Archive for May 17, 2010

I’ve been mentioning how Morning Joe and Politico et/al seemed to have suddenly discovered Pa-12 when the polls were trending in their direction:

the plan apparently is to set the race now that the polls favor the dems as a possible or probable loss, so if they win, it becomes a HUGE win for democrats and if they lose, well it was a tight race in a conservative district. This is spin.

This weekend I touched on SEIU money and Mark Critz having to worry about Scott Brown being in the house, but I hit the sack without seeing Brinkley’s Robert Stacy’s latest post reporting on the latest poll, quite a difference:

The special election to replace John Murtha looks to be headed for a photo finish, with Republican Tim Burns leading Democrat Mark Critz 48-47 in PPP’s final poll of the race.

And Stacy had this to say about the numbers:

Sestak’s surge in the Senate race is the probably the only reason Critz isn’t trailing significantly in PA-12. In early April, a Quinnipiac poll showed Specter leading by 21 points and Sestak trailed in every poll through the end of April. Five of the six most recent polls, however, show Sestak leading, so Democrats have a lot more incentive to turn out.

With the latest poll showing a 1 pt difference with only a day left we would expect Morning Joe to mention the race again…

…you would be wrong. They talked about PA all right but only about the Senate race, they discussed it in each segment and even brought in Gov Rendell who talked up Arlen Specter. Not a single word about Pa-12, and Rush would say, zip zero nada.

It couldn’t be that seeing the new poll they decided to focus on the Senate race to bump up democratic turnout in the district could it?

I have several friends who might be considered more conservative than me, who have been telling me for a couple of years that basically this administration is being run by Marxists. I have resisted that suggestion for a long time. Then Powerline posted this:

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Sure. You know, I think – again, this goes back to Ambassador Huntsman’s comment. Part of a mature relationship is that you have an open discussion where you not only raise the other guy’s problems, but you raise your own, and you have a discussion about it. We did plenty of that. We had experts from the U.S. side, for example, yesterday, talking about treatment of Muslim Americans in an immigration context. We had a discussion of racial discrimination. We had a back-and-forth about how each of our societies are dealing with those sorts of questions. …

QUESTION: Did the recently passed Arizona immigration law come up? And, if so, did they bring it up or did you bring it up?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session, and as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination, and that these are issues very much being debated in our own society.

Powerline comments:

What an idiot! China murdered millions of its citizens who opposed the government’s Communist policies and allows most of its people little or no freedom. We, on the other hand, enforce our immigration laws. No, wait–actually we don’t. That’s why Arizona had to take a shot at it. Oh, by the way, Michael Posner, you clueless moron–China actually does enforce its immigration laws.

I looked at the organized adulation of a “dear leader” but wasn’t willing to call it marxism, just people excited and gone a bit overboard.

I agreed that the health care bill was socialism gone amok but wasn’t willing to call it marxism

I looked at the some of the appointments and figured hey you are just dealing with low level guys from academia.

I looked at the undermining of Israel and figured it wasn’t Marxism, just simple antisemitism, and those are two different things.

Then came the Arizona law and I figured it was just pandering to their radical base domesticity.

Eventually you have to go where the data takes you. I think i’ll give the last word to Jay Nordlinger:

I hope I have read that incorrectly, or am interpreting it incorrectly. Did we, the United States, talking to a government that maintains a gulag, that denies people their basic rights, that in all probability harvests organs, apologize for the new immigration law in Arizona? Really, really?…Do you ever get the idea that our government is a bunch of left-wing undergraduates come to power?

As my friends have said: “If you start from the idea they are all Marxists it makes perfect sense.”

To my friends that I’ve argued the point with in the past: Point conceded.

Update: Apparently this doesn’t just apply to the administration.

…is what they are saying on Morning Joe. Yet the AG who came out against it hasn’t even read the law. The question is this:

How many people at the table, Hass, Halperin et/al have actually read the Arizona law?

I’ve got 2 1/4 hours, I’ll wait.

Update: Guess not