Do You Know the Names of Santa's Reindeer?

I doubt you do, and IT DRIVES ME NUTS!!!

We have all heard Gene Autry's song abour Rudolph recorded in 1949 (from a poem by Robert May for Montgomery Ward Department Stores in 1939):

"You know Dasher and Dancer and Prancer and Vixen;
Comet and Cupid and Donner and Blitzen;
But do you recall the most famous reindeer of all?"

The problem is that May GOT THE NAMES OF TWO OF THE REINDEER WRONG!!!

According to the original source ("A Visit from Saint Nicholas"--commonly known as "'Twas the Night Before Christmas") published in 1823 the names of the last two reindeer are DUNDER and BLIXEM!!! These are Dutch words meaning Thunder and Lightning.

In a 1837 print, a publisher changed Bilxem to Blixen (likely to more closely rhyme with Vixen) and Dunder to Donder (likely to more closely resemble English pronunciation). When Clement Clarke Moore (often credited with the poem) published a book of verse in 1844 (which, by the way, is the one considered the "standard") changed the last reindeer to its currently accepted name of Blitzen and retained the 1837 change of Donder.

"Donner" showed up sometime in the early part of the 20th Century. As early as 1906 the New York Times published Moore's poem with the offending "Donner". And in a 1926 article, the Times stated, "two of the original reindeer were originally given Dutch names, 'Donder' and 'Blixen' (Blicksem), meaning thunder and lightning....it is only modern publishers who have rechristened them with the German 'Donner and Blitzen.'"

So, let's get the names right...they are Dutch reindeer! Dunder and Bliksem--lightning and thunder! Poetic...AND IT STILL RHYMES!!!

(By the way Donner and Blitzen are German for thunder and the plural form of lightning).

Good sources:
http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/donner.asp
http://www.donder.com/

Merry Christmas!

OK--so I was wrong

The season is just too busy...so posting will be spotty until the New Year.

Subjects I wanted to post about:

Auto Bailout--horrible idea (just like all of the bailouts so far)...let the market take care of itself...bankruptcy offers the opportunity to reorganize without worrying about union contracts or the even more problematic state franchise laws (when it comes to unloading dealerships).

The Advent Season and Christmas--Tis the season to prepare Him room both in retrospect of His birth and in preparation of His coming in glory to judge both the living and the dead. Advent is not just the preparation for Christmas celebrations of Jesus' birth, it is to remind us that we do not know when He will come again and that we must be prepared for His coming in heart, mind, and soul.

The Republican Party--Reformation or Revolution? Probably will tackle that next year...

The Status of the Union, the Constitution, Free Markets, etc.--will tackle also next year

Until next year, may you and yours have a blessed Christmas and New Year! May God bless you and keep you as the Yuletide comes and we move toward 2009.

Today is My 9th Anniversary!

Nine years ago this evening, I married a wonderful, beautiful woman, Kimberly Dawn Skeen. We met online (when that sort of thing was brand new) via a site called Digital City (Washington). I had posted a "personals" ad which she responded to one evening in February 1998 (I always kid her that the one answering a personal ad is definitely more desparate than the one who posted). I asked her to marry me in September and we were married on December 11, 1999 in McLean, Virginia.

Kim has been a true blessing in my life. She has made me a father three times over, and the joy she has brought to my journey in this mortal coil has vastly outweighed any difficulty. I wish I could say that I have been as much a blessing to her as she has to me, but that would be untrue. She has had to endure selfishness, shortsightedness, cancer, pain, and sadness because of me, and yet has remained by my side--for that I am truly grateful.

Through our time together, I have come to love Kim more deeply than I have ever loved any other person (except Christ). I continue to work toward being a better husband to her, struggling with my self-centeredness and other issues so that I can more effectively show my love for her.

I'm Baaaaaaack!

I will be posting between now and New Years only once or twice per week as the holidays and family take precedent. I will post on Mondays (12/15, 12/22, 1/5)...and maybe on Thursdays (12/11, 12/18).

I hope you will continue to read until I begin daily blogging again on January 5.

SAD SAD SAD (55 Days to I-Day, 1515 to GOD)

According to AFP the average US elected official scored only 44% on a basic test on civics, economics, and American history...the average American scored a 49%. The test was composed by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

How would you do? Click here to take the test before you read the article...

BTW, I missed one question and scored a 97%. Of course, I am a former civics teacher and currently employed as an economic analyst. The one question I missed, I think, was poorly worded...but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Let me know how you do...

US officials flunk test of American history, economics, civics

Thu Nov 20, 2:24 pm ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US elected officials scored abysmally on a test measuring their civic knowledge, with an average grade of just 44 percent, the group that organized the exam said Thursday.

Ordinary citizens did not fare much better, scoring just 49 percent correct on the 33 exam questions compiled by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI).

"It is disturbing enough that the general public failed ISI's civic literacy test, but when you consider the even more dismal scores of elected officials, you have to be concerned," said Josiah Bunting, chairman of the National Civic Literacy Board at ISI.

Indeed...so much for the vaunted "intellectual class" who are indoctrinated instead of educated...

"How can political leaders make informed decisions if they don't understand the American experience?" he added.

The short answer? They cannot...no wonder we are in the mess we are in...

The exam questions covered American history, the workings of the US government and economics.

Click here for the full article...

A Short Hiatus--

Should be back to posting after Thanksgiving...just too busy right now...

69 Days to I-Day, 1529 Days to GOD (Goodbye Obama Day)--The Problem with Judicial Fiat

Connecticut joins a sad set of States which has had the issue of gay "marriage" settled by unelected and unaccountable jurists. The imposition of public policy via judicial fiat instead of through the legislative process (AKA: legislating from the bench) is a bad idea all around. It is not the purpose of the judiciary to legislate nor to impose public policy.

The major problem with this can be seen in the case of California and Proposition 8.

Since the high court in California stated that marriage law (defined in public policy, common law, and tradition as between a man and a woman) was discriminatory and removed the "limitation" of this traditional definition, homosexual couples have been allowed to persue marriage licenses and to get "married". The problem is that the legislative process was usurped by this over-reaching of the court.

Now that the legislative process has been able to move forward, the people have reasserted the traditional definition and public policy in Prop 8. Now we have a problem--the other side now states that "rights are being taken away"...BUT IT IS THEIR OWN DOING BY PERSUING A JUDICIAL ANSWER TO WHAT MUST NECESSARILY BE A LEGISLATIVE ONE. I do not know what will happen with the "marriages" which took place between the activist court's decision and the passage of Prop 8...I believe they should rightly be declared invalid (since it was not the place of the court to legislate this to begin with).

The definition of marriage ("Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.") is now part of the Constitution of California (after all, Prop 8 was an amendment), so how can it be unconstitutional? It will now take an amendment to overturn it--not a decision by one judge or a group of judges, or even the legislature of the State acting without the people voting. In fact, since any change to this would be a constitutional revision it would require a 2/3 majority in the CA legislature and then a majority of the electorate.

We are seeing the inherent problem of judicial fiat. If one wants to change something, the proper channel is to seek legislative relief. In this case (and in all cases surrounding this issue), judicial decisions which attempt to redefine marriage are overreaching. Marriage is what it is...one does not change a societal definition because it offends one's sensibilities.

Marriage law IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY! Any man who is 18+ can marry any woman who is 18+ (as long as she will have him) as long as they are not blood relations, already married to another, or otherwise limited by law. THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION IN THIS just as there is no discrimination in the fact that I, as a man, cannot get maternity leave, have OB/GYN medical expenses covered by my insurance, have an abortion, etc. IT IS DEFINITIONAL NOT DISCRIMINATION!

70 Days to I-Day, 1530 Days to GOD (Goodbye Obama Day)--Nanny State Realities

Leslie Carbone, a wonderful conservative blogger from my neck of the woods, had a great blog asking "How Will the Nanny State Collapse?" I think the entire blog is well worth the read. Some exerpts follow (emphasis added):

Anybody who's ever spent any time with toddlers knows that we are born selfish, ruled by immediate desires, and unable to delay gratification. We take it as a matter of course that others exist to attend to our needs and wants, and consider it a crisis when there's any delay in satisfying them. If our own impulses lure us into discomfort, we wail until somebody else gets us out of it. With apologies to Hobbes, we enter the world nasty, brutish, and short.

Since the so-called Progressive Era, and with escalating intensity, the federal government reinforced this toddler-level sense of entitlement.

Yes, as the perpetrators of the New Deal, the Great Society, and so many other outrages, Democrats bear tremendous responsibility for fostering this sense of entitlement. But they don't know any better.

As they pad behind the Democrats on the road to serfdom, Republicans know better; at least, that's the conclusion that flows from all the lip service they give individual freedom and responsibility. And so Republican shame for expanding the nanny state is tremendous.

Okay, but here we are. People just assume a nanny state. It doesn't matter how we got here, or who's to blame. It is what it is. Shouldn't Republicans just keep on giving people what they expect?

No, for two reasons.

First, it's morally wrong. It is wrong to rob Peter to pay Paul.

Second, it can't work indefinitely. At some point, Atlas will shrug.

The nanny state will collapse. The question is How? Will it collapse because conservatives step up and provide the moral leadership to correct its underlying assumptions? Or will it collapse because it becomes so big that the few providers are ultimately crushed by the many blood-suckers?

We face a kind of Pascal's wager. We don't know whether moral chemotherapy will work, or whether the cancer that afflicts our character is terminal. But we do know what will happen if we don't try it.

My response to Leslie borrowed heavily from Alexis de Tocqueville, one of my most favorite political philosophers who had a great deal of insight into the American condition:

As Alexis de Tocqueville said, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

We are rapidly approaching the day that more are supported by government than are taxed by government. No country in the histroy of the world has survived such an arrangement, and, I believe, neither will ours. Add to that another wonderful quote from de Tocqueville: “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

Have we turned away from the Almighty enough that we can be seen as no longer being good? I am not sure, but we are on the way...

We must rebuild the party to provide a real alternative to the maternalistic trends we have persued over the last several decades. The nanny-state must end. Toqueville also provides hope: “The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.”

Great Thoughts from an Anonymous Poster

In response to my blog on Friday titled "Post-Mortem Madness", an anonymous poster, going by the name Publius (those of us that know our history know the name well), posted a rather lengthy response.

I thought it worth front-page focus, so--here it is (with my emphasis added):

In 1787, whilst he exited the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman, "What have we got--a republic or monarchy?" His reply, well known, was "a republic…if you can keep it."

The United States Constitution instituted a republic not only for the general government of the several (distinct) States, but it guaranteed this form of government to every State in Article 4, Section 4. This nation was, thus, a republic of republics.

In fact, prior to the passage of the 17th amendment in 1913, when Senators were selected by State legislatures, the Senate represented the interests of the States, as independent entities, and the House of Representatives, those of the people.

If only we still had a House of the States...federalism would not be dying its tragic death now...

Although the Philadelphia Convention eschewed monarchy, the document it produced has not completely survived over the years the force of personality in the presidency.

Andrew Jackson sought the abolition of the Electoral College, which would place the selection of the chief executive in the hands of the people instead of the States. Abraham Lincoln signed into law the first income tax, eventually leading to the passage of the 16th amendment that allows Congress to levy an income tax without regard to the States.

Erosion of the rights of individual States, by constitutional alterations and military force (1861-1865), combined with the populists movements of the late 1800s and early 1900s, has transformed the American republic increasingly towards the peril of democracy, rule by omnipotent majority.

New Deal and Great Society programs should not be unexpected when the Constitution of 1787 is relegated from fundamental law to historical artifact. Can we fathom what "Change" we are in for from an administration led by someone who describes it as a "charter of negative liberties."

Republics safeguard the rights of individuals and minorities. Democracies facilitate mob rule, allowing those who are experts at winning elections, and but potentially nothing else, to dominate politics. The distinctions between these systems have been noted for over two millennia, from Plato's Republic to Tocqueville's Democracy in America.

Toqueville should be required reading...the most critical warning which speaks to our time: "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

Thomas Jefferson wrote, "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others."

James Madison describes the dangers of democracies in Federalist #10, writing "When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government... enables it to sacrifice its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." He then argues that the Constitution contains a republican remedy (or it once did).

We can debate ad nauseam about what platform/issues might save the GOP or whether forming a new Conservative party is merited with the Republican brand being tarnished as it is, but unlike the Whig party of the 1850s, whose good name was sullied by debate over slavery, those who claim to carry the banner of Reagan have failed in part because they omit his principle of New Federalism.

INDEED...but such a concept is now so foreign to much of the populace after nearly a century of populism...

I have often marveled that a self professed "conservative" Republican president, who instituted a massive federal insertion into public education and spearheaded an initiative to increase entitlement spending via medicare prescription drug benefits for seniors, could be so vilified by the Democratic Party. This hatred transcends post 9/11 security policies and the Iraq war.

You and me both...to call George W. Bush a conservative in the Regan/New Federalism mold is to be woefully ignorant of what conservatism in this vein is...

But a shift back from democratic populism to a constitutional, federalist republic will not alone save our country. What is also needed is, described in the Constitution of Virginia, Section 16, "the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forebearance, love, and charity towards each other."

The 10th commandment states, "You shall not covet." Following this, the politician, who offers to take the wealth of another, by force, and distribute it to others, should hold no power over "We the People."

Let us be clear on the application of this principle. A presidential candidate who offers money to those who do not pay taxes is not reducing tax liability (a tax cut) because no tax is owed. To even call this welfare would be charitable, when it has all the appearance of an outright bribe.

Tocqueville predicted, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." An honest reflection of our current state of affairs leads to the indictment of both Republicans and Democrats in this regard, but the citizens have culpability as well. Is not the recipient of a bribe, paid for at the expense of another’s labor, a willing participant in the treachery?

I will divert from Publius in this matter...when the public is ignorant of such treachery, I do not believe they are culpable...

John Adams said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

"We can pretend that Republican Party, or the Democratic Party for that matter, or even the "republic" itself can long survive morale relativism or pluralism, but the study of history is not our friend in this regard. We must face the reality that the Great Commission of Matthew 28 holds more power to transform society than the election of any executive, the actions of any legislature, or the rulings of any judiciary.

Ronald Reagan said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." Fight the good fight.

Publius

Governor Palin Dragged Down the Republican Ticket? Um...Really?

Rasmussen Reports released the results of a suvey about Governor Sarah Palin. Among the findings:

69% of Republican voters say Palin helped the ticket

91% of Republican voters have a favorable opinion of Palin

65% of Republican voters have a very favorable opinion of Palin.

From the report:

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Republican voters say Alaska Governor Sarah Palin helped John McCain’s bid for the presidency, even as news reports surface that some McCain staffers think she was a liability.

Only 20% of GOP voters say Palin hurt the party’s ticket, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Six percent (6%) say she had no impact, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

Ninety-one percent (91%) of Republicans have a favorable view of Palin, including 65% who say their view is Very Favorable. Only eight percent (8%) have an unfavorable view of her, including three percent (3%) Very Unfavorable.

When asked to choose among some of the GOP’s top names for their choice for the party’s 2012 presidential nominee, 64% say Palin. The next closest contenders are two former governors and unsuccessful challengers for the presidential nomination this year -- Mike Huckabee of Arkansas with 12% support and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts with 11%.

Three other sitting governors – Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Charlie Crist of Florida and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota – all pull low single-digit support.

These findings echo a survey earlier this week which found that Republicans were happier with their vice presidential candidate than with their presidential nominee. Seventy-one percent (71%) said McCain made the right choice by picking Palin as his running mate, while only 65% said the party picked the right nominee for president.

Makes one wonder what might have happened if the old man had picked a liberal like Lieberman or Rendell...maybe then President-elect Obama would truly have a mandate.

One more thought...if Governor Palin would be such a horrible pick for the GOP in 2012, why are the Dems seemingly suffering from the newest strain of BDS, Palin Derangement Syndrome? I think they fear having to run against her!

Post-Mortem Madness

There is no lack of navel-gazing going on now after the election. I have read one that I think is extremely interesting from my friend DJ McGuire. In his post he states the following (worth reading the whole thing, BTW):

Still, we will hear a lot about how young voters in particular are so enthralled by Obama that any opposition to his big-government domestic plans will lose the GOP a generation of voters. Not so fast.

See, those of us who remember when the Republicans were the party of limited government consider those days either halcyon or so far in the past as to be useless. What we tend to forget is this: it was so long ago that young voters don’t remember it.

The last time the Republican Party stuck its neck out and went “to the mattresses” on limited government was the “government shutdown” of 1995. Say what you will about it, the party establishment has been spooked ever since. Thus Gingrich et al rolled over to Clinton’s spendthrift demands in 1998 and hoped Monica Lewinsky would rescue them (she didn’t). George W. Bush ran on “compassionate conservatism” and caught a break when Al Gore’s voters concentrated themselves too heavily in the northeast; then he (Bush) ran for re-election on national security issues, and won. We all remember 2006 and last Tuesday.

So, the last time the Republican Party actually tried to reduce the size of government, the oldest young voter in America today was sixteen. Now, I followed politics at that age, but I was a geek. Most American teenagers aren’t. In other words, no young American voter has ever seen the Republicans try to reduce the size and scope of government.

So, for them, this election was a contest between a big-government party with the charismatic mixed-race nominee with his better-than-any-comedian-on-earth running mate and a big-government party with a cantankerous old guy with the folksy Alaskan.

Are we really surprised who won?

It is time to start over and return to FIRST PRINCIPLES!!! Reagan started this fight before in the 70s telling us in 1975 (empahsis added):

I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.

Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.

And let it provide indexing—adjusting the brackets to the cost of living—so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.

Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.

And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”

We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

Finally, another post-mortem that I found which is worth the read. From Leslie Carbone (she has many interesting articles in the last few days) who wrote in her blog on Wednesday Time for Rebuilding:

Voters didn't reject Republicans because they reject conservatism; voters rejected Republicans because they no longer trust Republicans to uphold conservatism. And there's no reason why they should.

Time for a revolution in the ranks--time to retake the Republican party and reinstate conservative first principles.

My Prediction for Who Would Be President This Morning Was Correct!

After all of the hoopla...I was right! George Bush is President today...just like I thought! ;-) (My thanks to my boss, Ron, for this quip...it gave me a needed smile!)

President-Elect Obama

My congratulations to Senator Obama in his historic victory last night. He will be my president and yours on January 20 for at least the next four years.

I do not know what will happen over the next four years, and I pray that President Obama will be successful in keeping America well. I believe that all authority on Earth is from God, so it is God's will that Senator Obama won this election. What God's plan is in this I do not know.

As for my post-mortem...I will leave that to later. Today is a day for quiet reflection and prayer for both the victors and the defeated as we contemplate the future and God's will.

May God continue to bless America.

Be Careful as You Hear the Exit Poll Results and Predictions!

From the McCain campaign (emphasis added):

McCAIN CAMPAIGN MEMO: READING THE EXIT POLLS
BILL McINTURFF, INTERNAL POLLSTER
Mon Nov 03 2008 16:53:14 ET

As we have seen in previous election cycles, the exit poll results do leak early and that ends up influencing the coverage of the race before even the first state polls close at 6:00 PM Eastern.

However, we want to remind the campaign that the media’s own post-election study of the exit polls in 2004 showed that the exit polls overstate the Democratic candidate’s support. Therefore, we would discourage a rush to judgment based on the exit polls and wait until there has been a representative sampling of actual tabulated results from a variety of counties and precincts in a state.

Here are the key points to keep in mind when the exit poll data starts being leaked:
1. Historically, exit polls have tended to overstate the Democratic vote.
2. The exit polls are likely to overstate the Obama vote because Obama voters are more likely to participate in the exit poll.
3. The exit polls have tended to skew most Democratic in years where there is high turnout and high vote interest like in 1992 and 2004.
4. It is not just the national exit poll that skews Democratic, but each of the state exit polls also suffers from the same Democratic leanings.
5. The results of the exit polls are also influenced by the demographics of the voters who conduct the exit polls.

After the 2004 election, the National Election Pool completed a study investigating why the exit polls that year showed John Kerry over performing 5.5 net points better than the actual results showed him to have done. Their conclusion was that the primary reason the exit polls was that Kerry voters and Democrats were more likely to participate in the exit polls.

“Our investigation of the differences between the exit poll estimates and the actual vote count point to one primary reason: in a number of precincts a higher than average Within Precinct Error most likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters. There has been partisan overstatements in previous elections, more often overstating the Democrat, but occasionally overstating the Republican.

We believe that this will hold true this year. The recent Fox News survey showed that 46% of Obama voters said they were very likely to participate in the exit polls, while just 35% of McCain supporters are.

In fact, even the 2004 exit poll report noted that higher turnout nationally and higher levels of voter interest in both 1992 and 2004 correlated with greater Within Precinct Error.

The overstating of the Democratic vote did not only occur in the national exit polls, but also occurred in the state exit polls. The 2004 exit poll report cited that the Kerry vote was overstated by more than one standard error in 26 states, while the Bush vote was overstated in just four states. So we should also expect the individual state exit polls on Tuesday to be more Democratic as well.

So given that turnout is expected to be even higher than 2004 and that Democrats are more likely to participate in the exit polls, this means we should expect greater fluctuation and variation in the exit polls from the actual election results.

The 2004 exit poll report also showed that the greatest error in the exit poll came in precincts where the interviewer was younger. The completion rates were lower and the refusal rates and Within Precinct Error was higher when the interviewers were under the age of 35. Complicating this is that nearly half the interviewers were under the age of 35, including 35% who were 18-24 and another 15% were 25-34.

Conclusions

Based on the previous exit poll results, we should expect once again that Tuesday’s exit poll data could overstate the Obama vote and under represent the McCain vote.

It is important that the campaign make sure the media realizes this, so that when the exit polls do leak, people do not overreact to the early exit poll data. Rather than looking at the exit polls, we should wait until we start seeing actual election results from key precincts and counties to gauge who won the election.

Election Day--FINALLY

I voted early this morning and also worked a local polling place...it was amazing to see the frowns on my Democrat counterparts...meanwhile I cheerfully greeted one and all (including the ones who were obviously supporting The One).

As for the ones obviously supporting The One...here is an example of what they believe...



Wow!

If only I had known that my gas and house would be free if I were to vote for The One...

DAMN!!! Too late now!

Tomorrow is the Election--My Final Prediction

First--we will not know until late...probably Wednesday morning...as many States remain to close to call well into Tuesday night, specifically: FL, OH, PA, VA and probably MO, NH, and NV.

Eastern time zone (mostly around 7pm)

Early calls :

Most of New England (save NH) will be called early for The One: CT, MA, ME, NJ, NY, RI, and VT for a total of 69 EVs as will several of the Mid-Atlantic States: DC, DE, and MD for an additional 16 EVs

Most of the Southeast (save FL) will be called early for McCain: GA, SC, and NC for a total of 38 EVs

FL, OH, NH, PA, and VA will be too close to call early...

Central time zone (most close at 8 pm EST)

Most of the Upper Midwest will be surprisingly close and not immediately called at first: MI, MN, WI, IA, and MO will not be called for a little while...about an hour after their polls close...

Early calls

The One: IL for 21

McCain: AL, AR, KS, KY, MS, ND, NE, OK, SD, TN, and TX for 96 EVs

By the end of the hour I think IA, MN and WI will be called for The One for an additional 27 EVs and IN (11 EVs) will be called for McCain

Right before the Mountain Time Zone close (most around 9pm EST), all but FL, MI, MO, OH, PA, and VA will be called...I think by then NH will be called for The One...

Totals:

The One 144 EVs

McCain 161 EVs

Mountain time zone (most close at 9 pm EST)

Most of these States (save CO, NM, and NV) will be called early and all for McCain: AZ, ID, MT, UT and WY add 25 EVs to McCain

Some time during this hour, I expect MI to be called for The One (17 EVs) and FL and MO to be called for McCain (38 EVs)...

Right before 10pm...

The One 161 EVs
McCain 224 EVs

Pacific Time Zone (most close at 10pm)

Early calls:

CA, OR, and WA to The One 73EVs

By the end of the hour (11 pm)...

NM is called for The One (5 EVs)

while OH and VA are called for McCain (33 EVs)

By midnight, I expect the map to have 3 remaining toss-ups (CO, NV, and PA) and AK and HI pending for a total of :

The One 234 EVs

McCain 262 EVs

Alaska and Hawaii are not in contention, so one could figure +3 for McCain and +4 for The One...making it effectively 238 to 265

At this point, McCain would only need one of the remaining states to win...

My final prediction: McCain wins, picking up both NV and PA...286 to 252

Four Days to Go--Bad News for The One

ZOGBY SATURDAY: Republican John McCain has pulled back within the margin of error... McCain outpolled Obama 48% to 47% in Friday, one day, polling. He is beginning to cut into Obama's lead among independents, is now leading among blue
collar voters, has strengthened his lead among investors and among men, and is
walloping Obama among NASCAR voters.

Reasons I believe McCain can still win:

1. The One consistently polled higher in several primaries than he actually recieved votes

2. Anyone who is still undecided is likely so because they cannot bring themselves to vote for The One...if they have not gotten there yet, they are unlikely to do so

3. Several polls are oversampling Democrats based on "enthusiasm" for the party based on the additional registrations this year for the party--this doesn't take into account how many registered as Dems to vote in the primaries against Hillary (Reps and independents registering in order to promote chaos in the primaries in later states)

4. Joe the Plumber and the "redistributing the wealth" comment...and the horrific way Joe has been treated after being approached by The One out of the blue and simply asking a question...

5. The One suddenly is in Iowa...I thought he had that state wrapped up...why spend time and money there now?

BUT WAIT...THERE'S MORE!!!

If you order now, we will add a set of tax increases on the wealthy and corporations...

BUT THAT'S NOT ALL...

We will also throw in some protectionism!

How much would you pay for this package?

Obama-brand Socialism, with the extra Hoover-style tax hikes and protectionism--ACT NOW AND THERE YOURS FOR THE LOW, LOW PRICE OF

ONE TRILLION DOLLARS OF NEW SPENDING!!!

You cannot afford to buy what this guy was selling on the TV last night!!!

Six Days to Election Day--An Interesting Column by Dick Morris

Former adviser to the Clinton administration and former Republican strategist, Dick Morris had an interesting column in The Hill today. It is worth the read (emphasis added):

UNDECIDEDS SHOULD BREAK FOR MCCAIN
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on October 28, 2008

If current survey trends continue, Obama will finish with less than 50 percent in the polls. Even discounting the Nader vote (some people never learn), the undecided voters could tip the race either way. How will they break?

Since there is no incumbent, they cannot automatically be assigned to the challenger; and since turnout is likely to be huge, the current undecided voters will probably make their way to the polls and cast their ballots.

But for whom?

At the beginning of this contest, Obama effectively made the case that the election was a referendum on Bush’s performance in office. Painting a vote for McCain as a desire for “four more years of the same failed policies,” he made the most of Bush’s dismal approval rating. Had he been able to keep the focus on Bush, he would likely have inherited most of the undecided vote.

But as Obama surged into a more or less permanent lead in October, animated by the financial crisis, he has assumed many of the characteristics of an incumbent. Every voter asks himself one question before he or she casts a ballot: Do I want to vote for Obama? His uniqueness, charisma and assertive program have so dominated the dialogue that the election is now a referendum on Obama.

As Obama has oscillated, moving somewhat above or somewhat below 50 percent in all the October polls, his election likely hangs in the balance. If he falls short of 50 percent in these circumstances, a majority of the voters can be said to have rejected him. Likely a disproportionate number of the undecideds will vote for McCain.

But don’t write Obama off. His candidacy strikes such enthusiasm among young and minority voters that there is still a chance that a massive turnout will deliver the race to the Democrats. None of the polling organizations has any experience with — or model for — so massive a turnout, especially among voters notorious for staying at home. But the primaries proved that these young and minority voters will not stay home this time, but will vote for Obama. The effect of this increased vote is hard to calculate, but it may be enough to offset the undecideds who will vote for McCain.

But the basic point, one week before Election Day, is that even if Obama clings to a four- or five-point lead over McCain in the polling, the election is not over. The question is not so much how large his lead is over the Republican, but whether or not he is topping 50 percent. As long as the polling leaves him below that mark, he is vulnerable and could well lose.

Clearly, in recent weeks, McCain has been able to cast Obama as a leftist. He has made the issue of income redistribution central to the campaign. With the aid of Joe the Plumber and the discovery of Obama’s Chicago PBS interview, in which he lamented the absence of redistribution of wealth, McCain has made the proposition seem central to Obama’s ideology. The unprecedented power the bailout has given government over the banking industry raises the real specter of socialism in America. The banks have, effectively, been nationalized. How will government use its power over them? This new reality, coupled with Obama’s professed pursuit of “social and political justice” through “redistribution of the wealth,” is enough to send a shiver down the spine of those who embrace the free market as the key to economic growth.

The audacity of Obama’s injection of a social democratic concept borrowed from Western Europe into American politics is stunning. And almost half the voters seem to be buying it.

I remain very hopeful that the outcome of this election will not be evident until very late--probably early Wednesday morning...if this is the case, it is likely that "The Inevitable" (or "The One", if you prefer) is neither.

The unfortunate thing is, we will have McCain--someone for whom I have less enthusiasm than I had for George W Bush (and when it comes to domestic policies, he has been a--to borrow a term--miserable failure).

Oh how I wish we had leaders again instead of populists...

Well, there is always 2012 and the rise of Palin and the return to Reaganism!

Palin/Jindal 2012!

Seven Days to Go--The Race Continues to be Close

Latest data has the national polls closing:

Gallup (10/28): The One +2 (49 - 47)
--change McCain +3 from 10/26, McCain +5 from 10/20

Zogby (10/28): The One +4 (49 - 45)
--change McCain +1 from 10/26, McCain +8 from 10/22

GWU Battleground (10/28): The One +3 (49 - 46)
--change McCain +1 from 10/22, McCain +10 from 10/13

IBD (10/27): The One +2.8 (47 - 44.2)
--change McCain +1.1 from 10/25, McCain +3.2 from 10/21

Rasmussen (10/28): The One +5 (51-46)
--change McCain +3 from 10/26

As for the swing states (I count nine)...I suspect we will see these begin to really tighten this week as the pollsters change their primary focus from getting headlines (OBAMA UP 12 POINTS!!!!) to getting the models to be the closest to the actual results (after all, that will make them more marketable next cycle...)

FL (27 EV) Tied (Zogby 10/23-26)

PA (21 EV) The One +9 (Temple University 10/20-26)

OH (20 EV) The One +4 (Rasmussen 10/26)

VA (13 EV) The One +4 (Rasmussen 10/26)

MO (11 EV) Tied (Survey USA 10/25-26)

CO (9 EV) The One +4 (Rasmussen 10/26)

NV (5 EV) The One +4 (Zogby 10/27)

NM (5 EV) (no major polls in two weeks)

NH (4 EV) The One +5 (Marist College 10/22-23)

8 Days To Go--The Richmond Times Dispatch Endorsement

My thanks to my friend DJ McGuire who posted yesterday about the Richmond Times Dispatch endorsement...

To quote from his blog...

"It’s not the endorsement per se that earned such praise, it was the rationale - one that desperately needs repeating over, and over, and over again (from their editorial, emphasis added):

We believe that Obama is qualified by temperament to serve as president, though
his limited experience does give pause. We believe he possesses the depth and the eloquence to inspire his fellow citizens and to spread America’s message of liberty and freedom abroad.

But we are troubled by many of his policy positions. His devotion to higher taxes on work, capital, innovation, and risk-taking seem particularly dangerous during a year in which the U.S. economy is struggling. His tepid, on-again-off-again support for free trade is equally frightening. He seems not to understand the forces that created the Great Depression nearly eight decades ago — at a moment when that understanding is absolutely essential.

I’ve been saying for weeks now that McCain is better on economic issues than Obama. I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who understands this.

The question is, will enough Americans see it to make the right choice next Tuesday? "

Indeed, DJ...we must continue to pray that we do not get the leadership we deserve. God punished people of Israel in Biblical times for their lack of faith and their determination not to serve Him. I pray we do not get the leadership we deserve in America...

In The Inevitable's Own Words--How He Wants to Steal from the Producers in America!

Despite my brother's protestations that I just regurgitate Republican talking points (like I am incapable of coming up with my own logic that just happens to be similar to others)...I will again reiterate my warning to all...HOLD ON TO YOUR WALLETS!!

He will come after you too!

Take a listen to The Inevitable--from a radio talk show in Chicago when he was a state senator...

HOLD ON TO YOUR WALLETS!!!

They have plans to end 401k retirement accounts!!!

I refer you to my friend DJ McGruire has a post that is a must read!!!

Goodbye to my ability to take care of myself when I retire...EGADS!!

Wall Street Weighs In on The One's "Inevitable" Election

Since The One has become "The Inevitable" (Monday, October 6)

Dow has fallen from around 9400 to around 8400...a decline of 10.6 percent.

Do you think the investor class is beginning to worry about The Inevitable's socialist agenda?

Read all about The Obama Panic from the New York Post.

11 Days to Go--An Endorsement for McCain from Where???

The Detroit News on Thursday endorsed John McCain. Some excerpts are below (emphasis added):

Thursday, October 23, 2008

DECISION 2008: Endorsement

McCain best choice for uncertain times

During these perilous times, the nation needs an experienced, proven leader in the White House. Sen. John McCain is best equipped for the job.

The Republican presidential candidate has the character, pragmatism and independence necessary to lead a united America past our poisonous partisan divisions and into a more civil and productive future.

And he has been right on the most pressing issues of the day, from climate change to immigration.

Had Congress listened to McCain's warning in 2005 about the dangers of the exploding sub-prime mortgage market, the financial crisis choking the nation today might be less severe. Had the Bush administration heeded McCain's plea for a troop surge earlier in the Iraq War, more of America's soldiers might now be home.

In choosing McCain, we do not ignore the profound significance of Sen. Obama's candidacy....But if he wins this election, he will enter the White House as the most inexperienced president since Herbert Hoover in 1928. His proposals reflect the Democratic Party's big-spending orthodoxy. Conservative estimates place the price tag for his new programs at nearly $350 billion a year, and yet he vows even more middle class tax cuts.

Obama would raise taxes on investors and costs for job creators at a time when America needs more investment and jobs.

By contrast, McCain vows to freeze spending while he scours the budget for areas where it can be cut. Though his opponents deride a spending freeze as a simplistic response, we must take a breather from the Bush-era spending spree that has increased the size of government by 50 percent during the past eight years.

Though economic concerns are understandably dominating the nation's attention, it can't be forgotten that the world remains a very dangerous place. Within the next year, the new president will have to make difficult decisions about how to answer Iran's push toward nuclear capability. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez continues to agitate in South America, Vladimir Putin appears determined to remove Russia from the league of democratic nations and North Korea is ever volatile.

The next president will be charged with stabilizing Iraq so American troops can leave that country in good conscience. He will also have to find an answer for Afghanistan that doesn't bog down America in another long conflict or provoke Pakistan, a tenuous and nuclear armed ally.

McCain may lack the inspirational qualities of his opponent, but if this were a blind audition judged solely on the resumes of the two candidates, he would win decisively.

John McCain has what it takes to lead America in these very uncertain times.

A Reply to Another's Post--Oil Exports

I posted this in response to Craig at "Going Green" and his typical liberal conspiracy theories on Big Oil...


He posted on a friend's blog about gasoline prices where I also posted a response...

Do a little research, will you? please???

According to the Energy Information Administration
In 2007, 27 thousand barrels per day of crude oil were exported (out of nearly 5.1 million barrels per day of domestic production). This makes up 0.53% of domestic production.

In 2006 0.49%
2005 0.62%
2004 0.50%

So far in 2008 (January - July, latest info available) we are averaging 0.4%

96.4 percent of the crude exports in the last four years (and 100% since 2006) go to...are you ready?

Canada! Why Canada? Well, let's say you pull oil out of the ground in a state that borders our friends in Canada and the nearest domestic refinery is four times as far as a nearby refinery in Canada...it makes sense to send it to Canada to be refined, doesn't it?___________________________________

Now, perhaps you were talking about petroleum products (such as gasoline, diesel, etc.)...
In 2007, our refineries produced 18.0 million barrels per day of refined products (we used nearly 20.7 million bpd).We exported over 1.2 million barrels per day or 6.9% of our total refinery production.

2006 6.4%2
005 5.7%
2004 5.1%
2003 5.1%

Why do we export? Several reasons...

1) certain products are overproduced in the US (distillate fuel oil, petroleum coke, residual fuel oil). We cannot just make gasoline, other products are made in the process.

2)NAFTA...most of our product exports are to Mexico (19.9% in 2007) and Canada (11.5% in 2007)...Again, logistics make this inevitable...Why would Tijuana get its fuel from a refinery on the Mexican Gulf Coast when there are California refineries better suited to supply them?

3)Other trading partners...18.1% in 2007 to Central American and Carribean countries12.3% in 2007 to South American countries19.4% in 2007 to Europe (including the Netherlands--our third largest export market at 5.8%)5.1% to Singapore in 2007 (our fourth largest export market)and 3.8% to Japan in 2007 (our fifth largest)

We have about 25% of the world's refining capacity, so it makes sense for us to export some of our refined product.

So far in 2008, we have averaged 9.2 percent. Seeing as domestic demand has fallen dramatically, it makes sense that our exports would rise...doesn't it?__________________________________

In 2007, of the 1.25 million barrels per day total petroleum product exports, we exported the following:
366,000 bpd of petroleum coke (29.4% of total)
330,000 bpd of residual fuel oil (26.5% of total)
268,000 bpd of distillate fuel oil (heating oil and diesel) (21.5% of total)--2/3 of this was diesel which does not meet our new EPA standards for sulfur content for trucksand 127,000 bpd of gasoline (10.2% of total).

Where did it go?

In 2007, of the 1.25 million barrels per day total petroleum product exports, we exported the following:

279,000 bpd to Mexico (22.4% of total)
162,000 bpd to Canada (13.0% of total)
81,000 bpd to The Netherlands (6.5% of total)
71,000 bpd to Singapore (5.7% of total)
54,000 bpd to Japan (4.3% of total)
53,000 bpd to Chile (4.3% of total)
51,000 bpd to Panama (4.1% of total)
48,000 bpd to Spain (3.8% of total)
46,000 bpd to Brazil (3.7% of total)
34,000 bpd to Italy (2.7% of total)
33,000 bpd to The Bahamas (2.6% of total)
and 30,000 bpd to Jamaica (2.4% of total).

All other recipients recieved less than 30,000 bpd.

13 to go--Part II THE RACE IS TIGHTENING--McCain Gets Joe-mentum!

New polls out:

AP...The One +1 (44 - 43)
IBD...The One +3.7 (45.7 - 42) was +6 yesterday
GWU Battleground Poll...The One +2 (49 - 47)

Perhaps Joe the Plumber has resonated with the Joe SixPack--socialism has never been an American ideal...

13 Days to Go--An Excellent Article from a Democrat

Today there was an excellent commentary from Orson Scott Card, an author, commentator, and a self-described Democrat (see Wiki quote below).

"Card identifies himself as a Democrat because he is pro-gun control/anti-National Rifle Association, highly critical of free-market capitalism, and because he believes that the Republican party in the South continues to tolerate racism. Card encapsulated his views thus:

'Maybe the Democrats will even accept the idea that sometimes the people don't want to create your utopian vision (especially when your track record is disastrous and your "utopias" keep looking like hell)... The Democratic Party ought to be standing as the bulwark of the little guy against big money and rapacious free-market capitalism, here and abroad. After all, the Republicans seem to be dominated by their own group of insane utopians—when they're not making huggy-huggy with all those leftover racists from the segregationist past.'

He has described himself as a Moynihan Democrat, and later as a 'Tony Blair' Democrat, saying he has to look outside the U.S. for someone representative for his views now that Moynihan has died and the Democrats oppose Bush. He has written columns condemning extremist liberals as being part of what's wrong with America, and praises Zell Miller for trying to save the Democratic Party."

Mr. Card wrote this, dated 10/5, found in the Rhinocerous Times (Greensboro, NC):

By Orson Scott Card
October 5, 2008

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America: I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political
party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefitting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled Do Facts Matter? "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign -- because that campaign had sought his advice -- you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension -- so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie -- that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad -- even bad weather -- on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth -- even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means. That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time -- and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter -- while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the
stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with
Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe --and vote as if -- President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats -- including Barack Obama -- and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans -- then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a daily newspaper in our city.

I couldn't have said it better myself!

14 Days to Go--I Think It Is Closer Than You Think

Let's go back to 2004:

"Fourteen days before the presidential election, Senator John Kerry and President Bush are back in a dead-heat race for the White House at 45% apiece, according to a new Reuters/Zogby daily tracking poll. The telephone poll of 1211 likely voters was conducted from Friday through Sunday (October 15-17, 2004). The margin of error is +/- 2.9 percentage points.

[According to] Pollster John Zogby....'Kerry had a good day on Sunday. If I were to factor in the leaners in the 3-day track, it would be Kerry 47.2% to Bush 46.6%.' "


Also, two weeks before the election in 2000:

Reuters, 10/25/00: "GORE TAKES 3 POINT LEAD IN ZOGBY."

According to the daily Zogby poll today (2 weeks to go), The One is up 6 points (with a margin of error of about 3).

Current polls:
Battleground (Obama +4)
Diageo (Obama +5)
Gallup expanded (Obama +9)
IBD (Obama +6)
Opinion Rsearch (Obama +5)
Rasmussen (Obama +4)
Research 2000 (Obama +8)
Washington Post/ABC (Obama +9)
YouGov (Obama +6)
Zogby (Obama +6)

It is not over!

Reflections on "Rebuilding Together" Experience in Waveland, Mississippi

Since last Wednesday, I have not posted...first, because I was preparing to be away from work, then from Sunday to Wednesday, I joined seven colleagues from API in our "Rebuilding Together" effort for 2008.

We arrived in Gulfport, MS on Sunday morning then drove to Bay St. Louis (about 45 miles northeast of New Orleans). Driving from the airport to the hotel (about 60 miles or so) we passed through some of the areas most devastated from Hurricane Katrina in September 2005, including Gulfport, Pass Christian, Bay St. Louis, and Waveland. Although New Orleans gets most of the attention from the sheer volume of damage, Waveland and Bay St. Louis also took a direct hit from Katrina.

After making a brief initial landfall in Louisiana, Katrina had made its final landfall near the MS state line, and the eyewall passed over the cities of Bay St. Louis and Waveland as a Category 3 hurricane with sustained winds of 120 mph. Katrina's powerful right-front quadrant passed over the west and central Mississippi coast, causing a powerful 27-foot storm surge, which penetrated 6 miles inland in many areas and up to 12 miles inland along bays and rivers. Hearing about the devastation is much different than seeing it...even three years later.

We met several other volunteers Sunday evening at a church/workcamp to get the marching orders for the week. The volunteers were going to be working on seven projects in Waveland, MS.

Our first project was to help Mrs. Westbrook, a wonderful woman who has helped many of her neighbors and others in the area. She lost her home in Katrina. She had a friend who owned several rental properties, when she returned to the area, her friend sold her properties...one to her. It is a cute 2 bedroom cottage over a mile inland which had over 4 feet of water inside. The cottage missed a lot of the devastation as it was on 4 foot pilings, unlike most of the neighborhood...

Our job (the 8 of us from API) was to scrape, sand, paint, and detail the exterior of the house. I have just one thing to say...Thank God for vinyl siding! We had most of the house sanded and painted by the end of Monday, leaving only a litle bit of detailing on Tuesday. We then moved on to a complete rebuild project for someone who lost everything. This house had already been framed, roofed, and sided...our job was to hang the sheetrock.

This experience was tremendously rewarding. I plan on suggesting our church send a delegation, and I will also suggest to my Bible school class (seniors and college students) come together as well. There is so much left to be done there...

I will have pictures soon...

SNL Video Returns...Slightly Edited

NBC returned the SNL skit on the Bailout today, slightly edited.

The edits were:
1) Taking out the heading "People Who Should Be Shot" under Herbert and Marion Sandler's name when they talk
2) Taking out one line from Herbert Sandler and the response from Congressman Frank:

Herbert Sandler: And thank you, Congressman Frank, as well as many
Republicans for helping block Congressional oversight of our corrupt
activities.
Frank: Not at all.

You can watch the edited version here:

27 Days to Election Day--Presidential Debate #2

Good grief!

I have to say that this was a tie (or possibly, just possibly, slightly McCain overall). BUT THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!

A TIE IN DEBATE #2 EFFECTIVELY MEANS THE ONE WON THE DEBATE.

For the love of Pete, this was supposed to be McCain's debate--the format was supposed to be his forte. He was supposed to take the gloves off! WHAT THE $%&*!!!

He is now trailing in too many of the swing states to play the "elder statesman" role. FOR GOD'S SAKE...DIDN'T ANYONE PAY ATTENTION TO THE DOLE CAMPAIGN???

I'd be like the whiny liberals who said that if Bush was elected (2000) or reelected (2004) that they would pack and leave the country (and I am still waiting, by the way), but where the hell is someone that believes in free markets and small government supposed to go??? At least the liberals had France (and Canada, and the UK, and Germany, and Italy, etc., etc.). The best I can do is maybe Ireland?? Austrailia??

This is a train wreck...I hope something happens soon or we will have The One in office for four years--and who knows who he will appoint as the new Financial Dictator (assuming King Henry (Paulson) abdicates on January 20).

28 Days to Go--Blind Squirrels Sometimes Get Nuts--The Missing SNL Skit from 10/4

Did you see SNL on Saturday? I loved the VP debate skit! However, there was a good little skit later in the show...however, can anyone find it???

NBC is furiously erasing its tracks. Any attempts to upload the forbidden SNL bailout skit skewering George Soros and his left-wing subprime schemer friends Herbert and Marion Sandler will likely be squashed. Michelle Malkin transcribed the whole comedy sketch and provided screenshots for the 7-minute video that has disappeared from NBC and Hulu.

The hits on the Sandlers ( “People who should be shot”) and Soros ( “Owner, Democratic Party”) occur near the end of the skit.

***Announcer: Next on C-SPAN, President Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Congressman Barney Frank appeared earlier today at a joint press conference to comment on the financial bailout measure just passed by Congress.

Bush: Good afternoon. On Friday, this Congress was able to put aside its differences and come together in the bipartisan spirit to pass legislation that was absolutely vital to ensure world confidence in our financial markets and prevent a collapse of credit which would have had a catastrophic effect on our economy. Approving this bill was the right thing to do and I commend our legislators for their actions. Speaker Pelosi.

Pelosi: Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, applaud Congress for this vote and add that without your vote, this bill might well have failed. Even though this crisis was 100 percent the fault of your administration and it’s insane economic policies. And though I’m sure you’ll agree, you will go down in history as our worst president ever. This one time, you did manage to not screw things up and I wanna acknowledge that.

Bush: Thank you, Madame Speaker. I was glad to do it.

Frank: Let me add, Mr. President, I was also pleased to see that for the first time during your eight years in office and possibly your entire life, you were able to demonstrate leadership, not to mention simple human decency.

Bush: You bet, you bet.

Pelosi: Let’s not forget, Mr. President, that it was the Democrats that first sounded the alarm about the risky mortgage loans that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were encouraging and that your party resisted all our efforts to rein them in.

Bush: W-w-w-w-ait. Wasn’t it my administration that warned about the problem six years ago? And it was the Democrats that refused to listen?!

Pelosi: What? Who told you that? That’s crazy. It was completely the other way around.

Frank: Actually. This time, he’s sort of right.

Pelosi: Shhh! Don’t say anything. He doesn’t know. Now, there was another point we wanted to make here and you are welcome to stay.

Bush: Thank you. I’d like that.

Pelosi: Back there would be better.

Bush: No problem.

Pelosi: In the past few weeks, this debate has focused on the wisdom of government intervention in the housing markets. What hasn’t been talked about is that behind every home foreclosure, there is a story of real suffering by real Americans. People who, but for the grace of God, could be you or your neighbors. And today, we’d like to introduce you to some of them.

Pelosi: Michael McCune and Jerome Gant, two ordinary Americans whose only crime was to play by the rules and who now find themselves facing eviction from their homes. Please tell us your story.
Michael: Uh, well, to start. I still don’t understand how this happened to me. I mean, I fit all the requirements for a subprime mortgage. Uh, no credit history.

Jerome: Same here.

Michael: No job.

Jerome: Me neither.

Michael: Minor criminal record.

Jerome: Ditto.

Michael: Dishonorable discharge from the Army.

Jerome: Yeah, I got mine right here.

Michael: Uh, drug problems.

Jerome: Me, too.

Michael: Uh, alcohol problems.

Jerome: Guilty as charged.

Michael: Gambling addiction.

Jerome: Yeah.

Michael: Pregnant girlfriend — actually, two pregnant girlfriends.

Jerome: Just the one.

Michael: Well, I was talked into a balloon mortgage. Where you move into the house. And then you get to live in it. And you don’t have to, like, pay money or anything to the bank. But then later, you do.

Jerome: Yeah, what up with dat?

Michael: I mean, you could say I’m a double victim, since I never had a job and now I don’t have a home!

Jerome: Well, I’m a triple victim, because now I’ve been charged with arson for allegedly setting fire to the house they evicted me from.

Pelosi: You are both in our thoughts. (Hugs Michael. Won’t hug Jerome.)

Pelosi: This is Greg Phillips and his wife, Judy. How did the housing collapse affect you?

Greg: My wife and I bought two dozen time-share condos which we heavily mortgaged in order to flip them 6 months later for triple the purchase price and then the real estate market tanked.

Pelosi: And you were doing this through…

Judy: Misrepresentation.

Pelosi: No, I meant, did you do this out of your home…

Judy: Out of greed.

Greg: Yes, out of greed.

Pelosi: And now, with the real estate market down, you’re stuck with two dozen time-share condos that you can’t sell…

Judy: Unless we can sell them for, like, 10 percent more than we paid.

Pelosi: So, you can’t make your mortgage payments.

Greg: Not without selling the boat. Or putting off essential cosmetic surgery.

Pelosi: And who is this? This is Crystal, our surrogate mother.

Crystal: Waaaazup?

Judy: You see, I can’t have children…without getting bad stretch marks.

Pelosi: You are also in our thoughts and prayers.

Pelosi: This is Herbert and Marion Sandler. Tell us your story.

Herbert Sandler: My wife and I had a company which aggressively marketed subprime mortgages, and then bundled them into securities to sell to banks such as Wachovia. Today, our portfolio is worth almost nothing — though at one point, it was worth close to $19 billion.

Pelosi: My God. I am so sorry. Were you able to sell it for anything.

Herbert Sandler: Yes, for $24 billion.

Pelosi: I see. So in that sense, you’re not so to speak, actual victims.

Herbert Sandler (chuckling): Oh, no. That would be Wachovia Bank.

Marion Sandler: Actually, we’ve done quite well. We’re very happy.

Herbert Sandler: We were sort of wondering why you asked us to come today.

Marion Sandler: Anyway, it’s delightful to see you, Nancy. (Kisses Pelosi.)

Herbert Sandler: And thank you, Congressman Frank, as well as many Republicans for helping block Congressional oversight of our corrupt activities.

Frank: Not at all. Let me say something else here. You know, many of you are probably wondering, “Where will that $700 billion missing from our economy go?” To help answer that, let me introduce our good friend, billionaire hedge fund manager, George Soros.

Soros: So what became of zat $700 beellion dollars? Well, basically it belongs to me, now. Actually, it’s not even dollars anymore, but Swiss franks, since I have taken a short position against the dollar.

Bush: Oh, really. That’s not good.

Soros: You’re not to speak. I don’t like you.

Soros: Yes, uh, zee U.S. dollar will have to be devalued sometime next week. Either Tuesday or Wednesday. I haven’t decided wheech yet. It will depend on how I feel.

Frank: Thank you very much, Mr. Soros. You’re a great man.

Soros: Could I just add that even though you know what’s coming, you won’t be able to do anything about it.

Pelosi: You’re a wise man, Mr. Soros. And a powerful one.

Frank: You are better than us.

Soros (pointing to Anne Hathaway character): Your wife is physically attractive. Sell her to me, please.

Greg and Judy: Sure. Ok.

Announcer: We’ll now leave this press conference and join a discussion of Sen. McCain’s foreign policy positions already in progress. Gov. Palin is about to say something embarrassing.
##End##

Anybody still think we need the bailout? Then read this.

From my friend, DJ McGuire:

One of the big political drivers for the bailout was the supposed weakness of the banking sector, in particular Wachovia, which needed a government-backed merger with Citigroup to avoid failing.

Except that Wachovia didn’t need the government or Citigroup after all (Washington Post, emphasis added):

Wachovia will snub Citigroup and jump into the arms of Wells Fargo instead,
upending a government-arranged rescue of the troubled bank in favor of a more
traditional merger, the companies announced this morning.

The new deal pays Charlotte-based Wachovia shareholders $15.1 billion instead of the $2.2 billion offered by Citigroup. Wells Fargo also said it will not need a government backstop, something Citigroup had demanded.

In other words, the supposed poster-child for a banking sector desperately in need of government help managed to make a better deal for its stockholder without government help.

So why do we need the bailout again?

32 Days to Election Day--Time for an Update!

We have definitely seen a move toward The One over the last week with the financial mess as the focus of everyone. This is expected since this happened on President Bush's watch, even though the Democrats were more than complicit in the mortgage market meltdown (as seen in my posts here, here, and here) .

I think that it may indeed be temporary as I believe that the "Crap Sandwich" will finally be off the table after today (hopefully with another failure led by the strange bedfellows of conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats--who would have thought that I could agree with the likes of Dennis Kucinich!) .

I also think there will be a McCain bounce from the VP debate last night. Governor Palin did what she needed to do. Like I said about the first presidential debate, I think one party won on substance, but the other won on greatly exceeding expectations. In this case, I think that Senator Biden's mastery of the subjects and his delivery (for the most part) give him a slight edge; however, Governor Palin greatly exceeded the expectations and I think that the way she was talking directly to the American people in the folksy manner she has will connect with the Midwestern voters (although, even I tired of it by the end...but that might be the influence of a dozen years of elite East Coast influence).

So, where are we today? Electoral-Vote.com has The One ahead 338 to 185 and 15 (NC) tied. Real Clear Politics has The One ahead 353 to 185. I think both of these are overstated somewhat and feel it is more likely 278 to 260.
Electoral-Vote.com shows The One ahead slightly in VA, OH, CO, NV, NH, and FL and Senator McCain slightly ahead in IN and MO. Now, I do not for a minute think that The One has a chance in the Hoosier State, and most polls in the Show-Me State have had McCain consistently ahead. At the same time, I do not for a minute think that The One can possibly win the Tar Heel State.

Over the past four days:

• Two polls have The One ahead in CO by only 1 point
• Four polls in OH with The One ahead in two (+8 and +2) and McCain ahead in two (+1 in both)
• Two polls in MN with The One ahead in one (+11--likely an outlier) and McCain ahead in one (+1)
• Two polls in NC with The One ahead in one (+3) and McCain ahead in one (+3)
• Five polls in VA with The One ahead in four (+3, +9, +6, +3) and McCain ahead in one (+6)
• Six polls in FL with The One ahead in four (+4, +3, +7, +4), McCain ahead in one (+1) and one tied