Back on the contraception front, two stray thoughts vex me.
1. Did Obama need this fight in order to re-bond with the anti-religious left? Maybe his evolution on endorsing gay marriage has been deferred until after the election, so he needed to establish his anti-church cred with this.
2. We write of Missing Persons - in the tick-tock about the decision-making process on the contraception rule and the narrow religious exemption, we hear about Kathleen Sebelius, Melody Barnes, and Valerie Jarrett,all of whom have obvious roles to play based ontheir position in the org chart.
But nowhere do we learn whether a woman who once pulled down $300,000 per year to advise a hospital on public health issues chimed in on this debate. Given her background, why wouldn't she? (And does anyone doubt where she would come out?)
daddy, Romney seems to be the one pushing PR statehood:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/01/30/mitt-romney-will-puerto-rican-vote-give-him-florida/
I'm not sure the PRans really want it, as they get lots of perks under the current system that might go away. But it's one of those issues that probably galvanizes people who feel strongly about it.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 14, 2012 at 05:13 PM
jimmyk-
The Bush Administration used supplementals to fund the wars so the war spending wouldn't get added to the baseline.
NK-
BTW-- since 'Bam was inaugurated, gas prices have DOUBLED. Best part -- 'Bam isn't primarily responsible for this. Bernanke and his QE debased Dollar and prior to that Greenspan's easy money policy are)
I have a searching criticism of this that I need to think about. If gas prices moderated and stabalized during the Greenspan era, how would his debasement be to blame? I remember during the late 90's oil crash filling up my car for about 12 bucks (gas was a ridiculous .79/gal).
Posted by: RichatUF | February 14, 2012 at 05:16 PM
I've heard that claim before, but is there any truth to it? How would he have done that?
Technically true, but intelectually false, as the funding for the wars was done with suplimental spending bills specificly to cover the cost.
So they paid for and included in each year's total spending numbers. This is the way wars should be paid for, as war is a temporary condition, otherwise the increase in Pentagon spending would have become part of the permenant budget baseline. Obama played this game with his first budget, where he included the cost of the second year of the Iraq surge in his actual budget, then claimed huge budget cuts in the future by not funding the surge in following years (after it had ended).
Posted by: Ranger | February 14, 2012 at 05:17 PM
JiB:
"can the Church file an amicus brief for the ObamaCare opponents with the SCOTUS? If this doesn't get overturned, the whole stinking mess, then as I understand Clarice's point, the Church will have to wait until the regulations are "ripe" which is actually 2 years off for that, right?"
There is no right to file an amicus brief; that is completely up to the discretion of SCOTUS as to whether they will allow it.
These issues may be so different than those before the Ct (and I'd have to and won't review all the filings to see if there is enough communality with one of the cases where the Ct granted cert) that it would reject the effort.
Similarly I'd have to review the exact text of the regs to see if there's some way for the Bishops and others to argue that the regulations have an immediate affect or require immediate action that would get around the ripeness problem. Off hand I seem to remember the churches must file something now in order to get the extension.
In short order we should find out what counsel who gets paid big bucks to do this boring work comes up with.
Posted by: Clarice | February 14, 2012 at 05:27 PM
"Clarice, a great video of the '47 blizzard in Brats&Beer Town."
Hell, I thought it was the view out my front door.
Posted by: daddy | February 14, 2012 at 05:37 PM
Technically true, but intelectually false, as the funding for the wars was done with suplimental spending bills specificly to cover the cost.
Thanks for the clarifications, Ranger and Rich. I knew that once, but the old memory ain't what it was.
So, contrary to the AP's insinuation, Bush was actually doing the opposite of Obama, and being more honest by not adding the war spending to the baseline. Chalk up another black mark for the MSM.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 14, 2012 at 05:37 PM
President George W. Bush kept the cost of the wars out of his budgets.
I was going to quote from an email I sent a leftist friend about that talking point, but it turns out I already did.
Posted by: bgates | February 14, 2012 at 05:39 PM
"Bush was actually doing the opposite of Obama, and being more honest by not adding the war spending to the baseline."
Yeah, that's it.........hoo boy
Posted by: Ben Franklin | February 14, 2012 at 05:39 PM
I think this falls under the "what goes around comes around" heading (via Drudge):
Iraqi fighters, arms trickle into war-torn Syria
MOSUL, Iraq - Weapons and Sunni Muslim insurgents are seeping from Iraq into Syria, Iraqi officials and arms dealers say, fueling violence in a country that once sent guns and militants the other way.
Live by the sword as they say...
Posted by: Ranger | February 14, 2012 at 05:40 PM
Link:
Iraqi fighters, arms trickle into war-torn Syria
Sorry about that...
Posted by: Ranger | February 14, 2012 at 05:42 PM
Yes, ratlines often run in both directions;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204062704577220991267017900.html
Posted by: narciso | February 14, 2012 at 05:43 PM
I'm really surprised that genius Andrew Sullivan hasn't argued that the Iraq and Afghan pullout and the Administration's response to the Arab Spring, was a brilliant strategy by Obama to topple the entire Middle East and get them to murder each other.
Posted by: Clarice | February 14, 2012 at 05:47 PM
Excellent flashback, bgates, that might have been the source of my deja vu. You're like Paul Ryan with a sense of humor.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 14, 2012 at 05:47 PM
In light of the title of this thread, it's hard not to be either;
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291039/have-you-heard-about-saudi-journalist-who-faces-potential-death-sentence-under-sharia-
Posted by: narciso | February 14, 2012 at 05:49 PM
bgates,
Thanks for the link to that previous fun 2010 JOM thread. Great work as always Sir.
Reading it jogged my memory and got me wondering how many cars "disenfranchised French youth's" had burned in Paris on New Years Day in 2012.
In 2009 it was 1,147, and in 2010 it was 1,137, but for some reason I hadn't seen any reports for 2011/2012.
Now I know why---France’s Solution To Burning Cars Problem: Snuff The Story
"The ritual torching of cars has become a New Year’s tradition in France...This year? We’ll never know."
...“the French government is determined to stamp out these scenes of anarchy as part of its highly-publicized campaign against crime,” France24 announced. And that’s what they did, to great effect...France’s Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux instituted a news blackout. The number of torched cars will remain a secret."
Voila! No more problem.
"And it works!...not a single word in the press. Problem solved!"
Makes me wonder if they've got a Media Matters branch over there.
Viva La France!
Posted by: daddy | February 14, 2012 at 06:00 PM
RichardUF-- this is a PS to a longer post about Greenspan and gas prices. Coupled with Greenspan's loose money starting in 2002, gas prices also increased because of speculation over Iraq disruptions with the build up to Iraqi Freedom. With the quick end of major combat operations and Iraq oil production returning to international markets, that speculation ended by the end of 2003, but Oil/Barrell continued to rise in Dollar terms. That was a result of the Dollar losing value on along term basis.
Posted by: NK | February 14, 2012 at 06:01 PM
And Ace is being 'that guy' from PCU;
http://minx.cc/?post=326692
Posted by: narciso | February 14, 2012 at 06:02 PM
Well Yergin in the Quest, tracks down the various strains, from the BEND hijinks in
the Nigerian DElta, strife in Caracas, after 2003, and Iraq.
Posted by: narciso | February 14, 2012 at 06:04 PM
"Finance ministers had not received assurances from leaders of Greek political parties on a programme of proposed cuts, Mr Juncker was quoted as saying by Reuters news agency."
It's as if the northern Euros have decided to jettison Greece, but need to finish up preparations....in the meantime, they make soothing noises and profess undying devotion.
Posted by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA | February 14, 2012 at 06:06 PM
Around here the AG is the person who punishes 501(c)(3) 's. They are particularly hard on garden clubs and organizations run by republicans, even if there is nothing political about the entity. I'm sure Eric Holder will be all over the Media Matters thing any minute now.
Posted by: Jane | February 14, 2012 at 06:15 PM
That would be Marvelous Martha, wouldn't it,
Jane.
Posted by: narciso | February 14, 2012 at 06:18 PM
RichardUF-- I somehow fouled up my posting about greenspan and oil prices. Greenspan was Chairman 8/87-1/06/ 1987-2001 he ran a prudent monetary/rate policy. In 2002 (post tech bubble stock crash and 9/11 ) he and the FOMC were alarmed by deflation and liquidity trap. He started referring to the Fed as "printing press" and ZIRP was born. 2003 we started to see Dollar depreciation and commodity/asset increases. The Stock market and Housing prices went up (good) commodities especially Oil (in Dollar Terms) skyrocketed (Bad). QE/QEII really debased the Dollar, and accelerated the fuel/food inflation cycle. But Ben Bernanke keeps saying inflation is "well contained" -- he must walk to work and eat in the Fed's subsidized cafeteria,
Posted by: NK | February 14, 2012 at 06:20 PM
Valentine's Day Quiz:
Queen O' Sheba's measurements?
1) 35 D
2) 1.618 The Divine Proportion
3) 36 C
4) A Fibonacci series.
Answer after the dog walk.
Posted by: daddy | February 14, 2012 at 06:20 PM
Jim, MtnView-- I agree with you. I think the Euro -Weenies have figured out how to bailout their French/German banks when Greece defaults, and they'll shove Greece into the hands of the IMF. Hello Drachma.
Posted by: NK | February 14, 2012 at 06:23 PM
NK-link missing?
1. Greenspan rampped down, then up the FFR sending the yield curve negative at least twice from 2005-2006 (I'll have to check the dates).
2. Iraqi oil production from 1995-2002 (the period of oil-for-food) was an insignificant portion of global total oil production and their is little evidence that the Iraq War contributed to the oil price spike (although this is a favorite Stiglitz "3 Trillion Dollar War" talking point).
3. The dollar strengthened from 2004-2007 against most currencies and it has only been recently (within the last year in so that the bottom fell out against the dollar/yen cross which is crushing Japanese exporters).
Posted by: RichatUF | February 14, 2012 at 06:25 PM
With all the bleep going on right now, CBS decided to open its Evening "News" program with a report on how Obama's approval ratings are up.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | February 14, 2012 at 06:33 PM
LUN is an article about the upcoming Rio+20 summit and a certain get together to plan it.
It checks out with what I know is going on as you might gather from the oblique reference to ed.
Of course if you ever hear my brakes failed, don't believe it. Turns out the Agenda 21 summit was in Rio because it was already an acronym the schemers were using.
The parasites are killing the hosts is not a bad theme.
Posted by: rse | February 14, 2012 at 06:38 PM
E=nε n=1,2,3,4
Posted by: scott | February 14, 2012 at 06:39 PM
Didn't really bother many when they came for the rabbit raisers. A lot of people remember their parents milking cows, but not so many actually do it today. So when the EPA puts the milk producers out of business; oh well, at least they aren't attacking us.
NOW
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/02/its-come-to-this-epa-now-says-building-sandcastles-is-hazardous-to-your-health/
9 chances of of 10,IMO, the Govt employee who retires after years of kicking in your kid's sand castles because the EPA says they are hazardous to your health, will retire at a higher pay grade than the US military member who spent his career fighting in far off lands like Afghanistan to protect America.
Posted by: pagar | February 14, 2012 at 06:43 PM
What if we were to declare Obama to be hazardous to our health?
Posted by: MarkO | February 14, 2012 at 06:49 PM
pagar,
You've never read the Materials Safety Data Sheet that comes with beach sand. I'll see if I can find one -- you'd think that it was going to kill you.
Posted by: DrJ | February 14, 2012 at 06:49 PM
Those sand crabs can be be natural born killers...
Posted by: Gmax | February 14, 2012 at 06:57 PM
--Yeah Matt,
but did you see in the pic who they had playing Queen Of Sheba?
Gina Lollobrigida!--
I always thought she was about the best looking gal in pictures.
Posted by: Ignatz | February 14, 2012 at 07:02 PM
Yup Narcisco, you got that right.
Posted by: Jane | February 14, 2012 at 07:03 PM
From the Acros Sea Sand MSDS:
and laterPosted by: DrJ | February 14, 2012 at 07:03 PM
Richard UF-- In Response
1. Greenspan dis ramp up SHORT TERM rates in 2005 to pop the housing bubble, but he had alread thrown into doubt long term value of the Dollar 2002-2004;
2. I agree, the Iraq production was on the margins, BUT the 2002-2003 run up from $18/Barrell to $32/Barrrell was a risk premium due to uncertainty of war and effect on Gulf production generally;
3. Not against the Euro-- the Dollar deflated 50% against the Euro 2000-2008 - FIFTY PERCENT! that was the long-term depreciation of the Dollar that led to rampant going long on commodities in Dollar value, and started the Gold Bug mania. There was a chance in 2009 to stabilize the Dollar and commodity prices in Dollar terms, alas 'Bam's stimulus! and Bernanke's QE/QEII sealed our fate.
Posted by: NK | February 14, 2012 at 07:07 PM
It's an article of faith on the left that Bush managed to hide the costs of the war from the CBO. Like this "analysis" trying to debunk the famous deficit graph:
:
Of course, if you go to the actual spending figures for 2005, that 110 billion that is supposedly missing shows up nicely in red . . . it's already there.(Because those are actual figures, not budgeted.)
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 14, 2012 at 07:10 PM
It makes a great talking point, however. And when Obama decided to add it into the budget in 2010, except for a little surge action supplemental, he got kudos from the usual suspects:
Which is fine. But then he decided to draw down the war on schedule, and reported it as a budget cut :Because once you add that 100 billion to the budget, when you take it out it looks like savings.Bottom line is that it probably would've been more honest for President Bush to've included it in the budget, and for President Obama to've left it out (because it was part of the long term expected expenditures in the early oughts, and today it's rapidly being phased out). But in either case, it only takes a couple of seconds to check how they're accounting for it.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 14, 2012 at 07:11 PM
Of course, they sampled the group that follow
CBS and the New York Times almost exclusively, so it's a case of GIGO, in my view, before you consider the adults and the lop sided Dem weighting in that poll.
Posted by: narciso | February 14, 2012 at 07:20 PM
The folks at Hunt the SkyDragon, seem to think they have something, I'd say it's mostly gas, note how they can't challenge
the science;
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-exposed-internal-documents-unmask-heart-climate-denial-machine
Posted by: narciso | February 14, 2012 at 07:26 PM
And people say, he doesn't keep his promises, well only certain ones;
http://freebeacon.com/nuking-our-nukes/
Posted by: narciso | February 14, 2012 at 07:30 PM
listening to NPR on the way from a meeting this afternoon was a painful experience. First we had that noted intellectual Barbara Boxer mocking the Republicans for attaching limits on contraception in the transportation bill by insisting that Highway Patrolmen might have pull violators over.
Then we got an earful about Obama's great victory on the payroll tax holiday/Republican fold and how the economy is getting better and Obama's chances are looking so much better and his approval rate is 50% and rising.
The cheerleading never stops.
Posted by: matt | February 14, 2012 at 07:41 PM
"I always thought she was about the best looking gal in pictures."
Lollo was a serious photographer, also.
Posted by: Frau Waffenschein | February 14, 2012 at 07:41 PM
I think this qualifies as the Protocols of the Elders of Brigham Young,
http://harpers.org/archive/2011/10/0083637
It's the sort of 'retromingent' analysis, typical of the publication that gave us Laphamization
Posted by: narciso | February 14, 2012 at 07:43 PM
I am always encouraged to read the optimistic posts taking it for granted that Obama is toast. But I would think that if that were so, at least one of his potential challengers would be polling ahead of him. None is. None is within five points of him.
His RCP average is now in positive territory, with very close to 50% approval. I just don't see the signs that point to his losing.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 14, 2012 at 07:46 PM
Bill Donohoe head of the Catholic League was on Lou Dobbs a bit of ago and he was breathing fire. He was crowing about a poll that showed Catholics support for the adminstration had dropped to 39% and was falling he claimed. He said that the preaching from the pulpit on the issue would continue.
They are going to write books about this idiotic decision of Zero. Its going to get him beat and a lot of his buddies too.
Posted by: Gmax | February 14, 2012 at 07:49 PM
Yes, this always happens at the beginning of the year, then some circumstance, Fukushima,
the wonderful Arab Spring induced gasoline
bottleneck brings it back to Earth,
Posted by: narciso | February 14, 2012 at 07:49 PM
Matt
NPR? For what purpose ? unintentional humor?
Posted by: Gmax | February 14, 2012 at 07:52 PM
LUN Lollo's 50 years work beyond what she did with the gifts Mother Nature gave her.
Posted by: Frau Waffenschein | February 14, 2012 at 07:52 PM
Gmax, I wish I could believe that the muddle will remember anything about this when the walking around money and projects start flowing.
Posted by: Frau Waffenschein | February 14, 2012 at 07:54 PM
Frau
Its simple. 52% at the peak, you only have to see 3% erosion. Its 6 to 8% right now.
Polling 101 :
You can not poll head to head until the head to head is determined.
Go search for a Jay Cost article which explains that incumbents always underperform their approval ratings, sometimes a little but sometimes a lot.
8.3% unemployment and $4 gasoline. He is toast despite the gloom and doomers.
Get out your wallet, and get out and volunteer and fight for real permanent change.
Posted by: Gmax | February 14, 2012 at 08:00 PM
daddy - LUN # 2 with actual photographs.
Posted by: Frau Fotoalbum | February 14, 2012 at 08:00 PM
Using my best Maxwell Smart voice,
"Would you believe #3?"
Posted by: Frau Fotoalbum | February 14, 2012 at 08:02 PM
I would also argue that a big part of Obama's higher approval numbers relate to how high the market is right now. I don't see how WS continues to resist gravity once the full impact of current trends hits.
Posted by: Ranger | February 14, 2012 at 08:07 PM
Danube and Frau:
Please don't be discouraged. Remember it is the MSM and NPR's job and mission to even lie to make Obummer look good. These polls are flawed just like the unemployment numbers. Axelrod has gotten a sneak peek at Obama's numbers{ Real ones} and is petrified that Obammy is going to lose the following states Ohio, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Indiana Virginia and yes dare I say it Pennsylvania. This surge by Santorum and not ringer Gingrich has them terrified. They will lie, cheat and steal to portray him as a winner.Obama is going to lose big time and this religious freedonm issue is the icing on the cake.
Posted by: maryrose | February 14, 2012 at 08:09 PM
I never thought Gina held a candle to Sophia as far as Italian beauties go.
And Ingrid is the most beautiful of all time. IIRC Katharine right behind. Then Elizabeth - but she doesn't have the intelligence of the first two.
I have conventional tastes, 'tis true. For underrated hotties - I go with Deborah Kerr and Gene Tierney.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 14, 2012 at 08:13 PM
And Wisconsin, and Iowa and Colorado and Nevada and maybe New Mexico and Oregon.
Hide and watch.
Think of it this way, you can work to make it happen and feel like you left something of worth to your offspring, or you can set in dark and curse the darkness.
Posted by: Gmax | February 14, 2012 at 08:20 PM
--And Ingrid is the most beautiful of all time. IIRC Katharine right behind.--
Funny how different tastes can run. They both left me pretty cold.
As far as underrated I'd have to put Joan Fontaine at the top.
About a tie at the top with Gina I'd put Greer Garson.
Sophia always struck me as a wonderful present were she to find her way into ones sleeping quarters and strikingly gorgeous, but in a pretty unconventional way.
Posted by: Ignatz | February 14, 2012 at 08:32 PM
I vote with Porch. Ingrid, then Katherine, then Elizabeth, then Audrey.
All the men I ever dated though adored Jean Simmons.
Posted by: Clarice | February 14, 2012 at 08:33 PM
The real Barack Obama, claws and all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUkbuhXzbvI
Posted by: Pops | February 14, 2012 at 08:35 PM
Axelrod has gotten a sneak peek at Obama's numbers{ Real ones} and is petrified that Obammy is going to lose the following states Ohio, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Indiana Virginia and yes dare I say it Pennsylvania.
I agree, maryrose, all but MI and PA in this list are certain and they are both within reach.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 14, 2012 at 08:35 PM
I love Joan Fontain, Ignatz. I shouldn't have forgotten her. Rebecca is my all-time favorite movie since I first saw it at age 11.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 14, 2012 at 08:36 PM
Fontaine not Fontain. I don't know what's wrong with me. Must be the cabernet.
Joan's sister was pretty good looking, too, in her day. And Merle Oberon. And Ginger Rogers. I could go on and on...
Posted by: Porchlight | February 14, 2012 at 08:38 PM
My dad loved Jeanne Crain and her role in My Little Margie is a classic. As for me Liz, Bette Davis{for acting} Ingrid,Dorothy McGuire,Lauren Bacall, Jean Simmons, Scarlett OHara I'm brain-freezed on her real name , oh yeah Vivan Leigh.
Posted by: maryrose | February 14, 2012 at 08:43 PM
Susan Hayworth. (My mom looked like her in her younger days)..Oh, yes, Lauren Bacall ...Hedy Lamarr was beautiful and brilliant. Leslie Caron was adorable..Doris day was so wholesome looking ..
Posted by: Clarice | February 14, 2012 at 08:49 PM
Jeanne Crain was so cute in State Fair. I forgot Davis, Bacall, Simmons, and Leigh. Donna Reed, too.
These modern actresses are nothing. Scarlett Johansen? Give me a break. They need $20K worth of styling before they can look half decent for a photo shoot.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 14, 2012 at 08:49 PM
"I just don't see the signs that point to his losing."
You're not looking in the right place.
He's ahead of GHWB, tied with Ford, below Carter and Gallup should be using LBJ's '68 percentage of 41% rather than the '64 percentage of 76%. That would put him in the middle of the loser/quitter group.
Toast.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 14, 2012 at 08:52 PM
Vivan Leigh and Hedy Lamarr were gorgeous women. Hedy's German nude scene as a teenager made tongues wag. She was also quite a brilliant inventor having a 1942 patent for technology which is the basis for cordless and wireless telephones and bluetooth.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet | February 14, 2012 at 08:55 PM
I think Joan Fontaine's sister was Olivia de Havilland. They hated each other after Joan won an Oscar before Olivia did.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet | February 14, 2012 at 08:58 PM
Gmax, if the Cost article is the one I'm thinking of, it concerned only house races, and only in off-year elections. I believe it's true that no incumbent president with an approval rating over 47% has ever failed to be re-elected.
I am most eager to be shown wrong on either or both of these points, and would appreciate it if someone would come up with something to the contrary.
I'd also be interested to see support for the idea that head-to-head means nothing until the challenger has been identified. I believe the Reagan experience in 1980 is consistent with that premise, but am unsure of any other instances. Dole '96? Kerry '04?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 14, 2012 at 08:58 PM
Had I refreshed, I would have seen Clarice's comment. I didn't copy, honest. Holster those pistols.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet | February 14, 2012 at 09:00 PM
Liz Cheney, who I love is sitting in for Hannity.
Posted by: Jane | February 14, 2012 at 09:00 PM
Leslie Caron...if anyone gets a chance to see a film called The L-Shaped Room, do. Jean Arthur, Veronica Lake, Eve Arden, Lucille Ball, Lee Remick...heck, getting into the modern era, Ellen Burstyn and Diane Ladd are both aces.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 14, 2012 at 09:02 PM
The old studio heads sure picked women who had beautiful faces to go with beautiful bodies, didn't they..None of this cookie cutter stuff. Look at Cameron Diaz or Julia Roberts. without all that makeup and styling do you think their faces are something special? I don't.
Streep is a fabulous actress but she's nothing special to look at.
Hally Berry is a knockout which reminds me of the gorgeous black actresses of yore like Dorothy Dandridge,
Posted by: Clarice | February 14, 2012 at 09:04 PM
Lena Horne and I'm outta here.
Posted by: Clarice | February 14, 2012 at 09:10 PM
I have fallen way behind now that tax season is underway, but I agree with all of your beautiful actresses of yesteryear. I agree, too, with Clarice about all the make-up and styling tricks utilized today, alas.
Jane, honey, ain't it great to have Liz Cheney sitting in for Sean Hannity! Woo Hoo!
Posted by: centralcal | February 14, 2012 at 09:13 PM
Dont guess DOT, go look it up. Real Clear Politics archives all of Cost's very wise missives.
Posted by: Gmax | February 14, 2012 at 09:17 PM
I think Joan Fontaine's sister was Olivia de Havilland.
And, much to my surprise, both still alive in their mid-90s. And I found this interesting about Olivia: She was a politically active liberal, but anti-Communist, and
Posted by: jimmyk | February 14, 2012 at 09:20 PM
Two words. Grace. Kelly.
Posted by: Caro | February 14, 2012 at 09:22 PM
I've always thought Julia Roberts was borderline homely, in addition to being sensationally dumb.
When I was a little kid I was nuts about Veronica Lake, with the blonde hair always obscuring one eye. Lana Turner...Rita Hayworth...Susan Hayward...
Back in the early 60's my brother danced with Rita Hayworth in the Subic Bay Officers Club. I am consumed with jealousy to this day.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 14, 2012 at 09:22 PM
[sorry, that quote was from Wiki]
Posted by: jimmyk | February 14, 2012 at 09:22 PM
Good for Olivia, jimmyk. That era in history is forever confused in the popular mind, I'm afraid, but it's encouraging that players at the time recognized the stakes.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 14, 2012 at 09:24 PM
They made 'em tough back then, jimmy. They both have to be around 90.
I remember seeing The Wake of the Red Witch when I was about seven or eight. I thought Gail Russell was the most beautiful creature I had ever seen. Sadly, she died in her thirties from alcoholism. Nonetheless her pictures make it pretty clear I had good taste as a youngster.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet | February 14, 2012 at 09:31 PM
Bingo, Caro.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet | February 14, 2012 at 09:31 PM
Rita Hayworth had it all - looks, talent, smarts. Lana Turner wasn't too bright, but she could act. Imitation of Life is a fantastic film.
I love Jane Wyman's face, too. Like a Persian cat.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 14, 2012 at 09:31 PM
Ava Gardner was also quite beautiful.
Posted by: Barbara | February 14, 2012 at 09:36 PM
--I've always thought Julia Roberts was borderline homely, in addition to being sensationally dumb.--
I've always figured Eric Roberts had a happy childhood with his brother Julian, until Julian figured out he'd have quite an acting career with the addition of a big red wig and some estrogen treatments.
Posted by: Ignatz | February 14, 2012 at 09:36 PM
DOT:
Veronica Lake's daughter dated one of my fraternity brothers (or vice versa) in the late 50s. She had a walkup apt in the Village and threw a party one Saturday. A bunch of us were invited and spent two days and nights at her apartment. Adult beverages were consumed, but thankfully, it was before pot was in style. Veronica was not present. We thought she was old but she was only 38. She was 19 when her daughter was born. She died when she was 51. Her mom, who died at 90 said Veronica was diagnosed a Schizophrenic when she was in her early teens.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet | February 14, 2012 at 09:44 PM
Well it turns out the article I was thinking of was not a RCP article but one that ran in the Weekly Standard. So here is the link:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-fundamentals-do-not-favor-obamas-reelection_577621.html
Posted by: Gmax | February 14, 2012 at 09:45 PM
Ava was a "tough broad" and damn near did in the Chairman of the Board. Rita started as a dancer with her father's dance troupe. Sadly, she died of Alzheimer's disease when she was quite young.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet | February 14, 2012 at 09:47 PM
My favorite Old School actress?
Greer Garson.
Hands down.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | February 14, 2012 at 09:53 PM
This Deroy Murdock classic on the febrile imbecile Holder was probably already linked and I just missed it. A classic.
Posted by: Ignatz | February 14, 2012 at 09:54 PM
--My favorite Old School actress?
Greer Garson.
Hands down.--
Ditto.
Posted by: Ignatz | February 14, 2012 at 09:55 PM
I vote with Porch. Ingrid, then Katherine, then Elizabeth, then Audrey.
Which Katherine?
Greer Garson? Yes, she was lovely but, gosh, we're getting to sound a little bit elderly here.
I've always thought Julia Roberts was borderline homely,
Probably. But homely is sometimes beautiful, in its own way. I recall when Time magazine (IIRC) did a cover story on Sophia Loren and began it with something like: "Her forehead is too low, her nose is too long, her mouth is too big and Mama Mia! is she gorgeous!
Posted by: (Another) Barbara | February 14, 2012 at 10:07 PM
Gmax, thanks for the link to the Cost article. Note that it was based on the numbers from seven months ago, and the changes in the circumstances since then all seem to have favored Obama.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 14, 2012 at 10:13 PM
This thread doesn't really work without illustrations, I can't say I disagree with any of the choices, like the last;
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1797828608/nm0002093
Posted by: narciso | February 14, 2012 at 10:15 PM
(A)B-
I believe the theme was favorites, with no time line limits.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | February 14, 2012 at 10:17 PM
I couldn't find anything in the Cost article suggesting that incumbent presidents always underperform their approval numbers.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 14, 2012 at 10:20 PM
believe the theme was favorites, with no time line limits
Yes, I understood, of course. And maybe Netflix, which I've never used, has changed everything. I just thought that youngsters like the JOMers I've met, would be too young to recall Greer Garson movies.
The first movie I recall seeing -- taken to it by my parents -- was The Bridge of San Luis Rey. Just looked it up and saw it was released in 1944, when my age was still expressed in a single digit. It affected me for years and, to this day, I don't like to walk across a bridge.
Posted by: (Another) Barbara | February 14, 2012 at 10:35 PM
DoT,
Per Gallup, Nixon outperformed his February percentage in '72, Ford did in '76 (by 1% and still lost) and Reagan did in '84. The Democrat losers did not. It's as good an example of Gallup loading the dice for Dems as anything I've seen but under performance against February percentages is the rule rather than the exception.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 14, 2012 at 10:39 PM