Patterico's Pontifications

9/29/2009

ObamaCare astroturfers deliver bad news for Democrats

Filed under: General — Karl @ 1:38 pm



[Posted by Karl]

A new poll commissioned by Health Care for America Now — the leftist Borg astroturfing government-controlled healthcare — delivers still more bad news for Democrats.

The HCAN poll shows that the individual mandate is opposed in swing House districts by 60 to 34 percent. (FWIW, a recent Zogby poll had opposition to the mandate closer to 70 percent in swing districts.)

However, in a shocking coincidence with HCAN’s agenda, “[r]equiring everyone to buy and be covered by a health insurance plan with a choice between a public option and private insurance plan” is supported in swing districts by 50 to 46 percent.

The poll shows that nationally, opposition to the mandate is greater — and the supposed support for the combo is also greater. The supposed support for the combo is actually worse and more polarized in swing districts than nationally.

Moreover, as the HuffPo’s Sam Stein admits, “the polling that the group sponsors should be taken with a grain of salt. Other pollsters, in particular, have criticized the use of the word ‘choice’ in questions about the public plan.” Stein avoids expressly reminding his readers that taking the word “choice” out of polling on the proposed government-run plan causes support for the so-called “public option” to plummet into the forties. Stein has written about this, making the omission all the more glaring.

Prior polls show that people are unwilling to pay less than $10 weekly to have a public option. Support also craters when people are reminded that the government-run plan is a Trojan horse for single-payer, Canadian-style healthcare.

The White House and lefties like Rep. Dennis Kucinich believe the “public option” is dead. Indeed, Kucinich thinks the Blue Dogs are doing the White House’s bidding on the “public option.” Inch-deep support and intense lobbying against it would seem to be fatal.

In sum, when Mickey Kaus asks whether voting for ObamaCare might be suicidal for Democrats, he is asking the right question. When even HCAN is delivering bad news dressed up as good propaganda, the answer becomes even clearer.

–Karl

Whoopi: Polanski Did Not Commit “Rape-Rape”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:35 am



Among the cretins in Hollywood to rise to the child-rapist Polanski’s defense, none is so cretinous as Whoopi Goldberg, who says that the anal rape the child experienced wasn’t “rape-rape”:

Not rape-rape? Polanski was indeed charged with “rape-rape” — although the indictment itself called it merely “rape” (and sodomy and numerous other crimes) — and the grand jury testimony certainly supports calling it “rape-rape.” Here are excerpts from the girl’s grand jury testimony:

A. I was going, “No, I think I better go home,” because I was afraid. So I just went and I sat down on the couch.

Q. What were you afraid of?

A. Him.

. . . .

Q. What happened then?

A. He reached over and he kissed me. And I was telling him, “No,” you know, “keep away.”

But I was kind of afraid of him because there was no one else there.

. . . .

Q. What did he do when he placed his mouth on your vagina?

A. He was just like licking and I don’t know. I was ready to cry. I was kind of — I was going, “No. Come on. Stop it.” But I was afraid.

. . . .

Q. What happened after that?

A. He started to have intercourse with me.

Q. What do you mean by intercourse?

A. He placed his penis in my vagina.

Q. What did you say, if anything, before he did that?

A. I was mostly just on and off saying, “No, stop.”

But I wasn’t fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go.

I’ll leave off there before we get to the part where he rapes her anally and ejaculates in her anus.

Oh: Goldberg says Polanski thought: “You know what? This guy’s gonna give me 100 years in jail, I’m not staying.” I have read variants of this claim all over, mostly commonly that the judge was going to give Polanski 50 years. What?? The judge wasn’t even going to give him 50 extra days. He was going to give him 48 extra days. I get this from the motion filed by Polanski’s lawyers.

Paragraph 16 of the declaration of Polanski’s lawyer says: “Judge Rittenband announced to counsel that he now intended to send Mr. Polanski to prison for the second time under the following conditions: (1) that he serve 48 additional days in prison . . .” The other conditions were that there would be no further hearing, and that Polanski “deport himself.” Polanski had been sent to prison for a “90-day diagnostic” and had served only 42 days; the 48 days was meant to complete the 90 days.

This allegedly went against a previous in-chambers promise by the judge that the initial 42 days would be all Polanski would serve; however, Polanski did not plead based on the previous promise, which was made after the plea. That previous promise did not induce the plea, and when commentators say the judge “reneged” on a deal they are adopting the language of Polanski’s lawyers, who argue that the judge said he would make his decision after reading the probation department report and listening to the lawyers’ arguments. Instead, Polanski’s lawyers claim, the judge made up his mind before listening to the lawyers. Which, truth be told, judges always do; they just usually put on a better show of listening to us.

As always, this myth-busting is done in my private capacity, and I am not speaking for the District Attorney’s Office, or opining on what sentence Polanski should receive now. But I do think it’s important for myths to be corrected.

Policing Skid Row

Filed under: Crime — Jack Dunphy @ 1:10 am



[Guest post by Jack Dunphy]

Back in April 2006 I wrote “The Constitutional Right to Be a Bum” for National Review Online. In it I described the dystopian conditions on display in the Skid Row section of downtown Los Angeles. I received quite a bit of angry email from people who identified themselves as “advocates for the homeless” and what have you, all of whom excoriated me for daring to suggest that the laws of the state of California be enforced on Skid Row as they would be anywhere else in Los Angeles.

The LAPD did indeed step up enforcement on Skid Row, lowering crime and bringing a sense of order to the area even as howls of protest came up from the same crowd who so vigorously objected to my column. At the City Journal website, Heather Mac Donald has described the LAPD’s efforts in the area and the disingenuous response to it from the so-called homeless advocates. Mac Donald writes:

For 25 years, Skid Row constituted a real-world experiment in the application of homeless-advocate ideology. The squalor that engulfed the 50-block district just east of downtown Los Angeles was the direct outgrowth of advocates’ claims that the homeless should be exempt from the rules of ordinary society. The result was not a reign of peace and love among society’s underdogs, but rather brutal predation and depravity. Occupants of the filthy tents and lean-tos that covered every inch of sidewalk in the area pimped each other out and stole from, stabbed, and occasionally killed one another. Gangs and pushers from South Central and East Los Angeles operated with impunity under cover of the chaos that reigned on the streets . . .

In 2006, Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton announced a full-scale attack on Skid Row anarchy. His Safer City Initiative (SCI) would be a demonstration project, he said, for Broken Windows theory, which holds that tolerance for low-level forms of crime and disorder allows more serious crime to fester. When the police started enforcing jaywalking, public urination, and public camping laws, thousands of warrant absconders and violent parolees on the lam lost their refuge. Order gradually returned to the streets.

Read the whole thing here.

–Jack Dunphy

« Previous Page

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1999 secs.