From Autoweek:

Official claims Fisker Karma to blame in Texas house fire

By: David Arnouts
May 9, 2012

Last week, a fire badly damaged the home of a new Fisker Karma owner, and authorities are saying that the electric car was the source of the blaze.

According to Fort Bend County, Texas, chief fire investigator Robert Baker, the Fisker Karma started the fire that spread to the house. “Yes, the Karma was the origin of the fire, but what exactly caused that we don’t know at this time,” he said. The car was a complete loss.

According to Baker, the driver arrived home in the Fisker, pulled into the garage, and less than three minutes later the car was in flames. It reportedly was not plugged in at the time of the fire and the Karma’s battery remains intact.

Right before the fire, the owner reported a smell of burning rubber. “The car was brand-new,” said Baker. “He still had paper tags on it, so it was 60 days old at [most].” According to Baker, the Karma was a post-recall vehicle bought in April.

There was substantial damage to the garage, which then spread to the second floor. No injures were attributed to incident. The house was new, but the owner had already moved in.

Baker estimated damages at roughly $100,000, not including the other two vehicles in the garage, a Mercedes-Benz SUV and an Acura NSX.

“This looks just like golf cart fires we have down here,” said Baker. The suburban Houston area has approximately 50 golf cart fires a year, he said.

That is one expensive golf cart, given that new Fisker Karmas cost over $107,000 dollars.

“I’ve worked homicide scenes with less secrecy,” Baker added. “There have to be about 15 engineers down here working on this one.”

Why all the secrecy from Fisker?

While Baker seems certain of his conclusions, the incident is the subject of an ongoing investigation, and an official report is expected in the near future.

When reached for comment, Fisker had this to say:

Last week, Fisker Automotive was made aware of a garage fire involving three vehicles, including a Karma sedan, that were parked at a newly-constructed residence in Sugar Land, Texas. There were no injuries.

There are conflicting reports and uncertainty surrounding this particular incident. The cause of the fire is not yet known and is being investigated.

We have not yet seen any written report form the Fort Bend fire department and believe that their investigation is continuing. As of now, multiple insurance investigators are involved, and we have not ruled out possible fraud or malicious intent. We are aware that fireworks were found in the garage in or around the vehicles. Also, an electrical panel located in the garage next to the vehicles is also being examined by the investigators as well as fire department officials. Based on initial observations and inspections, the Karma’s lithium ion battery pack was not being charged at the time and is still intact and does not appear to have been a contributing factor in this incident.

Fisker will continue to participate fully in the investigation but will not be commenting further until all the facts are established.

Update — Editor’s note: Autoweek received the following statement from the attorneys representing the Fisker Karma owner, Jeremy Gutierrez. The statement is reproduced below:

Houston, Texas, May 9, 2012 – On the afternoon of May 2, 2012, Mr. Jeremy Gutierrez’s brand new Fisker Karma hybrid electric vehicle caught fire while parked in his garage, setting fire to his home while his wife, mother, and child were inside. Thanks to the fast action of Mr. Gutierrez, he was able to evacuate his family from the home moments before portions of the house were engulfed in flames, including his child’s bedroom.

The Fort Bend County Fire Department immediately responded to the scene and as able to contain and extinguish the fire before total destruction of the Gutierrez’s family home. The fire department recently completed their investigation and determined the origin of the fire was, in fact, Gutierrez’s newly purchased Fisker Karma hybrid electric vehicle that he just took possession of two weeks earlier. Chief Investigator for the Fort Bend County Fire Marshal’s Office Robert N. Baker has concluded that the fire was accidental in nature.

Since the date of this incident, Mr. Gutierrez has been fully cooperative with public safety officials, as well as insurance adjusters and the vehicle manufacturer’s investigators. In fact, Mr. Gutierrez fully accommodated the precise and somewhat peculiar demands of Fisker Automotive, who sent their self-proclaimed “SWAT Team” of engineers and inspectors (that included their own forensic cause and origin investigator) to the Gutierrez home within 24 hours of the fire. They descended upon the Gutierrez home in alarming numbers and immediately demanded a 24-hour lock-down of his home, including the remains of the Fisker Karma vehicle. They also cordoned off portions of the Gutierrez home with non-transparent tarps to block the view from the public. Fisker even had access to eyewitnesses, who were interviewed by Fisker investigators and those investigators were shown video footage of the Fisker vehicle on fire before and other part of the garage. Mr. Gutierrez accommodated every request with the hope of have a full, fair and open inquiry into the cause of the Fisker vehicle fire that set his house ablaze and endangered his family.

Despite the fact public safety and law enforcement officials have determined Mr. Gutierrez’s home and vehicles are not a crime scene, Fisker Automotive released a public statement on May 8, 2012 implying fraud or malicious intent were open questions. The family is stunned by this implication. The Gutierrez family has afforded every accommodation to Fisker and access to all evidence that public safety and law enforcement official examined. Fisker’s statement is a grave disappointment, especially in light of the damages the family suffered and continues to suffer.

The Gutierrez family has suffered enough. They are temporarily displaced from their home, and have lost three vehicles. They value their privacy and wish to have this investigation completed immediately so they can return to their home…

All of which would seem to be bad public relations.

This piece from the Washington Post is an updated version of an article originally published two days before Obama’s historic announcement. The original Post article seems to have been scrubbed from the internet:

The Influence Industry: Same-sex marriage issue shows importance of gay fundraisers

By Dan Eggen, The Washington Post
Published: May 9, 2012

President Obama’s announcement Wednesday that he supports same-sex marriage highlights the importance of the gay community to his re-election effort, which could get a boost in donations as a result.

Many of Obama’s key financial supporters are gay–including finance director Rufus Gifford and Democratic National Committee treasurer Andrew Tobias–and the campaign has regularly held fundraisers focused on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender donors.

A review of Obama’s top bundlers, who have brought in $500,000 or more for the campaign, shows that about one in six publicly identify themselves as gay…

And that number is just those who have publically identified themselves as gay.

Some liberal gay donors had threatened to withhold contributions over Obama’s stance on gay marriage as well as his administration’s decision to shelve an executive order banning sexual-identity discrimination by federal contractors…

Which is why we have had Mr. Obama’s ‘gutsy call.’

Chad Griffin, the incoming president of the Human Rights Campaign, which has at times criticized Obama’s stance on gay issues, has raised between $100,00 to $200,000 for the president’s re-election campaign.

Griffin was the person who asked Biden at a recent closed meeting with gay activists, “How do you feel about us?” Biden recounted the question, and his emotional answer supportive of gay marriage, during his interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Griffin said in an interview with the Washington Post earlier this week that he had repeatedly pressed Obama in private to support marriage equality….

What a coincidence!

Here is more from the Washington Free Beacon:

Gay for Pay

May 9, 2012

President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage less than 48 hours after the Washington Post reported that prominent political donors were threatening to withhold donations over the president’s position on gay rights.

“[A]t 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 ABC News in an interview.

For once Mr. Obama seems to have been telling the actual truth.

Left-wing blogger Greg Sargent reported on Monday that “leading gay and progressive donors” were angry with Obama over his increasingly convoluted position on gay rights and same-sex marriage, and were refusing to donate any more money to Priorities USA, the pro-Obama Super PAC.

Sargent cited Paul Yandura, a political adviser to prominent Democratic donor Jonathan Lewis, who emailed that: "A number of gay and progressive donors, unsolicited, have indicated to us that they aren’t considering requests to donate to the Obama SuperPac because of the president’s refusal to the sign the order. And those are high-dollar asks, some in the seven digits. We have heard from at least half a dozen major gay and progressive donors that they stand united with us." …

UPDATE: The liberal Talking Points Memo reports that one Obama bundler, Jon Cooper, said the president’s announcement will make fundraising for the re-election campaign “immeasurably easier.”

So basically we are being told that Obama was blackmailed into making his pronouncement. Isn’t that wonderful?

How else will Mr. Obama’s views ‘evolve’ because he is threatened by his donors?

From the Politico:

Barack Obama’s seven states of grief over gay marriage

By: Charles Mahtesian
May 10, 2012

If there’s been one constant over the course of President Barack Obama’s evolution on gay marriage, it’s this: The White House’s keen awareness of the radioactive politics of the issue.

Naturally, the moral rightness or wrongness of Obama’s championing of ‘gay marriage’ doesn’t matter one whit to our one media guardians. All that matters is how his announcement might hurt his re-election prospects.

But Obama was still willing to make this ‘gutsy call.’ In fact, we will probably be celebrating this ‘gutsy call’ along with his ‘gutsy call’ to kill Bin Laden for centuries to come. Maybe we should just designate the month of May as ‘Gutsy Call’ month.

Obama aides fretted that delay would dent his new-breed brand, and likewise that plunging in could weigh him down in battleground states.

What a tough decision. Still, how many times have Obama been re-branded now? His skin must be awfully sore.

They even hatched a plan to announce his support just prior to the Democratic National Convention — a characteristically all-in-good-time solution that acknowledged the minefield he was walking through.

Other reports quote anonymous Obama staffers as saying that they had planned to make this announcement after the elections. Which sounds a lot more like Obama.

And the White House is right to be concerned…

Here are seven states where Obama just bought himself headaches with his historic decision to back gay marriage…

North Carolina — North Carolina is no ordinary state. In 2012, it occupies a central location in the political universe — it’s not only a key swing state, it’s the place that will host the Democratic National Convention this summer….

Redneck hicks.

Florida — One day, gay marriage might be enshrined in law across the map. But it won’t be until after the current generation of senior citizens passes away…

Crazy old white people.

Colorado — The new capital of evangelicalism? No, it’s not in the South. It’s Colorado Springs, according to Christianity Today magazine…

Holy rollers.

Nevada — Utah may be the LDS heartland but Nevada ranks among the top five states in terms of percentage of Mormon population…

Crazy Mormon cultists.

Iowa — In 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court made history with its unanimous decision to allow same-sex marriage. One year later, Iowa voters made history again by ousting three of the justices who handed down that ruling…

Reactionary hayseeds.

Missouri — [A] state where Obama’s strength in St. Louis, Kansas City and some surrounding suburbs is counterbalanced by the parts of the state that sit squarely in the Bible Belt…

More holy rollers.

Ohio — In 2004, here’s how state GOP Chairman Robert Bennett framed it to The New York Times. “I’d be naive if I didn’t say it helped,” he said. “And it helped most in what we refer to as the Bible Belt area of southeastern and southwestern Ohio, where we had the largest percentage increase in support for the president.” …

And still more holy rollers.

But those are the only kind of people who could possibly oppose gay marriage. After all, there is no other earthly reason for anyone to oppose gay marriage unless you are a hick or a religious whackjob.

After all, it is wildly popular in the polls.

From the relentless gay militants at the New York Times:

Support for Gay Marriage Outweighs Opposition in Polls

By NATE SILVER
May 9, 2012

President Obama’s decision to endorse same-sex marriage undoubtedly entails some political risk, but recent polls suggest that public opinion is increasingly on his side.

According to surveys included in the PollingReport.com database, an average of 50 percent of American adults support same-sex marriage rights while 45 percent oppose it, based on an average of nine surveys conducted in the past year.

This is a reversal from earlier periods: support for same-sex marriage has been increasing, and opposition to it has been decreasing, at a relatively steady rate of perhaps two or three percentage points a year since 2004…

Which is why that whenever the issue is on the ballot it has lost, in 32 out of 32 referendums. And, never mind that while gay marriage was voted down in California in 2008 by an 8% margin, it was just voted down In North Carolina by a 22% margin. Which would seem to indicate movement in the other direction.

But even if these claims are true and polls show more people favor gay marriage now than they used to, so what? We do not make our policy based on polls. We make them on elections. Or, at least, we used to.

And, after all, polls show more people now are anti-abortion than pro abortion. So does The Times think we should overturn Roe v. Wade? In fact, the polls say most people overwhelmingly oppose Obama-Care and all of Obama’s policies.

Besides, as we have suggested before, polls can be misleading since people do lie to pollsters. In fact, it is not at all farfetched to believe that more and more people are lying to pollsters today because they are afraid of being seen as bigoted.

In fact, some might even fear being prosecuted for a thought crime given the daily onslaught of propaganda that we get every day from the news media and the rest of the Democrat Party.

Still, even if polls have sometimes overstated support for same-sex marriage, and if some of the Americans who support same-sex marriage are less likely to turn out to vote than those who oppose it, the issue now seems to have a bit of wiggle room, with supporters slightly outnumbering opponents in recent national surveys…

In other words, even this pollster admits that polls overstate the support for gay marriage.

But even if it is true that polls show that more people favor gay marriage now than they used to, so what? We do not make our policy based on polls. We make them on elections. Or, at least, we used to.

But this is the kind of article you get when your newspaper stops reporting the news and takes up militant advocacy for a cause.

In fact, here are the top political news stories of the day as listed by the RSS feeds from today’s New York Times:

1. News Analysis: Obama’s Watershed Move on Gay Marriage — Same-sex marriage is still a controversial issue, but one on which views are changing rapidly, polls show, a point that President Obama clearly came to recognize.

2. Obama Says Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal — By publicly endorsing same-sex marriage in a television interview, the president took a definitive stand on one of the most contentious and politically charged social issues of the day.

3. Romney Reaffirms Opposition to Marriage, or Unions, for Gay Couples — The question of precisely what legal status and protections should be granted to gay couples is emerging as an issue of the sharpest possible contrast between the two presidential candidates.

5. Civil Union Bill May Be Revived in Colorado — A call for a special legislative session by Gov. John W. Hickenlooper could revive a bill that would have allowed civil unions for same-sex couples in Colorado.

And there’s still more:

22. The Caucus: Romney Draws Contrast, but Does Not Hammer Obama on Gay Marriage — Mitt Romney responded to President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage by drawing a contrast with his own oft-repeated view that "marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman."

23. The Caucus: What Romney Has Said About Same-Sex Marriage — In endorsing same-sex marriage, President Obama has offered voters the sharpest possible contrast with Mitt Romney on a social issue that polls show still evenly divides the country

24. FiveThirtyEight: Support for Gay Marriage Outweighs Opposition in Polls — President Obama’s decision to endorse same-sex marriage undoubtedly entails some political risk, but recent polls suggest that public opinion is increasingly on his side.

That list is just from today. But it is by no means unusual.

In fact, a search of the New York Times website for the phrase "gay marriage" reveals they have published 9 stories on "gay marriage" in in past 24 hours. 53 in the past 7 days. 67 in the past 30 days. 123 in the last 90 days. 420 in the last 12 months. And in the 12 years since the term ‘gay’ has been allowed to appear in the paper, there have been 2,905 articles containing the phrase "gay marriage."

Apparently, the New York Times has gone from being the ‘Old Gray Lady’ to being the ‘Old Gay Lady.’ And the news or even the fact be damned.

From a dejected New York Times:

North Carolina Voters Pass Same-Sex Marriage Ban

By CAMPBELL ROBERTSON
May 8, 2012

As expected, North Carolinians voted in large numbers on Tuesday for an amendment that would ban same-sex marriages, partnerships and civil unions, becoming the 30th state in the country and the last in the South to include a prohibition on gay marriage in the state constitution.

"As expected"? You would never know that from the relentlessly optimistic coverage the upcoming vote got from the gay rights advocates at the New York Times over the last couple of months.

We haven’t checked, but this is probably the first time The Times has even admitted that same sex marriage has been voted down everywhere it has appeared on the ballot. In fact, it has now been voted down in 32 our of 32 chances, including even in enlightened (that is, non-southern) California.

About half a million people voted early, a record for a primary in the state, and turnout on Tuesday was unusually high as well. The amendment, which passed by a margin of more than 20 percentage points, was on the ballot along with other party primary races, some of which were closely contested…

In fact, it was voted down by 22%, but who’s counting? And even this is number is probably lower than the usual landslide after the effort The Times and the rest of the gay rights activists put into stuffing the ballot boxes in North Carolina.

North Carolina, a religious but also relatively moderate state on social issues, already has a law banning same-sex marriage. But Republican lawmakers pushed an amendment out of concern that the law was in danger of being struck down by judges.

How silly of them. But even it making this a constitutional amendment probably won’t stop a determined liberal judge. Just ask California, where a homosexual judge declared the constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional.

While public opinion is shifting rapidly across the country and same-sex marriage continues to achieve legal recognition state by state, polls in North Carolina before the vote showed a narrowing but comfortable margin for passage…

"A narrowing but comfortable margin for passage"? What a peculiar way of putting things.

In other words, The Times is continuing their big lie that same sex marriage is actually wildly popular even in the face of 32 out of 32 referendum defeats,. They really are shameless.

But then again, they are full time homosexual militants first, and journalists a distant second.

From the Politico:

Lugar unloads on ‘unrelenting’ partisanship

By MIKE ZAPLER | 5/9/12

Sen. Richard Lugar, in a remarkable 1,425-word statement after his crushing loss in the Indiana Senate primary Tuesday night, unloaded on what he called "unrelenting" partisanship in Congress and explained how he knew much earlier than the pundits that he was in trouble.

If you had any question about how the six-term senator really feels about the state of politics and governance, you won’t after reading this:

[From Mr. Lugar:] "I would like to comment on the Senate race just concluded and the direction of American politics and the Republican Party. I would reiterate from my earlier statement that I have no regrets about choosing to run for office. My health is excellent, I believe that I have been a very effective Senator for Hoosiers and for the country, and I know that the next six years would have been a time of great achievement. Further, I believed that vital national priorities, including job creation, deficit reduction, energy security, agriculture reform, and the Nunn-Lugar program, would benefit from my continued service as a Senator. These goals were worth the risk of an electoral defeat and the costs of a hard campaign.

Analysts will speculate about whether our campaign strategies were wise. Much of this will be based on conjecture by pundits who don’t fully appreciate the choices we had to make based on resource limits, polling data, and other factors. They also will speculate whether we were guilty of overconfidence.

The truth is that the headwinds in this race were abundantly apparent long before Richard Mourdock announced his candidacy. One does not highlight such headwinds publically when one is waging a campaign. But I knew that I would face an extremely strong anti-incumbent mood following a recession. I knew that my work with then-Senator Barack Obama would be used against me, even if our relationship were overhyped. I also knew from the races in 2010 that I was a likely target of Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and other Super Pacs dedicated to defeating at least one Republican as a purification exercise to enhance their influence over other Republican legislators.

We undertook this campaign soberly and we worked very hard in 2010, 2011, and 2012 to overcome these challenges. There never was a moment when my campaign took anything for granted. This is why we put so much effort into our get out the vote operations.

Ultimately, the re-election of an incumbent to Congress usually comes down to whether voters agree with the positions the incumbent has taken. I knew that I had cast recent votes that would be unpopular with some Republicans and that would be targeted by outside groups.

These included my votes for the TARP program, for government support of the auto industry, for the START Treaty, and for the confirmations of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. I also advanced several propositions that were considered heretical by some, including the thought that Congressional earmarks saved no money and turned spending power over to unelected bureaucrats and that the country should explore options for immigration reform.

It was apparent that these positions would be attacked in a Republican primary. But I believe that they were the right votes for the country, and I stand by them without regrets, as I have throughout the campaign…

In other words, Mr. Lugar realized that he was going against the wishes of his constituents. The people he is supposed to represent. In fact, he seems to be proud that he opposed them on so many issues.

If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good Senator. But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington. He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate.

In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it.

Mr. Lugar was in the Senate for 35 years. Is the country better off than we were 35 years ago? Maybe we need a little more partisan opposition to the relentless onslaught of Democrat liberalism.

This is not conducive to problem solving and governance. And he will find that unless he modifies his approach, he will achieve little as a legislator. Worse, he will help delay solutions that are totally beyond the capacity of partisan majorities to achieve. The most consequential of these is stabilizing and reversing the Federal debt in an era when millions of baby boomers are retiring. There is little likelihood that either party will be able to impose their favored budget solutions on the other without some degree of compromise.

Again, how have Mr. Lugar’s efforts at compromise reduced the national debt over the last 35 years? They seem to have had the opposite effect.

Unfortunately, we have an increasing number of legislators in both parties who have adopted an unrelenting partisan viewpoint. This shows up in countless vote studies that find diminishing intersections between Democrat and Republican positions. Partisans at both ends of the political spectrum are dominating the political debate in our country. And partisan groups, including outside groups that spent millions against me in this race, are determined to see that this continues. They have worked to make it as difficult as possible for a legislator of either party to hold independent views or engage in constructive compromise. If that attitude prevails in American politics, our government will remain mired in the dysfunction we have witnessed during the last several years. And I believe that if this attitude expands in the Republican Party, we will be relegated to minority status. Parties don’t succeed for long if they stop appealing to voters who may disagree with them on some issues.

And never mind the 2010 mid-term election landslide in which an historic number of Democrat seats became Republican seats across the land. Over 700 elected offices went to the GOP.

Legislators should have an ideological grounding and strong beliefs identifiable to their constituents. I believe I have offered that throughout my career. But ideology cannot be a substitute for a determination to think for yourself, for a willingness to study an issue objectively, and for the fortitude to sometimes disagree with your party or even your constituents. Like Edmund Burke, I believe leaders owe the people they represent their best judgment.

Fortunately, the people also have the right to throw out their elected officials if their "best judgment" turns out to not match their own "best judgment."

Too often bipartisanship is equated with centrism or deal cutting. Bipartisanship is not the opposite of principle. One can be very conservative or very liberal and still have a bipartisan mindset. Such a mindset acknowledges that the other party is also patriotic and may have some good ideas. It acknowledges that national unity is important, and that aggressive partisanship deepens cynicism, sharpens political vendettas, and depletes the national reserve of good will that is critical to our survival in hard times.

Unfortunately, for the last sixty years or so, compromising in Washington has meant going along with the Democrat Party. Even though, according to all of the polls, the Democrat Party represents a minority political view in this country, they are never asked to compromise.

Certainly this was understood by President Reagan, who worked with Democrats frequently and showed flexibility that would be ridiculed today – from assenting to tax increases in the 1983 Social Security fix, to compromising on landmark tax reform legislation in 1986, to advancing arms control agreements in his second term.

Mr. Lugar left out Mr. Reagan’s compromise on amnesty for illegal aliens. All three of these compromises were Mr. Reagan’s worst mistakes.

I don’t remember a time when so many topics have become politically unmentionable in one party or the other. Republicans cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate change.

"Nuance on climate change"? Right there, in four words, is Mr. Lugar’s problem in a nutshell.

Republican members are now expected to take pledges against any tax increases. For two consecutive Presidential nomination cycles, GOP candidates competed with one another to express the most strident anti-immigration view, even at the risk of alienating a huge voting bloc. Similarly, most Democrats are constrained when talking about such issues as entitlement cuts, tort reform, and trade agreements. Our political system is losing its ability to even explore alternatives. If fealty to these pledges continues to expand, legislators may pledge their way into irrelevance. Voters will be electing a slate of inflexible positions rather than a leader.

I hope that as a nation we aspire to more than that. I hope we will demand judgment from our leaders. I continue to believe that Hoosiers value constructive leadership. I would not have run for office if I did not believe that.

As someone who has seen much in the politics of our country and our state, I am able to take the long view. I have not lost my enthusiasm for the role played by the United States Senate. Nor has my belief in conservative principles been diminished. I expect great things from my party and my country. I hope all who participated in this election share in this optimism.

If any Indiana conservatives had any lingering doubts about throwing out Mr. Lugar, his comments here should put them to rest. If he won’t be a conservative in a safe seat like Indiana, than they should find someone who will.

And, hopefully, they have.

From the editors at the New York Times:

Campaigning Beyond Inspiration

May 8, 2012

President Obama could not single-handedly transform American politics. Many of his young 2008 supporters learned that to their disillusionment, and as he begins his re-election campaign, the president himself seems a more somber candidate who learned by trial the limits to inspirational change. In his first formal campaign speech, delivered on Saturday, Mr. Obama’s view of what might happen with a robust use of government power was intertwined with the shadow of a Republican Party that has fought every attempt to use that power.

And never mind that Obama had a veto proof majority in both Houses of Congress for the first two years of his Presidency, and that he still controls the Senate. And never mind that Americans oppose every one of Obama’s policies in overwhelming majorities.

The Times seems to be distraught that Obama does not have full dictatorial powers. Yet.

In fact, the editors of the New York Times are here calling for Obama to tell more and larger lies. This editorial must be part of that new effort we were promised by The Times back in April, to take a harder look at Obama and his record.

“The last few years, the Republicans who run this Congress have insisted that we go right back to the policies that created this mess,” he said, speaking in Columbus, Ohio. “Now their agenda is on steroids.”

There was a tiny echo of 2008 at the conclusion of his remarks when he said he “still believes” the country is not as divided as its politics, that people were Americans before they were Democrats or Republicans. But as Mr. Obama has reason to know, the country is more divided than it was four years ago, the parties and their supporters more polarized, and he will have to be far more persuasive if he hopes to win and then to govern effectively.

The country is more divided and polarized precisely because of Mr. Obama. He has done everything in his power to divide us.

The president riffled through his considerable accomplishments, and was withering in his assessment of Mitt Romney’s plans to let prosperity sprinkle slowly from the hands of the rich onto the heads of everyone else. It is vital for Mr. Obama to make this contrast, to remind voters how far backward Mr. Romney and his party would take the country.

In other words, the New York Times is calling for Obama to ratchet up the class warfare even more.

And Mr. Obama’s general goals are the right ones: more college degrees, better teachers, growth in manufacturing, investments in clean energy and preservation of gains in health care and women’s rights. But it’s not enough to simply tick through dreams that will die in a divided Congress. The public has seen plenty of that. Mr. Obama needs to spend more time persuading dubious and disillusioned voters that he can achieve these goals.

It’s true that he has repeatedly been burned seeking elusive “grand bargains” with Republican leaders who proved unwilling or unable to compromise.

Where has Obama ever compromised? Even once?

But even Democrats say the president has been too aloof in his first term, not bothering to make his case in the Capitol, not interested in the L.B.J.-style flesh-pressing or arm-twisting that can rescue a law out of the mortuary of bills.

The president can let loose a great speech, but without follow-through Congress can be counted on to muck up the details, as he should have learned from the fight over the health care reform law of 2010.

Hilarious. This is a sentence that only a paper as confused as the New York Times could produce. The problem with Obama-Care is not that Congress mucked up the details.

He never made the sale with the public on the law, and the two or three sentences he devoted to it in his speech were insufficient. If not struck down by the Supreme Court, the core of the law will be fully felt in his second term; rather than shy away, it is time to explain to the public in detail what that would mean and why it is important that he be there to fight for it.

Please, Mr. Obama, listen to The New York Times. Explain what Obama-Care is going to do to the country. We can’t wait.

Similarly, the speech lacked any detail of his plans to shore up Medicare while reducing its untenable cost growth.

If he is going to counter the Republican plans to end Medicare’s guarantee to older Americans, he will have to do better than a quick promise to reduce wasteful spending.

Even The Times can’t really believe that Obama has a plan to shore up Medicare. Obama is gutting Medicare, by taking away $500 billion dollars from its budget and destroying Medicare Advantage.

Voters already know that Mr. Obama can lift their hopes with a powerful speech. This time around, they will be seeking far more than inspiration.

Go ahead, Mr. Obama, listen to the New York Times. Tell us more about what Obama-Care will do to the country, and your plans for Medicare.

Make our day.

From a blindsided Associated Press:

Against Obama, even a jailbird gets some votes

By LAWRENCE MESSINA
May 9, 2012

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — Just how unpopular is President Barack Obama in some parts of the country? Enough that a man in prison in Texas got 4 out of 10 votes in West Virginia’s Democratic presidential primary.

The inmate, Keith Judd, is serving time at the Beaumont Federal Correctional Institution in Texas for making threats at the University of New Mexico in 1999. Obama received 59 percent of the vote to Judd’s 41 percent.

For some West Virginia Democrats, simply running against Obama is enough to get Judd votes.

"I voted against Obama," said Ronnie Brown, a 43-year-old electrician from Cross Lanes who called himself a conservative Democrat. "I don’t like him. He didn’t carry the state before and I’m not going to let him carry it again."

When asked which presidential candidate he voted for, Brown said, "That guy out of Texas."

Judd was able to get on the state ballot by paying a $2,500 fee and filing a form known as a notarized certification of announcement, said Jake Glance, a spokesman for the Secretary of State’s office.

Attracting at least 15 percent of the vote would normally qualify a candidate for a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. But state Democratic Party Executive Director Derek Scarbro said no one has filed to be a delegate for Judd. The state party also believes that Judd has failed to file paperwork required of presidential candidates, but officials continue to research the matter, Scarbro said.

Voters in other conservative states showed their displeasure with Obama in Democratic primaries last March.

In Oklahoma, anti-abortion protestor Randall Terry got 18 percent of the primary vote. A lawyer from Tennessee, John Wolfe, pulled nearly 18,000 votes in the Louisiana primary. In Alabama, 18 percent of Democratic voters chose "uncommitted" in the primary rather than vote for Obama.

Obama’s energy policies and the Environmental Protection Agency’s handling of mining-related permits have incurred the wrath of West Virginia’s coal industry. With the state the nation’s second-biggest producer of this fossil fuel, Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin and Sen. Joe Manchin —both Democrats have championed the industry — have declined to say whether they will support Obama in November.

Hillary Rodham Clinton beat Obama handily in the state’s 2008 primary, and he lost the state to Republican John McCain in the general election. The latest state-by-state Gallup poll, released in January, found Obama with a 32.7 percent approval rating in West Virginia. The president had a lower approval rating only in Utah, Idaho, Oklahoma and Wyoming.

"Keith Judd’s performance is embarrassing for Obama and our great state," outgoing West Virginia GOP Chairman Mike Stuart said.

Presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney won West Virginia’s GOP primary Tuesday with more than 69 percent of the vote, with 93 percent of precincts reporting. Rick Santorum followed with 12 percent, while Ron Paul had 11 percent.

Brown, the Cross Lanes electrician, went to the polls Tuesday with his 22-year-old daughter, Emily. She planned to vote for Judd too until she found out where Judd has been living.

"I’m not voting for somebody who’s in prison," she said.

She was certain about one thing: "I just want to vote against Barack Obama."

So 41% of West Virginian Democrats trusts a man in jail more than they trust Barack Hussein Obama. Well, you can’t blame them.

Mr. Judd might be a convicted extortionist, but at least he isn’t trying to murder America’s coal industry, and West Virginia along with it.

From the Associated Press:

Gassy dinosaurs helped warm Earth

By SETH BORENSTEIN
May 8, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — Potty humor just got prehistoric. A new study suggests that dinosaurs may have helped keep an already overheated world warmer with their flatulence and burps 200 million years ago.

So the world was "overheated" 200 million years ago? What should the temperature have been?

The research published Monday in Current Biology suggests that large dinosaurs made a significant contribution to the greenhouse effect back then. Study author David Wilkinson of Liverpool John Moores University in England estimated that about 570 million tons of methane came from dinosaurs. That’s similar to total atmospheric levels of methane today produced by livestock, farming and industry. Cows alone now produce nearly 100 tons a year of methane.

Couldn’t Bean-O put an end to this problem?

The study looks at the biggest — and presumably gassiest — dinosaurs, called sauropods. These were the long-necked plant eaters that munched on the top of trees. They were large animals that had food fermenting in their guts for long periods of time because of their giant size, said University of Maryland paleontologist Thomas Holtz, who wasn’t part of the study.

Wilkinson said dinosaur gas was just one factor at a time when the world was quite tropical, about 18 degrees warmer than now (10 degrees Celsius). But he said some in the media and blogosphere have misinterpreted his study to say it was the main cause of ancient warming. In a phone interview, Wilkinson said it was only one of the causes, but dinosaur gas "is big enough to be a measurable effect."

What caused the ancient pre-human world to be so hot — just the way the dinosaurs needed it — was a variety of factors. Volcanoes spewed much more greenhouse gases than now, Holtz said. Swamps, water currents, shallow seas and plentiful plankton combined to raise greenhouse gas levels far higher than today, he said.

Outside climate experts say the study makes some sense, but that the warming from dinosaur gas back then is dwarfed by man-made carbon dioxide today from industry.

NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt quickly ran some calculations based on Wilkinson’s figures. Dinosaur methane would have hiked temperatures about half a degree (0.3 degrees Celsius), which is a fraction of what’s been caused by the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil in the 20th Century, he said.

It’s also wrong to suggest the study blames dinosaur flatulence for their extinction, Holtz said. He noted that the sauropods started showing up — and getting gassy — around 200 million years ago and didn’t die off until 65 million years ago.

University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver said: "Frankly, methane emissions from dinosaur burps is probably not the No. 1 thing we should be concerned about in modern society."

But methane emissions from cows and humans is a different story. That is the end of the world.

From the always spinning Associated Press:

NC votes on constitutional ban on gay marriage

By EMERY P. DALESIO
May 8, 2012

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — The national debate over gay marriage turns its attention South on Tuesday, as North Carolina could be on the verge of becoming the next state to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman.

What a bunch of redneck hicks. And never mind that there have been 31 state referendums on this issue. And in every 31 one of them people have voted to define marriage as one man and one woman. Even in the enlightened enclaves of California.

But this article, like almost every mainstream article, will go on to try to convince us that same-sex marriage is wildly popular.

In the final days before the vote, members of President Barack Obama’s cabinet expressed support for gay marriage and former President Bill Clinton recorded phone messages urging voters to oppose the amendment.

Naturally, Bill Clinton would back this. He is for any kind of sex. (Though Bill may have thought they were talking about a "some sex" marriage.)

Supporters of the amendment responded with marches, television ads and speeches, including one by Jay Bakker, son of late televangelists Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker…

You see? It’s only whackjobs like the Bakkers who are opposed to same-sex marriage.

Experts expect the measure to pass, despite the state’s long history of moderate politics.

You see? Believing that marriage is between a man and a woman is now an "extreme" position.

North Carolina law already bans gay marriage, but an amendment would effectively slam the door shut on same-sex marriages…

The fate of the amendment hinges on who shows up to vote…

That is news.

Obama’s North Carolina campaign spokesman issued a statement in March saying the president opposed the amendment. Obama, who supports most gay rights, has stopped short of backing gay marriage. Without clarification, he’s said for the past year and a half that his personal views on the matter are "evolving." …

It all depends on the latest polls.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan broke ranks with the White House on Monday, stating his unequivocal support for same-sex marriage one day after Vice President Joe Biden said he is "absolutely comfortable" with same-sex married couples getting the same rights at heterosexual married couples…

Yes, they are ‘breaking ranks.’ They aren’t being told to go out and say these things to placate that part of the Democrat base.

While polls suggest a majority of likely voters supporting the amendment, an Elon University poll of adult residents in March found two-thirds of the state as a whole supports either gay marriage or civil unions…

Somehow the news media always finds a way to explain how gay marriage is wildly popular in polls but always loses when it comes down to a vote. In a way, it’s a lot like their claims about how Obama is so popular in the polls, while his policies are hated.

Nobody wants the pollsters to think they are bigots.

From a straight-faced Reuters:

Obesity fight must shift from personal blame: U.S. panel

By Sharon Begley
May 8, 2012

NEW YORK (Reuters) – America’s obesity epidemic is so deeply rooted that it will take dramatic and systemic measures – from overhauling farm policies and zoning laws to, possibly, introducing a soda tax – to fix it, the influential Institute of Medicine said on Tuesday.

"Zoning laws"? Are people getting so fat they are affecting "zoning laws"?

In an ambitious 478-page report, the IOM refutes the idea that obesity is largely the result of a lack of willpower on the part of individuals.

In other words, personal responsibility is out the window. They have to a way to blame society.

Instead, it embraces policy proposals that have met with stiff resistance from the food industry and lawmakers, arguing that multiple strategies will be needed to make the U.S. environment less "obesogenic."

The IOM, part of the National Academies, offers advice to the government and others on health issues. Its report was released at the Weight of the Nation conference, a three-day meeting hosted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cable channel HBO will air a documentary of the same name next week.

"The Weight of the Nation conference." Sheesh.

"People have heard the advice to eat less and move more for years, and during that time a large number of Americans have become obese," committee member Shiriki Kumanyika of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine told Reuters. "That advice will never be out of date. But when you see the increase in obesity you ask, what changed? And the answer is, the environment. The average person cannot maintain a healthy weight in this obesity-promoting environment."

So the environment is making people fat. (And we aren’t even talking about global warming, for once.)

Is the environment making people sit more, drive more, walk less, eat more, are less active than they used to be a generation ago?

A study funded by the CDC and released on Monday projected that by 2030, 42 percent of American adults will be obese, compared to 34 percent today and 11 percent will be severely obese, compared to 6 percent today…

Officials at the IOM and CDC are trying to address the societal factors that led the percentage of obese adults to more than double since 1980, when it was 15 percent. Among children, it has soared from 5 to 17 percent in the past 30 years. One reason: in 1977, children 2 to 18 consumed an average of 1,842 calories per day. By 2006, that had climbed to 2,022.

What "environment" made children consume more calories?

Obesity is responsible for an additional $190 billion a year in healthcare costs, or one-fifth of all healthcare spending, Reuters reported last month, plus billions more in higher health insurance premiums, lost productivity and absenteeism.

The IOM panel included members from academia, government, and the private sector. It scrutinized some 800 programs and interventions to identify those that can significantly reduce the incidence of obesity within 10 years.

We thought ‘dietary manipulation’ was torture, which is banned by the Geneva Convention?

"There has been a tendency to look for a single solution, like putting a big tax on soda or banning marketing (of unhealthy food) to children," panel chairman Dan Glickman, a senior fellow of the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former secretary of the Department of Agriculture, told Reuters. "What this report says is this is not a one-solution problem."

Especially, when you refuse to hold people responsible for their own diets.

The panel identifies taxing sugar-sweetened beverages as a "potential action," noting that "their link to obesity is stronger than that observed for any other food or beverage." …

They want to tax food.

The committee also grappled with one of the third rails of American politics: farm policy. Price-support programs for wheat, cotton and other commodity crops prohibit participating farmers from planting fruits and vegetables on land enrolled in those programs. Partly as a result, U.S. farms do not produce enough fresh produce for all Americans to eat the recommended amounts, and the IOM panel calls for removing that ban…

That is preposterous. US supermarkets have far more produce in them than they had even just ten years ago. And, as we noted a couple of weeks ago, the idea of "food deserts" in poor areas is also a myth.

The traditional view that blames obesity on a failure of personal responsibility and individual willpower "has been used as the basis for resisting government efforts — legislative and regulatory — to address the problem," says the report. But the IOM panel argues that people cannot truly exercise "personal choice" because their options are severely limited, and "biased toward the unhealthy end of the continuum." …

Ever notice how people descend into gibberish when they have to argue absurd positions?

For instance, a lack of sidewalks makes it impossible to safely walk to work, school or even neighbors’ homes in many communities. So while 20 percent of trips between school and home among kids 5 to 15 were on foot in 1977, that had dropped to 12.5 percent by 2001.

Because of a lack of sidewalks?! Now we have heard everything. By the way, how come kids who live in rural areas are thinner than those who live in cities?

The panel therefore recommended tax incentives for developers to build sidewalks and trails in new housing developments, zoning changes to require pedestrian access and policies to promote bicycle commuting. Flexible financing, and streamlined permitting or tax credits could be used as encouragement.

What a break for the unions who will take all of these ‘shovel ready jobs."

The IOM report also calls for making schools the focus of anti-obesity efforts, since preventing obesity at a young age is easier than reversing it. According to the most recent data, only 4 percent of elementary schools, 8 percent of middle schools and 2 percent of high schools provided daily physical education for all students.

The IOM report recommends requiring primary and secondary schools to have at least 60 minutes of physical education and activity each day. It calls for banning sugar-sweetened drinks in schools and making drinking water freely available.

What a break for the teachers unions, who will have to hire more gym teachers.

The report also urges that healthy food and drinks be easily available everywhere Americans eat, from shopping centers to sports facilities and chain restaurants. The idea is that more people will eat healthier if little active choice is needed…

Healthy food has never been more available than it is today. And we see the results.

"We’ve taken fat and sugar, put it in everything everywhere, and made it socially acceptable to eat all the time," David Kessler, former head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, told Reuters. He was not part of the IOM panel.

"We’re living in a food carnival, constantly bombarded by food cues, almost all of them unhealthy," Kessler said.

Experience has shown that when businesses offer consumers a full range of choices – and especially when the healthy option is the default – many customers will opt for salads over deep-fried everything.

Walt Disney Co., for instance, found more than 50 percent of customers accepted a healthier choice of foods introduced at its theme parks. And last summer, fast-food giant McDonald’s Corp said it would include apples, fewer fries, and 20 percent fewer calories in the most popular Happy Meals for kids.

The IOM report urges employers and insurers to do more to combat obesity. UnitedHealth Group offers a health insurance plan in which a $5,000 yearly deductible can be reduced to $1,000 if a person is not obese and does not smoke. Some employers provide discounts on premiums for completing weight-loss programs.

Such inducements are far from universal, however. Medicaid for the poor does not cover weight-loss programs in many states. And as of 2008, only 28 percent of full-time workers in the private sector and 54 percent in government had access to wellness programs.

How are people supposed to lose weight unless they get free weight loss programs?

As we have said before, it is a tenet of the Democrat Party that personal responsibility is what the government is supposed to do for you. And this study just proves it.