The Occasional Observer

47%

2012-01-31T20:49:00.000-05:00

A big, big number for Mitt in Florida. All the results are not yet in, so that could tick up or down a bit. Regardless, Mitt is on the cusp of looking unbeatable. Newt's not done yet, but the fat lady is warming up. If he can get to Super Tuesday and a bunch of southern primaries, he might have a few wins left in him.

If.

An independent taste test proves...

2012-01-31T13:51:00.000-05:00

Coors-- it drink pretty good.

Man Kills Wife for Delivering a Girl, Failing to Provide a Son

2012-01-31T09:42:00.000-05:00

Some stories don't really need commentary.

Mitt killing Newt with TV ads

2012-01-28T03:10:00.002-05:00

$13.9M for Mitt, $3.8M for Newt in ad buys so far, when combining the campaign and super-PAC buys.

So says ABC News.

Even if Newt had a good counter-punch to some of the factually-challenged arguments Mitt used in Thursday night's debate, he's not going to be able to get them out at this point. Barring some external factor, this race seems trending decisively to a Mitt victory.

Newt explores the area behind Ann Coulter's woodshed

2012-01-26T12:45:00.001-05:00

and finds it most unwelcoming. First, regarding entitlement reform:

Romney supports entitlement reform along the lines of the Paul Ryan plan, as he has said plainly, but without histrionics, in the debates.
Just last year, Gingrich went on "Meet the Press" and called Ryan's plan -- supported by nearly every House Republican -- "right-wing social engineering."

He apologized for those remarks, then took back his apology, still later doubled down, calling the Ryan plan "suicide," and now -- currently, but it could change any minute -- Gingrich supports Ryan's entitlement reform efforts.

For the latest updates on Newt's position on the Ryan plan, go to http//twitter.com/#whatcheapshotgrandstandymovewillworknow?

Next, w/r/t health care:

For those of you who still think Romneycare is the worst possible sin a Republican candidate could commit -- even worse than taking money from Freddie Mac as it destroyed the economy -- that doesn't help Gingrich: He supported Romneycare.

(While we're on the subject, the nation's leading conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, helped draft Romneycare. Indeed, Bob Moffit, Heritage's senior fellow on health care issues, can be seen in the picture of the bill-signing ceremony, standing proudly behind Romney.)

But Gingrich did more than support Romneycare. As former senator Rick Santorum has pointed out, Gingrich supported a FEDERAL individual mandate to purchase health insurance from 1993 until five minutes ago -- i.e., at least until a "Meet the Press" appearance just last May.

Two Florida GOP polls out today showing Romney +8

2012-01-26T10:04:00.001-05:00

Is Mitt hitting paydirt with his attack ads? Seems that way. Of course, it is a "target rich environment."

Tonight's the last debate. Newt's home turf. He needs another great moment a la his Juan Williams slap down or his John King rebuke.

Where does the GOP race go from here?

2012-01-25T15:35:00.002-05:00

Entering the last week before the Florida primary, Newt and Mitt are nearly tied in the polls. The nomination may well be decided in the next week.

Florida is actually a good state for the GOP nomination to be decided. Unlike IA, NH, and SC, it is heterogeneous, with distinct regions and varied demographics. Unlike the smaller states that came first, it is too large, and too short a time span for retail politics to win out. This state will be decided by organizational might. By the ability to get out a message over the airwaves, and across several distinct media markets. Money is needed here. And the ability to leverage local power brokers and turn it into a GOTV operation.

So what will happen? All the organizational requirements seem to be a Mitt advantage at this point. But Newt has been capturing the imagination of conservatives, and Mitt has been on the defensive for two weeks now over issues he should have been able to put to bed.

Of course, Newt has plenty of skeletons of his own, and since a win in FL might put him in the drivers seat, he's facing a heavy round of inspection and critique as well.

Personally, I think a Mitt win in FL gives him a near hammerlock on the nomination. Were Newt not to be able to maintain his slim lead here, despite having consolidated his position as the anti-Mitt in the field, I have a hard time seeing him recapture his mojo.

A Newt win, on the other hand, does not lead a directly to a Newt nomination. But it would guarantee that the process drags on for weeks, if not months, longer--and the outcome would be in doubt. More oppo research on Newt would get dumped, and all the scrutiny would cut into his appeal. Mitt, however, would have been seriously wounded at that point, especially if he's unable to go from defense to offense on the issue of his wealth.

A late entry on the GOP side can not, IMO, be ruled out--especially if Mitt seems permanently compromised and Newt is winning. There are too many power brokers in the party that are publicly committed to preventing a Newt nomination, for him to slide smoothly into the driver's seat. It doesn't mean Newt can't win. It just means to buckle up, and get ready for some turbulence, if Newt wins in Florida.

Ladies and Gentleman, the price of safety is just Too Damn High

2012-01-24T13:29:00.001-05:00

Senators being detained by the agents of the Executive Branch (TSA).

American citizens being arrested without habeas corpus and placed into offshore prisons.

And now the police watching pedestrians and illuminating them with a red light before they commit a crime, because apparently now the police are omniscient.

America is definitely moving further into police state territory.

Abortion: Safer than natural child birth

2012-01-24T10:53:00.000-05:00

So says at least this "scientific" report. Of course, that just begs the question, safer for the mother, the child, or both?

A related study is due out later today. Rumored title: "Cyanide: less painful than cancer"

Guess we know who's playing Newt...

2012-01-23T16:17:00.000-05:00

in the movie version of the campaign that'll come out in a year or two.

Uncanny.

Newt or Shrute?

Now reading...

2012-01-23T13:04:00.001-05:00

The Hunger Games trilogy. I'm in the middle of the second book.

As you suggested, Beasty, the series is great. Fast reads. Extremely interesting premise. Sure, not the newest thing under the sun, but the execution is great. I never tire of the genre.

While I'm on the topic of sci-fi/fantasy, has anyone read the Ender's Game series of books? Any comments on whether they're worth reading would be appreciated.

More proof ID should be required for voting...

2012-01-23T11:28:00.004-05:00

right here. Imagine how high those voter fraud numbers would be if the AGs in states like, say, IL and NY ~~weren't actively concealing it?~~ were actually looking for it?

Meth is bad

2012-01-23T09:36:00.001-05:00

Not a controversial position, I know. But when you read an article like this, it really drives the point home.

1/4 to 1/3 of all burn victims in these midwest hospitals are meth addicts. They're blowing themselves up cooking meth. Naturally, most do not have health insurance, and the unpaid cost of treatment is driving the hospital burn units out of business. Then society gets to pay the freight on people that are permanently disfigured, blind, etc., in addition to being addicts.

In all honesty, it makes one wonder if a China-style Opium solution needs to be put into play here.

P.S. No, I obviously don't mean that literally.

Erick Erickson: Evangelical leaders trying to prop up Santorum

2012-01-22T12:25:00.004-05:00

Even if he can't win, they want to fund him, and keep his campaign going as long as possible. The goal is, at a minimum, to splinter the anti-Mitt vote and keep Newt from winning. A Newt win is their nightmare scenario.

Win-grich

2012-01-22T10:08:00.002-05:00

So, here's what you get for attacking free-market capitalism, cozying up to Freddie Mac, and having cheated on not one but two wives: a 12-point win in S.C.

Sounds like the kind of guy who best exemplifies conservative principles, both fiscal and social.

Well played, S.C., you've just set back Republicans enormously. Here's why. First, in the long-shot chance that Gingrich actually ends up being the party nominee, he will lose to Obama. Period.

But in the more likely scenario that Romney still wins the nomination, all you've done is extend the primary thus allowing more time for in-party attacks against Romney that will subsequently be used by Obama in the general election. The longer this primary goes, the more fodder we generate for Dems to use against us. Santorum's weak finish in SC also unfortunately suggests he will not get much traction. One can only hope Romney gets a big win in FL to keep his momentum going.

If Mitt is smart he will not attack Ron Paul or Santorum, making sure he can line up their supporters in the future. There are also rumors he could pick Santorum as VP candidate, which would be a great choice (as well as Rubio and Christie).

Great News!

2012-01-20T17:57:00.000-05:00

~~Spartacus returns tonight!~~ [Boo--it's next week]

And get this...A Huff Post critic likes it better than Downtown Abbey. Wow.

100 best movie insults

2012-01-14T11:08:00.003-05:00

NSFW

Bill Kristol on the great Bain debate

2012-01-13T17:55:00.000-05:00

My thoughts later...

Here's the column:

There’s a lot of silliness on all sides of the Bain Capital debate.

On the one hand, Newt Gingrich’s attacks (and the follow-on assaults by Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry) on Mitt Romney’s career at Bain Capital have been unfair, over the top, and, for that matter, all over the place. Gingrich, Perry, and Huntsman deserve much of the criticism they’ve received from conservative commentators.

On the other, Mitt Romney’s claim throughout his campaign that his private sector experience almost uniquely qualifies him to be president is also silly. Does he really think that having done well in private equity, venture capital, and business consulting—or even in the private sector more broadly—is a self-evident qualification for public office? One assumes Mitt Romney would agree that Chris Christie is a better chief executive of New Jersey than Jon Corzine, and that Rudy Giuliani was a better mayor of New York than Mike Bloomberg. But Romney’s biography looks a lot more like Bloomberg's or Corzine's (leaving aside Corzine's recent misadventures) than like that of Giuliani (pre-mayoralty) or Christie. Past business success does not guarantee performance in public office. Indeed, Romney sometimes seems to go so far as to suggest that succeeding in the private sector is intrinsically more admirable than, e.g., serving as a teacher or a soldier or even in Congress. This is not a sensible proposition, or a defensible one.

And the unqualified defense of the virtues of Bain Capital by some on the right is also silly. Criticism of any behavior by a private firm? Outrage! An Assault on Capitalism! Haven't they read Schumpeter? Don't they know the glories of Creative Destruction? And, of course, all such destruction must be assumed to be creative!Yikes. If this is where some in the conservative movement and the Republican party are inclined to go—four cheers for finance capitalism!—good luck. Indeed, it’s useful to flush out this tendency now, and subject it to debate. Because it’s a recipe for political disaster—and intellectual sterility.

Post 2008, capitalism needs its strong defenders—but its defenders need also to be its constructive critics. The Tea Party was right. What's needed is a critique of Big Government above all, but also of Big Business and Big Finance and Big Labor (and Big Education and Big Media and all the rest)—and especially a critique of all those occasions when one or more of these institutions conspire against the common good. What's needed is a willingness to put Main Street (at least slightly) ahead of Wall Street, and a reform agenda for capitalism that strengthens it, alongside an even more dramatic reform agenda for government that limits it.

Bain Capital shouldn’t be demonized. It may not even deserve to be criticized. But in laying out a way forward, conservatives might remember that Bain Capital isn’t capitalism, that capitalism by itself isn’t freedom, and that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in the Gospel of Wealth.

GOP Poll

2012-01-13T14:50:00.002-05:00

A fair recap on the Huntsman campaign

2012-01-12T16:55:00.000-05:00

While the former Utah gov proved unable to gain traction, this column from Robert Robb of the Arizona Republic speaks to why his platform deserved more recognition:

...On the two most important domestic issues of the day Huntsman has the best policy prescriptions of any of the candidates.

The first is the interplay between the economy and the federal government’s finances.

Huntsman endorsed the most radical tax reform recommended by the debt commission appointed by President Obama. Eliminate all deductions and credits. The highest rate would be 23 percent, compared to today’s 35 percent and the nearly 40 percent Obama has advocated.

Despite the much lower rates, the debt commission estimated that its alternative would raise around $800 billion more in revenue for the federal government over a ten-year period. So, in addition to being more conducive to economic growth, Huntsman’s tax reform, in contrast to that of every other Republican candidate, would reduce the federal debt rather than increase it.

Huntsman also generally endorsed the budget plan of House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, including its entitlement reforms. A combination of the debt commission’s tax reform and Ryan’s spending plan is the most politically plausible pathway to bring the federal government’s finances out of the red zone.

The second domestic issue on which Huntsman stands out is financial market reform...

The Obama administration’s approach to preventing bailouts in the future, enacted as the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, is to appoint a committee of wise men to watch over large financial institutions, empowered to tell them what to do if the wise men think they are behaving recklessly.

The Democratic belief in the existence of such regulatory savants is almost touching, similar to a child’s belief in the tooth fairy...

The only practical alternative is to limit the size of financial institutions to below whatever makes politicians and policymakers comfortable in allowing them to fail. Among the presidential candidates, only Huntsman is proposing to do that...

Huntsman’s clarity and boldness on these two most important domestic issues highlight the disappointment that is Mitt Romney, the prohibitive frontrunner.

On taxes, Romney supports keeping the Bush tax rates, but says fundamental individual tax reform of the kind Huntsman is proposing needs to wait for another day...

Romney is even more exposed on financial market reform. He supported the bank bailouts in 2008, so he doesn’t advocate just letting market forces take their course. He favors repeal of Dodd-Frank but, unlike Huntsman, hasn’t proposed anything specific to take its place.

Too-big-to-fail is too big an issue to slough off.

Of course, there’s more to being a successful politician than having the best ideas on the biggest issues, and Huntsman just never developed a political presence that demanded attention.

Nevertheless, his ideas deserved a bigger, longer run than Huntsman proved capable of giving them.

To Mr. Robb's comments, I would also add that Huntsman had the most balanced and forward looking foreign and defense policy, combining international economic engagement with a more modest overseas military presence, an aversion to nation building, a willingness to use force when rogue regimes or terrorist organizations present a known threat, a restructuring of the military to make it more effective at dealing with today's threats (e.g. Iran, Al Qaeda) while reducing cost by not seeking to play policeman to the world. Net result: more effective force projection; less diplomatic and P.R. blowback; increased international opportunities for U.S. industry; better impact on the budget.

Huntsman's speech after the N.H. primary convinced me, almost without a doubt, that he does not have the "It" needed to win a campaign for the presidency. But his platform was a winner, IMHO.

Newt drops a bomb on Mitt

2012-01-12T16:13:00.001-05:00

Check this one out while it lasts, which probably won't be long:

http://www.webcasts.com/kingofbain/

NH: Early exit polls

2012-01-10T18:16:00.001-05:00

CNN has a breaking news banner, that says that 7 out of 10 GOP primary voters are very worried about the economy.

If that polling turns out to be accurate, this could be a banner night for Mitt. Based on the numbers in Iowa, IIRC, Mitt took over 50% of voters who identified the economy as their primary concern. If that ratio were to carry over into NH, Mitt would substantially increase his share of the NH vote from where he was 4 years ago. That would be a big win, and situate him to possibly deal a final blow to the rest of the field in SC.

If the combined Newt/Santorum/Perry/Huntsman vote turns out to be less than Mitt's share, there is almost no rationale for his current opponents to continue.

Clear the field and bring on Rubio!

jk

Mostly.

NH Predictions

2012-01-09T16:38:00.002-05:00

I was expecting Fredo to ask, but I'll post my predictions for tomorrow on my own:

Romney 30%
Huntsman 22%
Paul 20%
Santorum 14%
Gingrich 11%
Perry 3%

Iowa: results vs. predictions

2012-01-04T09:57:00.001-05:00

Actual Results (Fredo's guess) [difference]

Romney 25 (23) [2]
Santorum 25 (25) [0]
Paul 21 (24) [3]
Gingrich 13 (11) [2]
Perry 10 (9) [1]
Bachmann 5 (6) [1]
Huntsman 1 (2) [1]

Pretty impressive, if I do say so myself.

Additionally, Beasty called the first four "in order." Well done, sir.

In Mad Money news, Mitt's 8 vote win gives D.C. and myself some profitable Intrade contracts (too bad we didn't actually bet).

Of course, D.C. would've made a lot more. One of these days I'mma wait and pick last.

8 Votes!

2012-01-04T08:27:00.001-05:00

Wow.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone

The BloGlo on Judicial Supremacy: Newt has it right

2012-01-02T14:58:00.002-05:00

And what you dont see is the drool pooling on my keyboard as I stare slack-jawed at the monitor. The Boston Globe, of all publications, would have been the last place short of the NY Times I expected to see an editorial like this. While Newt's anti-Judiciary rants were seized upon by the liberal press as proof of his arrogant, power-aggrandizing, tradition-defiling extremism, the Globe made the following sober observation:

Not all of Gingrich’s proposals for reining in the courts, such as summoning judges before congressional committees to explain their rulings, may be wise or useful. But his larger point is legitimate and important. Judicial supremacy is eroding America’s democratic values. The balance of federal power needs to be restored.

That is some fair, useful commentary. The type I never expect to see from the MSM.

The entire editorial is worth a read. As is Newt's 54 page position paper (well, maybe a skim).

Caribou, anyone?

2012-01-01T12:15:00.000-05:00

So the old-timers seem dead set on a Caribou hunt in the perma-frost. Some potential guides linked below. Comments desired from non-hunters and hunters alike.

Labrador hunts:

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

Here's one that looks a bit more cost realistic: $1700 Canadian for a 3 night, 4 day trip (3 days of hunting).

Northern Quebec hunts:

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3 - like the discussion of "Fair Chase" hunt

Final Iowa Predictions!

2012-01-01T12:11:00.001-05:00

Leave them in the comments before 11:59 PM on Monday.

Get your free Crack Pipes here! Crack Pipes!

2012-01-01T11:32:00.002-05:00

Why not?

Last night's outstanding movie quote

2011-12-30T11:41:00.001-05:00

"You're in no position to disagree with me, boy. I've got a loaded .45 here. You've got pimples."

Fredo's Mad Money update

2011-12-30T11:27:00.002-05:00

OK, we're nearing the finish line in Iowa. Based on the contracts we chose, here are the scenarios needed for each contributor to win:Dark Commenteer: Romney wins in Iowa. Can't win if he doesn't.

Fredo: Romney wins in South Carolina, and someone other than Romney wins in Iowa.

ManBeast: Gingrich wins in South Carolina, and someone other than Romney wins in Iowa.

SHK: Wouldn't know winning if hit him in the face.

Here's my odds, based on current polling and momentum: D.C. 60% chance at the win, Fredo 25%, Beast 15%.

Krauthamer sums it up:

2011-12-29T11:47:00.000-05:00

The race for the GOP nomination, and Obama's recent bounce in polling. From RCP:

Think of how this has gone. Trump, Bachmann, Perry, then Cain, then Newt, who is really in decline now, Ron Paul, who is on the ascent, but he's not electable, and now Santorum. Every single alternative is going to get a try or looks as if it's going to get a try because the field is unhappy with, or the electorate in large part is unhappy with Romney. He's stable, he's sober, but he's considered ideologically suspect.

Imagine if you'd had a race with a Mitch Daniels, with a Paul Ryan, Christie, Jindal and others, Sen. Thune. It would have had a completely different complexion. And I think with some of the sort of embarrassing candidates like Cain and others along the way, it has made the president who is by who he is, presidential, look better. And I think that explains the reason his numbers are up...

What I wouldn't give to have a Daniels, Ryan, Christie or Jindal in this race right now. I wish T-Paw hadn't dropped out so early. Thune, I'm not so sure.

Speaker Gingrich,

2011-12-29T11:40:00.002-05:00

I recognized your foul stench when I was brought on board.

From the brilliant blog, Newt Gingrich Judges You:

“I shall crush Mitt just as I did that fool Skywalker, the walls of the trash compactor slowly closing in, until…*crunch*.”

Union Leader takes on Paul

2011-12-29T10:54:00.000-05:00

As we approach the Hawkeye Cawkeye, it looks to be a big finish for Ron Paul in Iowa. A result that once seemed impossible--Dr. No getting a ticket (top 3) out of Des Moines--now seems a real possibility.

While I'm deeply impressed by many of Rep. Paul's core convictions, particularly his allegiance to a strict interpretation of the Constitution--one that constrains federal authority, and hence regulation, taxation, spending, nanny-statism, etc.--that same dogmatic approach will create some impossibly high hurdles for him, should he be elected President. In actuality, he simply has too many fatal flaws to be considered a realistic player for the nomination.

Here are some of the major problems a Paul candidacy would present:

He would be the oldest President ever. He would be in his 80's before the end of his first term.
He has never been an executive.
He has an ideological rigidity which is not compatible with the coalition building necessary to move a legislative agenda (which ties in directly with never having been an executive).
The content of the Ron Paul Newsletter is disqualifying, period.
The fact that he disclaims knowledge of the content of the Ron Paul Newsletter is disqualifying. Either he is lying to the people, or is completely incapable of running a small newsletter shop.
Most importantly: he would put the lives of American citizens in danger by his approach to foreign policy (or more specifically, counter-terrorism and intelligence).

It is on this last point that the Union Leader has weighed in with an editorial arguing that New Hampshirites should counter any momentum that Paul brings with him out of Iowa.

Paul believes that al-Qaida terrorists caught in the United States ought to be treated as common criminals, not enemy combatants. He wants them read Miranda rights to which they are not entitled and he wants them tried and sentenced in civil courts rather than by military tribunals.

This is nothing short of nuts. What is needed to competently fight a war, and al-Qaida is indeed at war with us, is the ability to gather information. Telling the enemy that it has a “right to remain silent” is absurd.

Paul believes that if a U.S. citizen throws in with al-Qaida or associated groups overseas, where he plots American death and destruction, we need to somehow find him, arrest him, and bring him back to stand civil trial here rather than eliminate him, even if that is the only option.

For Ron Paul, offering enemy combatants the legal protections of a citizen isn't just about due process. It's about unwinding the War Powers act, bringing back the power of the legislature to declare war, weakening the role of the Executive as CIC, returning to a laissez-faire federal governement, foreign policy, and a stripped-down, pre-WWII type military.

My point is that his position on enemy combatants is not just some crackpot lunacy. It fits into his broader world view, his understanding of where America has gone wrong. And while I agree with many of his broader principles, the agreement is more directional than one of destination. For instance, while I agree with the concept of a lighter military footprint around the world for the U.S., the idea that we could never engage enemies of the state without a formal act of Congress is absurd. While I agree our primary "face" to the international community should be that of a prosperous, competitive, free opportunity society--and not a strongman with a billy club--that doesn't mean we should forgo robust intelligence gathering capabilities with the ability to project targeted force (think Special Forces, extraction and eradication teams) as needed, as fits the threat of terrorist organizations. We aren't fighting Soviet Russia anymore, and our military should reflect that.

This last paragraph also fits closely with what Jon Huntsman has been saying on foreign policy--that we need a highly engaged internationalist approach to foreign policy, one that relies on economic and trade ties with allies, economic punishment for enemies, and restructuring our military to meet the nature of the threats that confront us today. Intelligence gathering and tactical deployments are increasingly important. We can maintain (and improve) our ability to strike terrorist organizations and/or rogue regimes, while reducing the amount of nation-building and long-term military deployments we have been engaged in recently. This would be a win for the safety of the country, and an also a win for our image around the world.

I doubt Huntsman manages to overcome Mitt in New Hampshire, but his pragmatic approach to foreign policy should be embraced by GOP voters for this cycle and beyond.

Gingrich compares Virginia's signature requirements to Pearl Harbor

2011-12-26T18:01:00.000-05:00

As they might ask on the Twit, "Srsly?"

Yep. The narcissism and ego are out of control. Your campaign fails the most basic task--get on the ballot in all 50 states. And in so doing, misses out on a big one (along with several other campaigns.

So here's a question. If you were in Newt's shoes, which of the following options would you choose?

A) Downplay the importance of VA and move forward.

B) Blame the state GOP for playing favorites.

C) Stay mum on the topic and concentrate on Iowa.

D) Equate your campaign's failure to the death of nearly 2,000 U.S. servicemen.

If you chose D, you've been BAMBOOZLED!

Epic fail after fail. Mitt may be the least loved candidate since Nixon with a chance to win the Presidency.

A Nice Christmas Treat

2011-12-24T11:36:00.000-05:00

brought to you by (surprise!) CNN. A nifty little essay that talks about the difference between a society with and without Christian virtue:the difference between Bedford Falls and Pottersville.

Here are the concluding few paragraphs:

...a national discussion is taking place on what the present and future role of Christianity in America should be. The consensus among the secular elites seems to be that it is a bit like smoking: It is harmful, but if you must do it, do it in the designated areas only. Richard Dawkins, the Oxford scientist and atheist provocateur, calls Christianity a “mental virus” that should be eradicated.

The professor should be more careful in what he wishes for. Like many others, he grossly underestimates the degree to which his own moral and intellectual sensibilities have been informed by the Judeo-Christian worldview.

"It’s a Wonderful Life" is a fitting metaphor for a nation absent Christian belief. Jesus Christ said that his followers were to be like “salt”; that is, a people whose presence is felt for the good that they do. As a man or woman’s evil nature is gentled and restrained by the grace of God, there is a corresponding outward transformation of society. The data bears this out. According to the research of The Barna Group, Christians are the most charitable segment of the population by a substantial margin. Hence, any society that is liberally sprinkled with them has a greater concern for the poor, sick, orphaned and widowed - “the least of these,” as Jesus called them. (This is precisely what Nietzsche, and Hitler after him, hated about Christianity.)

But Christian influence goes well beyond benevolence: Our laws, art, literature and institutions find meaning in a rich Christian heritage. In his new book "Civilization: The West and the Rest," Harvard historian Niall Ferguson argues that the decline of the West can, in part, be attributed to the decline of a robust Christian presence in Western culture. Ferguson’s point is largely an economic one, but the inference that Christianity has served to strengthen the fabric of life in the West as we have known it is unmistakable. T.S. Eliot made a similar observation: “If Christianity goes, the whole of our culture goes.”

That is just another way of saying that the difference between a nation with meaningful Christian influence and a nation without it is the difference between Bedford Falls and Pottersville.

Newt for President!

2011-12-23T16:37:00.002-05:00

Official campaign slogan:"We're not going to make it, are we?"

Trump Bolts GOP

2011-12-23T16:11:00.003-05:00

The Donald has changed his official party affiliation to independent, and as a result, the speculation about an independent Presidential run is gearing up.

As ABC news is reporting with much hyperventilation,

Donald Trump is officially a man without a party.
The real estate mogul whose flirtation with the 2012 presidential race has never really ended despite announcing seven months ago he would not seek the Republican nomination has been signaling he wants to find other ways onto a presidential ticket.

Amazing. After all of his red-faced pontification attacking Obama, I can't believe he'd splinter the center-right vote, almost assuring the President's re-election. It's like he's been a trojan horse candidate working for the President all along. Why couldn't someone have seen this coming before?

Oh, wait, someone did:

Trump is flat out dangerous to GOP prospects in '12. Hopefully he blows up early and vanishes...

Trump is brash and forthright, which appeals to a certain demographic, but ultimately when denied the nomination he could utilize that support as a drag against the GOP nominee when he runs as an independent. And all the birther stuff will prevent him from drawing any moderate or Dem votes. The whole thing smells.

The really interesting question to me is this: What does the Donald want? I don't think the man has any real interest in being President. The 100 hr weeks for 4 straight years for a measly $300K or whatever the CIC earns these days. Chump change. Not enough parties. Not enough Eastern European models.

What he's really interested in doing, IMHO, is getting maximum exposure for his brand, and becoming a power broker in the process that he can leverage for chips later. A pass from DOJ on a proposed merger, or the DEC on some huge proposed casino in a protected wetlands. Who knows. But it'll be fascinating to see how Trump pursues "the Art of the Deal", and what benefits he can plumb from playing Obama and the GOP nominee off of each other.

The Deal, of course, will come early. The fruits won't come for years, in all probability. I'll be watching and waiting--it for no other reason than my morbid curiosity of how a dynamic, free-market economy devolves into a stagnant, initiative-crushing, crony-capitalistic shitbox.

A first, best gift

2011-12-22T16:55:00.003-05:00

Haven't posted anything but figured It's best to start with beauty, no?

Researchers create virus capable of killing 4B people

2011-12-19T20:43:00.002-05:00

Thank goodness for academic freedom. We might not have known exactly which genes needed to mutate to turn a relatively non-contagious form of deadly bird flu into a quick spreading pandemic nightmare. But now we know.

How could anyone be this careless? This crazy?

I really like this part:

The study was carried out by a Dutch team of scientists led by Ron Fouchier of the Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam, where the mutated virus is stored under lock and key, but without armed guards, in a basement building.

Good to know. Luckily there aren't any really bad people that would want to know where to find a virus that could kill 60% of those it infects. Luckily.

National Review, otherwise known as

2011-12-15T14:37:00.006-05:00

the "official publication" of the modern conservative movement, has not yet endorsed a candidate. But they have definitively stated, as of today, who they will NOT endorse: Gingrich, Bachmann, Paul, or Perry. That leaves three they consider to real contenders.
Here is the conclusion of their short, worthwhile piece:

Governor Huntsman has a solid record, notwithstanding his sometimes glib foreign-policy pronouncements; his main weakness is his apparent inability, so far, to forge a connection with conservative voters outside Utah. Governor Romney won our endorsement last time, in part because some of the other leading candidates were openly hostile to important elements of conservatism. He is highly intelligent and disciplined, and he takes conservative positions on all the key issues. We still think he would make a fine president, but time and ceaseless effort have not yet overcome conservative voters’ skepticism about the liberal aspects of his record and his managerial disposition. Senator Santorum was an effective legislator. He deserves credit for highlighting, more than any other candidate, the need for public policies that topple barriers to middle-class aspirations. Weighing against him is a lack of executive experience.

As Republican primary voters consider their choices, they should ask themselves several questions: Which candidate is most likely to make the race turn on the large questions before the country, and not his personal idiosyncrasies? Which candidate is most likely to defeat Obama? Who could, if elected, form an effective partnership with Republican leaders and governors to achieve the conservative agenda? We will render further judgments in the weeks to come as the candidates continue to make their cases and are, just perhaps, joined by new candidates. At the moment we think it important to urge Republicans to have the good sense to reject a hasty marriage to Gingrich, which would risk dissolving in acrimony.

Char-lie...

2011-12-14T20:19:00.001-05:00

Where are all the people, Char-lie...

Baldwin on SNL

2011-12-11T18:29:00.002-05:00

This guy is, let's be charitable, an unmitigated douchebag.

But you can't say he's not funny...

Restoring trust

2011-12-11T16:22:00.003-05:00

OK, so this isn't sexy. It doesn't talk about six-sigma or mining resources on the moon. It doesn't talk about the Next American Century full of global power projection and U.S. hegemony; or how American power is "good for the world."

What it is, IMHO, is an ambitious blue print for addressing the root causes of some serious problems that are undermining our economy, and breeding distrust of both private and public sector institutions.

Without further ado, Huntsman's 7-point plan:

1. Reform our 17,000 page tax code. He will eliminate every last loophole, subsidy and carve-out. He will use that revenue to lower rates across the board, for individuals and businesses. Governor Huntsman will create a tax code that is flatter and simpler; one that opens up economic opportunities for all our citizens, makes us more competitive, and ends corporate welfare and crony capitalism, once and for all.

2. Address our mounting debt by cutting spending in every corner of government, leaving no sacred cow untouched. Governor Huntsman will reform entitlement programs – based on the Ryan Plan – while holding true to our nation’s commitments to those in or near retirement.

3. Ensure that no financial entity is too-big-to-fail. Governor Huntsman will do this by breaking up the big banks on Wall Street, so that never again – never again – are taxpayers held hostage by a Sophie’s Choice: massive bailouts, or economic calamity.

4. Adopt a comprehensive energy strategy that frees us from foreign oil, that eliminates all energy subsidies, and that levels the playing field for competing fuels and technologies.

5. Streamline regulations in order to create a free, fair and competitive marketplace. All too often our regulatory framework becomes another tool for special interests seeking to use the state to protect privileges and insulate themselves from competition. Read More

6. Bring our troops home from Afghanistan, while leaving behind an appropriately-sized counterterrorist presence. And Governor Huntsman will set our military strategy and budgets based on long-term threats and vulnerabilities, not on spending patterns developed decades ago and reinforced today by armies of lobbyists.

7. Finally, in order to ensure that government responds to all its citizens with the same level of urgency and fairness, and to lessen the influence of special interests, Governor Huntsman will send to Congress a "Citizen Legislature Act," which includes term limits for Congress and lobbying restrictions.

Bold portions are my emphasis-- segments of this plan that I think are on point, and part of the same theme.

I'm pretty sure

2011-12-11T16:17:00.001-05:00

the only thing that will be remembered about last night's debate, two months from now, is the $10K bet.

Mitt hurt himself with that one. Pretty badly.

Debate!

2011-12-09T19:01:00.002-05:00

Tomorrow night's debate is the first one I'll watch in its entirety in a while. They dynamics are totally different now, w/ Mitt not the nominal frontrunner. I'm interested to see how he handles it. I don't think it serves him well to be an attack dog. He needs to continue with the same, above-the-fray persona that he's maintained through almost all of the debates to this point.

Newt has to avoid saying anything outrageous and looking petulant. Since he'll be the focus of most of the attacks, it could be more difficult than it sounds. Luckily for him, Newt knows how to debate and doesn't have to do much different than what he's been doing thus far, so I'm not too worried about him.

Huntsman is the only other candidate that I really take seriously at this point, despite his non-existent polling (other than in NH). He needs to be assertive, draw distinctions with Mitt on foreign policy, economic record, and consistency.

Santorum needs some kind of incredibly memorable line. Lightning in a bottle, if you will.

Bachmann should drop out now and will soon.

Perry should drop out now, but has the money to continue making a fool of himself for a long time.

Paul will be Paul. Huntsman has the most opportunity to point out similarities with Paul (particularly on foreign policy, and on their mutual animus towards crony capitalism) in order to make himself the second choice of Paul voters.

Mustang vs. the Competition

2011-12-09T18:39:00.002-05:00

The money shot comes at around 1:25.

Perry doesn't let dignity get in the way of comedy

2011-12-09T18:18:00.003-05:00

What. A. Joke.

From the AP:

On Friday, Perry criticized Obama for his two Supreme Court nominees. "When you see his appointment of two, from my perspective, inarguably activist judges, whether it was ." he said, trailing off.

He paused for six seconds. "Not Montemayor," he said.

"Sotomayor," a member of the editorial board said.

"Sotomayor, Sotomayor," Perry said.

He went on to denounce "eight unelected and, frankly, unaccountable judges" in a discussion of prayer in schools. But nine justices sit on the Supreme Court.

The hits keep on coming

2011-12-09T12:14:00.003-05:00

David Brooks, another member of the GOP intelligentsia (whether many conservatives would like to admit it or not), has out today a column critical of Gingrich.

Here are his main points:

Of all the major Republicans, the one who comes closest to my worldview is Newt Gingrich... [H]e continually returns to this core political refrain: He talks about using government in energetic but limited ways to increase growth, dynamism and social mobility.

As he said in 2007, “It’s not a point of view libertarians would embrace, but I am more in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism. I recognize that there are times when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development.”

So why am I not more excited by the Gingrich surge?

In the first place, Gingrich loves government more than I do...

Furthermore, he has an unconservative faith in his own innocence.

Then there is his rhetorical style... Most people just want somebody who can articulate their hatreds, and Gingrich is demagogically happy to play the role.

Most important, there is temperament and character. As Yuval Levin noted in a post for National Review, the two Republican front-runners, Gingrich and Mitt Romney are both “very wonky Rockefeller Republicans who moved to the right over time as their party moved right.”

But they have very different temperaments. Romney, Levin observes, has an executive temperament — organization, discipline, calm and restraint. Gingrich has a revolutionary temperament — intensity, energy, disorganization and a tendency to see everything as a cataclysmic clash requiring a radical response.

In the two main Republican contenders, we have one man, Romney, who seems to have walked straight out of the 1950s, and another, Gingrich, who seems to have walked straight out of the 1960s. He has every negative character trait that conservatives associate with ’60s excess: narcissism, self-righteousness, self-indulgence and intemperance. He just has those traits in Republican form.

As nearly everyone who has ever worked with him knows, he would severely damage conservatism and the Republican Party if nominated. He would severely damage the Hamilton-[T.] Theodore Roosevelt strain in American life.

The endorsements keep rolling in for Mitt; the criticism for Newt. Yet at this point, I guess the main question is--does it really matter? Based on the polling, it seems like Newt is getting a solid grip on the nomination.

Nice Huntsman ad.

2011-12-08T14:36:00.003-05:00

With some commentary from moi, originally posted at Race 4 2012:

I think the focus of this ad is dead on, and should be co-opted by whoever is the eventual GOP nominee. This lack of trust is at the root of what ails us.

Liberals believe the political fracturing of our society is because of economic “inequality.” But the honest truth (and the conservative viewpoint) is that the diversion of political factions has more to do with a lack of trust in our insitutions, than the fact that we can’t all be rich. Americans who believe they’re getting a fair shake are willing to work hard to be in the middle class. Selective bailouts, Obamacare exemptions, selective asset subsidies, and the general picking of winners and losers in the economy, creates a feel of corruption that dispirits and divides. It makes the deck seemed stacked against you.

Just finished repaying your student loan? Sucker! Should’ve let the interest accrue till the mob forced a government bailout for debtors.

Bought a house in the middle of bubble, without realizing that quasi-govermental agencies were allowing lenders to avoid the consequences of writing bad loans via securitization? Sucker! Should’ve held your cash and waited for the bust.

These (and many other) government machinations make it more difficult than it should be for the average citizen, who wants to play by the rules, from achieving success.

Less picking of winners and losers, please; a return to a sense of stability in the legal, regulatory and economic context within which we make our decisions. Get government’s heavy hand out of the way, and people might start to trust it again.

What comes next?

2011-12-08T13:03:00.001-05:00

This should be a D.C. special...

Lets not hunt Illinois

2011-12-08T12:32:00.000-05:00

Concerns among Newt's colleagues

2011-12-07T14:49:00.003-05:00

Race 4 2012 has a post up stating that McCain is preparing to make a Romney endorsement. The article quotes a source (in an article from The Hill) who, I think, sums up the fears among GOP insiders w/r/t a Newt candidacy. Even for those who respect his considerable talents:

There is growing concern among many of McCain’s Senate Republican colleagues on whether Gingrich is electable in a match-up against President Obama.

“Newt’s hand is always six inches from the self-destruct button,” one GOP lawmaker said last week.

My Favorite Newt Caption

2011-12-07T08:21:00.002-05:00

Blatantly lifted from http://newtjudgesyou.tumblr.com/post/12853736401/i-understand-you-disagree-with-my-argument-on

“I understand you disagree with my argument on transubstantiation. I’ll grant you that. But this does not change the fact that you are completely wrong about whether Han shot first.”

Unshackled?

2011-12-06T15:38:00.002-05:00

I have been having problems publishing posts (no issues with comments though, as I'm sure has been noticed).

This is only a test--IGNORE THIS POST!!!!

-------------------------

Admin Edit: If anyone else is having trouble posting on the blog, please let Fredo know offline. Thx.

Casting Call

2011-12-06T14:47:00.003-05:00

Clockwise from center top:

Sleepy, Stalker, X-Man, Racer-X

Also, maybe you guys could help me with this one:

BenJarvus X Beasty X

2011-12-06T11:57:00.001-05:00

I have your red velvet cupcake Ameritupperware.

Just saying.

Deep Thoughts, by George Will

2011-12-05T09:30:00.013-05:00

Having read and re-read that Will article, I really believe this paragraph is the core of it. I've removed the references to Gingrich, because it makes a deeper philosophical point about the nature of conservatism:

[A] Marxist believes everything is related to everything else and only he understands how. Conservatism, in contrast, is both cause and effect of modesty about understanding society’s complexities, controlling its trajectory and improving upon its spontaneous order. Conservatism inoculates against th[is] hubristic volatility..."

Conservatism is not, historically speaking, a "movement" aimed at reform, revolution, or upending the nature of things. It is status-quo-ism. It is trimming the fat, restoring things to a state of equilibrium, moving beyond the hubris of trying to legislate fantasy in the face of reality. This is a conservatism that would appeal to Edmund Burke or Russell Kirk. Or possibly John Calhoun.

And therein lies the potential criticism of it: Calhoun was committed to preserving a status quo institution that needed to be destroyed. His brand of conservatism preserved, it did not overturn. Unlike Calhoun, today's movement conservatives no longer believe we can merely preserve the valuable institutions that form the core of our society. They believe that our most important institutions, which may vary depending on the type of conservative you are talking to (e.g., our Anglo cultural heritage, our common-law protections, religious institutions in the Judeo-Christian tradition, a town/locally-centric body politic), have already been trampled beyond recognition. They believe a restoration is needed, which would be transformative in nature, and destructive of the status quo built by liberals over the past 80 years. If this restoration is wrenching and full of conflict, so be it.

This is the opposite view of the traditionalist conservative, who sees more value in preserving stability, gradually steering society away from excess and harmful measures that may have accumulated over time, and working incrementally. One might also compare this to the difference between Clarence Thomas conservatism and Anthony Kennedy (or David Souter?) conservatism. Or to the difference between Reagan Republicanism and Rockefeller Republicanism, although both are imperfect analogies.

Note that this distinction does not apply perfectly to the candidates in this race. Gingrich espouses so many different views that he cannot be neatly defined as either an incrementalist (despite wanting a less audacious plan to entitlement reform than Ryan's "right-wing social engineering"), nor a restorationist (despite his views that he is leading a cavalry charge against the status quo).

Mitt seems to fit more clearly into the role of incrementalist. This obviously does not bother Will greatly, who seems more concerned with Romney's likeability, than with his preference for managing, rather than rolling back, the continued creep of liberal-statism.

Huntsman likewise can't be pigeon-holed, but is clearly more of an incrementalist and a valuer of stability. For example, look at how his approach to the debt ceiling crisis contrasted with the rest of the GOP candidates in the field: he voiced conservative priorities, but wanted to the brinkmanship that he felt had unknown consequences. Yet he also has some bold proposals (politically speaking), like the elimination of cap gains and dividend taxation. I presume that Will's main calculation is that Huntsman is more likeable than Romney, and thus a better candidate, while still hailing from a similar conservative tradition--one that Will is more comfortable with.

Will seems to ignore in this article, though I'm sure he's aware of it, that there are whole segments of the American right that are no longer incrementalists. Which is odd, because when Reagan and Thatcher were wresting of conservative political parties here and in England, I'm pretty sure Will sided with them over the status quo. I'd be interested to know if Will sees our current trajectory as closer to a "natural equilibirium" than was the case in the '60s and '70s.

In any event, these movement conservatives believe that societal institutions need to be upended, just as liberals have believed for centuries. They are focused on upending the institutions of the Great Society, the New Deal, and the Warren Court, whereas liberals have been focused on the Church (purveyor, in their view, of patriarchy and ethnic supremacism), strict property and contractual rights (resulting in wealth inequality), and the belief in homogenous cultural and moral values.

For these political warriors/movement conservatives, currently most associated with the Tea Party, Gingrich's personality, and elements of his ideology, seems to be a fit, even if his long record may not align with their goals when closely scrutinized.

George Will on the current front runners

2011-12-05T02:18:00.003-05:00

Will cuts down the current frontrunners. It is a piece that is startling in its candor (read: willingness to attack the prevailing view that Gingrich is a conservative), and also written by a man who clearly know the ropes, and whose experience and knowledge command attention. First, his attack on Romney:

Romney’s main objection to contemporary Washington seems to be that he is not administering it. God has 10 commandments, Woodrow Wilson had 14 points, Heinz had 57 varieties, but Romney’s economic platform has 59 planks — 56 more than necessary if you have low taxes, free trade and fewer regulatory burdens...

Obama is running as Harry Truman did in 1948, against Congress, but Republicans need not supply the real key to Truman’s success — Tom Dewey. Confident that Truman was unelectable, Republicans nominated New York’s chilly governor, whose virtues of experience and steadiness were vitiated by one fact: Voters disliked him.

He saves his harshest critique for Gingrich:

Gingrich...embodies the vanity and rapacity that make modern Washington repulsive. And there is his anti-conservative confidence that he has a comprehensive explanation of, and plan to perfect, everything...

His temperament — intellectual hubris distilled — makes him blown about by gusts of enthusiasm for intellectual fads, from 1990s futurism to “Lean Six Sigma” today...

Gingrich, who would have made a marvelous Marxist, believes everything is related to everything else and only he understands how. Conservatism, in contrast, is both cause and effect of modesty about understanding society’s complexities, controlling its trajectory and improving upon its spontaneous order. Conservatism inoculates against the hubristic volatility that Gingrich exemplifies and Genesis deplores: “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel.”

Will offers brief praise of Perry as a possible alternative (out of deference to his wife, I presume, who works for Perry), but then goes on to praise the man that I must presume is his preferred candidate:

Jon Huntsman inexplicably chose to debut as the Republican for people who rather dislike Republicans, but his program is the most conservative. He endorses Paul Ryan’s budget and entitlement reforms. (Gingrich denounced Ryan’s Medicare reform as “right-wing social engineering.”) Huntsman would privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Gingrich’s benefactor). Huntsman would end double taxation on investment by eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends. (Romney would eliminate them only for people earning less than $200,000, who currently pay just 9.3 percent of them.) Huntsman’s thorough opposition to corporate welfare includes farm subsidies. (Romney has justified them as national security measures — food security, somehow threatened. Gingrich says opponents of ethanol subsidies are “big-city” people hostile to farmers.) Huntsman considers No Child Left Behind, the semi-nationalization of primary and secondary education, “an unmitigated disaster.” (Romney and Gingrich support it. Gingrich has endorsed a national curriculum.) Between Ron Paul’s isolationism and the faintly variant bellicosities of the other six candidates stands Huntsman’s conservative foreign policy, skeptically nuanced about America’s need or ability to control many distant developments.

Mr. Will's summation:

Romney might not be a Dewey. Gingrich might stop being (as Churchill said of John Foster Dulles) a bull who carries his own china shop around with him. But both are too risky to anoint today.

Ralfy on Gentleman Jack

2011-11-20T18:51:00.000-05:00

Here's his review of the other Tennessee Whiskey:

ICYMI: Wu Tang on the floor of the IL Legislature

2011-11-19T19:45:00.000-05:00

Seeing as how our newest contributor is Raekwon, I figured I'd bring back an oldie (but goodie)

George Dickel No: 12

2011-11-18T13:47:00.000-05:00

Had the opportunity to taste this fine spirit thanks to Beetz. A wonderful review from a website I'll be sure to visit again.

Are the Tories the last Europeans with a lick of common sense?

2011-11-18T09:16:00.002-05:00

Just asking.

"The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are, highly paid, highly pensioned officials trying to deny us the right to say what is patently true."
-Conservative MEP Roger Helmer

European World Gov't Bureaucrats: Water Does Not Hydrate

2011-11-18T09:15:00.002-05:00

I'm not even making this shit up.

Russians rattling (nuclear) sabres

2011-11-17T10:25:00.001-05:00

Good times.

The Miraculous Honey Badger

2011-11-16T11:02:00.003-05:00

I love learning about the amazing world of nature.

Warning: NSFW

From the Honey Badger Wiki entry:

Because of the toughness and looseness of their skin, honey badgers are very difficult to kill with dogs. Their skin is hard to penetrate, and its looseness allows them to twist and turn on their attackers when held. The only safe grip on a honey badger is on the back of the neck. The skin is also tough enough to resist several machete blows. The only sure way of killing them quickly is through a blow to the skull with a club or a shot to the head with a powerful rifle, as their skin is almost impervious to arrows and spears.[26]

Love this email to blog setting.

2011-11-13T19:33:00.000-05:00

Now I can give you up to the minute updates from my cell.

Hoping the extra fiber will get things moving.

More to come...

Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone

Just arrived in AC

2011-11-13T18:46:00.001-05:00

A wretched hive of scum and villainy.

"Tear off something for Putin"

2011-11-13T12:08:00.002-05:00

Now this, my friends, is change you can believe in. Maybe W knew what he was talking about when he said he could see into Putin's soul: a world where hot Russian chicks are looking to get after it. Anywhere, anytime.

When do the candidates drop out?

2011-11-12T08:07:00.003-05:00

Any guesses?

Here are mine:

Scenario 1 (Newt wins FL):

Santorum/Bachmann: After Iowa (1/4)
Huntsman/Johnson: After NH (1/11)
Perry/Cain: Few days after SC (1/24)
Gingrich: Late April
Paul: Never drops out, takes it right to the convention to enjoy another 15 minutes.

The main question here is how solid is Cain's support? If he remains in double-digits through FL, Newt will have a hard time winning FL, and Mitt might sew it up early. If Cain drops out after SC, Newt might win FL, and that would sustain him through super Tuesday and beyond, only to bow out after the winner-take-all primaries on 4/24.

Scenario 2 (Mitt wins FL):

Santorum/Bachmann: After Iowa (1/4)
Huntsman/Johnson: After NH (1/11)
Perry: Few days after SC (1/24)
Gingrich: Mid-Feb (after CO)
Cain: Late April
Paul: Never drops out, takes it right to the convention to enjoy another 15 minutes.

Next stop?

2011-11-11T18:57:00.000-05:00

Did Kubrick and Clarke see this coming way back when? Is this the true message behind 2001?

Someone just drew Romney blood

2011-11-11T18:50:00.004-05:00

This is a message that will resonate with the base. It is a differentiator, and it has the added benefit of being provable based on track record. It separates Newt from both Cain and Mitt.

Don't look now, but MB's pushing for some intrade profit...

Strange things afoot

2011-11-11T09:32:00.003-05:00

Anyone just feel like we're living in bizarro land? The last few weeks have been even weirder than the exceptionally weird last couple of months, with an emphasis on the dangerous.

-Global killing asteroid just misses Earth
-70 degree days in mid-November
-All-time weird storm hits Alaska
-Earthquake in Oklahoma
-Radioactivity of unknown origin in the air over Europe
-JoePa (JoePa!) turns a blind eye to sexual abuse of children, in a scandal that seems to grow bigger by the day
-#OWS protestors occupying cities across the fruited plain; in Atlanta they have a TB epidemic; in Denver they've elected a dog their leader; in Seattle they've incorporated; in New York they're pissed that the homeless are taking their food
-11/11/11 11:11:11
-Europe collapsing in on itself
-IAEA announces Iran near getting nukes
-Islamists taking control across MENA region ("Arab Spring")
-Gold surges, fiat currencies everywhere turn volatile
-China and Russia in bilateral talks, China military spending balloons, veiled threats against devaluing our currency with further QE
-Rick Perry can't count to three

More on the Gingrich surge

2011-11-11T08:46:00.000-05:00

Once written off, Gingrich surges - Washington Times

David Axelrod's Pattern of Sexual Misbehavior - HUMAN EVENTS

2011-11-11T07:38:00.000-05:00

David Axelrod's Pattern of Sexual Misbehavior - HUMAN EVENTS

Isn't it just coincidental that, despite the fact that Herman Cain has never lived there, all of his accusers come from... wait for it...

Chicago.

Welcome to our new contributors

2011-11-10T13:04:00.006-05:00

Many of you have met them both personally.

Raekwon the Chef is a co-worker of mine, and also a cigar-smoking, card playing, booze swilling degenerate. Additionally, as he pointed out, he is a "neoconservative" voice on this blog, which apparently means he is also an "investment banker" who "likes to charge interest." #OWS #KKK

Michaelangelo Merisi suffers from borderline personality disorder, ~~and shares sexual appetites with Jerry Sandusky~~. OK, that's probably taking it too far. But he has played lacrosse, and also gone to Duke. You be the judge...

An Occasional "Welcome" (lukewarmth intended) to you both.

Rap song reveals Reyes' free-agent feelings... Hablo ingles?

2011-11-09T17:09:00.000-05:00

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/mets/that_rap_hiLkoTNe7WQBo73416Y02L

Watch the video... song is hot...

Now We're Paying for Other People's Intarwebs

2011-11-09T10:47:00.003-05:00

Just take all of my money. Buy someone else a green car, organic food, and solar panels to heat their house I paid for.

Asteroids!

2011-11-08T12:37:00.003-05:00

A rather large asteroid is apparently coming really close to the Earth later today. Like, inside of the moon's orbit close.

Scientists tell us there is NO CHANCE it will hit the planet.

Which is surprising because I kinda figured that scientists would be saying

"RUN YOU ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!!"

Gingrich momentum building

2011-11-05T21:42:00.002-04:00

As Byron York reports here, there is a Gingrich boomlet in Iowa, with an outright boom potentially around the corner.

Cain/Gingrich LD style debate.

2011-11-05T16:11:00.001-04:00

Tonight at 8 on C Span

Go North, young man!

2011-11-04T12:48:00.002-04:00

Peter Schiff vs. #ows

2011-10-27T13:49:00.002-04:00

Peter Schiff Takes On Occupy Wall Street Protesters

My hero. Vintage quotes:

"I didn't sign a contract with society."

"Buffett is full of it."

"Wouldn't you like to get into the 1%?"

"Why should I work for free?"

"Do you think I should work for you, or for myself?"

"I'm employing 150 people. How many do you employ?"

"I'm doing my share, why aren't you doing yours."

"I'm probably paying more income taxes than everyone around me, combined, so I'm doing my fair share."

Currently residing in the "where are they now file"...

2011-10-26T10:53:00.004-04:00

or more specifically, the "where did it go" file...

I'd like to give a big reminder to all those who have forgotten (or consigned to the past) an important component of American history, a component that rests on a belief in our founding principles and destiny to improve the lot of mankind. That component: manifest destiny.

For the first half of our nation's history, we were not shy about stating our goals to expand. From Florida, to Loozana, to Tejas, to Alta California, to 54'40 (Polk sold us out!), Hawaii, Alaska, Gadsen, Philippines, Cuba, etc., we've had many forays into territorial conquest or purchase. To be fair, there was never a consensus definition of what "manifest destiny" really called for, in terms of territorial limits. Whether it meant simply reaching the Pacific; or as John Quincy Adams had it, all of North America; or something even bigger--was undefined and an item for debate. What is not open for debate was that, for this period of time, we consistently sought to broaden the reach of the American experiment; and spread the freedom and prosperity it brought our people and the world.

It's interesting to me that we've abandoned this philosophy. We're quite willing to fight far-flung battles that are incredibly expensive in both blood and treasure, in defense of principles, with no tangible gain to our national wealth.

At the same time, we're willing to spend tons of effort to secure our huge land borders, and do it ineffectively. This is not surprising, given our current land borders are not naturally defined and defensible, and hence are extremely difficult to police.

But in a world where resources are becoming increasingly scarce, and that scarcity will likely increase in an exponential way, why do we no longer seek to expand opportunity for the American people and economy, by growing our territory? And as a result, grow our natural resources and human capital?

I'd like to know why this thought is off the table.

Scouting trip coming up...

2011-10-26T10:40:00.002-04:00

Brisk air this week. And I see that when we hit the woods, at 7 AM on Friday, the temperature in Hawley is set to be 29F, with snow on the ground.

Love it.

SHK, ManBeast, Beetz and Caribou are WEAK

2011-10-26T10:17:00.002-04:00

for not participating in the Mad Money Challenge this year. Boo to you guys.

Here comes the howling

2011-10-26T10:08:00.000-04:00

The Club for Growth:

“The big problem many conservatives have with Mitt Romney is that he’s taken both sides of nearly every issue important to us. He’s against a flat tax, now he’s for it. He says he’s against ObamaCare, but was for the individual mandate and susbidies that are central to ObamaCare. He thinks that collective bargaining issues should be left for states to decide if he’s Ohio, but he took the opposite position when he was in New Hampshire. This is just another statement in a long line of statements that will raise more doubts about what kind of President Mitt Romney would be in the minds of many Republican primary voters.” [link]

Mitt on Kasich's Ohio reforms

2011-10-25T17:49:00.008-04:00

I've been leaning more heavily towards supporting Mitt in '12 as the weeks have gone by. Largely, this is the result of my feeling that the gap between he and his opponents, when it comes to executive ability, is quite large. With each debate, that large gap comes into sharper focus. His command of the issues, both from a sound bite/elevator pitch standpoint, and from a more granular, under-the-hood standpoint, is robust. No one save Gingrich shows both the breadth and depth of knowledge.

But when it comes to ability to enact an agenda, I have more confidence in Mitt than Newt. Mitt's tenure in the private sector was legendary (see here for a well written explanation that is part critique but ultimately reinforces the strength of his bio). His record of enacting his political agenda in a hostile MA environment is underrated. And the effectiveness of his campaign, in terms of stability of personnel, fund raising, consistency of message, and lack of mistakes, has been a strong testament to his leadership.

Newt is a dynamo of policy ideas, but I honestly don't know what to expect from his as an executive. His tenure as the head of the House GOP was erratic. His campaign dissolved earlier this cycle, before being resurrected on the strength of his debating. I could readily support Newt as a candidate, but Mitt seems the safer play for the country (not for our platform, nor, necessarily, for the GOP's electoral chances). But for the day-to-day grind of running the country, and being up to the challenge of the never-ending media gauntlet, I'd cast my lot with Mitt.

All of that, however, is predicated on my notion that Mitt is conservative enough to make a meaningful difference in the direction of our country. And while I recognize he's not Marco Rubio, I've believed that he would meet the "conservative enough" standard for the following reasons:

-He's put himself on the record for the repeal of Obama care.
-He's clearly looking for lower taxes and a more business friendly regulatory environment.
-He wants to stem the tide of government growth, even if his cap on federal spending, and where the cuts will come from, haven't been defined in any real way (at least that I've seen).
-He's articulated a defense of marriage for the wellbeing of children, and a pro-life philosophy.
-His foreign policy pronouncements, both on paper and on the stump, show a well studied understanding of the issues and the players--even if his "American greatness" philosophy is a bit vague in practice. For instance, I'm glad he wants to reverse the tide of "mea culpa diplomacy", but I'm concerned he's overcommitting to an expensive ramping up of our long-distance military commitments.

But what if Mitt's campaigning is basically, how to put this...obfuscation? What if he's triangulating himself as just conservative enough for the right, and just moderate enough for the center, but he doesn't know where HE is? This, of course, has been the critics charge right along. I've always been somewhat dismissive of it. Just as W wasn't dumb because of his twang, Mitt's not a liar because he's a little stiff, well dressed, and sounds a bit practiced. To the contrary, Mitt's rigorously analytical nature (as evidenced with his tenure at Bain), his personal discipline and embrace of a received morality (as evidenced by his biography), and his traditionalist bent (stylistically, I'll admit) always led me to think he was probably more conservative than he lets on.

Every once in a while, though, some evidence comes along that makes you rethink your assumptions. This article, from the Washington Examiner, has given me a lot to ponder:

Campaigning in Ohio today, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney stopped by a Republican Party phone-bank making calls in support of Gov. John Kasich's government union reform referendum, but refused to endorse the actual referendum. CNN's Peter Hamby called the scene an "incredible moment in politics."

Kasich already signed his government union reforms into law in March of this year, not long after Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker won his battle against government unions. But Democrats, with the help from the AFL-CIO, placed a referendum on next week's ballot Issue 2, that would repeal the new law. A vote for the referendum would keep the law, a vote against would repeal.

Kasich's new law: 1) bans government unions from bargaining over health insurance, 2) requires that all government union members pay at least 10% of their wages toward their pensions, 3) ends seniority rights as the sole factor in layoffs, 4) replaces seniority pay raises with merit pay raises, 5) bans government unions from striking, and 6) makes government union dues voluntary. But government unions would still be able to bargain about many other topics including pay and working conditions.

While entitlement reform is arguably a bigger issue for the long-term solvency of the nation, the public sector union issue is a crucial component of the battle over the size of government at all levels. If the influence of the "union dues->political contributions->union concessions->higher union dues" cycle can't be broken now, when our national credit rating has just been downgraded, and we are facing the clear prospect of a European path to insolvency; then the war over the size of government has been completely lost. The symbiosis between public sector unions and liberal elected officials provides an ever-present catalyst for more government spending. Scott Walker risked his career, and possibly his personal safety, because he understood the gravity of this political conflict. The House GOP leadership stood firm and carried the fight a long way (perhaps not as far as some would have liked, but still, a long way), because they did as well.

Mitt, apparently, wants to duck this battle, at least for the time being. I can only presume his reasons lie in his political calculation, and the good of his campaign.

I say this now, having only heard one side of the story. I anxiously await the Romney camp's retort to the howls of criticism that are surely coming his way. But I'm no longer as predisposed to brushing off the critics as I might have been yesterday.

Moves Like Jabba | Break.com

2011-10-13T18:59:00.000-04:00

Moves Like Jabba | Break.com

A great blog

2011-10-13T14:13:00.001-04:00

Check it out.

Foreign Policy: Huntsman vs. Romney

2011-10-10T15:56:00.002-04:00

An interesting contrast is developing. Read more about it here.

One key way in which their differing world views show up in policy:

Huntsman, unlike Romney, is open and eager to find cuts in the defense budget. The difference could create a powerful point of debate between the two given the economic focus of the election and the interest in cutting waste from government spending. When they were considering presidential runs, both Haley Barbour and Mitch Daniels unapologetically favored thorough reviews of the defense budget and wanted to see cuts. Without the pair of fiscally conservative governors in the race, the primary has lacked much discussion of the issue. But with Huntsman’s and Romney’s differing visions, it could crop up on Tuesday.

Ain't it fun

2011-10-07T17:32:00.003-04:00

when a band goes on well after their date of expiration? Guns N Roses should have packed it in decades ago. Here's the proof:

Their last two lead guitarists were named Buckethead and Bumblefoot.

I shit you not.

Fredo's Mad Money Challenge '12, Part 1

2011-10-05T19:10:00.007-04:00

For round 1, you get $20 to pick all the contracts you want in the first four primary/caucus states. You can pick as many or as few contracts as you want in any primary. You could bet all your money on one race. You could bet all four races. You could play multiple candidates in the same state. You could play the same candidate in every state. The choice is yours.

Remember, each contract pays off $10 if it ends "in the money" (i.e., if the candidate wins that primary), $0 otherwise.

Best of luck, gentlemen! I'll go first in the comments, but I think it's best if you make your picks looking at mine, so we don't end up gaming each other picks. That would give the person who goes last an advantage over the person who goes first. Try to make your picks ASAP so the later pickers don't get the advantage of more info.

I'll provide an example below:

Joe Schmo could buy:

NH Romney x 1 (@ $7.79) = $7.79
SC Cain x 2 (@ $0.98) = $1.96
SC Bachmann x 2 (@ $0.35) = $0.70
SC Romney x1 (@ $3.00) = $3.00
NV Romney x 1 (@ $6.55) = $6.55

$20.00 and he's tapped out.

At the end of the first four primaries, Joe could win as much as $40. If Romney wins NH and NV, Joe gets $10 for each of those. If Cain or Bachmann win SC, Joe would get an additional $20, since he bought two contracts for each of the candidates.

Round 1: The First Four

Here are the Intrade prices for the first four GOP contests:

Iowa

Rick Perry $3.09
Mitt Romney $2.00
Ron Paul $0.60
Michele Bachmann $1.45
Herman Cain $0.90
Rick Santorum $0.09
Newt Gingrich $0.08
Jon Huntsman $0.04
Field $0.24

New Hampshire

Mitt Romney $7.79
Rick Perry $0.60
Jon Huntsman $0.60
Ron Paul $0.40
Herman Cain $0.20
Newt Gingrich $0.10
Michele Bachmann $0.20
Rick Santorum $0.02
Field $0.30

South Carolina

Rick Perry $3.75
Mitt Romney $3.00
Ron Paul $0.60
Jon Huntsman $0.20
Rick Santorum $1.20
Herman Cain $0.98
Michele Bachmann $0.35
Newt Gingrich $0.13
Field $0.60

Nevada

Mitt Romney $6.55*
Rick Perry $4.00
Ron Paul $1.20
Michele Bachmann $0.45*
Jon Huntsman $0.45*
Herman Cain $0.30
Newt Gingrich $0.10
Rick Santorum $0.10
Field $0.01*

All contract prices are shown are "last executed price", except for those noted with "*", in which no contract has yet changed hands. In this case, the price above is the midpoint between the bid and ask price.

Round 2 will be the next batch of primaries (if the race is not settled), and Round 3 the Veepstakes.

First place in each rd gets 5 points
Second place 3 points
Third place 2 points
Fourth place 1 point

Highest point total after all 3 rounds wins Fredo's Mad Money Challenge!

Palin to supporters: "Nyet!"

2011-10-05T18:52:00.003-04:00

(when she's on her front porch)

Anyhow, that didn't take long. Yesterday I thought we might have weeks. We had one day.

The only semi-serious candidate yet to announce definitively is Rudy, but I'm not buying that he's even considering it. I think he's just trying to drum up some donations from ignorant supporters to help retire some debt from last cycle.

So....

here's our list of candidates (sticking to those still in the race who've been in at least one debate):

Romney (Fmr Gov. - MA)
Perry (Gov. - TX)
Cain (GA)
Huntsman (Fmr Gov. - UT)
Gingrich (Fmr Rep./Spkr. - GA)
Paul (Rep - TX)
Santorum (Fmr Sen. - PA)
Bachmann (Rep - MN)
Johnson (Fmr Gov. - NM)

The field is almost set

2011-10-04T14:47:00.004-04:00

We just haven't heard from Sarah yet.

That means we can start our GOP primary soon!

I'm thinking this year, we can rank candidates in the order they will finish in terms of total delegates amassed. As a tie break, we can guess the percentage of the delegates that will be amassed by the top 3.

Just need to a wait a couple of weeks to see if the pitbull with lipstick is in or out.

For the 3rd straight cycle

2011-10-04T13:39:00.002-04:00

it seems like the GOP has a candidate who is perfect for the situation, and will not get the nomination. The GOP devotion to primogeniture seems to get the best of the party, time and again.

McCain would have been perfect in 2000.

Mitt would have been perfect in 2008.

Christie would have been perfect in 2012.

I think the reasons are obvious, and I can elaborate in the comments if need be. But the point is, I'm disappointed.

Christie to announce his intentions at 1 PM

2011-10-04T10:00:00.005-04:00

Well, my dream may finally come true. Here's hoping he runs.

I know he is squishy on some social issues and on gun control. I can live with that, so long as he couches his previous positions as "the right policies for NJ," and takes a strong pro-Federalism approach to his national policies. If he commits to appointing conservative jurists I can easily give him a pass on the policies I disagree with.

Why?

Because the man is a gifted politician. Because his priorities (combating the voracious public sector beast) are perfectly matched to our current perdicament. And because he's the kind of person who can change the national conversation, not just for years, but for decades. Just like with Reagan, when rhetoric crosses over into results, people notice. Christie WILL get things done, and the distinction between the GOP as courageous financial stewards and Dems as sellouts will be etched into the memory of generations of voters.

EDIT: Alas, as I was composing this, news agencies are reporting that Christie will not run. Drat.

All aboard the Mitt train.

There's a lot of people around

2011-09-30T10:57:00.002-04:00

Warning: NSFW

OK, I'll bite

2011-09-28T20:56:00.002-04:00

Sounds like the zombie apocalypse may be coming. Here's the CDC's emergency preparedness plan.

And here's a link to some tools you may want for your arsenal.

You know things are bad

2011-09-07T10:33:00.003-04:00

when the elk can't take it anymore. Elk to 'keep: "Line me up another, Shorty."

Link: Drunken Elk Rescued from Apple Tree.