I Guess It Depends On What Your Meaning Of The Word "Is" Is...

A politician named Clinton playing semantic games--now there's something you don't see every eight years.

Here's the headline for Hillary's speech to Iraq:

Clinton to Iraqis: US not going to abandon you

Unless by "abandon" you mean "take all of our soldiers and weapons and protection out of your country." In that case, yes, we are going to abandon you.

And let's not overlook this gem:

"We are very committed, but the nature of our commitment may look somewhat different because we are going to be withdrawing our combat troops over the next couple of years," Clinton said.

I'd love to see someone try that one in other aspects of life...

"Honey, I'm totally committed to you and the kids, but I'm taking my stuff and leaving and you won't see me again."

"Boss, I am completely committed to this job, but the nature of that commitment is going to look somewhat different because I'm clearing out my desk and not coming back."

And one last whopper:

On her first trip to Iraq as America's top diplomat, Clinton said the country has made great strides despite a recent surge in violence. High-profile attacks this past week primarily targeted Shiite worshippers. More than 150 people, many of them Iranian pilgrims, have died.

Ahead of her arrival, Clinton said the attacks are a sign that extremists are afraid the Iraqi government is succeeding.

"I think that these suicide bombings ... are unfortunately, in a tragic way, a signal that the rejectionists fear that Iraq is going in the right direction," Clinton told reporters aboard her plane.

Note that its a recent surge in violence. Maybe, just maybe, rather than being a sign the Iraqi government is succeeding, it's a sign that those responsible are ramping up in anticipation of our leaving. You know, that maybe they're invigorated by the thought of the U.S. going home.

What Bias?

So I'm reading an AP article about an AP poll that shows just how wonderfully people think Barack Obama is doing as he nears his first 100 days. Here's a sample:

In a sign that Barack Obama has inspired hopes for a brighter future in the first 100 days of his presidency, an Associated Press-GfK poll shows that 48 percent of Americans believe the United States is headed in the right direction — compared with 44 percent who disagree.

Now there's a sign of objective journalism. It gets better:

Nobody knows how long the honeymoon will last, but Obama has clearly transformed the yes-we-can spirit of his candidacy into a tool of governance. His ability to inspire confidence — Obama's second book is titled "The Audacity of Hope" — has thus far buffered the president against the harsh realities of two wars, a global economic meltdown and countless domestic challenges.

And these:

The AP-GfK poll suggests that 64 percent of the public approves of Obama's job performance, down slightly from 67 percent in February. President George W. Bush's approval ratings hovered in the high 50s after his first 100 days in office....

Just as many people say Obama understands the concerns of ordinary Americans. That's a sharp contrast to Bush, who won re-election in 2004 despite the fact that 54 percent of voters on that Election Day said he cared more about large corporations.

Well...there you go. Everything will be fine. He's doing much better than that other guy.

Now far be it for me to expect the AP to include all sides of the numbers. Maybe they figured no one would be interested in reading the actual poll results. And few people probably will. Good thing I'm here to do it for you. Here's a few things I found...

First of all, the poll (like a lot of AP polls, I've noticed) isn't quite as balanced as you might think. Twice as many surveyed consider themselves to be Democrat (36%) as Republican (18%). When pressed, 10% of independents stated they leaned Democrat and 9% stated they leaned Republican. That means we end up with 46% Dem. and 27% GOP, if my math is correct. That becomes important, not only because the group polled is woefully unbalanced in favor of the left, but because the AP article implies that everything's copacetic. Do the numbers bear that out? Let's see...

A larger percentage does think the country is on the right track, but just barely--48% as compared to 44% who think we're on the wrong track. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.1%, which seems to me to make those numbers pretty darn close. And since the political makeup of the group isn't close, those numbers don't seem as favorable as the AP would have us believe. For example, if everyone who claimed to be/lean Democratic was behind the president, and all those "no affiliation" people split evenly, I would think the numbers would be around 60/40 that we're on the "right track." The fact that it's actually a dead heat doesn't inspire me.

What about approval ratings? That is split about 60/40, which is what you'd expect; however, one thing is notable: Obama's approval rating has gone down 10 points since January, and his disapproval rating has doubled, from 15% to 30%. And more importantly, the number who strongly disapprove has tripled from 7% to 22%! Does that sound like "a sign that Barack Obama has inspired hopes for a brighter future" to you? Yeah, me neither.

More nuggets:

• More people disapprove than approve (57% to 38%) of the way congress is handling things.
• Obama does get a majority who approve of the way he handles the issues, but most of them break down along that 60/40 split.
• One thing that surprised me was that 65% said that they disapproved of the job the Republicans in congress were doing with the economy, with 39% strongly disapproving. I guess it makes sense if Republicans aren't voting along party lines, but I still would have thought the number would have been a little lower, considering they're outnumbered in both houses.

To be sure, there are some positive results for Obama here, but are they enough to warrant the glowing interpretation from the AP article, especially since the current Rasmussen poll says 57% of likely voters think the nation is heading in the wrong direction? (I couldn't find the breakdown of those polled.)

I Swear...

...if they cancel "Chuck," I'm taking a road trip to NBC and kicking somebody's ass.

At Least He's Getting Older

So the question arises: just how old is the Somali pirate? Here's an idea--cut the bastard in half and count the rings. Fifteen, sixteen, twenty-five...here's what's important--he was old enough to hold an AK-47 to a man's head and stood ready to pull the trigger. That's how old he is.

Apparently he cried in court. I wonder how much he would have cried had he succeeded in his plans and made off with the ransom? I wonder if he would have been even slightly nagged by a guilty conscience had his hostage...sorry, his victim, been killed?

I have no sympathy. None.

Are You Sure You Don't Mean The 10th Commandment? Because I've Never Heard Of The 10th Amendment.

At the risk of being considered an "extremist" for my slavish devotion to such wild concepts as, you know, the Constitution, I wanted to send you to two interesting columns about state's rights and the 10th Amendment.

Welcome!

I should point out that I have my first "follower." Look up in the right-hand corner, and you'll see someone with exceptional taste who has decided to follow this blog. Go and do likewise.

TEA, Anyone?

In case you didn't realize how successful the TEA Party movement was (and why wouldn't you, with all the coverage it's been getting in the mainstream media....hahahahahaha!!! Oh, man...I almost got it all out without laughing!) Michele Malkin has some pictures over at her site.

Bow...Wow!

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

A photo of President Obama apparently bowing in front of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is stirring a royal-size controversy.

The photo and a video were largely ignored by mainstream media outlets but created outrage in some quarters.

Look, first of all, I don't really care whether it was a bow or not. If I hadn't read that it goes against protocol or tradition or whatever, I wouldn't have known, honestly. That's not the issue, as far as I'm concerned. The issue here is the fact that the Obama Administration thinks we are a bunch of idiots. It was a bow. It was clearly a bow. It wasn't even questionable in the slightest. He couldn't have bowed any deeper if he was tying his shoes. If the administration had just said "Ooops, it was a blunder, a mistake," no one but Hannity would have cared. But they didn't. They tried to pass it off with one of the most ridiculous explanations/excuses I've ever heard: that it was because the Saudi king was short. Not only does it make me angry for insulting my intelligence, it makes me cringe because it's so lame that it ranks right up there with "the dog ate my homework."

But what should we expect, I guess. This is the man who spent years in Rev. Wright's church, but didn't pick up any ideas from him. This is the man who worked with Bill Ayers, but...you know...didn't really know him all that much. This is the man who played the race card to tell us that his opponent would play the race card. This is the man who told us he would lower taxes for most of us, knowing all the while that thanks to energy tax increases (among others) we'll likely pay more taxes overall. This is the man who ran on a platform of hope and change, and so far, has given us very little of either. This is the man who said he was going to raise our status among the world, who not only couldn't find anyone to translate a single word to Russian correctly, but apparently couldn't give a thoughtful gift to a world leader if his life depended on it. Why wouldn't he try to float this idiotic explanation past us? We've bought all the other ones.

And where is the media? Where are the pundits who came out of the woodwork every time George W. Bush so much as pronounced something wrong? Where are the people who criticized the decision to go into Iraq because "hey, most of the hijackers were Saudis!" Where's their outrage over a president who bows to a Saudi King? Where is Michael Moore with his baseball hat and camera? The same Michael Moore who argued so vehemently about Bush's connections to the Saudis. Where is he? I would think he ought to be able to make one of his typical "documentaries" with all the half-truths around Obama. Questions about his birth, his early schooling in religion, his connections with...unsavory characters, many of whom I've mentioned above. And now the bow.* C'mon, Michael, where's your working man's persona now? Hell, I'll even give you the name: Hussein. It practically writes itself.

Again, I don't give a shit about the bow. Do it, don't do it; I don't care. I just want a little consistency in the way we treat our leaders. And if you're going to lie, at least do it with a little style, a little smoke and mirrors. Photoshop the image, doctor the video, but "the king is too short" sounds suspiciously like "the Emporer has no clothes on," if you know what I mean.

* I'm not saying I believe all of those things about Obama. I'm just saying that Moore never seems to worry too much about the truth in his films, so why start now?

Never Underestimate Stupidity

see more pwn and owned pictures