OMG! OMG! OMG! Can you believe this?

So this happened in February 2016: Justice Scalia died. And unexpectedly, President Obama got the opportunity to nominate another judge to the Supreme Court.

How did the Republicans respond?  Within minutes, the battle lines were drawn with warnings that President Obama should not be doing so because his mandate was stale. They then escalated the threat to a new level: they refused to even consider anyone President Obama would nominate. Forget confirmation hearings, they vowed to not even meet with him.

Heck, Mitch paid him a personal visit to tell him that:

The Weaseling Continues...

From the New Yorker, here's Obama:

Ultimately, I think the Equal Protection Clause does guarantee same-sex marriage in all fifty states

Now, this is an argument he has never made before. As Toobin notes, his administration, never, in all the cases it argued before the courts made that argument. In fact Obama was opposed to gay marriage until a few months before his re-election, when suddenly he evolved. Note that evolution is never sudden.

His evolved position? Same as Cheney's from years ago. Wanted to leave it to the states.

This was predictable. As gay marriage has become not-illegal in a majority of the states, and is crumbling elsewhere, Obama has an eye on his legacy. He wants to go down as the one who established equality for gays. History unfortunately will judge him to be so, despite being opposed to it for most of his political career, riding the coattails of many a nameless activist who fought for and won the battles in court, and stepping in to take the credit.

Oh, you want evidence? Look up weasel on this blog.

Pray away!

The Overton window moved ever so much more to the right by allowing sectarian prayers to be conducted by government in Greece v Galloway.

Do note that Thomas and Scalia were not content with the majority opinion, they went one step further than what Kennedy delivered as the majority opinion.

Just in case people get the idea that it is a liberal cause because it was a 5-4 decision along ideological lines, do note that the Obama administration had sided with the town of Greece in the matter. Just as I had noted and mentioned at the time.

The Weasel on Marijuana

Just like his opportunistic credit-hogging with gay rights victories, Obama is now on record as not being totally against it:

As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life. I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol.

Wait, did the POTUS just make his personal opinion known on a matter that is no longer all that controversial given how polls show an increasing majority of people favoring legalization?

Having said all that, those who argue that legalizing marijuana is a panacea and it solves all these social problems I think are probably overstating the case. There is a lot of hair on that policy. And the experiment that’s going to be taking place in Colorado and Washington is going to be, I think, a challenge.

Was alcohol legalized because it was a panacea?

Filibuster history?

Well, maybe.

It took Reid and Obama almost five years before they realized that the GOP was never, ever going to compromise with them. Not for a second, not even on a whim in an unguarded moment. Not even if they were given every ransom they sought.

Just like Lucy wouldn't yield, even on occasions that demanded some adherence or concession to tradition...

..or even when nothing was at stake, Kevin was not going to get in the car.

Obamacare or bust!

Yet again we are witnessing how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Well, almost. To recap, Obama and the Democrats passed a previously impossible bill reforming access to healthcare. It cost them the House in 2010 and created a very recalcitrant opponent that has cock-blocked them ever since. But the task had been accomplished. A historic legislation that promised to fix the broken healthcare system was passed. "A BIG FUCKING DEAL" as Biden put it. If it stood, it would forever be associated with Obama.

Republican Fucktards supporting Ari Fucktard

Remember Ari Fucktard who was wondering if Obama was given special privileges by Twitter?

Well, they decided to poll that. And guess what?  There be more fucktards:

On a lighter note, earlier this week Ari Fleischer accused Twitter of letting President Obama use more than 140 characters in his tweets before walking back his claim. We find though that 13% of GOP primary voters nationally do think Obama's allowed more than 140 characters to 36% who don't and 52% that aren't sure.

In other news, some of those fucktards will be electing Ted Cruz as President of Republican America.

Defunding Obamacare? Or Astute Bargaining?

Let's be clear about this. What the Republicans did by passing the "Defund Obamacare OR ELSE..." continuing resolution was clever. It is also exactly what both parties wanted.

No, the Democrats (or at least Obama) do not want to defund Obamacare, and the Republicans (bar a really clueless one or seven) know that they cannot defund it as long as Obama is in office and wields a veto.

So what was this about?

Winning!

This was about selectively undoing the sequester cuts. Remember when Congress chose to have the sequestration which enacted roughly half its cuts from the defense department and the other half from everything else?

Well, the CR undoes those defense cuts. Which means that what the House proposed was

1. Defunding Obamacare
2. Funding defense back to the pre-sequestration levels.

Now the Senate takes this over, and after public posturing sends it back to the House after stripping 1. Boehner can then get this passed and get 2. Saving defense jobs helps politicians of both parties.

That was always the best deal they were going to get, and Boehner will get it. With absolutely no bargaining. If Obama caves in to the debt ceiling hostage crisis (which he has steadfastly refused to negotiate so far) Boehner will get another ounce of flesh.

The Syrian Intervention

A military intervention would be considered successful if it accomplishes the following:

Yeah, right!

1. It destroys existing stockpiles of WMDs;
2. It cripples Syrian capacity to manufacture or acquire more WMDs;
3. It drastically reduces the civilian death and injury toll;
4. It does not weaken either side in the Syrian civil war to allow a change of balance;
5. It holds the users of chemical weapons accountable for their war crimes;
6. It persuades the warring sides to seek a political solution;
7. The USA is seen as a moral force willing to do what is necessary

Any chance that military strikes by Obama will accomplish any of the above?  Possibly some of 1 and 3. At best.

Republicans can thank Obama for this

The gutless asshole who would leave gay marriage to the states is actually arguing for prayers at the start of government meetings

What a weaselly ASSHOLE!

What a disgusting replica of Mike Fuckabee Obama has become! It is one thing to not oppose someone trying to bring church into government, it is quite another to directly request inclusion of church into government enthusiastically.

That is precisely what he is advocating. (Emphasis mine)

Where, as here, legislative prayers neither proselytize nor denigrate any faith, the inclusion of Christian references alone does not constitute an impermissible advancement or establishment of religion. So long as the goal of the government-backed prayer is not to recruit believers or criticize a given faith then the practice should be supported. Neither federal courts nor legislative bodies are well suited to police the content of such prayers, and this Court has consistently disapproved of government interference in dictating the substance of prayers.

Why the fuck should it be supported? And what establishes what the goal really is?

So what do you think happens now? The SCOTUS will have a free pass to allow Christian prayers at the start of all legislative meetings, and the Republicans would be handed a win in their plans for Dominionism to prevail.

Marco Rubio lied like a sack of Palin

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

MARCO RUBIO: I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.

That was a couple of weeks ago. Rubio was asked this question in an interview by a men's glamour magazine, and his response to a well-known scientific fact was long-winded bullshit.

Of course, he tried weaseling out of it, but outside of the Tea Party everybody was laughing.

So he came clean and issued a clarification at a Politico Playbook breakfast.

Latte time!

Has not happened. Romney has gained in the national polls, has stopped making gains in the battleground states and it has run contrary to my expectations (and prediction) so far.

Obama is looking steady, and still maintains a narrow lead in the electoral college.

The new numbers: 294 to 244 in the electoral vote, 73 to 27 in the winning probabilities column, 50.2 to 48.7.

In the process I discovered a competitor to Nate Silver's aggregated polls: Sam Wang's place. Sam is a little more vocal in his Obama cheer-leading  and he has a rosier, more confident forecast for Obama on Nov 6.  He rates his chances at 90% today.

Humble pie does not taste as good when it is one week old.

Pissfest 2012, Schieffer edition

Al Franken is the author of the #1 New York Times bestseller: Lies (And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them): A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.  He had an interesting response to what was common in those days at FOX "News" — blaming Bill Clinton for depleting the military and blow jobs. Hannity had presented this little gem in his ghost-written book, Let Freedom Ring:

New tanks requested: 840 by St. Reagan (1986), 0 by Slick Willy (1996)
New tactical aircraft requested: 399 by St. Reagan, 34 by Slick Willy
New naval ships requested: 40 by St. Reagan, 6 by Slick Willy

Now, to address this morbidly stupid means of comparing who was more hawkish, Al Franken offered the following additional column for George the Younger (2002):

Humble pie? Not yet

In a recent post covering the second debate, I had said this:

I expect the numbers to change by Friday such that his chances fall to less than 60%, officially making the race a tossup. Then it heads further south next week.

The numbers mentioned above were from Nate Silver's blog. At that time (10/16/2012) here is how it read:

Obama is favored to win the electoral college 287 to 251. The chances of his win are 64.8% to 35.2%, and the popular vote is predicted to be 50.1% to 48.9%

Well, it is Friday, and I am not going to go all weaselly and weasel "I did not say which Friday." What I will say is that the above forecast of chances falling to less than 60% has not happened yet, but I'll stay with it for a while. Say till next Friday. The SuperPACs seem to have gone in for a huge ad buy later than that I thought.

[Update 10/20/2012]

I won't move the goalposts either and now say "Gallup shows Romney leading by 6 points!"

Here is what Nate's blog says today:

Obama is favored to win the electoral college 288 to 250. The chances of his win are 67.9% to 32.1%, and the popular vote is predicted to be 50.0% to 48.9%

So humble pie no, defeat yes, but soon to be reversed. If this flops too, I'll have some latte with that pie next Friday.

"No Candidate Has Ever Polled Over 50% in Gallup LV Poll in October and Lost" - Karl Rove

Pissfest 2012, Crowley edition

OK, two down, one more to go.

A more spirited debate with very few gaffes, awkward moments or missteps. Obama looked more like himself, Romney looked just as confident and delivered another impressive performance challenging Obama's record on the economy.

He scored again on that front.

Pissfest 2012 Preview, Crowley edition

Upon us, yes it is.

Second mano-a-mano town hall debate.

Kenyan Muslin takes on The Resurgent Mormon.

Well, hate to disappoint you, but this is not going to change anything.

Predictions:

• Obama wins this one because of lowered expectations for him, heightened ones for Romney, and well, it is Obama's turn.
• Chris Matthews will be giddy, Hannity apoplectic over Crowley being in the bag for Obama, and also because conspiracy, theft...OMG WHERE WILL IT STOP!
• Nate Silver's analysis officially shows a toss-up by Friday at the latest. By next week, it'd be showing a lead in the electoral college for Romney.

Why?

For much the same reason I have been mentioning earlier: Romney SuperPACs have been going all in for a while.

Game Changed: It's Official!

Elsewhere I mentioned how debates rarely, nay, never have shown themselves to be game-changers. Well, there is a first now.

Romney's win in the first presidential debate has changed the course of this election. What was rapidly moving to a rout after the DNC, especially in light of Romney's "47% remarks" has reversed course, and so far has shown no signs of slowing down.

To be sure, Obama is still leading in the electoral college polls, and Romney is trailing in key battleground states, but the lead is wafer thin and eroding. To use various sports metaphors, if this were football, Obama was trouncing Romney 35-14 at the 12:00 mark in the fourth. With little over 7:00 left in the game, Romney has cut the lead to 35-27 and has the ball. If this was basketball, Obama was leading 85-61 with nine minutes left in the game. With a little over five minutes left, Romney has cut the lead to 90-83, and Obama's team has two starters with five fouls each.

To put it in Nate Silver's perspective, Romney's chances went from about 13% just before the debate to about 32% today.

So where do I think the race is headed? I'll still stay with my guess made a few months ago. Here, see if it still looks likely.

[Update 10/13/2012: In case it was not clear, I attribute the main reason for the game change to what I mentioned in my forecast in June: The Romney cash machine is working overtime following the debate. There was nothing revealed in the debate that people did not already know, it simply gave an opportunity for the SuperPACs to go all in.]

Why the fuck didn't Obama inject the 47% remark?

This is something pundits were all puzzled about. And Obama supporters? Absolutely flabbergasted, disappointed, angry, but mainly exasperated!

After all, Romney was abandoning every position he once held and simply co-opting every which position of convenience. He was for regulation, green energy, for the middle class, jobs, against tax increases for the middle class, deficits and heck, against his own tax plan.

As he rained blows on a befuddled Obama, it was rather puzzling as to why the rot was not stemmed with a "Governor Romney, how can you stand there and flip your flops when you are on tape vowing never to care about the 47%?"

It seemed like the perfect rejoinder. Surely that would have arrested the progress of the runaway train that was Romney last night.

But Obama showed Herculean restraint.

Why?

Was he stunned into confusion?

Did he not remember?

Was he missing his teleprompter?

No matter what rightwingnuts think of Obama, he is not an idiot. It was not exactly a hard thing to remember.

So why?

Pissfest 2012, Lehrer edition

Finally, it was upon us. The uno of the très mano-a-mano between the RINO Mormon and the Black Muslin from Kenya finally happened. On Leehaaara's (isn't that the way to pronounce it?) watch. Which was not half as painful I thought it'd be. Other than the mundane platitudes replete with talking points from the campaign ads, ninety minutes of oxygen-sucking ensued.

Before this debate, here's what I knew:

• Debates rarely, if ever, have been game-changers, and this one was expected to be no different.
• The National Review or some rightwingnut rag "leaked" the bombshell that Romney was practicing zingers, which of course meant that he wasn't going to be zinger-happy even if he was ever planning on it. And he wasn't.
• Both sides would be downsizing expectations to the point where, each would look inept to lead the free world.

and following the debate

• Each side would claim clear victory.

Ding! I am still batting a thousand. (If I ignore that Obama's side is definitely not claiming clear victory).

Upcoming debates: Predictions

The presidential debates are coming up. I have a few ideas as to what will happen. Let's see how it works.

The overall strategy for the Romney/Ryan ticket will start by the old stand-by of focusing on the economy and raising people's overall fears about the general state of horribleness in society. They will possibly pull out some actual "facts" (whether they are true or not) about how this is all the fault of Obama directly. They will then attempt to capitalize on the fear of the audience and gain votes to cover their gap by using the standby return-to-the-Christian-era-that-never-actually-happened tactic.