Here is a headline from the AP from yesterday afternoon:

Obama tries to fire up frustrated supporters

Frustrated, but yesterday morning the the media psy-ops told us he was looking good, yet this story says:

Angling for a second term, President Barack Obama tried to fire up supporters Monday night, saying failure to get everything they want as fast as they want should motivate and not dissuade them.

Liberals and other key Obama supporters have voiced frustration with the president on a number of issues, from his compromise with Republicans on tax cuts to failure to deliver a promised overhaul of the immigration system.

Obama acknowledged the lengthy to-do list ahead, but he said his accomplishments to date show that change is possible. The message to supporters: Don’t give up just yet.

The media might playing with headlines but the president actions show that he saw the internals and has to act.

So I reiterate:

Ride right through them, They’re demoralized as hell!

Looking at the continuing recount in Wisconsin and the reactions of the Kloppenberg it is increasing clear that she doesn’t have the temperament desired for the Judiciary and Wisconsin dodged a bullet here.

I actually think this is a case FOR rather than against the election of judges. Elections reveal things about candidates and perhaps it would be better to find out if a person is out there BEFORE they get a lifetime appointment.

What I’d do is have a “re-affirmation” vote (at least 33% to keep a seat) every 5 or 10 years. That way a judge isn’t out for an unpopular decision but can be out for an outrageous one.

I would give her credit on one thing, I think holes in the bags and bad ties are a legit issue, but it’s not going to make the difference. Why:

1. On election night people SHE was thought to have the lead of a few hundred votes, that being the case the suspicions would be in a different direction.

2. The swing in results was from a reporting error rather than “discovered” votes

3. Unlike the Durant race, you are dealing with a gap of 7000+ votes vs 1-4 votes. Just how big are those holes supposed to be?

I still think while we are doing these recounts Wisconsin should be looking at the irregularities we were talking about before Prosser took the lead. Why miss the chance to root this stuff out when we can?

Media types looking to marginalize conservatives and ignore Bachmann, Cain and Palin hardest hit: Read MSNBC:

“After considerable deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to pursue the office of the presidency,” Trump said in a statement.

With his typical bravado, Trump maintained that he would have won the Republican primary and the general election, but recognized that “running for public office cannot be done half-heartedly.”

If nothing else the morning shows will get one more day talking about a non candidate, perhaps they will shift to Jimmy McMillian instead.

Apparently the MSM has totally absorbed the “created or saved” meme.

On Way too Early Willie Geist pushed a new poll via politico saying 59% of the electorate would “definitely or consider” voting for President Obama.

Why does that sound like “created or saved” to you? Because of that 59% percent 29% of then would “consider” voting for him, Willie doesn’t mention that 39% Would not consider voting for President Obama. Nor did the Morning Joe crowd later on.

Now I don’t claim to be a big figure in media but it would seem to me the numbers mean he needs 67% of that remaining 31% of the vote it is possible for him to get to 50%.

Meanwhile since 39% in the same poll say they will DEFINITELY not vote for him, one only needs Less than 33% , of the remaining 31% to get to that same 50.

I know that the US is not doing as well in Math and Science as we once did but I don’t think the American people are really stupid enough to fall for this.

Oh and if you look at the actual Poll breakdown it gets worse for the MSM.

30% of the respondents were Republicans, 37% were democrats and 31% were independents. Of that 31% 10% lean GOP and 6% lean Democratic. So counting “leaners” the breakdown becomes 40% GOP 43% Dem and 15% Independents. In terms of polling that’s not horribly imbalanced, but it tells an incredible story.

Consider: In this poll 30% of the respondents say they are will DEFINITELY vote Obama in a poll consisting of 37% democrats, 43% with leaners. That means more than 1 in 4 of democrats and leaner are not sold on Obama.

Meanwhile in a poll with 30% republicans (40% with leaners) 39% will DEFINITELY not vote for Obama.

This tells me the GOP has both its base and the independent leaner tied up and can peruse what remains of independents and disaffected democrats.

Politico and Morning Joe can spin this all they want (the 42% approval on the Economy as a good thing was hilarious) but these numbers tell me only one thing:

Ride right through them, They’re demoralized as hell!

All the spin in the world won’t change this.

Update: The poll is now a headline at Hotair.

I woke up at 4:30 this morning (no Willie I don’t know why) and caught the end of a re-peat of Meet the press. What did I find? the MSM Psy-ops is still in progress.

When discussing the Huckabee decision the panel considered two factors, on the “likeability” front they gave Tim Pawlenty the explicit advantage. Then they mentioned his strength among Christian Conservatives and said such candidates appealing to that demographic might gain from his departure, but didn’t name any names.

Really, the media panel hasn’t heard of any Christian conservatives who might be running? Maybe I can help them. Herman Cain or Michelle Bachmann ring a bell? Oh and perhaps you might have heard of some woman by the name of Palin, I’ve heard she has sold a book or two over the years.

Perhaps they must all be Politico readers because in their story on Huck’s decision I noticed they gave the conservative candidates the short shift.

In a thirty-two paragraph story here is what they had to say:

Several strategists predicted that grassroots conservative activists — drawn to Huckabee’s seat-of-his-pants, outsider campaign — would take a good look at Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain.

That’s paragraph 12 are they mentioned again in one sentence in paragraph 22 like so:

Republicans there said that, without the defending caucus-winner in the race, it was now anybody’s game. Pawlenty, who has been working the state hard, could get a fresh look, along with Bachmann, Cain and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

That’s it. Two sentences in a three page story. Meanwhile John (I have absolutely no prayer of winning the Nomination but don’t tell the MSM that) Huntsman gets this:

South Carolinians pointed to former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as candidates who could benefit there from Huckabee’s withdrawal. Huntsman already has Richard Quinn, a South Carolina strategist who also flirted with Huckabee, working for him, and could stand to pick up more of the Arkansan’s admirers.

“I would very seriously consider [Huntsman’s] candidacy,” said former South Carolina Gov. David Beasley, suggesting that Huntsman could capture voters who were drawn to Huckabee’s sheer newness on the national stage. “When Jon expressed an interest in running it definitely caught my attention because he might be just the fresh face on the field that’s needed at this time in the Republican primary process.”

Somehow the Politico also manages to leave out it there is any effect on a certain former Alaska governor. Meet the Press and the Politico feeds Morning Joe we can be almost certain that we won’t see much if any of the names, Palin, Cain or Bachmann this morning.

We shall see if they join the operation this morning, as Rush has said, the MSM will tell you who they fear and these omissions speak volumes.

In Time Magazine Mark Halperin handicaps the 2012 republican nomination. Forgetting that there is no actual scientific way to measure these things there are three points I’d like to note:

1. The Mike Huckabee announcement automatically makes this graphic obsolete.

2. Assuming his bookmaking is correct (it’s not) If the odds of Mitt Romney’s nomination are 3-1 that means there is one chance in three that he will win the nomination, conversely that means there are 2 chances in 3 that he will not. Michael Graham will be pleased.

3. Any chart that shows Jon Huntsman in the top 5 (now top four) republicans to win the nomination is not to be taken seriously.

These points concerning the latest attempt to spin this election are all important, but the most important points concern who is missing from this chart and who is at the bottom of the list. Open up the Graphic in another tab and look at it again.

Rule one in the MSM is strong republican women have to be marginalized or mocked and ridiculed. Note that the strong republican woman on the list are put at the very bottom. This is highly necessary, we can’t have anyone thinking that the GOP might be thinking of nominating a woman let alone a strong one.

Note also that the more conservative the candidate, the farther down the list. Can’t suggest that a conservative might win the nomination, have to discourage that kind of thought.

And finally note who isn’t even included, the Republican candidate who has made the most splash lately in campaigning and in debates. Herman Cain! We don’t dare mention Cain, or show Cain or give any odds on Cain. What would the readers of Time Magazine or the viewers of Morning Joe say if the it was admitted that a Black Republican, who unlike the current president has an actual record of accomplishing things before he ran, is a GOP base favorite? It would not only mess up the template but it would bring out the racists on the democratic side who would populate the comment sections of these stories with cries of “Uncle Tom” or “Oreo” etc etc etc. Can’t let the public see democrats for what they are.

The bottom line, this graphic and these odds are simply a democratic wet dream, it has the same purpose as this tweet I saw this morning:

Yet another declaration of GOP impotence. What is it for, to try to convince the GOP and the base that we can’t win. With President Obama at the top of their ticket their best chance for victory is to demoralize us because they don’t have a record of success to run on and the one signature success this crowd has managed invokes memories not only of another president but of policies that they abhor.

This is all Psi-ops and bluff, considering the realities that’s all they have. Our best response?

Ride right through them, They’re demoralized as hell!

Update: Stacy Links and tweets and says:

Don’t outsource your political thinking to a bunch of know-it-all pundits.

Don’t fall for the Psi-ops.

Update: Et Tu Fox?

Looking through the AP wire this morning I noticed this rather amusing headline:

Sen. Scott Brown on the defensive in Massachusetts

Really? I beg to differ:

There are plenty of indications that Brown is still in solid shape for his first re-election bid. Polls show he’s the most popular politician in the state and has a whopping $8.3 million in his campaign account.

Tellingly, Democrats have had trouble finding a big-name candidate willing and able to take him on.

Oh yeah? Well if that’s true where’s the link to the story that says, this. It’s at the top because it’s from the very same article!

But even sillier than the headline and the attempt to paint Brown as in trouble is this doozy at the end:

The League’s television spot, non-partisan ads advocating clean air

Non Partisan? the ads says Scott Brown is poisoning Children, nothing partisan about that.

Why are we seeing such nonsense from the AP? Likely because they need to talk about something other than yesterday’s bombshell out of Wisconsin.

For several mouths we have been told by the MSM that the republicans in Wisconsin were overreaching, that their actions are energizing democrats, that things like the Ryan budget were going to turn into disaster for the GOP.

Even after the Supreme Court win in Wisconsin the meme continued unabated.

Now after months of this we see a concrete measure of democratic confidence. Herb Kohl a 4 term democratic senator has decided to call it quits:

Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) will announce Friday that he won’t seek reelection in 2012, a Democratic source confirmed.

Kohl, the quiet Wisconsin senator and owner of the NBA’s Milwaukee Bucks, will depart from the Senate after four terms, setting up what could be a tough battle for his seat.

Hotair has more and Steve Eggleston at the green room has some commentary but more important than any of this is the situation.

In 2012 President Obama will be on the top of the ticket. We have been told repeated that he is a shoe in for re-election. Hasn’t the left been trumpeting poll after poll saying that no Republican in the field, certainly not a conservative like Sarah Palin, has any prayer against him? This would be the time when democrats would turn out en-mass to support him joined by the elderly in revolt against the Ryan plan!

Yet with all these trends that the media is pushing Mr Kohl decides its time to head for the hills.

There is only one response to this nonsense: Ride right through them, they’re demoralized as hell!

…if he is clever enough to understand it.

The league has been running some real bush league ads against Brown trying to imply that he is in favor of poisoning children.

Brown has answered the absurd charges at this site saying in part:

Regulations and government overreach were the real issues at stake with this vote – not dirty air or sick children. It’s shocking that a supposedly non-partisan group like the League of Women Voters has decided to engage in this political demagoguery.

To a guy like Brown, the attacks by the League of Women voters must have been a shock, but I think they have done him a huge favor for three reasons.

#1. Not in our League

By attacking Brown the League which is known for sponsoring debates has given Brown not only an excuse to decline any debate sponsored by the League but to reject any debate with a member of the League on the panel.

Consider: Right now Scott Brown is the single most popular politician in Massachusetts and the major names running against him. Any potential opponent will need exposure to be competitive. By giving him an out from any debate the league is involved in he decreases the potential exposure for any Democratic opponent.

#2 The enemy of our enemy syndrome

The League of women voters has always been a liberal organization, by attacking Brown they increase his credibility with conservative groups at a time when he might be worried about a challenge from the right.

#3 Light Dawns on Marble Head

The league’s actions clearly demonstrate the futility of courting the media and “mainstream” groups. It is a lesson he may not understand but he needs to learn asap. Senator Brown you’re a nice guy but get this through your head:

No matter how many votes you give them, no matter many words you say or do. LIBERAL NGO’S AND THE MSM ARE NOT GOING TO SUPPORT YOU IN 2012.

Once you get this through your head, the rest is easy.

Of these lessons the 3rd is the most important for Senator Brown to learn, will he be wise enough to do so. That is the $64,000 question.

the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Matt 7:2b

and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors; Matt 6:12

Today on Morning Joe at 6 a.m. and on the replay at 8 a.m. The Morning Joe crew went after Newt Gingrich, as a hypocrite, again repeating the liberal canard that the Clinton business was only about sex , on the set the “conservative” of the crowd was Mike Barnicle.

Today he went after Gingrich calling his candidacy as a “joke” and when given the task of “pitching” Gingrich just plain did not give one.

I like Barnicle a lot, he is a Fitchburg guy, and is the closest thing to what democrats used to be, basically a working class mindset who speaks common sense. As for Newt Gingrich, I’ve met him twice and seen him speak several times, he is a brilliant man, I like that he has converted to Catholicism, but he doesn’t even make my top 4 as a GOP presidential choice.

I’m not going to go into the Nixon comeback parallel or the fact that Americans love to forgive, but I would to point out an amazing irony on the set.

The Morning Joe crowd is unforgiving to Newt for his wrongs of 15 years ago (and they were wrongs) yet Mike Barnicle is an accepted and respected member of the journalistic group.

This is what Slate had to say about Mike last year when he was tapped to be part of Ken Burns 10th inning:

Was it some sort of subtextual commentary on the era of steroid cheats that Burns turned to Mike Barnicle to talk about the Red Sox? While we’re having history lessons: long ago, back when Roger Clemens was still pitching for Boston, Mike Barnicle was a columnist for the Boston Globe. Does anyone know why he is not a columnist for the Boston Globe anymore?

I wish that were just a rhetorical question. But since Mike Barnicle keeps showing up on people’s televisions and talking about stuff, apparently it isn’t. Mike Barnicle had to stop being a columnist for the Boston Globe because he got caught plagiarizing and fabricating, over and over again. And because he lied about it.

Mike Barnicle is a fraud and a liar. He didn’t even have the excuse of being in over his head and strung out on drugs, like Jayson Blair. He had a nice, easy columnist spot. He fabricated and plagiarized because he was lazy and dishonest, and because he had contempt for his $200,000-a-year job and his readers.

Don’t hold back Tom Scocca, tell us what you really think.

As I’ve already said, I’ve met Mike, I like Mike and I’m not looking to get him in trouble, but is it just me or is there a massive bit of hypocrisy on the part of the Morning Joe crowd, so willing to permanently toss Newt under the bus while Mike Barnicle sits on the set?

The final irony, Barnicle’s own scandal took place in 1998 around the same time of Newt’s.

I don’t think Newt has a prayer of winning the nomination but perhaps they should use the same measure for Gingrich’s candidacy for president as they use for Mike as a regular on the set.