Archive for March 4th, 2009
March 4th, 2009
Â
 Prompted by an exchange of comments the other day with my fellow rrstar.com blogger Chuck Sweeny, I have a question for all you Applesaucers:
 Which of these options do you favor in deciding whether and how public projects in your state or locale receive federal funding?:
 A) Legislation written by your U.S. senator or representative in Congress.
 B) The judgement of bureaucrats in the Obama administration.
Surprise! If you chose option A, you’re in favor of earmarks.
Wikipedia tells us this:
“The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.”
Remember this the next time you condemn earmarks — unless, of course, you don’t want any federal money allocated for projects in your state or district.
March 4th, 2009
Â
One of the cardinal rules of professional polling is to avoid loaded questions, lest the results of your survey become skewed.
 For example, you don’t want to ask prospective voters if they favor “that rascal Joe Blow” over “that fine American John Q. Citizen” in the upcoming election.
 But, alas, the right-leaning Rasmussen Reports seems to have forgotten this rule — or intentionally violated it — with its NEW POLL about Rush Limbaugh’s influence on the Republican Party.
 And let’s not forget that Rasmussen had a poll three days before the November election that showed John McCain ahead of Obama, a finding at odds with virtually every other poll. We all know how that turned out. (NOTICE: This paragraph is incorrect. See Comment No. 5 below.)
POSTSCRIPT: Here’s ANOTHER TAKE on that new Rasmussen poll.
March 4th, 2009
Â
 Gosh, I hate to keep crowing about this. But if I don’t, who will?
 The lead story on the Drudge Report this morning links to THIS PIECE from Politico.com about how the Obama gang deliberately plotted many weeks ago to pick a fight with radio blabber Rush Limbaugh so as to cast him as the real leader of Republican conservatism.
 But Drudge and Politico are a little late in discerning a strategy I recognized back in January when I wrote THIS, which was at odds with the prevailing political wisdom at the time.
 I REVISITED the matter on Feb. 21, when prominent blogger Nate Silver saw the Obama strategy regarding Limbaugh for what it really was.
 Since then, I’ve had additional posts on the controversy (see HERE, for example) as the Republican Party’s sycophancy toward Limbaugh has become increasingly apparent.
 And now, Drudge and Politico are manifestly confirming my initial judgement on the matter.
 Ah, sweet vindication!
 FOOTNOTE: Since the start of the Obama-Limbaugh tiff, the Republican Party’s standing with the American public has steadily declined. The new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll SHOWS the GOP’s favorability rating at an all-time low.
 UPDATE: As a convenience for prominent Republicans who feel a need to apologize to Limbaugh for somehow having offended him, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has created THIS WEB SITE, which is titled “I’m Sorry, Rush.”
March 4th, 2009
Writer Cathy Young puts the current fear-mongering about “socialism” in America in PERSPECTIVE.
March 4th, 2009
The dummies at ABC News figured the strategy proposed in the headline of this post would be a clever move, which is NOT THE CASE.
