McAuliffe's win and Obamacare spin

Wow, the headline below is awfully ballsy spin by "Fair & Balanced" FoxNews. They're flirting with yellow journalism. 

(They employ a typical FOX tactic: it's OK to write a stupid and inflammatory headline as long as it ends with a question mark.  Example: "John Stossel To Sell Children's Kidneys on Free Market?").

Let's recall that Terry McAuliffe was losing in the polls to his Republican rival Ken Cuccinelli, 38 to 40 percent, back in March. By August McAuliffe was up only 6 percentage points.  His margin spiked to double-digits during the federal government shutdown, very unpopular with Virginia residents, but after the shutdown his lead returned to about only 6 points.  

McAuliffe probably shouldn't have had a chance. He is a Clintonista carpetbagger who never held political office, and was tied to shady business dealings. There hasn't been a Virginia governor from the same party as the U.S. President since 1977. And McAuliffe already lost once to a popular Republican candidate for Virginia's governor. 

The reason he came back and won this time? Mainly because Cuccinelli is a Tea Party kook who staked out all sorts of far-right positions on abortion, gay rights and climate science. 

As a result, pre-election polls had McAuliffe leading Cuccinelli among women voters 58 to 34 percent!

Money was certainly a factor. McAuliffe was literally a professional fundraiser, he knows how. But notably, the conservative Chamber of Commerce declined to contribute to Cuccinelli's campaign, although they kicked in $1 million for the GOP candidate Bob McDonnell last election. Why? Because Cuccinelli's too kooky.

So this election certainly was not a 'No' vote on Obamacare, it was a 'No' vote on the Tea Party.  Cuccinelli became the GOP nominee through a state convention instead of the usual primary vote, where he probably would have lost to a GOP rival. The Tea Parties hijacked the convention and -- voila! -- kook for a candidate.

And so to my dear Tea Party Republicans I say, please keep doing what you're doing!  You keep setting 'em up and we'll keep knocking 'em down, OK?

'NO' VOTE ON OBAMACARE?
Angry Virginians make gov race close

• AP
  • Democrat Terry McAuliffe (middle, between Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine) wins a surprisingly close Virginia governor's race over Republican rival Ken Cuccinelli as the troubled rollout of ObamaCare looms over the vote.

No, poor households did not each get $60 K in welfare last year

If you like your journalism yellow, consisting of taking a fax from Republicans in Congress and posting it online in your own words, then read this post at The Weekly Standard in full.  Otherwise let me save you and PolitiFact the trouble.

As usual, the post's title (see below) is meant to mislead you.  People ignore the contradictory statement farther down that, "To be clear, not all households living below the poverty line receive $61,194 worth of assistance per year."

So each U.S. household in poverty did not get $60 K in cash or other assistance in 2011.  Nevertheless, this lie is now bouncing around the rightwing echo chamber, repeated as fact.  The damage is done.  (Google "60,000 welfare u.s. october 2012" to see what I mean.)

In fact, that "welfare" went to people who are middle class, too.  So if you take the numbers in that post, and divide $1 trillion by 110 million people receiving some kind of "welfare" in 2011, that comes out to $9 K per person, or about $23 K per household.  Still nothing to sneeze at, but certainly not enough for a plush lifestyle at taxpayers' expense.

You could argue that the government should not be giving middle-class Americans food stamps and whatnot, but that's a separate discussion from this one.  Although I will say this: it makes sense to give recently unemployed Americans a hand before they become poor.  Middle-class Americans who have fallen on hard times are able and willing to get back on their feet, so temporary government assistance to them is not fostering "dependency," as you'll hear Romney, Ryan, et al claim.

P.S. - This is becoming a habit at The Weekly Standard, taking a big $ figure and dividing it by the wrong denominator.  Last year they tried to do the same thing with the Recovery Act to argue erroneously that the cost per job created by the stimulus bill was $278 K.

Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty

By Daniel Halper

October 26, 2012 | Weekly Standard

URL: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/over-60000-welfare-spentper-household-poverty_657889.html