About the Bradley Effect

Back in 1982, the LA mayor Tom Bradley (who was black) ran for governor. He was ahead in the poles by about 9 points and he lost the election. The problem was that people would tell pollsters that they were voting for Bradley, but then voted for the other guy. Of course racism was blamed, and it was probably true.

This year, there are now concerns that the Bradley Effect may happen. If it happens, a lot of people will begin pointing fingers at who the racists are. I will just say this: Those that say they are voting for McCain probably will. Those that say they are voting for Obama may not vote for him. Those that say they are voting for Obama are predominantly Democrats. Therefore, if the Bradley Effect takes place, the racists are predominantly Democrats.

Now for the fun part: they can utilize the Kerry Effect and say 'well I voted for Obama (in the primary) before I voted against him'.

How's that Global Warming coming along?

Read this from John Hawkins. Picked from the Drudge Report headlines comes this:

In a few years, when we all begin to realize that the only man-made warming going on is centered around Al Gore's mouth, what will humanity do to heat up the planet again? I mean it will be a calamity when the growing season is cut short due to global cooling, less food means higher prices, more demand on fur coats, overcrowded ski resorts etc.

Should we stop being green and become brown? should we trade in our Prius for Hummers? should we plug back in our old light bulbs and start using aerosol sprays?

Was Robin Hood a Socialist?

Robin Hood is famous for 'taking from the rich and giving to the poor'. This, to most people is the justification for his greatness. Isn't this exactly what the Democrats are advocating from their tax policies... to tax the rich even more and give it to people who aren't even paying taxes? After all, everyone needs money to survive and everyone needs a fair chance at the American dream... right?

Isn't this exactly what Obama is advocating, when he had this exchange over the weekend?

The fracas over Obama's tax plan broke out Sunday outside Toledo when Joe Wurzelbacher approached the candidate.

Wurzelbacher said he planned to become the owner of a small plumbing business that will take in more than the $250,000 amount at which Obama plans to begin raising tax rates.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the blue-collar worker asked.

After Obama responded that it would, Wurzelbacher continued: "I've worked hard . . . I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I'm buying this company and I'm going to continue working that way. I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too.

Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.

"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Obama just let slip his true colors by living up to the following statement: "from those with means to those with need". This is the central tenant of socialism as stated by Karl Marx. It sounds great with lofty ideals, but the reality is that it punishes those that are succesful and rewards those that are not. This creates a disincentive for those who are the earners, and creates an incentive for those who are not. In the end, there will be fewer and fewer people who are motivated to do well.... to create and grow businesses that hire people only to be taxed more and more as the succeed... to create wealth that will be confiscated to give to people who don't earn it. Just look at European countries with their high unemployment and very expensive governments.

My view is that Robin Hood did NOT steal from the rich to give to the poor. What he did was take back from the tax collectors the punitive taxes leveled on the people, and gave back that money to those that really owned it... the people. Robin Hood was not a socialist, he was against an all powerful government trying to suppress it's people and he led a revolt against that government.

In modern day politics, Obama is not the Robin Hood, he represents the repressive government who will send out his tax collectors. Unfortunately, there is no modern day Robin Hood in American Politics. The GOP and DEM parties are both spending our money like drunken sailors and increasing the size and scope of FEDGOV to a point where they have to confiscate more and more of our earnings.

The Last Robin Hood we had in America was Newt Gingrich who led the GOP into power in 1994 and brought some sanity back to FEDGOV. He led the GOP to cut taxes, eliminate wasteful spending, reduced welfare and balanced the budget. Unfortunatly, that was short lived as the culture of Washington overcame these reformers. In 2006, Conservatives got tired of this and didn't come out to vote figuring that if the GOP was going to act like DEMS, then what's the difference?

The GOP will remain in the wilderness until they can get their 'Robin Hood' soul back.

btw, who is john Galt?


What a frustrating game

I am a Giants fan. I don't think I have ever yelled at the tv more than I did tonight. Cleveland played a good football game and the Giants were playing cricket.

Not once did Jason Tuck's name get called. Not once did any defense player's name get called. Not once did the Cleveland QB get even touched... no sacks... no knock downs.... no pressure. THERE WAS NO DEFENSE AT ALL! You'd think they would have made some adjustments during halftime.

The Offense wasnt looking much better. Eli wasn't on his game and Burris wasn't on Eli's page.

It's like the Giants didn't prepare for this game. It's like they took the game for granted.

The Giants better get their act together this week or they won't survive Dallas... with or without Romo.

ACORN is the seed...

ACORN is the seed to this growing financial crisis. via Powerline

As John says "One of the common themes of modern American history is that liberals will create a problem by ill-advised government action, then benefit from it politically by proposing ever more intrusive government action to solve it. That appears to be happening again in connection with today's credit crisis."

Why can't the MSM do their job objectively?

Worst Case Scenario for GOP an Hillary

I usually agree with the Powerline guys. Their analysis is usually spot on. In this case, while I agree with the conclusion, I don't agree with the premise.

Here is the premise (the bolding is mine):

The worst thing is that the left-wing Dems are poised to take control at a time of apparent economic crisis, or something approaching it. History suggests that under these circumstances, the party that gains control keeps it for longer than normal. FDR's victory in 1932 was the start of 20 years of Democratic control. After Reagan prevailed in 1980, the Republicans occupied the White House for 12 years. Clinton came to power towards the end of a mild recession. But for a quirk in the electoral process, the Dems would have held the White House for at least 12 years thereafter.

Clinton came to power because Ross Perot took about 20% of the vote that otherwise would have gone to George Bush. Clinton may have won in the next election, however we'll never know.

Here is the conclusion that I think is spot-on:

It's not mysterious that canddiates and parties elected in bad times do well in subsequent elections. First, it is natural to give them time to "fix" things. Second, the business cycle, and the underlying strength of our nation, are such that we tend not only to recover fairly quickly from downturns, but to emerge from them stronger than before. Both the law of averages and the laws of economic suggest that our economy will be in significantly better shape in October 2012 than it is today. In that scenario, a President Obama would have a huge advantage over any challenger.

Weighing slightly against this analysis is the fact that voters today are, I believe, much more impatient -- i.e., spoiled -- than in the past. We certainly are not likely to wait five to ten years for a full recovery, as voters did in FDR's day. On the other hand, the gang set to take over power this time seems far more prepared to rely on Chicago-style machine politics, voter fraud, and perhaps additional anti-democratic methods than were their counterparts in 1980 and 1992.

This is why Hillary doesn't want Obama to win. She'll need to wait 8 years before she can get elected. However, she doesn't want a Republican to win either for the same reason outlined above.


Is this the year Capitalism Died?

20 years from now, when historians are writing the history books about this current time, will they mark 2008 the year capitalism died? When we tell stories to our grandchildren about a time when we individuals had economic freedom, freedom to purchase what we wanted, not just what we needed, a time when we had freedom to work where we wanted, not where society said to work, a time when American ingenuity drove the success of our nation, will we remember how we lost our freedoms? Will we remember the gradual loss of freedom, started by the New Deal and continuing to this day by ever increasing FedGov scope and size? Will we remember when FedGov began confiscating people's wealth and property in the name of a greater society and in the name of environmentalism? Will we remember when Fedgov began taking over companies like AIG, and began controlling Health Care, Insurance, Lending and other industries?

Will we remember who John Galt was?