This is the relevant paragraph:

We all know one reason Obama won’t “go off.” He’s just not wired that way. Overt expressions of rage (or any overheated emotion) are not in his personality.

But there are other reasons he can’t “go off.” Consider the Angry Black Man. That bogeyman who haunts many African-American men, particularly professionals, who scares us into zen-like tranquility when fury is warranted, whether or not we are prone to it.

Capehart appeared with Matthews last night and took it one step further, implying Senator Pat Roberts telling Obama to take a Valium was raaaaaaaaaaaaaacist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7RJ-eWq6rc

His MSNBC buddy, Mark Halprin of Time Mag, appeared with O’Reilly last night and defended his lefty buddy … and indicted the Tea party and Matt Drudge as well for his headline “Obama Goes Street”as well.

The best (as in most laughable) part comes toward the end when Halperin challenges O’Reilly to come with him to a Tea Party as he points out the raaaaaaaaaaaaacists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-R3_VK7pjc

This is getting old. I am so very, very tired of the assumption of racism among people who are simply middle American folk who don’t believe in the President’s statist policies that rob them of cash, freedom and choice, while bankrupting the nation in the process. But I agree, it is about color. Greeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that support for a government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers has rebounded from its summertime lows and wins clear majority support from the public.

But breaking down the poll and reading through the graphs it’s not no certain. Although you have to dig into the story.

Independents and senior citizens, two groups crucial to the debate, have warmed to the idea of a public option, and are particularly supportive if it would be administered by the states and limited to those without access to affordable private coverage.

In other words, they are in favor of a government program if its just for the poor. Americans are an amazingly compassionate people. It is understandable that they would say a government program insuring the poor is a good idea. But that doesn’t mean they want one for themselves.

Overall, 45 percent of Americans favor the broad outlines of the proposals now moving in Congress, while 48 percent are opposed, about the same division that existed in August, at the height of angry town hall meetings over health-care reform. Seven in 10 Democrats back the plan, while almost nine in 10 Republicans oppose it. Independents divide 52 percent against, 42 percent in favor of the legislation.

There are also deep splits in the new poll over whether the proposed changes would go too far or not far enough in expanding coverage and controlling costs. Twice as many see the plan as leaning toward too much government involvement, but since last month there has been a nine-point increase in the number who say government should be more involved.

In other words … not much has changed except the qualifying words in the poll questions themselves. Still I have a hard time reconciling these two graphs.

On the issue that has been perhaps the most pronounced flash point in the national debate, 57 percent of all Americans now favor a public insurance option, while 40 percent oppose it. Support has risen since mid-August, when a bare majority, 52 percent, said they favored it. (In a June Post-ABC poll, support was 62 percent.)

If a public plan were run by the states and available only to those who lack affordable private options, support for it jumps to 76 percent. Under those circumstances, even a majority of Republicans, 56 percent, would be in favor of it, about double their level of support without such a limitation.

Fifty-six percent of those polled back a provision mandating that all Americans buy insurance, either through their employers or on their own or through Medicare or Medicaid. That number rises to 71 percent if the government were to provide subsidies for many lower-income Americans to help them buy coverage. With those qualifiers, a majority of Republicans say they support the mandate.

Republicans are OK with a mandate. I am not sure I understand that given the Constitutional questions which I can assure you will be challeneged.

But the timing of the poll is suspicious … given Rasmussen poll yesterday:

Now that the Senate Finance Committee has passed its version of health care reform, 42% of voters nationwide favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and down four from the week before.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% are opposed to the plan.

The numbers have been remarkably stable throughout the debate. With the exception of bounces following presidential television appearances, support for the plan has stayed in a very narrow range from 41% to 46%. Currently, 24% Strongly Favor the legislative effort and 42% are Strongly Opposed.

Any thoughts. I will have more this morning.

Is a deal “bipartisan” when only three members of one party support it? Not under the previously existing understanding of bipartisanship. For example, I don’t recall the Post reporting that Samuel Alito had bipartisan support as a Supreme Court nominee even though four Democratic Senators voted to confirm him. Nor was Joe Lieberman’s support of significant aspects of Bush administration foreign policy considered sufficient to make that policy “bipartisan.”

For reporters to assume the talking points, and may I say “key” talking points, of the Democrat party is journalistic malpractice. There is nothing bipartisan about the compromise, just as the American people are not clamoring for Republicans to accept a porkapalooza. As I said in my prior post I cannot find one case where the MSM referred to the votes against the House version of the stimulus bill as “bipartisan” even though 11 Democrats joined the Republicans.

The problem is, many of these statements are used to cover lies and misrepresentations, often supported by liberal media hacks. A great example is Paul Kane’s drive-by-media article on how Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska and vice presidential nominee, “slashed” funding 20 percent to Covenant House Alaska.

Get a load of the lead from Kane’s post. Does this crap pass for vetted news at the Washington Post?

ST. PAUL — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee who revealed Monday that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, earlier this year used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live.

Let’s get this straight from the beginning. State governments don’t work in the vacume of space. Their budgets are affected by how involved local communities are in funding as well as how much cash is flowing from federal coffers.

Example. Let’s say some entitlement program is funded with $6 million 2006. The town chipped in $1 million, the state $2 million and the feds $3 million. If 2007 comes around and the same program gets $6.3 million from government sources – that is a 5 percent increase in funding, period.

What liberals do is take a look at the individual funding sources. If the town chipped in $1.2 million, the state $2.4 million and the feds $2.7 million, you are not allowed to complain about the federal government cutting your program. That is an outright misrepresentation of your situation. Got that?

Second point, just because to write a grant requesting $5 million in funding, and you’re only provided with $3.9 million, you do not have the right to go around complaining that your budget was cut by the mean Republicans. That is exactly what Kane has done in his post.

Some facts.

• The original grant request from Covenant House Alaska (CHA) was for $5 million. It was described as a one-time need. The state legislature had no problem with the request and funded the full $5 million, but Palin marked the request down – as seen in Kane’s story – to $3.9 million. (Alaska governors have the line-item veto)
• Technically, the grant looks to be for $10 million, but CHA intends to leverage the state funding 2:1 from private and federal sources. So I guess if they get $5 million from the state, other funding sources trigger automatically to double it.
• The grant request also indicates that CHA had already secured $12 million in funding. Adding Alaska’s $3.9 million that is a total of $15.9 million that CHA has for this project. Add the 2:1 leverage on the $3.9 from the state, that provides almost $20 million.
• The project is for relocation and construction of a new facility to serve homeless, runaway and at-risk youths. I’m thinking that $20 million is enough.

Again, let’s make this clear. CHA never had the $5 million. After debate and review by the state legislature and executive branch, they got $3.9 million – more than triple their total government funding in 2006.

Malkin is encouraging everyone to contact the Washington Post ombudsman.

24ahead.com has gotten into the story and understands the math. Kane on the other hand must have missed the simple math class in grammar school.

Although related to main stream reporting, going to post this under politics to spread things out a bit.