[Posted by Karl]

You see, the Washington Examiner columnist had the gall to not only suggest that Americans care more about the economy than whether Mitt Romney gave someone a haircut 47 years ago, but also to suggest that Tamron Hall was pandering to her audience of dozens by dragging out the story on the pretense of doing the meta-story of how the Romney campaign is reacting to the story which most people do not care about. Actually, Carney was far more polite than that, which did not stop MSNBC from cutting Carney’s mic while Hall yelled at him:

WFB has the full video. Apparently, Hall’s support staff thinks Hall was unequipped to have that discussion with Carney — or that MSNBC is ill-equipped when someone pulls back the curtain on how the establishment media drags out nonstories to suit their biases.

Update: Carney tweets: “The question I was sent for the Romney bullying segment was ‘Does the story matter?’ So I was answering it, not dodging.”

–Karl

[Posted by Karl]

As usual, you are positively encouraged to engage in sockpuppetry in this thread. The usual rules apply.

Please, be sure to switch back to your regular handle when commenting on other threads. I have made that mistake myself.

Any discussion that is not funny where people want to get angry at each other is are strictly prohibited.  Offending comments will be summarily deleted and the violators flogged.

And remember: the worst sin you can commit on this thread is not being funny.

—

Liberals, when not spending your money, are kind of a cheap date, aren’t they?

President Obama declared his personal support for same-sex marriage yesterday, but the White House chose not to push for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act today.

“Well, party platform issues are for the party to decide,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said when asked if Obama would call for the repeal of DOMA and endorsement of pro-gay marriage language in the party platform.

Gutsy call!  Not to mention incoherent, although Jonathan H. Adler notes it:

The problem with the President’s position is that it cannot be reconciled with the Administration’s stance on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. According to Attorney General Eric Holder, he and the President concluded that the constitutionality of legal distinctions based upon sexual preference cannot be defended. In their view, because DOMA precludes federal recognition of same-sex marriages, it violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the Fifth Amendment. Further, according to Holder’s statement, they concluded that no “reasonable” constitutional argument could be made in DOMA’s defense. Yet if DOMA is unconstitutional under equal protection, which applies to the state and federal governments equally, then how could any state law barring recognition of same-sex marriages survive constitutional scrutiny?

Now, legal types can be more nuanced about this, but you can be sure the folks swooning over Obama’s announcement of his personal opinion are not.  And given that Obama’s opinion is that states should decide, I again wonder how the folks who think recognizing same sex marriage (and gay rights generally) to be the preeminent civil rights issue of the day embrace Obama’s embrace of states’ rights.  After all, they would never accept that position regarding interracial marriage would they?  If Obama took that position… maybe.

–Karl

There is a puff piece in today’s L.A. Times titled: President Obama’s influence on gay marriage will be tested. His change, we are told, is historic and valuable:

David Mixner, a longtime Democratic and gay rights activist, noted wryly that Obama’s endorsement was “no more symbolic than President Johnson endorsing the Voting Rights bills…. It’s going to give momentum. It’s going to give real legitimacy. It’s going to impact those who are sitting on the fence. Anytime the president takes a major stance on any civil rights issues, whether it’s Harry Truman or John Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson, it lends the power of the presidency to that issue.”

. . . .

Obama’s most valuable contribution may have been the way he described his evolution on the issue. In the ABC interview, he related dinner-table discussions about his daughters’ friends whose parents are same-sex couples.

“That’s the same kind of conversation that’s taking place at kitchen tables around America,” said Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, a pro-gay-marriage group. He said Obama’s explanation about “how he had opened his heart and changed his mind” was the most important part of the president’s statement.

Obama also placed his personal opinion in the context of his values as a “practicing Christian,” in line with efforts by gay marriage proponents to sway conservative voters. Obama said that, contrary to those who believe same-sex marriage is at odds with Christian teachings, it “is not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf — but it’s also the golden rule, you know? Treat others the way you’d want to be treated.”

If we’re going to talk about Obama’s “evolution” on this issue, let’s talk about Obama’s evolution on this issue.

In 1996, when Obama was running for the state senate in Illinois, he signed a questionnaire in which he supported the right of gays to marry:

Then, when he was running for federal office, his position changed. He has allowed a spokeshole to claim that the above questionnaire was filled out by someone else — a claim later retracted by another spokeshole when nobody bought it.

And he cited religion as the reason for opposing same sex marriage.

Now, having flip-flopped, he has flop-flipped back. And he is trying to make it sound principled.

And the L.A. Times is letting him. Because somehow, none of this makes it into today’s misty-eyed description of Obama’s “evolution.” The “devolution” preceding the “evolution” never comes up.

Odd, that.

[Posted by Karl]

The WaPo’s lengthy hit piece on Mitt Romney, leading with a 1965 incident in which Romney and high school pals gave John Lauber (a fellow student) a forced haircut, was definitely distraction du jour.  But a couple of problems have cropped up with the story.

First, the WaPo story originally reported that Stu White had “long been bothered” by the incident, but White told ABC News he was not aware of it until this year when he was contacted by the Washington Post.  The WaPo has now airbrushed this section of the story to read:

“I always enjoyed his pranks,” said Stu White, a popular friend of Romney’s who went on to a career as a public school teacher and said he has been “disturbed” by the Lauber incident since hearing about it several weeks ago, before being contacted by The Washington Post.

As I write this, the WaPo has failed to append a note about the alteration of the story, in an apparent violation of the the WaPo’s corrections policy.  Moreover, the new WaPo version remains at odds with White telling ABC he had not heard of it until he was contacted by the WaPo.

Second, it appears that the Lauber family is not happy with the WaPo hit piece.  Christine Lauber — who appears to be quoted in the WaPo story — told ABC News she and her sisters will likely put out a statement later via a family attorney.

“If he were still alive today, he would be furious [about the story],” she said with tears in her eyes.

The NYT’s Ashley Parker has been tweeting bits of what that statement may contain.  Although the Lauber family did not refute the haircut story, they say the portrayal of John is “factually incorrect.”  The family adds: “We are aggrieved that John would be used to further a political agenda.”

It will be tough for the media to use the victimization of John Lauber as a cudgel against Mitt Romney if Lauber’s family thinks the media are the ones doing the victimization.

–Karl

[Posted by Karl]

Jim Geraghty notes publicly what everyone is thinking privately:

It’s entirely possible that it’s a coincidence that the Washington Post has a long story on a teenage Mitt Romney bullying and cutting the hair of a classmate who was believed to be gay, the day after Barack Obama announces his support for gay marriage.

But it is a fascinatingly convenient coincidence for the Obama campaign.

…and likely not coincidental at all, given that one named source previously volunteered for Obama.  Ed Morrissey notes, “It’s one reason not to vote for a teenager for President,” adding visual aids to remind everyone that voters are more likely to care about the economy of the past three years than a nasty school prank dating back to the Mad Men era.

Allahpundit, ever Eeyore-ish, has already been concerned about the transparent attempts of the establishment media on this front (although he switches to talking about the main branch of Team Obama in his post):

Remember, their big talking point against Romney, ludicrous as it is, is that he’s the most conservative nominee since Barry Goldwater. If they can bog him down in talking about hot-button social issues instead of unemployment, they can get him to play into that impression a bit. His rhetoric doesn’t have to be strident or out of the conservative mainstream for this tactic to work; all they’re trying to do is make him look like a guy who’s preoccupied with “values” issues while swing voters are worried about jobs. And of course Romney knows it. Hence his consternation here as he’s put through his paces first on gay marriage, then in-state tuition for illegals, and then ye olde medical marijuana question. Axelrod couldn’t have scripted that any better.

Although the media attempts its share of agenda setting, campaign coverage is ultimately driven by the candidates and Team Romney is going to do its best to stay on-message.    The problem for Team Obama and the media is that Romney wants to talk about the subjects most voters want to hear most about (folks whose votes are determined by support for or opposition to same sex marriage are, er, already determined).  Mitt may occasionally has to point out that the press is focused on trivia, but the lesson of the Gingrich campaign is that this will help draw in conservatives — and the public has a low opinion of the media generally.  It as though the left has forgotten how much mileage Bill Clinton and Barack Obama got out of rising above “distractions” to address the real concerns of real Americans.

Moreover, this morning’s distraction will be quickly cast aside in favor of tonight’s distraction.  As ABC News’ Jake Tapper notes: “ZOMGS TEH CLOONEY.”

–Karl

All it takes to ruin a guy’s vacation is one anonymous moron with a computer and a phone, and a bunch of gullible and overreacting law enforcement agents and cruise personnel:

A Nashville neurosurgeon was pulled off a Carnival cruise suspected of planning to commit a bio-terrorist attack, after a tweet from an impostor account claimed the doctor had a vial of harmful bacteria on board.

Dr. Jack Kruse was on the Carnival Magic cruise ship Sunday about to set off from a Galveston port. He planned to speak to the passengers on the 5th Annual Low-Carb Cruise Monday morning. Passengers never got to hear that lecture, though, because Kruse was escorted off the cruise after a suspicious tweet posted that morning was detected.

A cruise line official confirmed that the FBI, Homeland Security, the Galveston police and the U.S. Coast Guard were alerted about the tweet.

A tweet posted by an account “s***krusesays,” which we’ve edited because of an expletive, said, “security confiscated dynamite. talk won’t be as explosive as one at PaleoFx. still have vial of Legionnaires for epic biohack. #lccruise12.” The fake Twitter account, which parodied the doctor, has been deleted.

The story quotes Kruse as saying they ripped his room apart: “It was like being in a movie, and it was surreal . . . Having the room completely trashed, and I was asked all of these crazy questions. I had no idea what they were talking about.”

I feel you, man.

Even though the doctor was cleared of having sent the message and determined not to be a threat, the captain still didn’t let him on board. “Since the safety and well-being of my guests and crew is my number one priority, every security threat is taken seriously and fully investigated,” the captain wrote. “It is for this reason that I felt it was in the best interest of all my guests to err on the side of caution and not allow him to set sail as planned.”

Sure. Just go ahead and ruin his trip — not to mention affecting the enjoyment of people who had looked forward to hearing his talk — because of some anonymous idiot. It seems that my oft-repeated prescription not to take the word of anonymous a-holes too seriously has, once again, not been heeded.

People just loooove to take unverified crap at face value.

I have to wonder what officials were smoking to take this seriously. First of all, check out the message that caused them to go nuts. The first words were: “security confiscated dynamite.” Except, they didn’t. That could be a tip-off that the Twitter message was a joke.

Second of all: thanks to the magic of Topsy.com, we can still view some of the tweets from the “shitkrusesays” account. (I don’t have to edit profanity. Welcome to the world of grown-ups!) Check out the avatar the account holder was using:

Yes, that is Dr. Nick Riviera, the laughable quack from The Simpsons.

If this guy wanted to scream “satire!” he couldn’t do it any louder than with that avatar.

And check out another tweet about the cruise that the hoaxster sent out about the same time: “cruise ship staff refusing to keep hot tubs at 55 degrees. forcing them to watch tedx talk on my ipad. jaws are dropping. #LCCRUISE12.” I hope they thoroughly investigated that allegation as well!!!!!

I’ll give authorities this: the story reports that, “[i]n addition to the tweet, however, the cruise line received a call from a ‘Lance,’ who claimed the doctor had a plan to perform a viral biohack on the ship.”

OK. Arguably, one could contend that is enough to search his belongings to make sure he was not going to KILL EVERYONE ON BOARD!!!! (I’m not sure I agree, frankly, but I can see people making the argument.) But once everything was searched, and they had a chance to Google “Nick Riviera,” and determine that no dynamite had already been confiscated, they should have known better.

I hope that law enforcement catches “Lance” and throws his ass in jail. Based on personal experience, however, I advise Kruse not to hold his breath. I speak from personal experience when I say that law enforcement can be stunningly, spectacularly incompetent on issues like this, depending on who you get. It’s the luck of the draw, and if your detective or FBI agent is the lazy one, or the dishonest one, or the stupid one — or, God help you, all three (it happens, believe me) — you are up the creek, pal.

Best wishes to Dr. Kruse on finding the bad guys.

[Posted by Karl]

Earlier today, I wrote that Team Obama had been AWOL on gay rights issues for campaign reasons.  This afternoon, Pres. Obama officially “evolved” into a supporter of same-sex marriage during an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts:

“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told Roberts, in an interview to appear on ABC’s “Good Morning America” Thursday. Excerpts of the interview will air tonight on ABC’s “World News with Diane Sawyer.”

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own.

Well, that’s semi-evolved, anyway. I suppose it remains to be seen how progressives will embrace states’ rights.

On Twitter (and elsewhere), a number of smart people have suggested that Obama benefitred from yet another distraction from the economy and the debt.  Yet gay rights are a classic wedge issue that divides Obama’s prospective coalition, which would seem to be an unwelcome distraction for Democrats.  Many have also suggested Obama found himself painted into a corner by comments from people like VP Joe Biden.  Allahpundit provides a decent elaboration of this thinking:

Looks like his strategy now is simply to get it over with ASAP and then let people forget about it over the next six months. Some key constituencies, like young voters, will cheer. Others, like black voters, might not be thrilled but given their overwhelming support for O the risk that he’ll lose many votes because of this is minimal. Meanwhile, Romney’s unlikely to make it an issue since it’d throw him off his core economic message. (See, e.g., Haley Barbour insisting yesterday that the gay-marriage chatter lately is a Democratic distraction.)

All true enough, but I continue to think “The Decision” here is driven less by pressure from Sheriff Joe than by broader campaign considerations.

Recall how Democrats think about the demographics:

[Ruy] Teixeira, writing with John Halpin, argues in “The Path to 270: Demographics versus Economics in the 2012 Presidential Election,” that in order to be re-elected, President Obama must keep his losses among white college graduates to the 4-point margin of 2008 (47-51). Why? Otherwise he will not be able to survive a repetition of 2010, when white working-class voters supported Republican House candidates by a record-setting margin of 63-33.

Obama’s alternative path to victory, according to Teixeira and Halpin, would be to keep his losses among all white voters at the same level John Kerry did in 2004, when he lost them by 17 points, 58-41. This would be a step backwards for Obama, who lost among all whites in 2008 by only 12 points (55-43). Obama can afford to drop to Kerry’s white margins because, between 2008 and 2012, the pro-Democratic minority share of the electorate is expected to grow by two percentage points and the white share to decline by the same amount, reflecting the changing composition of the national electorate.

What yesterday’s elections may have told Team Obama is that the bitter clingers out there are bitter enough to give 41% of the Democrat vote in West Virginia to a convicted felon and to ease a ban on same-sex marriage into the North Carolina constitution.  They may have concluded that their energies are better spent targeting more socially liberal white college graduates in the suburbs of northern Virginia, Philadeplphia, Denver, etc. than wasting time on trying to persuade Rust Belt Jacksonians to pull the lever for Barack Obama again while (as Allahpundit suggests) considering discontent among socially conservative African-Americans an acceptable risk now.  The establishment’s mockery of Obama’s unevolved position may have suggested to Team Obama that painting Mitt Romney as a right-wing extremist is made more difficult when the president shares Romney’s position on SSM.

Obama’s hastily-arranged interview with Roberts suggests his campaign was prepared to let SSM drift off the news radar, until facts on the ground drove a public (but controlled) flip on the issue.

–Karl

[Posted by Karl]

The right has had a lot of fun watching Pres. Obama, his administration, and his campaign contorting over the issue of same sex marriage.  But there is a serious message beneath the laughter.  The most powerful man in the world does not knowingly make a fool of himself (esp. against his presumed ideological leaning on the issue) without reason.  He does not pass up big campaign donations by refusing to sign an executive order barring same sex discrimination by federal contractors without reason.

Yesterday, I opined in passing that Obama was backing off in hopes of keeping North Carolina in the mix of battleground states where the GOP has to spend money.  Others have suggested Obama’s concerns are bigger than that.  The Hotline’s Josh Kraushaar suggested Obama’s gay rights kabuki is more about the Rust Belt than North Carolina and Virginia, asserting that Obama has a much better shot at winning white votes in the former region than the latter.  Kraushaar tweeted this shows Obama is still playing for Ohio and Pennsylvania, casting doubt on the VA/NC model.  He believes it shows that Obama’s path to reelection remains challenging, because it relies on getting votes from working-class whites who oppose same sex marriage.

If Kraushaar is correct, he was understating Obama’s plight.  That is the lesson of the otherwise funny candidacy of federal inmate Keith Judd, who racked up an impressive 41 percent of the vote against Obama in the West Virginia Democratic primary.  The sort of Jacksonian, bitter clingers voting ABO in that state are also found in southwest Virginia, Western Pennsylvania and southern Ohio.

Moreover, Sean Trende suspects Obama’s reluctance to back SSM relates to the African-American vote and the importance of black churches in getting to his 2008 turnout numbers.  Trende suggests that if Blacks voted in composition and number at pre-2008 levels, Obama has little room for error.  Given that Black voters overwhelmingly backed the SSM ban on the ballot in North Carolina, despite Obama’s token opposition and a vigorous campaign against it by the NAACP, Trende is likely on target here.  Obama likely needs very strong Black turnout in the urban centers of states like Pennsylvania and Ohio (and perhaps Virginia and North Carolina) to balance projected losses among rural and working-class white voters in these states.

In one sense, this is not news.  But it gives needed perspective to the propaganda establishment outlets like TIME churn out about the confidence of Team Obama supposedly has in facing Mitt Romney.  The media can write for months about how many paths to victory Obama has, and how few Romney has.  But Team Obama is not campaigning that way.  They are projecting confidence, while campaigning as though November will be a nail-biter.  Team Romney would do well to follow that example.

–Karl

Guy robs police station:

If there was to be a list of places not to rob, I would think a police department would be at or near the top of that list.

Apparently not for Keithan Kennard Manuel, who faces charges he attempted to rob the Wilmer Police Department Headquarters over the weekend, according to police documents.

Manuel, 18, walked into the city’s police department offices in the 200 block of East Belt Line Road near Interstate 45 about 8 p.m. on Saturday with his hands covered by a white towel.

He walked up to the dispatch window and pointed a covered hand at a telecommunications operator, the documents said.

“Give me all of your money,” Manuel told the startled operator.

Your punchline below.

Hot Air has all the details. Probably the big news is that the racist Tea Party has driven Dick Lugar out of office. I didn’t even know he was black.

In other news, North Carolina has banned gay marriage and civil unions. President Obama was seen looking for the missing link in his “evolving” position on these issues.