contended with dueling positions after the Benghazi attack. Within 48 hours, some military and intelligence analysts started briefing lawmakers about what they saw as evidence suggesting al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, was involved in the assault.

These analysts pointed to intercepted conversations between militants involved in the attackon the U.S. Consulate and a nearby annex that was used for intelligence programs. The Central Intelligence Agency produced a similar document citing AQIM links.

Other officials, including those at the DNI and FBI, were more cautious about AQIM's involvement, calling the early information inconclusive. At least some of the communications were members of AQIM bragging about their roles after the attack, officials said. One official said such boastfulness is commonplace and isn't proof of involvement.

The DNI presented to the White House its view that the assault grew out of a spontaneous protest over the anti-Islamic video produced by a provocateur in California. DNI analysts then thought that "at best, al Qaeda sympathizers" were involved, playing down communications pointing to AQIM, according to a senior intelligence official.

White House officials were aware of the reports of AQIM communications from the start, according to administration officials, but they relied on the DNI's assessment. Officials said the White House treated those communications as classified.

Based on those early DNI assessments, intelligence agencies developed unclassified talking points, and provided them to members of Congress of both parties, among others. The White House said the information was developed at the request of lawmakers.

On Sept. 14, White House spokesman Jay Carney described the unrest that unfolded across the Middle East, including most notably at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, as a "response to a video that is offensive."

Amb. Rice used CIA talking points, which were updated on Sept. 15, when she was dispatched to appear on a round of news programs on Sunday, Sept. 16, officials said. Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers had been hearing the more aggressive interpretation from intelligence officials—and weighed in with their own assessments, charging the administration had failed to provide sufficient security and missed signs of the impending terrorist attack.

Intelligence that suggested possible al Qaeda involvement also surfaced in comments by other public officials and in news reports, but the administration didn't change its line.

"It's not a matter of the intelligence they were given," Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.), House intelligence committee chairman, said of the administration. "It is a matter of how they interpreted the intelligence."

That's called plausible deniability. And that's always the White House line when information shows it's deceived the public. The Obama people are amateurs and clowns. They need to go and fast.