No Hurricane Bounce for 'Bronco Bamma'

Folks are getting tired of that mofo.

At Lonely Conservative, "Looks Like #Sandy Won’t Help Obama After All."

And at Instapundit, "MICHAEL RAMIREZ: Oceans of Red Ink."

PREVIOUSLY: "Staten Island Angry Over Delayed Storm Response."

Staten Island Angry Over Delayed Storm Response

At Time, "The Island That New York City Forgot:

The headline of Thursday’s Staten Island Advance screamed in bold “14 DEAD SO FAR — HOMES RAVAGED, LIVES RUINED.” But many people here feel no one is listening to their pleas for help or coming for support. Only after one horrific tale emerged did the rest of the city and country pay attention to Staten Island. That event took place in one of the most devastated areas on the island, along Father Capodanno Boulevard. There, a young mother named Glenda Moore tried to reach a shelter and lost her two sons, Brandon, 2, and Connor, 4, after their car stalled in the suddenly rising floodwaters and they tried to escape.

No FEMA response. President "I" Candy had to fly out to Las Vegas for more important business.

But RTWT.

And at the New York Post, "Flood of tears: Bodies of SI boys found after being swept away by Sandy."

ADDED: At the New York Times, "Staten Island Was Tragic Epicenter of Storm’s Casualties" (via Memeorandum).

Michael Barone: 'Just about every indicator suggests that Republicans are more enthusiastic about voting -- and about their candidate -- than they were in 2008...'

Michael Barone predicts a Mitt Romney win on Tuesday, "Campaign 2012 Barone: Going out on a limb: Romney beats Obama, handily." He comments on some key states in the Electoral College (via Memeorandum):

Ohio (18). The anti-Romney auto bailout ads have Obama running well enough among blue-collar voters for him to lead most polls. But many polls anticipate a more Democratic electorate than in 2008. Early voting tells another story, and so does the registration decline in Cleveland's Cuyahoga County. In 2004, intensity among rural, small -town and evangelical voters, undetected by political reporters who don't mix in such circles, produced a narrow Bush victory. I see that happening again. Romney.

PHOTO CREDIT: Robert Stacy McCain, "WEST CHESTER, OHIO: MASSIVE CROWD FOR ROMNEY-RYAN RALLY":

I’ll have more photos later, but right now I just want to tell you how awesome tonight’s rally was. Rudy Giuliani’s speech was off the hook — the best takedown of the Obama administration I’ve heard this entire cycle, bar none. What Rudy said about Benghazi was particularly brutal.

Read it all at the link.

Robert has some harsh words --- three harsh words --- for AP reporter Steve Peoples.

Progressives Give Aid and Comfort to Obama's Benghazi Cover Up

I'm not sure who this guy Hayes Brown thinks he's fooling, but it's Think Progress, so clearly he doesn't have the interests of decent Americans in mind. Folks can read it all at the link, a stupid and corrupt cherry-picking of yesterday's news on the CIA in Benghazi, "New Details Discredit Fox News Reports On Benghazi Attacks." (At Memeorandum.)

Frankly, yesterday's reports only raise more questions about the administration's actions on September 11. Jennifer Griffin has a new report out this morning, "Sources, emails point to communication breakdown in Obama administration during Libya attack." And there's video of Griffin's comments this morning here.

Progressives are using the latest news to discredit allegations that the White House didn't respond to requests for assistance. We still don't have enough information to know for sure exactly what requests were honored and by who. The president himself claimed he immediately issued orders that all U.S. personnel be protected, but the White House refuses to answer direct questions about what the orders entailed. Moreover, the latest reports again raise questions of why the White House insisted for weeks that the consulate came under attack "spontaneously." This was not an errant comment but a weeks-long campaign by the administration to deflect attention away from the Oval Office. Ed Morrissey has more on that, "Fox News: Benghazi consulate warned 3 hours before attack of militia gathering arms." And see especially Guy Benson, "Report: Benghazi Consulate Warned of Imminent Terrorist Attack Three Hours Before Raid":

So not only did the administration know within 24 hours that this had been an act of terrorism, they knew within four hours which specific Islamist group was responsible for the raid. (Remember, those August cables mentioned at least ten active jihadist militias in the city). The US staff in Benghazi sent explicit warnings about a lack of security at the consulate in August, as requests for reinforcements were being routinely denied. They also fired off urgent cables mere hours before the assault began, informing Washington that a terrorist attack had been set into motion. Why do these details matter? Because the White House -- the president, the Secretary of State, the UN Ambassador -- continued to insist for days that this 9/11 terrorist attack was connected to (non-existent) spontaneous protests over an obscure online video. Clinton even denounced the video while standing next to the caskets of the fallen upon their return. This was a completely false storyline, pushed for reasons that remain unclear -- although I think the motives are becoming more readily apparent by the day. The president has said that his administration has been fully transparent, updating the public on critical information as it's come in -- even feigning great offense that anyone would suggest otherwise. The flat truth is that his White House has done nothing of the sort.

There's more at the link.

Now it's not just the clowns at Think Progress who're covering for the White House. With few exceptions, the mainstream press has played a low-profile in covering breaking developments on Benghazi. Again, there are a few important updates here and there ---- CBS News yesterday posted a key item at their website yesterday, and Jake Tapper has been doing critical reporting at ABC ---- but for the most part the press has not been keen to keep the story front and center, because it hurts the political chances of their favored candidate.

I'll have more on this. Meanwhile, check NewsBusters, "Bozell Statement: Liberal Media Are Accessories to Benghazi Cover-up":

The liberal "news" media’s refusal to cover this story exposes how corrupt they have become. Four Americans died in Libya in a coordinated terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11. The Obama Administration has been caught in a maze of falsehoods. This reeks of a cover-up. This scandal could and would derail the Obama re-election efforts. ABC, CBS, NBC, The Washington Post, and the New York Times are so vested in the re-election of Barack Obama that they are deliberately spiking this huge story. It’s sickening.

How big is this story? Bigger than Watergate. No one was killed in that burglary, and no one covered up the truth about the deaths of four brave Americans.

Now there are rumblings that one or more of these so-called news networks have emails from the National Security Advisor’s office telling a counter-terrorism unit to stand down. If that’s true, they must tell the American people what they know, and how long they’ve known it. And if it isn’t true, then the networks need to say so. Their silence is deafening.

RTWT.

October's Unemployment Rate Higher Than When Obama Took Office

Folks will spin this morning's jobs report every which way but truth.

At the end of the day the main statistic is 7.9 percent, the BLS measure of those remaining in the labor market but unable to find jobs. The number was 7.6 percent when Obama took office in January 2009. Here's the New York Times' spin, "Modest Job Growth in Final Report Before Election" (via Memeorandum), but see Fox News, "Last jobs report before election shows economy in 'virtual standstill'":

The final monthly jobs report before Election Day offered a mixed bag of economic evidence that quickly became political putty for the presidential candidates, with the unemployment rate ticking up to 7.9 percent but the economy adding a better-than-expected 171,000 jobs.

At the same time, the number of unemployed grew by 170,000, roughly the same amount -- to 12.3 million.

The October numbers allow President Obama to argue the economy is technically growing under his watch. But they also allow Mitt Romney to argue that the new jobs are not making much of a dent in the unemployment problem. Both campaigns quickly set to work putting their spin on data that, if nothing else, underscores the slow pace of the recovery.

"That's 9 million jobs short of what (Obama) promised," Romney said at a rally in Wisconsin shortly before noon. "Unemployment is higher today than when Barack Obama took office."

The rate was 7.8 percent the month Obama took office. "Today's increase in the unemployment rate is a sad reminder that the economy is at a virtual standstill," Romney said in a separate written statement. "When I'm president, I'm going to make real changes that lead to a real recovery, so that the next four years are better than the last."

James Pethokoukis has an analysis, "Is this as good as it gets? | October’s dismal ‘New Normal’ jobs report":

1. If we suddenly had a string of months where job growth was the same as in October, it would take 7 more years — until 2019 ! — to get back to the Bush unemployment low of 4.4%. Even if we averaged 210,000 jobs a month, we wouldn’t close jobs gap until 2021.

2. We are now 41 months into the recovery, and we have recovered just 55% of the 8.9 million lost private sector jobs from the Great Recession. During the Reagan recovery, it took just 10 months.

3. Back in early 2009, White House economists Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein predicted the unemployment rate would be 5.2% in October 2012 if Congress passed the $800 billion stimulus. As the above chart shows, they weren’t even close.

More at the link. And see Gateway Pundit, "October Unemployment Jumps to 7.9% – Making Obama Worst Jobs President Since Great Depression."

We're stuck in the middle of the Obama Depression. The administration's economic recovery programs have failed to revive the economy. Frankly, economic growth would have returned just as fast --- perhaps even faster --- without Obama's economic stimulus and the drag of the ObamaCare monstrosity. What growth and recovery we're seeing reflects the resilience of the economy despite the heavy hand of Democrat Party regulation. If Mitt Romney's elected we'll have a much better chance of jump-starting more robust economic growth and employment activity.

We'll know for sure in four more days, barring Democrat Party elector rat-f-king.

More at Memeorandum.

Cartoon Credit. William Warren.

Don't Be Surprised When Obama Loses

Oh my goodness!

Dan McLaughlin just clobbers Nate Silver and his hopelessly idiotic enablers on the left, at RealClearPolitics. This is a fairly involved essay, with a beefy methodological section that opens the essay. (Pay attention to the section titled, "Where Polls Come From.")

And this passage is especially crucial:

Nate Silver's much-celebrated model is, like other poll averages, based simply on analyzing the toplines of public polls. This, more than any other factor, is where he and I part company.

If you read only the toplines of polls - the single number that says something like "Romney 48, Obama 47" - you would get the impression from a great many polls that this is a very tight race nationally, in which Obama has a steady lead in key swing states. In an ordinary year, the toplines of the polls eventually converge around the final result - but this year, there seems to be some stubborn splits among the poll toplines that reflect the pollsters' struggles to come to agreement on who is going to vote.

Poll toplines are simply the sum of their internals: that is, different subgroups within the sample. The one poll-watchers track most closely is the partisan breakdowns: how each candidate is doing with Republican voters, Democratic voters and independent voters, two of whom (the Rs & Ds) have relatively predictable voting patterns. Bridging the gap from those internals to the topline is the percentage of each group included in the poll, which of course derives from the likely-voter modeling and other sampling issues described above. And therein lies the controversy.

My thesis, and that of a good many conservative skeptics of the 538 model, is that these internals are telling an entirely different story than some of the toplines: that Obama is getting clobbered with independent voters, traditionally the largest variable in any election and especially in a presidential election, where both sides will usually have sophisticated, well-funded turnout operations in the field. He's on track to lose independents by double digits nationally, and the last three candidates to do that were Dukakis, Mondale and Carter in 1980. And he's not balancing that with any particular crossover advantage (i.e., drawing more crossover Republican voters than Romney is drawing crossover Democratic voters). Similar trends are apparent throughout the state-by-state polls, not in every single poll but in enough of them to show a clear trend all over the battleground states.

If you averaged Obama's standing in all the internals, you'd capture a profile of a candidate that looks an awful lot like a whole lot of people who have gone down to defeat in the past, and nearly nobody who has won. Under such circumstances, Obama can only win if the electorate features a historically decisive turnout advantage for Democrats - an advantage that none of the historically predictive turnout metrics are seeing, with the sole exception of the poll samples used by some (but not all) pollsters. Thus, Obama's position in the toplines depends entirely on whether those pollsters are correctly sampling the partisan turnout.

That's where the importance of knowing and understanding electoral history comes in. Because if your model is relying entirely on toplines that don't make any sense when you look at the internals with a knowledge of the past history of what winning campaigns look like, you need to start playing Socrates.

RTWT at the link.

Plus, check out Sean Davis, at the Daily Caller, "Is Nate Silver's value at risk?" (via Memeorandum). Well, of course it's "at risk." I've been slamming Silver's "value" for weeks now. I just don't want anything bad to happen to him, but it may be too late. The dude's starting to lose it and the editors are giving him the backhand like a whiny bitch getting slapped. Hard. (Background here, "Nate Silver Bets Joe Scarborough $2,000 That Obama Wins.")

See also Mark Blumenthal, "Could Presidential Polls Be Wrong About Obama's Battleground Edge?" (Blumenthal gives significant odds that models like Silver's will fail miserably on election day, mostly on a theory of the fundamental freakishness and unpredictability of the human experience (see the part about the "black swan").

PREVIOUSLY:

* "Nate Silver Bets $2,000 on Obama's Reelection, Provokes Public Editor's Ire."

* "Nate Silver Fast on His Way to One-Term Celebrity."

* "Akron Beacon Poll Finds Ohio Dead Heat at 49-49 — Presidential Race Tighter Than Obama's A**hole in a Prison Shower."

* "Nate Silver: Voice of the New Castrati."

* "If Bias Doesn't Matter Why Would Bill Maher Host Nate Silver on 'Real Time'?"

* "Oh My! Romney Back Up to 51 Percent in Gallup's Daily Tracking — Nate Silver Hardest Hit!"

* "'Grand Swami' Nate Silver Boosts O's Chances to 71.0% in Electoral College!"

* "Obama Crashing in Ohio; or, For the Love of Mercy, Leave Nate Silver Alone!"

* "Nate Silver Calls It: Advantage Obama!"

* "Nate Silver's Flawed Model."

* "Boom! Romney Back Up 52-45 in Gallup's Daily Tracking of Likely Voters."

* "ABC News Touts Nate Silver's Prediction That Obama's Handicapped at 68 Percent Chance to Win!"

* "'It's becoming increasingly obvious that Silver can't be taken seriously...'"

* "Nate Silver Blows Gasket as Gallup Shows Romney Pulling Away in the Presidential Horse Race."

More later...

'The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation...'

An amazing piece, at the Wall Street Journal, "CIA Takes Heat for Role in Libya":

When the bodies of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya, arrived at Andrews Air Force Base after the Sept. 11 attack, they were greeted by the president, the vice president and the secretaries of state and defense. Conspicuously absent was CIA Director David Petraeus.

Officials close to Mr. Petraeus say he stayed away in an effort to conceal the agency's role in collecting intelligence and providing security in Benghazi. Two of the four men who died that day, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were former Navy SEAL commandos who were publicly identified as State Department contract security officers, but who actually worked as Central Intelligence Agency contractors, U.S. officials say.

The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said.

The coordinated attacks stirred up a political hornet's nest over whether the administration provided adequate security and whether it was forthcoming with its assessment of what happened. In the election season, that cast a shadow over the Obama administration's foreign policy record.

Nearly eight weeks after the attacks, a complete accounting hasn't emerged in public view. The brunt of the public criticism for security lapses has so far been directed at the State Department, rather than the CIA, which, by design, operates largely in the shadows. Critics in Congress say the CIA has used secrecy in part to shield itself from blame—a charge officials close to the agency deny.

This account of the CIA presence in Benghazi sheds new light on the events, and how the essentially covert nature of the U.S. operations there created confusion. Congressional investigators say it appears that the CIA and State Department weren't on the same page about their respective roles on security, underlining the rift between agencies over taking responsibility and raising questions about whether the security arrangement in Benghazi was flawed.

The CIA's secret role helps explain why security appeared inadequate at the U.S. diplomatic facility. State Department officials believed that responsibility was set to be shouldered in part by CIA personnel in the city through a series of secret agreements that even some officials in Washington didn't know about.

It also explains why the consulate was abandoned to looters for weeks afterward while U.S. efforts focused on securing the more important CIA quarters. Officials say it is unclear whether the militants knew about the CIA presence or stumbled upon the facility by following Americans there after the attack on the consulate...

More:

In the months leading up to the attack, Mr. Stevens and others sent a series of diplomatic messages to the administration warning that security in Benghazi was deteriorating. Nevertheless, security at the consulate wasn't beefed up and Mr. Stevens's movements weren't restricted, according to congressional investigators.

On the night of the attack, the consulate, on a 13-acre property, was protected by five American diplomatic security officers inside the walls, supported by a small group of armed Libyans outside. The CIA's security force at the annex sometimes provided backup security for the ambassador when he traveled outside the consulate.

Outside of Tripoli and Benghazi, the nature of the security relationship between the consulate and the annex wasn't widely known, and details about that arrangement are still the subject of dispute. The night of the attack, many top officials at the State Department in Washington weren't initially aware that the annex had a security force that answered to the CIA and provided backup security for the consulate.

Soon after the shooting started, a diplomatic security officer at the consulate hit an alarm. By 9:40 p.m. local time—3:40 p.m. on the East Coast—the officer called the annex's security team, the U.S. embassy in Tripoli and the diplomatic-security headquarters in Washington.

It took a seven-man team from the CIA security roughly 50 minutes to get to the consulate after it was alerted, according to administration officials.

Within 25 minutes, the team headed out of the annex to the consulate compound, a senior U.S. intelligence official said. It took another 25 minutes to reach the compound, in part because the team stopped to get heavy weapons and came under fire as they moved in, the official said.

The CIA team left the consulate around 11:30 p.m. with all American officials from the compound, except for the missing U.S. ambassador, the senior U.S. intelligence official said. They came under fire as they left.

Shortly after they arrived back at the annex, the annex began receiving small-arms fire and RPG rounds, the official said. The CIA security team returned fire and the attackers dispersed around 1 a.m.

The congressional investigator said the delay showed that the secret CIA-State security arrangement was inadequate...

William Kristol has commentary on this, at the Weekly Standard, "Clinton vs. Petraeus — But Where's Obama?"

Yeah, where is that guy?

More at CBS News, "Sources: Key task force not convened during Benghazi consulate attack." The report indicates that "top officials" couldn't make up their minds on what to do. Response teams were repeatedly readied for deployment then made to "stand down." It was total confusion.

And see Eli Lake, at the Daily Beast, "New Details on Benghazi."

And Foreign Policy, "'Troubling' Surveillance Before Benghazi Attack." Also, "State Department to review its own Benghazi review," and "Congress wants answers on newly found Benghazi documents."

Video Appears to Show Syria Rebels Executing Soldiers

The New York Times reports, "Video Is Said to Show Syrian Rebels Executing Prisoners":

A new video from the Syria conflict that circulated via the Internet on Thursday showed antigovernment fighters armed with rifles kicking and summarily executing a group of prisoners, apparently soldiers or militiamen, in what human rights activists called evidence of a war crime and another indication that both sides were increasingly committing atrocities.

More at that top link. The video is here.

RELATED: At Telegraph UK, "US withdraws its support for Syrian opposition," and "US moves to demand major Syria opposition shake-up."

Obama Halloween Effigy

At CBS News, "Controversial Obama Halloween Display."

More at the Louisville Courier-Journal‎, "Effigy of President Barack Obama removed by Indiana veteran."

I guess there's mini contagion of these things. See the Los Angeles Times as well, "Halloween Obama effigy prop removed after Secret Service visit."

Romney's Killin' It With Independents in Latest Fox News Poll of Likely Voters!

See, "Three Numbers That Could Hold the Key to a Romney Win," especially the section on the independent vote:

Independents’ Day

Americans have grown largely frustrated with both parties and the trend toward political independence is really the biggest political story of the past two decades. Independent is not synonymous with moderate since voters disaffected with the partisan status quo range from very liberal to very conservative. The universe of independents is a parallel to the overall electorate, but more unpredictable in voting habits.

But with both parties dug in deeply, the independent vote is the most promising field of persuadable voters.

Self-identified Democrats usually outnumber self-identified Republicans. Republicans therefore rely on the aforementioned turnout advantage combined with support from independents to win elections. That’s certainly the case this year.

If the combination of organic enthusiasm and effective ground game for Republicans can offset the Democrats numerical advantage, then it would be support from independents that could put Romney over the top.

And in that measure, Romney is succeeding by a wide margin.

In the latest FOX News poll, Romney holds a 7-point lead among independent voters, with 16 percent on the fence or supporting a marginal candidate. Romney lost 2 points of his advantage with the group from the beginning of the month as the pool of undecided voters shrank from 25 percent.

But it seems highly unlikely that the incumbent will get half of those remaining. Of those who consider themselves unaffiliated and undecided, the challenger, especially one with majority favorability and an equally matched voter outreach, has a clear advantage over the incumbent.

And see, "Fox News poll: Race for the White House a dead heat."

Video c/o Gateway Pundit, "LANDSLIDE WATCH: Romney Holds Massive Lead Over Obama With Independent Voters …Update: Romney Up in CO, OH and IA."

Nate Silver Bets $2,000 on Obama's Reelection, Provokes Public Editor's Ire

You gotta love it. Basically, Nate Silver had a public meltdown.

From Margaret Sullivan, at the Times, "Under Attack, Nate Silver Picks the Wrong Defense."

My own Forecasting Model says there's a greater-than-zero chance that Nate Silver will be a laughingstock Nov. 7dailycaller.com/2012/11/01/is-…
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) November 2, 2012

Read the whole thing at the link. This part's especially good:

In a phone conversation, Mr. Silver described the wager offer as “half playful and half serious.”

“He’s been on a rant, calling me an idiot and a partisan, so I’m asking him to put some integrity behind it,” he said. “I don’t stand to gain anything from it; it’s for charity.”

He added that he is feeling the strain of being under attack and vulnerable to criticism as Election Day approaches.

“It’s a high-stress time,” he said.

I can understand and sympathize with that.

But whatever the motivation behind it, the wager offer is a bad idea – giving ammunition to the critics who want to paint Mr. Silver as a partisan who is trying to sway the outcome.

You think?

PREVIOUSLY:

* "Nate Silver Fast on His Way to One-Term Celebrity."

* "Akron Beacon Poll Finds Ohio Dead Heat at 49-49 — Presidential Race Tighter Than Obama's A**hole in a Prison Shower."

* "Nate Silver: Voice of the New Castrati."

* "If Bias Doesn't Matter Why Would Bill Maher Host Nate Silver on 'Real Time'?"

* "Oh My! Romney Back Up to 51 Percent in Gallup's Daily Tracking — Nate Silver Hardest Hit!"

* "'Grand Swami' Nate Silver Boosts O's Chances to 71.0% in Electoral College!"

* "Obama Crashing in Ohio; or, For the Love of Mercy, Leave Nate Silver Alone!"

* "Nate Silver Calls It: Advantage Obama!"

* "Nate Silver's Flawed Model."

* "Boom! Romney Back Up 52-45 in Gallup's Daily Tracking of Likely Voters."

* "ABC News Touts Nate Silver's Prediction That Obama's Handicapped at 68 Percent Chance to Win!"

* "'It's becoming increasingly obvious that Silver can't be taken seriously...'"

* "Nate Silver Blows Gasket as Gallup Shows Romney Pulling Away in the Presidential Horse Race."

More later...

Mile-Long Gas Lines in New Jersey

Well, President Solyndra can visit New Jersey 100 times and folks will still be mad as hell after going through this sh*t.

At Bloomberg, "New Jersey Drivers Wait for Fuel as Sandy Curbs Gasoline."

Celebrity Halloween Costumes

I just checked Instapundit. The amount of news over there is overwhelming. I'll try to get caught up a bit through the night, although I'm beat from teaching all day, so we'll see how it goes. Folks might check Director Blue and Maggie's Farm for additional political roundups.

Oh, and don't miss Robert Stacy McCain's updates on the Robert Menendez Dominican prostitute scandal, "KYRILLOS CAMPAIGN RESPONDS TO MENENDEZ SEX ACCUSATIONS," and "BOYLE: SEN. MENENDEZ REFUSES TO RELEASE TRAVEL RECORDS."

And as for Halloween, I think the culture's gotten to that celebrity nudity and over-the-top sex displays are almost passé. I mean Lady Gaga's costume was to dress up at a topless dancer? See London's Daily Mail, "Dress code said Halloween... not porn queen! Gaga exposes her chest in barely-there marijuana costume." And Jenny McCarthy's not far behind, "Where is the rest of your costume? Jenny McCarthy celebrates Halloween and her 40th birthday dressed in raunchy lingerie."

I don't know. What ever happened to Elvira, Mistress of the Dark? Didn't see leave a little to the imagination? Well, yes. She still does, in fact.

In Deadlocked Race, Neither Side Has Ground Game Advantage

According to Pew Research.

I guess we won't know for sure until election day.

That said, Robert Stacy McCain's got the goods on Ohio, and things are trending for Mitt Romney in a big way. And see especially, "BREAKING NEWS FROM OHIO: REPUBLICAN WOMEN ARE HOT."

Check over at The Other McCain for updates.

PHOTO CREDIT: Lower the Boom.

'While My Guitar Gently Weeps'

The Sound L.A. was "Under the Covers" for Halloween, playing cover songs for the entire day. Here's Santana from about 9:00pm last night:

Classified Cable From Benghazi Warned Danger of 'Coordinated Attack' on Consulate

It's virtually Fox News that's all by itself in investigating this story, which is a sad comment on the role of the press in American democracy.

At Fox News, "Exclusive: Classified cable warned consulate couldn't withstand ‘coordinated attack’."

At the clip, Catherine Herridge says the State Department has "culpability" in the deaths of our personnel.

The Numbers Favor Mitt Romney

From Karl Rove, at the Wall Street Journal, "Sifting the Numbers for a Winner":

It comes down to numbers. And in the final days of this presidential race, from polling data to early voting, they favor Mitt Romney.

He maintains a small but persistent polling edge. As of yesterday afternoon, there had been 31 national surveys in the previous seven days. Mr. Romney led in 19, President Obama in seven, and five were tied. Mr. Romney averaged 48.4%; Mr. Obama, 47.2%. The GOP challenger was at or above 50% in 10 polls, Mr. Obama in none.

The number that may matter the most is Mr. Obama's 47.2% share. As the incumbent, he's likely to find that number going into Election Day is a percentage point or so below what he gets.

For example, in 2004 President George W. Bush had 49% in the final Gallup likely-voter track; he received 50.7% on Election Day. In 1996, President Clinton was at 48% in the last Gallup; he got 49.2% at the polls. And in 1992, President George H.W. Bush was at 37% in the closing Gallup; he collected 37.5% in the balloting.

One potentially dispositive question is what mix of Republicans and Democrats will show up this election. On Friday last week, Gallup hinted at the partisan makeup of the 2012 electorate with a small chart buried at the end of its daily tracking report. Based on all its October polling, Gallup suggested that this year's turnout might be 36% Republican to 35% Democratic, compared with 39% Democratic and 29% Republican in 2008, and 39% Republican and 37% Democratic in 2004. If accurate, this would be real trouble for Mr. Obama, since Mr. Romney has consistently led among independents in most October surveys.

Gallup delivered some additional bad news to Mr. Obama on early voting. Through Sunday, 15% of those surveyed said they had already cast a ballot either in person or absentee. They broke for Mr. Romney, 52% to 46%. The 63% who said they planned to vote on Election Day similarly supported Mr. Romney, 51% to 45%.

Well, let's not get cocky.

Leaks and Lies

Via Theo Spark:

Pastor Joseph Lowery: 'All White People Are Going to Hell...'

Well, it'd be one thing if folks were talking about Jeremiah Wright, but this guy marched with Dr. King.

Not good.

At the Washington Examiner, "Pastor who prayed at Obama’s inauguration says all white people will go to hell." (At Memeorandum.)

Also, from Diane Glidewell, "Civil rights icons pump Obama in Forsyth: Lowery, Don't think whites going to heaven."

That's how Democrats are transcending racial division, or something? Actually, I'm hopin' for some change.

Ladd Ehlinger's Retirement

From political ad production, explained at his post, "Last Political Video.