While I was privately discussing Gallup and Rasmussen’s apparent decision to flip their usual poll results this week, I was sent this clip. Oh, how true it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo&feature=player_embedded
Also, why do I not own these?
Dr. Hayworth – odd, there are a lot of medical doctors running as Republicans for Congress this session; I wonder why that is? – is up against John Hall in NY-19. She is, in fact, well-positioned to take the seat away from the man, and not before time. We spoke about the campaign:
Nan’s site is here.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
There are two parts to this: what is known, and what was reported.
It is known that the aforementioned Bera owned a transient hotel in California that had a registered sex offender (case involved a minor) living there in April of 2010. It is also known that living at the location in question would be effectively banned for sex offenders under the California Penal Code, as it is too close to both a playground and a high school. Lastly, it is known that the property was sold in December of 2009. These things are all known.
It has been reported to RedState that in April of 2010 an agent of the Bera campaign ran a focus group on Bera’s ownership of this hotel and the residency of the sex offender. If the information provided to RedState is as reported, then the Bera campaign was both aware and actively worried about the possible implications of it being revealed that their candidate was renting to sex offenders (the information provided to RedState used the plural). It also indicates that at least one sex offender was living on the premises when Bera owned it; obviously, it would hardly reflect badly on the candidate if a pedophile moved in after Bera sold the property.
. In short, there seems to be a bit of potentially-disturbing development going on here.
Now, it is entirely possible that the answer to the question Did Ami Bera knowingly violate the California Penal Code by renting to a pedophile? could be ‘no.’ However, given that this was apparently important enough for his campaign that Bera had an outside group focus test it among voters, it seems clear that the question should be asked. If it turns out that the candidate had merely not done due diligence as per the law… well, that’s bad, but it’s not really nasty. But regardless of whatever is going on here, it certainly needs to be resolved.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
I can’t read the linked article, but California Watch (H/T Chaos Party) can – and they report that Allred was involved with Jerry Brown’s first gubernatorial bid, too. CW also reports that Allred has a history of relatively small but consistent contributions to Brown and other Democratic candidates over the years. Judging from the Whitman thing, I suppose that means that Allred prefers to donate time and labor instead of money.
Moe Lane
…judging from his Twitter account (H/T: The Campaign Spot) Armour despises and loathes the roughly 60-70% of the population* of the United States that had a problem with the Ground Zero Mosque. Extra points: Armour apparently also thinks that the expression of said problem demonstrates an ignorance of the purpose of the First Amendment, instead of it being what the First Amendment is for. I note “extra points” because Armour probably ran around yelling about how dissent was the highest form of patriotism, back when he was fighting the establishment instead of cashing its checks. He seems the sort who would do that.
Here’s the screenshot, for when Armour takes down the tweet: it uses too many obscenities to be safe for work. The real question is, of course, whether Jan Schakowsky agrees with her own Chief of Staff: if the answer’s no, she should probably say so quickly. Note that I am not calling for any kind of sanction, though. Unlike Armour (and apparently Schakowsky), I respect these fools’ right to sound like fools in public…
Moe Lane (Crosspost)
PS: Joel Pollak for IL-09. Not a fool.
*No real national polling on this recently, sorry.
Sort of had to, really.
Hey, I like alternate history and 1635: The Eastern Front
And so farewell, Red State Uprising: How to Take Back America
Moe Lane
The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America: clear.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Basic rule of thumb for filming in public places: straightforward.
Legally, it’s pretty much always okay to take photos in a public place as long as you’re not physically interfering with traffic or police operations. As Bert Krages, an attorney who specializes in photography-related legal problems and wrote Legal Handbook for Photographers, says, “The general rule is that if something is in a public place, you’re entitled to photograph it.” What’s more, though national-security laws are often invoked when quashing photographers, Krages explains that “the Patriot Act does not restrict photography; neither does the Homeland Security Act.”
Nice to see that she’s not going to pretend for the sake of a largely imaginary ‘comity’ (defined as ‘A Republican smiling when a Democrat says something vile about him or her’):
“The real tragedy here is Nicky. After Nov. 2, no one’s going to be watching out for Nicky Diaz. And Jerry, you know you should be ashamed, you and your surrogates … put her deportation at risk. You put it out there and you should be ashamed for sacrificing Nicky Diaz on the altar of your political ambitions.”
Mind you, Jerry Brown is as unacquainted with shame as he is courage: he wants to be Governor of California, and that would be worth any number of Nicky Diazs. Besides, it’s her own fault, really: if Nicky Diaz wanted to be treated as an actual human being by the Californian Democratic establishment then she should have arranged matters so that she had been born an Anglo.
Moe Lane
The two being, of course, Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan. The Other McCain [link fixed: thanks to Constant Reader BigGator5 for catching the oops] has the links – I don’t feel like disinfecting my computer this morning, sorry – but the gist of it is that Sullivan (who is doing his best to keep people from remembering that he actively worked to ensure the defeat of John McCain in 2008) is getting very bombastic on the war (topic: assassinating terrorists), and Greenwald (who is doing his best to keep people from remembering that he actively worked to ensure the defeat of John McCain in 2008) is stamping his feet and pouting about how anybody could possibly think that it’s a good idea to specifically target American citizens actively engaged abroad in acts of war and treason against their former country. It’s all very… dramatic; but then, so is high school.
I had a sneer written out at this point, but what can I say about the antiwar Left that is more cutting than the vision that greets them every day when they look in a mirror?
, 
