Michelle Obama advised people to "be persistent" and "start the conversation early" about bringing up political talking points during Thanksgiving conversations

As if it wasn't bad enough that Michael Bloomberg was advising people to talk about gun control during their Thanksgiving dinners, Michelle Obama has made a similar request about 14 different issues.  From the Washington Times:

“As you spend time with loved ones this holiday season, be sure to talk with them about what health care reform can mean to them,” she said, in the email that contained 14 talking points that could be raised. Among [Michelle Obama] touted topics, The Post reported: Talk about the need to sign up for Obamacare. And, ask guests to bring W2 tax forms, or pay stubs, in order to verify income levels. 

Mrs. Obama’s tips are posted on an Internet site operated by Organizingfor Action, called “Health Care for the Holidays.” The goal of the tips, the site says, is to “get the ball rolling” on widespread Obamacare enrollment — a much-needed scenario, given the floundering and failings the government HealthCare.gov site has suffered since it’s October kick-off. 

Some other words of wisdom on the website, The Post reported: “Don’t wait until the last minute — be sure to start the conversation early!” And “Integrate the talk into family time — take advantage of downtime after meals or between holiday activities to start your talk.” And one more: “Find a quiet place to shop” for a new health care policy. And don’t leave out the blunt approach; the site suggests asking family and guests: “When do you plan on signing up?” 

Moreover, the Obamacare push shouldn’t end just because the holiday wraps, the site advises. 

“Don’t forget to follow up,” is one final tip, The Post reported. . . .

The Washington Examiner has the 14 talking points, including "be persistent."

-- PICK A TIME
-- Start early: Don’t wait until the last minute—be sure to start the conversation early!
-- Integrate the talk into family time: Take advantage of downtime after meals or between holiday activities to start your talk.
-- THINK ABOUT HOW YOU’LL BRING IT UP
-- Make it personal: Be honest about your feelings and why this is important to you.
-- Be persistent, but keep it positive: Tell them you care about their health, and focus on the benefits that come from knowing that you have health insurance.
-- CHOOSE A PLACE
-- Get creative: Think about what matters to your family member. Make it memorable!
-- Find a Quiet Place to Shop: You can start your conversation anywhere, but to shop for health coverage, you will want a more quiet, private place to make a phone call or use the internet.
-- CONVERSATION TIPS
-- Start by asking: “Have you thought about signing up for health insurance on the new marketplace?”
-- Offer to walk them through it: “Would you like to take some time with me to sign up right now?”
-- Ask them to make a plan, and commit to it: “When do you plan on signing up?”
-- Don’t forget to follow up: “Have you signed up yet?”
-- WHAT’S IMPORTANT TO COMMUNICATE:
-- Being covered helps you stay healthy and protects you in an emergency.
-- You can find a plan that fits your budget—financial assistance is available for those who qualify.
-- You get to choose the plan that’s right for you.
-- All the health insurance plans on the new marketplace provide free preventive care—including routine checkups, vaccinations and screenings. 

Who's "political IQ" is higher?

If you want to do the survey, I suggest you do it before you click on the picture above to make it larger.

PEW Research has a computer survey (nonrandom) on political IQs available here.  If you want to do the survey, I suggest you do it before you click on the picture above.  Generally men and those with the most education do better on the survey.  I wouldn't have guessed where older or younger people would have out preformed each other.  Older people seem to be much more likely to correctly identify people and younger people seem more likely to identify flags and symbols.

Yet, these are trivial questions.  If only 57% can identify China's flag or 55% can identify who is the attorney general, I can only imagine that a much smaller percent would correctly guess the content of a particular law.

Actor Woody Harrelson on Obama

From Details magazine:

DETAILS: So you dislike Democrats as much as you dislike the GOP? 

Woody Harrelson: It's all synchronized swimming to me. They all kneel and kiss the ring. Who's going to take on the oil industry or the medical industry? People compare Obama to Lyndon Johnson, but I think a better comparison is between Obama and Nixon. Because Nixon came into office saying he was going to pull out of Vietnam, and then he escalated the war. A lot of us were led to believe that Obama was the peace president, but there are still, I think, 70,000 troops in Afghanistan. . . .

"Conservatives are more thoughtful than liberals in processing emotions like fear"

Researchers at London University College found differences in brain structure for liberals and conservatives.  From Reuters:

"The brains of liberals tend to be more active in situations involving conflict or uncertainty.  Whereas Conservatives are more thoughtful than liberals in processing emotions like fear."

These videos examine the widely held belief that Thomas Jefferson fathered a child with his slave, Sally Hemings.

15% more Republicans than Democrats know that FDR was a Democrat?

How is it possible that only 58 percent of Democrats know that FDR was a Democrat?  Only 59 percent of Democrats know that Pelosi is a Democrat? Only 56 percent of Democrats (compared to 77 percent of Republicans) know that Republicans and not Democrats support oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge?

This is from the Pew Research Center:

This is also depressing.  Only 43% of those between 18 and 29 realize that Pelosi and FDR are Democrats and only 48 percent know that Abraham Lincoln is a Republican.

On a general note, only 55 percent of all Americans realize that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and only 58 percent realized that FDR was a Democrat.

Two interesting polls

1) 69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research

While a majority of Americans nationwide continue to acknowledge significant disagreement about global warming in the scientific community, most go even further to say some scientists falsify data to support their own beliefs.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely. Twenty-two percent (22%) don’t think it’s likely some scientists have falsified global warming data, including just six percent (6%) say it’s Not At All Likely. Another 10% are undecided. . . .
Fifty-seven percent (57%) believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009. One in four (25%) believes scientists agree on global warming. Another 18% aren’t sure. . . .

2) Throw the bums out: "62% Would Vote to Replace Entire Congress"

I guess that I don't find this poll particularly new or surprising. In the past, there were a lot of polls showing that people wanted to get rid of other people's congressmen but keep their own. This might be a little broader.

No matter how bad things are, 63% of Likely Voters believe Congress can always find a way to make them worse. Only 20% disagree with this pessimistic assessment.
If they could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 62% would vote to dump all the current legislators and start over again. Just 15% would keep the existing Congress, while 23% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here .)
It’s not just Congress in general that make voters skeptical. Just 32% of voters are even somewhat confident that their own representative in Congress is actually representing their best interests. Sixty-five percent (65%) don’t share that confidence. . . .

Did Wisconsin State Supreme Court Justice Bradley attack Prosser?

Chief Justice Ann Walsh Bradley contends that Justice Prosser tried to choke her. The American Thinker provides some helpful links here and summarizes the issue here:

Two to one says Bradley advanced toward Prosser threatening him. You will probably get different stories from others who were present, all dependent on the political point of view of the "witness." . . .
To automatically grant Bradley a pass without hearing some of the things she has thrown at Prosser and other conservatives is ridiculous. This should be taken into account because as we've seen in the past, when liberals insult conservatives, they see it as speaking the truth, not as a personal attack. Just ask Rep. Alan Grayson or former Rep. Weiner if they are abusive toward their Republican colleagues. No doubt Bradley thinks herself entirely innocent in the matter of provoking others on the court.
Reality may very well be quite different.

This police report may prove to be very interesting. Bradley may wish that she never never provoked this public discussion.

UPDATE: One strange point that I just noticed is that the alleged choking supposed took place earlier this month before the Supreme Court's decision on collective bargaining in the state. That decision was given out on June 14th. Yet, Bradley went to the media on Saturday. Why did it take her so long to go to the press?

"How politicians dodge questions" & "Conservative Candidates are Often Better-Looking"

A couple of interesting articles are available here.

Are Democrats trying to stop people from owning gold?

Seeking Alpha believes that they are.

Just as the government is trying to prevent people from investing in anything other than T-Bills by raising taxes on taxable interest and dividends to confiscatory levels, it's also trying to prevent you from parking your wealth in assets, like gold, that compete with the paper dollars issued by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. A press release from Rep. Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York, not yet (as of this instant) posted on Mr. Weiner's Web site, announces that a September 23 hearing of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection (a subcommittee of Rep. Henry Waxman's Commerce Committee) will focus on "legislation that would regulate gold-selling companies, an industry who's [sic] relentless advertising is now staple of cable television." . . .

Not to mention the fact that Mr. Weiner's regulatory push seems as much aimed at conservative journalists as at the gold-dealers. The press release says, "Goldline employs several conservative pundits to act as shills for its' [sic] precious metal business, including Glenn Beck, Mike Huckabee, Laura Ingraham, and Fred Thompson. By drumming up public fears during financially uncertain times, conservative pundits are able to drive a false narrative. Glenn Beck for example has dedicated entire segments of his program to explaining why the U.S. money supply is destined for hyperinflation with Barack Obama as president." . . .

Here is Weiner's press release.

Here is a copy of his report.

Facebook's massive collection of data on people's views

Facebook is collecting a lot of information about people's political views. It is a little concerning given how much time that Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg has spent in the past helping out Democrat political causes.

What Zuckerberg didn't point out is that widespread use of the Like button allows Facebook to track people as they switch from CNN.com to Yelp.com to ESPN.com, all of which are sites that have said they will implement the feature.
Even if someone is not a Facebook user or is not logged in, Facebook's social plug-ins collect the address of the Web page being visited and the Internet address of the visitor as soon as the page is loaded--clicking on the Like button is not required. If enough sites participate, that permits Facebook to assemble a vast amount of data about Internet users' browsing habits. . . .

NY state Senate Democrats sitting through the Pledge of Allegiance

The crazy part of this news segment is at the end of it. It is difficult for me to understand why the Democrats refused to stand for the pledge of allegiance. Why pull down the one Democratic state Senator who tried to stand to say the pledge?

Homeland Security ignored objections over report on security dangers from conservatives and veterans

The Washington Times has the story here:

Homeland Security Department officials disregarded warnings from their internal civil liberties watchdogs before releasing a security assessment of "right-wing extremism" that had Secretary Janet Napolitano apologizing to veterans Thursday.

A spokeswoman confirmed that the department's Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties raised objections about some of the language in the nine-page report before it was sent to law enforcement officials nationwide.

The office "did object to a part of the document, which was not resolved before the product went out. This was a breakdown of an internal process that we will fix in the future," said spokeswoman Amy Kudwa.

Homeland Security officials declined to elaborate on or describe in detail the objections of the civil liberty officials, or say whether Ms. Napolitano was made aware of the objections when she was briefed on the general nature of the threat before the report's release on April 7. . . . .

Obama 20 percent more polarizing that Bush, 36 more polarizing than Clinton

The Pew Center has this new poll:

For all of his hopes about bipartisanship, Barack Obama has the most polarized early job approval ratings of any president in the past four decades. The 61-point partisan gap in opinions about Obama's job performance is the result of a combination of high Democratic ratings for the president -- 88% job approval among Democrats -- and relatively low approval ratings among Republicans (27%).

By comparison, there was a somewhat smaller 51-point partisan gap in views of George W. Bush's job performance in April 2001, a few months into his first term. At that time, Republican enthusiasm for Bush was comparable to how Democrats feel about Obama today, but there was substantially less criticism from members of the opposition party. Among Democrats, 36% approved of Bush's job performance in April 2001; that compares with a 27% job approval rating for Obama among Republicans today. . . . .

Weird politics in the Democratically controlled Pennsylvania House of Representatives

Should politicians in Pennsylvania's House be employed by lobbyists while they are state legislators? From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

HARRISBURG - For 10 1/2 minutes, it appeared that the state House of Representatives would operate for the next two years under a new, iron-clad ethics rule barring members from being paid by lobbying firms.
The idea received a unanimous vote - 198-0 - late Wednesday as representatives were setting internal operating rules for the new legislative term.

Then Democrats had second thoughts and flexed their majority muscle, 100-98, to undo the measure, which could have cost several legislators lucrative side jobs.

The episode raises questions about whether legislators are indeed being paid to lobby. It also amounted to a public embarrassment for Democrats, who control the lower chamber.

"Incompetence is the kindest word you can use to describe this," said Tim Potts, co-founder of Democracy Rising Pennsylvania, a Harrisburg-area public interest group.

Here's how the situation, unusual even by Harrisburg standards, unfolded:

At 8:47 Wednesday night, the House voted overwhelmingly to suspend its rules and allow a vote on a just-drafted amendment. Less than 90 seconds later, members unanimously endorsed this simple restriction: "Members may not receive compensation for affiliating with or being employed by a lobbying firm registered with the Department of State."

Then Democrats, who hold a 104-99 majority, started asking themselves what they had really voted on. Democratic staff lawyers weighed in. At 9:06, the House voted to revote on the measure and later, along mostly party lines, ruled that what they had passed only minutes earlier was actually unconstitutional.

"This was a bright-line standard that legislators shouldn't be paid by lobbyists," said Rep. John Maher, a Republican from Pittsburgh who offered the rule change. By defeating the idea, Maher said, Democrats "trampled on the public's faith in the House." . . . .

So why is George Stephanopoulos holding daily strategy sessions with Democrats?

Isn't there some problem with a reporter to hold daily strategy sessions with the president's chief of staff? Obviously Carville is a consultant and even Begala is a commentator, but George Stephanopoulos claims to be a newsman. Doesn't this bring into question his objectivity? What was reasonable behavior when Stephanopoulos worked in Clinton's White House isn't necessary reasonable when he is a reporter. From the Politico:

So begins another morning in what may count as Washington’s longest-running conversation — a street-corner bull session between four old friends who suddenly find themselves standing once more at the busiest intersection of politics and media in Washington.

Carville calls White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

Emanuel calls ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent George Stephanopoulos.

A bit later, CNN commentator Paul Begala, who is not quite the early bird that his friends are, will complete the circle with a rapid set of calls to all three.

Different versions of this round-robin chatter have been taking place, with few interruptions, every workday for nearly a generation.

“I refer to it as the 17-year-long conference call,” said Emanuel, who starts calling his friends at 6 a.m. “You can tap into it anytime you want.” . . . .

Here is a defense of this behavior.

Take for example Stephanopoulos mistaken reporting on the Blago senate selling case.

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, host of “This Week,” said during the roundtable on his program Sunday that the Obama legal team's review of contacts with Blagojevich found that Emanuel had only one phone conversation with the governor, and it was a “pro forma” conversation.

“I have been briefed on the review that Obama has done,” Stephanopoulos said. “The sources I talked to say that what it will show is there were actually far less contacts than we had heard — that Rahm Emanuel only had one phone call with Gov. Blagojevich. It wasn’t even really about the Senate seat.” . . .

For example, the Chicago Tribune reported about "conversations."

Rahm Emanuel, President-elect Barack Obama's pick to be White House chief of staff, had conversations with Gov. Rod Blagojevich's administration about who would replace Obama in the U.S. Senate, the Tribune has learned. . . .

Kennedys and Democratic NY Governor in real feud.

This should be amusing next year. From the NY Post:

An "apoplectic" Kennedy family is seething over the rough treatment that heiress apparent Caroline got from Gov. Paterson's office and is spoiling for revenge, several sources close to the clan have told The Post.

"The governor's going to pay for this," said a well-placed Democrat. "Ted is furious. The family is furious. The Kennedys are now against the governor."

Among Paterson's offenses was a request that Caroline lie about her unexpected withdrawal for "personal" reasons, according to NY magazine.

"You can't withdraw. You've got to stay in this thing, and I'll just not pick you," Paterson reportedly told her over the phone late Wednesday.

Then a torrent of ugly rumors spilled from Paterson's office about Caroline's taxes, about her nanny, even about the state of her marriage - and Camelot's seeking payback, confidants said.

"I'm sure the family is going to protect her," one source said. "What did Caroline do to deserve getting dragged through the mud?"

Caroline Kennedy explains why she is not part of the "system"

The New York Daily News has this:

"I'm really coming into this as somebody who isn't, you know, part of the system, who obviously, you know, stands for the values of, you know, the Democratic Party," Kennedy told the Daily News Saturday during a wide-ranging interview.

"I know how important it is to, you know, to be my own person. And, you know, and that would be obviously true with my relationship with the mayor." . . .

Not part of the system? Well, you know . . . .

Next Census promises some changes in Congress

CNS News has the story here:

Southern and western states are poised to snatch more congressional seats from the rest of the country as Americans pursue open spaces and warmer climates.

The nation's migration west and south has slowed, according to new government population estimates. But states in the Northeast and Midwest are still projected to lose political clout in Washington after the 2010 census, when the nation apportions the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, based on population.

Texas stands to be the biggest winner, picking up as many as four seats, while Ohio could be the big loser, giving up as many as two seats, according to projections by two firms that specialize in political apportionment. California is in danger of losing a seat for the first time since it became a state, though experts disagree on the likelihood of that happening. . . .

GIven that Texas is still a Republican state and the Northeast is all Democrats, this will be a small pick up for Republicans.

New Op-ed at Fox News: Minnesota finding 171 votes

My newest piece at Fox News starts this way:

There has already been a lot of controversy in the Minnesota Senate recount, but the finding of 171 new ballots in Ramsey county has generated real concern. The Star Tribune wrote that "Ramsey County's recount problem caught many by surprise." The Star Tribune noted the new ballots were one of two pieces of good news "boosting the prospects of DFLer Al Franken" when the vote recount was looking grim for him.

Sen. Norm Coleman's campaign said it was "skeptical about [the ballots'] sudden appearance."

All the previously uncounted ballots were discovered in Maplewood Precinct 6. Of the 171 votes, 91 went to Franken, 54 to Coleman and 26 to other candidates. The new votes increased the total votes for the Senate candidates in the precinct by over 12 percent. The percentage of votes Franken got from these new votes in this precinct were statistically significantly different than the lower percentage that he obtained from the ballots that were first counted in that precinct.

When Karen Guilfoile, Maplewood’s director of city services, was asked about whether she was surprised that such a large percentage of the ballots could be over looked she told FOX News that "We are still trying to figure out what happened. We are going back and trying to figure out exactly what went wrong. Fortunately, we have a paper trail." One possible explanation is that a ballot counter that kept jamming was replaced, but the ballots were apparently not run through again after the counter had been replaced. . . .