Palin Derangement Syndrome, Again

PALIN'S RECKLESS VIEWS ON OBESITY

A few days ago Roland Martin, of CNN fame, added one more example of Palin's inane ideas to the public record . Surely by this time we all know that Palin is an embarrassment to the body politic: unlike Biden, Hank "Guam May Tip Over" Johnson or Sheila Jackson Lee. Well, let's laugh at Palin's stupidity one more time. After all, who can't use a good laugh every now and then?

ROLAND MARTIN:
It's clear that we can't go 24 hours without Sarah Palin saying something so stupid that it defies logic, but leave it to the Kim Kardashian of politics to find something wrong with first lady Michelle Obama's effort to curb obesity in America's kids.

What did Palin say that was so stupid?

SARAH PALIN:
And I know I'm going to be again criticized for bringing this up, but instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us according to some politician or politician's wife priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions and then our country gets back on the right track.

Palin is truly out of the mainstream here. Martin is so correct: who can pay attention to this Kim Kardashian of politics when obesity rates have "tripled in the last three decades, and one in three children are obese." Palin must be crazy to think that the parents ought to decide. Obviously the parents don't know what they're doing. The government must step in to save the children. They're our future after all.

ROLAND MARTIN :
This latest broadside by Palin shows how reckless and ridiculous she is.

Libertarians and far right conservative Republicans are always talking about government intrusion into our lives, but when we look at clean water, air quality and food supply, thank God for governmental standards.

There's a lot wrong with your arguments Roland. I'll mention two things. First, let’s focus directly upon your statement of government standards. You would see, if you cared to look, that water and air quality were improving before the EPA was founded. Take a look at the same graphs and you will not see a change in the slope of the curve; thus showing that the value of the EPA is debatable.

Second, the fact that government has a role in upholding contracts (that what one says is in the food actually is) and in making certain that a person/company does not damage another person's property (pollution) has nothing to do with the government forcing people to eat good food.

Nobody is against a plain and simple "education" message. Nobody is against the first lady saying "brush your teeth," or "read to your kid every night," or "don't eat too much," or "eat more fruits and vegetable." What we're against is government intrusion; what we're against is the rise of Euro-socialist nanny state where laws and government power is used to enforce such a standard.

We have a social contract here: I promise not to kill you and take your stuff, if you promise not to kill me and take mine. We entered no such arrangement whereby I promise to stop you from eating too many Twinkies if you promise to stop me from eating too much meat.

2012 - Does Obama have a chance?

The short answer is YES. Absolutely. The country has reverted back to the 2000-2004 electoral map. The 2012 election will probably be very close.

2000 Electoral Map (Bush-Gore)

The 2000 map will exist in 2012 for three reasons. The House and Senate Democrats elected in 2006 and 2008 were largely in response to Republicans thinking they could stay in power by government largess (as the Dems did for 40 years). The Democrats who were elected, for a large part, campaigned as fiscal conservatives, and often times as social conservatives as well. Many of the newly elected Blue Dog Democrats ran far to the right of their Republican opponents. Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid pushed these congressmen to make several very unpopular votes in 2009 and 2010. We saw the result of those votes in the 2010 election. The long-term result of these votes is that whatever patina of "centrist Democrat" that existed in the minds of many Americans has been wiped away. This is particularly true in the South and Mid-West.

Second, it appears likely that the Republicans will win both the House and Senate. There will be some that will want to have a divided government and be less inclined to vote for a Republican President. If, for instance, the Democrats were a lock to hold onto the House and Senate some Progressives might have been willing to let Obama lose. We know that many on the left are angry at Obama for not following his campaign promises: such as closing Gitmo, pulling troops out of both Iraq and Afghanistan, and overturning "Don't Ask Don't Tell"; as well as not holding firm on "single-payer" health care and other issues. However the same people, fearing a Republican President and Republican controlled Congress, will be animated and very likely to show up.

The third reason for the return to the 2000 map is that there isn't a Republican that can rally the base as well as reach out and carry non-progressive Democrats. There are many Democrat voters who are not socialists, who are not progressives, by any stretch of the imagination who are appalled at what's happening but don't associate the ridiculous laws with the democratic party. Many, as an example, may be for zero illegal immigration and lower taxes but would still vote straight-line Democratic. To break the 2000 electoral map wide open there would need to be a Ronald Reagan, but there aren't any available for the 2012 election. It must be stated that most of these Democrats live in Blue States. For those reasons I don't see the 2000 map, shown above, to morph into the 1980 map (Ronald Reagan versus Jimmy Carter) shown below.

1980 Electoral Map (Reagan-Carter)

Obama can win even if he loses Florida. Nevada and Colorado are turning purple-blue and I can see them being more reliably Democrat in the future. Gore won New Mexico by fraud, IMO, and, unless Susana Martinez turns things around for the Republicans, New Mexico will probably joing Nevada and Colorado as Purple-Blue states.

2000 Electoral Map (Bush-Gore)

EDIT: 12/16/2011
See a follow-up post: Obama May Truly be Carter 2.0

Sarah Palin and North Korea

I'm not a Palin-phile but that doesn't mean that she shouldn't be defended from the garbage the media is throwing her way.

Obama misspeaks and says "57 states" and nobody bats an eye. And rightfully so. But Palin misspeaks and it becomes international news.

Looks at the headlines:

SARAH PALIN MAKES GAFFE, SAYING NORTH KOREA IS US ALLY

Former Alaskan governor and potential 2012 presidential contender Sarah Palin has made a gaffe on a radio show by saying North Korea is a US ally.

A review of the transcript shows that it was a mis-statement. One thing that's for certain Sarah Palin is much tougher, much more comfortable in dealing with a critical press, and, I think, much better at handling tough situations than President "voted present" Obama.

The transcript of the interview is below:

PAT: Sarah, you said in the last few days that you are considering a run for president.

SARAH PALIN: Yes.

PAT: And polls show that you would probably win the Republican nomination. How would you handle a situation like just developed in North Korea?

SARAH PALIN: Well, North Korea, this is stemming from I think a greater problem when we're all sitting around asking, "Oh, no, what are we going to do" and we're not having a lot of faith that the White House is going to come out with a strong enough policy to sanction what it is that North Korea's going to do. So this speaks to a bigger picture here that certainly scares me in terms of our national security policies. But obviously got to stand with our North Korean allies. We're bound to by treaty. We're also bound to by ‑‑

STU: South Korea.

SARAH PALIN: Yeah. And we're also bound by prudence to stand with our South Korean allies, yes. And, you know, to remind North Korea, well, we're not going to reward bad behavior and we're not going to walk away and we do need to press China to do more to increase pressure on that arena.

Obviously this was an informal conversation and she misspoke. Imagine though, that Sarah Palin was in Austria and said that "she didn't know the term in Austrian."

Should that comment by Obama automatically be taken as a misstatement? No. Imagine the outcry had Sarah Palin made the exact same statement.

Look at the accompanying photo: can we get a more unflattering picture of Sarah Palin than that? Why try to evoke images of Hitler and other dictators? "Oh, I know, I know": because the BBC is trying to implant this image, and yet maintain a pretense of objectivity by including this last paragraph in their article:

The conservative US website The Weekly Standard came to Ms Palin's defence, pointing out that "she correctly identified North Korea as our enemy literally eight seconds before the mix-up".

Once again we see the objective media at their best.

---

EDIT: 11/27/2010
What follows is an audio file of Sarah Palin's comments:

HAT TIP: rctlfy

North Korea, McCain Speaks up

I'm not much of a John McCain fan but if things heat up much more between North and South Korea it would be interesting to hear what McCain has to say. I don't think this is going to escalate to full-scale war; it's one more "pay-attention-to-me" ploy by North Korea because it needs money, or rice, to last through the winter. I wonder if the harvest was bad.

China will be a BIG loser if there is a full-scale war and I think they'll put the kibosh on this right quick if there is any major troop movement.

McCain speaking up will provide US voters with a comparison. The voters chose Obama, who is now weak for a whole slew of reasons -- the ongoing TSA mess -- among them. McCain speaking on the issue would remind people of their choice in 2008 and would, for many people, cement the idea that America cannot afford Obama having a second term.

This is an overtly political calculation on my part, one I usually do not support, but I feel that Obama and his socialist progressive policies are harming, purposefully harming the United States. It's time for this man, and the policies which he represents, to be taken out politically. One of the interesting ramifications of such a move by McCain would be that it would dramatically harm Palin's chances in 2012. She, as with Obama, doesn't have the necessary experience to deal with the presidency. The fact that she has more experience than Obama doesn't mean that she has enough to be President of the United States.

McCain is famously known for holding grudges. We're told that he doesn't like either Obama or Palin. Hmmm. I wonder what he and his advisors are thinking about?

Two new voting machines were located last night in Buffalo

Two new voting machines were located last night in Buffalo, according to Sen.-elect Mike Gianaris, a Democratic attorney helping his party’s efforts in ballot counting.

Incumbent Democratic Sen. Antoine Thompson trails GOP challenger Mark Grisanti by 821 votes, but Gianaris said the new voting machines and how they’ve been handled are a “total disaster” and “complete mess,” adding that lawyers for Thompson are considering legal action that might force a complete recount of paper ballots optically scanned by the machines.

This would involve an amount of paper not seen in 50 years; elections in recent New York history have until this year been conducted with mechanical voting machines, not electronic machines that scan paper ballots. Such a recount would take a long time, to the dismay of people hoping the Senate will be clearly decided before January, when it is set to reconvene.

Capitol Confidential

HAT TIP: Legal Insurrection

I've been waiting to see if this story was going to be picked up by the MSM. It hasn't.

One of the major issues that neither our media nor our political parties address is the transparency and competence of our elections. It is relatively simple to have fair and honest elections and yet we do everything we can to complicate matters and to bring the fairness of the elections into play.

For more reading:
Key New York Races Remain Undecided

Internet Piracy, Copyright Laws and Censorship

The Senate Judiciary Committee has just approved the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA). This bill would allow any website to be shut down by the U.S. Attorney General if copyright infringement is deemed "central to the activity" of the site.

Few people, especially those working with intellectual property, have any problems with the idea of protecting property rights. But this goes too far. If a site is doing something illegal, this illegal activity must be proved in a court of law before the site is shut down.

If there is a timeliness factor to this special courts can be set up that deal with this issue alone. Piracy ought not be difficult to prove. And if it is difficult to prove, it shows that the decision ought to be made in a court of law and not by the Attorney General.

UPDATE: See National Security Song and Dance

Aftermath of 2010 Elections

Executive Summary: Outside of Deep Blue areas Republicans did very well.

The Effects of ObamaCare
We were told by the Obama administration that passing the health care bill would help keep the Democratic majority; we were told by Nancy Pelosi that after the initial fear mongering was over and that it was passed that the American people would appreciate the work done in their behalf; we were told by Democratic strategists that the collapse of Democratic fortunes in 1994 was because they didn’t pass HillaryCare.

And come the November elections few Democrats, even those in blue areas were touting their efforts on passing ObamaCare. Furthermore saw Democrat supporters running against the HealthCare law and then dropping by the wayside as the election results came in. A clear example of this was the race between Cravaack and Oberstar, an 18-term incumbent who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Cravaack focused on Oberstar's support of the health- care legislation and vowed, that should he be elected, he would work to repeal the new health care law. After winning 18 straight elections Oberstar was defeated.

The Realignment of the South
Since 1994 the South has been very favorable to Republicans on the national stage, but considerably less so on the state level. We haven’t fully digested the changes brought by the 2010 elections but it looks as if the states are turning Republican on the state and local level as well.

The Realignment of the Mid-West
For years Republicans have been trying to make inroads into what they thought was fertile territory -Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan – for years it looked like fools gold. This past mid-term election might have been the election which has changed the electoral map here for good. The Michigan House, the Minnesota House and Senate and the Wisconsin Assembly and Senate all switched from Democrat to Republican control. We won’t know for sure for another two election cycles.

Fools Gold
Neither California nor Pennsylvania will go Republican anytime soon on a state level. Republicans always feel that they can do well in Pennsylvania. They can outside of Philly and Pittsburg but the Political Machine, I mean the fraud, is too high for time, energy and money to be placed in either state.

Obama Himself
One of Obama’s most persuasive arguments in the 2008 elections and one that inspired much of the electorate was his desire to change the way Washington works, to end the red-state/blue-state rancor: as Obama put it “there is no red state - blue state” Does anyone believe Obama anymore? In 2012 he will get the Progressives and SEIU types out en masse. Who else? The black population, yes. Latinos? Probably not as much as 2008.

Red v Blue state economies: the experiments
Michigan is one thing, but California is another. The trashing of the Californian economy can be laid directly upon the rise of Euro-Socialism. If a declining California becomes the poster boy for progressive economic policies, and a rising Texas becomes the poster boy for free markets the Democrats will be hurt badly in the 2012 elections. It’s not that a progressive state, like Michigan, is doing badly and that a semi-free market state, like Florida, is doing well: it’s all the extra symbolism that’s attached to each state. If we clearly see a rise in the economic well-being in several red states, along with Texas, and “malaise” elsewhere the political transformation of the south and the mid-west will be complete.

What does the electoral map look like in 2012?
It’s way too early for specifics. Indiana and North Carolina are definitely Red again. New Hampshire and Florida are likely Red; and Virginia and Ohio are lean red. Those changes alone would give Obama a very narrow victory. Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada are toss-ups and right now, along with the Mid-West Lake Region states could determine the election.

Scientifically Illiterate Media: Cats have innate knowledge of gravity

Taking the Purrfect Drink is All Physics to a Cat

According to the researchers cats understand innately the relationship between gravity and inertia, one force, inertia, pulls the liquid up while the other, gravity, draws it back down. The cat instinctively knows when those forces are in balance and closes its mouth around the column at exactly the right time.

I hate reporting like this. Cats do NOT have an innate understanding of the "relationship between gravity and inertia;" they do not "instinctively know when these forces are in balance." This is as stupid as saying that a cat lands on its feet because it has an "innate understanding of gravity." And it begs the question: do other animals have an innate understanding of gravity? Do humans? After all 3 year olds can catch a ball: a child can see the ball leaving his parents hands; observe the arc; calculate the force of gravity, air resistance and the curvature of the earth and put his hands up at the right time and place to catch this thrown ball. Whoopee! We've just proved that knowledge of gravity and air resistance is innate in human beings.

How is it possible that this sort of reporting takes place? What kind of idiocy is this? How could a journalist write this; how could the editorial staff approve of it? How could the fact checker let this go by?

Oh yeah, I know, because they're ignorant of even the most basic scientific principles. It doesn't help that journalists can write well if they don't understand what they're writing about. This video is one of the reasons adults remain scientifically illiterate. It is one of the reasons we have such silly debates over global warming.

Jesus and Mo, the Comic Strip

Some of these are very funny.

Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme

Wow!!! Libertarian, free market ideas are becoming mainstream. Who would have thought a mainstream Republican would say something like this:

“I want people to be afraid not to talk about that Social Security is bankrupt and is a Ponzi scheme and if you've got a young 20-something-year-old, they know for a fact that they're not ever going to see that. ... So let's fix it.”

Way to go Governor Perry (TX)

Milton Friedman on Social Security


EDIT: 11/15/2010



Milton Friedman debating a young Michael Moore on Ford's cost-benefit analysis regarding the Pinto.

Veterans Day (Armistice Day or Remembrance Day)

Armistice Day with the images of WWI, Islamofascists and bumper stickers with CoExist on it bring to mind a great quote attributed to Winston Churchill

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

Thank you to everyone who served protecting this country and our freedoms.

IN FLANDERS FIELD
In Flanders fields the poppies blow 
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

I wonder what our Commander in Chief will do for this Remembrance Day?

Obama Administration: Opposed to repealing DADT

Isn't this a treat: Obama campaigned against DADT and now his administration is presenting an argument in the US Supreme Court (Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, 10A465) that Obama should not be forced by the court to sign an executive order eliminating DADT but that instead the law needs to be changed by Congress.

Now, I agree with this -- but since when has Obama thought that way? He hasn't. It is just convenient for him to argue this point today. Yesterday he agreed with Florida Court overturning the Florida Secretary of State in 2000 elections. Tomorrow he'll reverse himself when it comes to abortion, or illegal immigration, or people eating greasy food.

One thing that the media doesn't explore is: What does it mean to repeal DADT? Will homosexuality once again to be considered a mental disease with the military having a right, and obligation, to find and discharge homosexuals from their ranks? Too many people forget that DADT was a major advancement.

OK, let's assume that repealing DADT (which prohibits the military from finding and revealing the sexual prference of closeted homosexuals) means that the gay and lesbian community can openly serve in the all parts of the US military. Since DADT was an executive decision made by the Clinton Administration why is it all of a sudden a legislative or judicial issue and not an executive one? Once again, Barack Obama, who voted present on almost every controversial pieces of legislation, has chosen to pass the buck. Aren't you glad YOU voted for him?

Basic Economics: We're Runnng Out of Chocolate

I don't know how I got to this article at Gizmodo but the author writes:

At the rate we're going, chocolate is going to be a rare—and extremely pricey—commodity within the next twenty years. Somebody needs to light a fire under those Oompa-Loompas, stat.

The problem's easy to explain, and much harder to fix. According to the Cocoa Research Association, we're consuming more chocolate than we're producing cocoa. Which means, eventually, we're going to run out. ...

What will the shortage mean? $11 Snickers bars, sooner than you think.

and quotes John Mason from the Nature Conservation Research Council who says:

"In 20 years chocolate will be like caviar. It will become so rare and so expensive that the average Joe just won't be able to afford it."

I don't expect quality business and economic analysis from Gizmodo but it is representative of much of the thinking that's out there.

Where to begin to unpack all these economic fallacies? Oh yeah, let's start with markets. If demand continues to rise what will farmers do? They will grow more cocoa. Duh! Unless there is cocoa weevil, which destroys the plant world-wide, why would cocoa become rare? As the cost of cocoa increases relative to other crops farmers would rush to cultivate it. Farmers with a choice of growing corn to eat, or cocoa to make a huge return, would grow cocoa and buy corn from someone else.

Let's assume the writer and the quoted expert believe their story. They should then buy cocoa futures and become wealthy. Assuming the price of cocoa is 10% of a dollar chocolate bar (I would guess that it's less than that) then the price of cocoa would have to rise about 100x (10,000%) for the cost of a chocolate bar to be eleven dollars in twenty years.

The current price of cocoa is roughly 2,900 dollars per metric ton, so if they are correct we should see the price of cocoa to rise to 290,000 dollars per metric ton. I'm willing to bet my house to a cup of coffee that cocoa will not be anywhere near 100,000, let alone 300,000 dollars a metric ton - in constant dollars of course.

Yes, the world is much more complicated than I made it out in the above example. If commodity prices rise, especially soft commodities, it won't be simply cocoa. Sugar would rise, as would milk, both components of chocolate bars. IF the US doesn't end its flirtation with socialism commodity prices will soar relative to the dollar.

Still, relating to the thinking behind the statements in the article, how are we to deal with silliness such as the following:

"we're consuming more chocolate than we're producing ... eventually, we're going to run out."

And how do we deal with writers and "experts" making predictions that they obviously don't believe. (Oh they'll scream at that statement.) Examples include the above cocoa expert predicting $11 chocolate bars and those experts and pundits saying that Big Pharma, and Big Oil, and Big Banks are making obscene amounts of money. If they truly believed that they would invest all they have in these markets, become "filthy rich" and redistribute part of their obscene profits to those in need.

EDIT 11/15/2010

Re-reading this I see that I forgot to mention a very important point (price elasticity). There will come a point, long before $12 chocolate bars, where people will refuse to buy chocolate, or will drastically reduce their consumption. At that point demand drops with supply rising (as farmers are planting more and more cocoa). Soon thereafter what do you think will happen to the price of chocolate?

If you have any question look at the price variation of hops over the last few years. First there was a shortage and price rise, then there were increased plantings followed by a price drop. Now there is a glut and it looks as if farmers will plant less hops.

Allen West will join the Congressional Black Caucus

I don't know if this is the best use of his time but I sure hope he shakes that Caucus to the core. If anyone can do it he can.

As an aside I love his comments on the criticisms of the phrase "take the country back."

The Democrats are in denial, what will they do?

The Manchurian Candidate goes to India. He thinks he didn't get his message out well enough. I assure you President Obama, outside of re-education camps, you can't get the message out any clearer. We know what Obama will do. He'll double down on stupid, I mean, his progressive/Socialist agenda. What we don't know is what the Republicans will do. Will they start tearing down the Leviathan or are they simply going to give lip service while the Federal Government gets ever larger?

As far as the Democrats come-back strategy they are bringing out their race card again. I'm hearing the "Republican Southern Strategy" rearing its ugly head again. Of course people willfully distort the story of Nixon's Southern Strategy, turning a political calculation based upon a 3-man race, into a Republican attempt to turn Democrat racists into mainstream Republicans (more on this Southern Strategy sillyness in a subsequent post).

The real question of the moment is: are the Democrats going to fight the Republicans with ideas - pitting their ideals of a big government liberalism/progressivism/socialist utopia against a small government Goldwater, Friedman, Randian heterodoxy? * Or are they simply going to bring out and rely on the same divisive tropes that they usually do?

"racist"
"mean"
"hateful"
"extremist"
etc...


*I'm not suggesting that that would be the position of the Republican Caucus but I can dream can't I?

Obama = Keynesian, or is that Kenyan?

HAT TIP: HOT AIR

This is too funny for words. And these people would be among the first to ridicule Sarah Palin and George Bush; and consider that Tea Party supporters are poorly educated dolts.

They know that free markets don't work, think the idea is stupid and yet have probably never heard of Frederic Bastiat, Karl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, Frederick Hayek, Murray Rothbard, or Milton Friedman. Obviously many have not heard of one of the most influential - unfortunately - economists of the 20th C: John Maynard Keynes, nor probably have they heard of Paul Samuelson one of Keynes foremost supporters, writer of one of the most successful textbooks in Economics, and mentor to Paul Krugman (now of NYTimes fame).

And yet I'm stupid and laughably ignorant for being a supporter of limited government and the free market.

Too early to recap but very disappointed

I have to see what bright lights exists but, all in all, I'm disappointed in the election results. Over the last day I let myself get very enthused about the potential turnover.

Races to Root For: Senators

There are some clear choices here:

Ron Johnson (WI)

It’s ironic that Feingold, who is possibly the most independent member of the Senate, a Mr. Clean who votes against his party regularly, is among the incumbents in the most danger from an anti-Washington voter rebellion. Especially since Johnson is not all that impressive. Unless you like Ayn Rand and are yearning to see the country run just like a plastics business.
Elections: Oshkosh Shrugged
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: October 22, 2010

Well, since I’m a fan of Ayn Rand, yes sir this would be a great and wonderful change. By the way Gail, did you think this was simply an anti-incumbant, anti-Washington voter rebellion? I certainly hope it’s not. I’m hoping that it is a constitutionally-minded small-government, free-market rebellion rising up against the forces of an ever-encroaching, government-knows-best mentalite. And, that being the case, Russ Feingold definitely must go.

Marco Rubio (FL)
Definitely a rising star. He may be great: he says the right things, the left is terrified of him gaining a national stage.

Sharon Angle (NV)
If she is truly for the elimination of the Veterans Agency and privatise veteran health care! WOW!!!! Go Sharon. And she would replace Harry Reid. OMG.

Carly Fiorina (CA)
She seems good and she would take out Barbara "Call Me Senator" Boxer.

Rand Paul (KY)
Seems interesting. Would be good to have a free-market gadfly in the Senate.

Races to Root For: Governors

Aside from rooting for generic reasons that Republicans *are supposedly* more free-market, limited, constitutional government than Democrats and that we're at a crossroad in this country I am rooting for the following Republican candidates for governor. I must reiterate that, until this year, I have never rooted for Republicans.

Rick Scott (FL)
I like Scott in Florida: one to punish Crist and two because his running mate is a Trinidadian immigrant: Jennifer Carroll. Other than that I haven't really seen a reason to particularly root for him. But, then again, I didn't foresee how great Chris Christie would be.

Susana Martinez (NM)
She seems to be for limited government, and as a Hispanic, will help break the idiotic meme: Republicans are Racist.

Brian Sandoval (NV)
Same as for Susana Martinez plus it might take down the potential of the Reid family dynasty. Is there anything more disgusting than a dynastic claim to office?

Tom Tancredo (CO)
He seems!? to be committed to limited government, for closing the border to illegal immigration and his opponent, Hickenlooper, is terrible.

Jan Brewer (AZ)
She deserves to stay after that nonsense with Obama, the justice department and the media over the state immigration policy.

Some states, such as Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania matter for political reasons: such as redistricting and the 2012 Presidential Elections, but aside from the premise that we need to take down the progressive/socialist infrastructure and force the Democrats to kick this wing of their party to the side in order to survive as a political force, I see little reason to be enthused about their victories.

I haven't figured out whether I really care who wins California. They may need to be smacked up side the head some more with their idiotic socialist policies. California needs to sink, not be bailed out, declare bankruptcy and then renegotiate their labor contracts.

The Audacity of Hope v2

I'm hoping that numerous free market capitalists, small-government types win and keep their footing while in Washington - whether I know their names or not;

• that 10+ members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus lose their seats;
• that the Republican gain over 100 seats;
• that 5+ Black Republican Congressmen win;
• that there will be 35+ Republican Governors and
• 52+ Republican Senators;
• that Barney Frank and "Just Call Me Senator" Boxer go down,
• that numerous down ticket Democrats are slaughtered and that Republicans control redistricting in the states where there is change in the EV count.

The audacity of hope.

It's time for socialists and their fellow travelers to be kicked to the side and be seen as the despicable anti-enlightenment, control-freaks that they are.

Ken Buck's ad describes the mood of the nation

This Ken Buck ad describes my mood, and the country's mood, very well.

“We protested when the government ran up trillions of dollars of debt. We sent e-mails when they nationalized health care. We asked them to get off the backs of small business so we could create jobs. We pleaded with our government to secure our border.

“And you know what? They heard us, and yet they ignored us. And folks, on Nov. 2, they will ignore us no more.”

Candidates to Root for, as well as those to root against

I’ve been working on a list of which candidates I’m rooting for and why. It’s important that we get more than numbers, although numbers do count. Especially as we are now seeing articles that say that the “realistic baseline” for this year, due to structural conditions, would be a Democratic loss of 45 seats. Of course we are then meant to forget the political posturing of Nancy Pelosi, several NYT writers and numerous others saying that the Democrats would hold the House this year.

Remove Socialist Candidates from office:
What counts more than numbers is the change of personnel. Of all the Democrats there are some that I want to lose more than others. The more socialist the candidate is, the more committed the candidate is to promoting state control and, almost as a corollary, destroying the constitution by ignoring the limits placed upon the legislature, the more I want that individual to lose. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is a good measure of the far left in this country. The more CPC members that lose, the better.

A socialist replaced by a free-market capitalist changes the system more than if a Blue-Dog is replaced by a RINO. Barney Frank going down is a huge turnover; so is Kucinich. Grayson going down is less of a turnover simply because he doesn't have seniority but it's still huge.

Furthermore the addition of free market activists will create – hopefully create – a free-market voting bloc that must be accounted for.

Time to end the “Republicans are Racist” meme.
I want the meme that Republicans are racist to end. It is divisive in the worst of ways and allows socialists to continue the argument, unchallenged, that anything other than socialism is racist. We need to break this meme and the related narratives such as: proponents of limited-government are racist. The way to destroy that is to elect Black and Hispanic and Asian Republican representatives and governors. Then we can better focus on the issue at hand, the conflict between state control and individual freedom.

Sweet, Sweet Justice
Another category is one which I call “Sweet, Sweet Justice.” There are some people who are simply odious and it would be sweet if they were simply removed from the halls of power. Frank and Grayson are two of these as are Eddie Bernice Johnson (she of scholarship fame); and Phil Hare (IL-17) who “doesn’t worry if it’s in the Constitution” and Raul M. Grijalva, (AZ-7) a four-term congressman from Arizona who became nationally known for calling for a boycott of his state after Gov. Jan Brewer signed Arizona’s immigration law. Not surprisingly each of these incumbents is in the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The one major name in this category that is not on this list is Nancy Pelosi.

There is one last category of candidate: advocates of limited, constitutional government who have been vilified by the national press and targets of the DNC and other groups. Michelle Bachmann, Marco Rubio and Susan Angle are three that come to mind. Rand Paul would have been part of this list if his race had remained close. Think of this group as Sweet, Sweet Justice Part II.

The actual list of candidates will come in following posts.

Miller, Anchorage Media Fabricating a Story

Not that I can add anything to this except: "are you really shocked?"

Here's the statement from KTVA:

A press release issued Saturday October 30, 2010, by the Joe Miller campaign claims that KTVA personnel, "openly discuss creating, if not fabricating, two stories about Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, Joe Miller." KTVA General Manager Jerry Bever says, "It's unfortunate that this recording has happened. It's unfortunate because it does not accurately reflect the journalistic standards of our newsroom and the garbled context will no doubt leave more questions than answers. The Miller campaign's analysis of the recording is incorrect in many material ways ranging from personnel involved in the conversation, the interpretation of conversation snippets and the reported transcript of the perceived garbled conversation."

"While the recording is real, the allegations are untrue," said Bever. "The recording was the result of a cell phone not being hung up after a call was placed to Randy DeSoto, Joe Miller campaign spokesperson, Thursday afternoon to discuss Joe Miller's appearance on that evening's newscast. That phone call was placed near the end of a coverage planning meeting in our newsroom regarding that evening's Miller rally in downtown Anchorage. The group of KTVA news personnel was reviewing potential "what-if" scenarios, discussing the likelihood of events at the rally and how KTVA might logistically disseminate any breaking news."

Bever continues, "The perception that this garbled, out of context recording may leave is unfortunate, but to allege that our staff was discussing or planning to create or fabricate stories regarding candidate Miller is absurd. The complete conversation was about what others might be able to do to cause disruption within the Miller campaign, not what KTVA could do."

While Bever would not discuss any personnel issues linked with the recording, Bever says "Have we had internal discussions about the level of professionalism we need to bring to our conversations, internally and externally? Of course we have, this is a lesson to learn from."

It just makes me wonder? How many journalistic teams looked for sex offenders who might have worked for Barack Obama, or Nancy Pelosi, or Barney Frank? Is this sort of research normal for KTVA? Have they looked for sex predators in Lisa Murkowski's camp? Did they look for them in her father's?

As to the response by KTVA. You heard the tape. You read the response. It's up to you to draw your own conclusion.