Strange New Respect Mode: On

25 10 2016

Los Angeles


Obama: McCain and Romney Were ‘Honorable,’ Wouldn’t Have Worried About ‘General Course’ of US If They Had Won

On Monday’s broadcast of ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” President Obama said of his former opponents Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R), “they’re both honorable men, and if they had won, then I wouldn’t worry about the general course of this country.”

Obama stated, “[T]here is something qualitatively different about the way Trump has operated in the political sphere. I — look, I ran against John McCain. I ran against Mitt Romney. Obviously, I thought that I could do a better job, but they’re both honorable men, and if they had won, then I wouldn’t worry about the general course of this country.”

Funny, I remember 2008 and 2012 pretty well; I was a thirtysomething during both of those election seasons, and I was lucky to squeeze out one more Presidential season as a thirtysomething. And what I remember is that John McCain was a dangerous hot head who would be Bush’s third term and couldn’t be trusted with his finger on the nuclear button, even though he was an old fogey klutz because he had never sent an e-mail in his life. Mitt Romney killed women because he denied them health care after having hog tied his dog to the roof of his gas guzzling SUV.

If nothing drastic changes in the country and Hillary wins, then four years from now, as Hillary is running for re-election versus the Republican nominee of 2020, everyone then will develop strange new respect for Donald Trump. “You know, at least he was a moderate-liberal on social issues, he openly appealed to LGBTQ, made Peter Thiel the first gay RNC speaker, and had some innovative proposals on a lot of things and genuinely cared about working people. Unlike the evil reprobate the Republicans sent up this year, a social issue Neanderthal and total elitist corporate-plutocrat shill who can’t deviate even one iota from conservative orthodoxy.”  In fact, I’m making this my first post in the new category “Campaign 2020” so we’ll be able to check back in four years to see if I’m right; of course, if Trump wins, I wouldn’t possibly be able to be right unless he declines to run for a second term.

Birther Death Certificate

17 09 2016

Washington, D.C.

The best thing that fell out of the design of Trump trolling and Rickrolling the media is that for the first time, the Clintons and Sid Vicious are having to go on the defensive and be held accountable for the fact that they originated this Obama birther business.  What that’s doing is making most people aware that the Clintons started it, and that was not widely known before yesterday.

I never paid much attention to it, nor cared for it as a tactic, for two main reasons:

1. What Hunter Wallace said.

2. That even if the matter was pressed in Federal court, they would find, “at best,” that while the American citizenship laws that were extant in 1961 meant that Baraq Obama was not a natural born citizen (if he was actually born in Kenya), that they would find them unconstitutional, that they should have never existed, and that Mr. Obama was indeed a natural born citizen because he has one American parent.

Je Me Souviens

8 06 2016


Claire McCaskill was a very early endorser of Baraq Obama’s Presidential campaign in 2007, which was her own first year in the Senate.

Who was Obama’s main political opponent in the Democrat primaries and caucuses that year?

Oh yeah, right.

Reevaluating Obama

11 08 2015

Los Angeles


Bernie Sanders, Phenomenon?

Bernie Sanders. Folks, I have to tell you something.  Bernie Sanders is drawing record crowds.  Portland, Seattle, and now Los Angeles. (interruption) What are you frowning at in there?  (interruption)  It is amazing, but wait.  Let’s put this in perspective.  Let’s go back seven years, shall we? Maybe eight years.  At this time in the 2008 presidential campaign, everybody thought Barack Hussein O was a political phenomenon.

We thought the crowds, we thought the excitement and the cult-like atmosphere was unique to him.  It turns out that Obama wasn’t a phenomenon at all.  The phenomenon happens to be anybody who runs against Hillary in a Democrat primary.  I mean, that’s the way I, your beloved host, choose to look at this.  Bernie Sanders?  Come on.  Nothing against Bernie.  He’s a nice old codger, and he’s an honest but insignificant little socialist from Vermont.  A perfectly fine human being.

He’s wrong about everything, but he’s harmless.  Bernie Sanders drawing record crowds?  Barack Obama drew record crowds.  What’s the common denominator?  Hillary Clinton.  I’m here to tell you that the big secret here, the thing that nobody wants to talk about. Maybe they figured this out on the Democrat side, I don’t know. But it sure seems to me that in this primary cycle and in 2008…

I mean, you got Obama. He came out of nowhere. Nobody knew who he was.  I mean, he hadn’t made a speech.  I’m not trying to put Obama down here.  I’m trying to be honest and perspective.  He is getting these record crowds, and we all thought, “Oh, my God!” “Oh,” we thought, “he’s Bill Clinton Jr. able to fool all these people with all these platitudinous speeches.”  It turns out given what we’ve seen with Bernie Sanders that the common denominator is in the Democrat Party.

They’re gonna treat anybody this way who runs against Hillary, whoever is the first out of the box.  It might have been Martin O’Malley, but he waited.  It might have been Jim Webb, but he waited.  I’m not denying that Bernie Sanders’ uber, extreme, off the charts left-wing radical liberalism is not a factor; it is.  Because that’s what the Democrat Party has become.  I’m not take anything away from him here, don’t misunderstand.

In other words, maybe the Obama phenomenon in 2008 wasn’t about Obama himself or anything about him, race included.  If Bernie Sanders is drawing the same multitudes in 2015 that Obama drew in 2007-8, it means that the multitudes have nothing to do with any one person or the distinguishing characteristics of any one person.  Rush is half right in noticing that the common denominator is HRC, but I think there’s another crucial half to the puzzle. Remember, there were other Democrats running in 2008 other than Obama and HRC, but Obama was the only one who could mount a serious challenge to her which did wind up beating her in the end. Likewise, there are other Democrats running other than Sanders and HRC, but so far, Sanders is the only one who is drawing huge crowds and is the only one who is close to a threat to HRC in the polls. The difference is that the campaigns of both Baraq Obama and Bernie Sanders openly challenged HRC from the populist hard left.  Meaning that as it turns out, the allure of Obama wasn’t his half-blackness, because Sanders isn’t black.  The attraction is that grassroots liberals don’t want the crony corporatist neoliberalism that HRC represents.

Remember what happened in the long run with Obama — He won the nomination and then the Presidency, but some time in between he started sucking up to the big money corporatist interests that orbit the Democrat Party in particular and also the ones that orbit both parties.


12 01 2014

Arlington, Virginia

The Hill, on the Clinton, Inc. making a list and checking it twice:

When the Clintons sat in judgment, Claire McCaskill got the seat closest to the fire. Bill and Hillary had gone all out for her when she ran for Senate in Missouri in 2006. But McCaskill seemed to forget that favor when NBC’s Tim Russert asked her whether Bill had been a great president, during a “Meet the Press” debate against then-Sen. Jim Talent in October 2006.

“He’s been a great leader,” McCaskill said of Bill, “but I don’t want my daughter near him.”

Instantly, McCaskill regretted her remark; the anguish brought her “to the point of epic tears,” according to a friend. She knew the comment had sounded much more deliberate than a forgivable slip of the tongue. So did Hillary, who immediately canceled a planned fundraiser for McCaskill.

A few days later McCaskill called Bill Clinton to offer a tearful apology. Bill was gracious, which just made McCaskill feel worse. After winning the seat, she was terrified of running into Hillary Clinton in the Capitol. “I really don’t want to be in an elevator alone with her,” McCaskill confided to the friend.

But Hillary, who was just then embarking on her presidential campaign, still wanted something from McCaskill—the Missourian’s endorsement. Women’s groups, including EMILY’s List, pressured McCaskill to jump aboard the Clinton bandwagon, and Hillary courted her new colleague personally, setting up a one-on-one lunch in the Senate Dining Room in early 2007. Rather than ask for her support directly, Hillary took a softer approach, seeking common ground on the struggles of campaigning, including the physical toll. “There’s a much more human side to Hillary,” McCaskill thought.

Obama, meanwhile, was pursuing her too, in a string of conversations on the Senate floor. Clearly, Hillary thought she had a shot at McCaskill. But for McCaskill, the choice was always whether to endorse Obama or stay on the sidelines. In January 2008 she not only became the first female senator to endorse Obama but she also made the case to his team that her support would be amplified if Govs. Kathleen Sebelius and Janet Napolitano came out for him at roughly the same time.

McCaskill offered up a small courtesy, calling Hillary’s personal aide, Huma Abedin, ahead of the endorsement to make sure it didn’t blindside Hillary.

But the trifecta of women leaders giving Obama their public nod was a devastating blow. Hate is too weak a word to describe the feelings that Hillary’s core loyalists still have for McCaskill, who seemed to deliver a fresh endorsement of Obama—and a caustic jab at Hillary—every day during the primary.

And why did all these prominent women break early for Obama over HRC?  Because…Reverse Queen Bee Syndrome aka Female Crabs in a Bucket Syndrome.

As someone who was on the other side of Claire McCaskill’s ledger in 2012, from my vantage point, she got absolutely no help from Clinton, Inc. that year.

Many of the other names on the traitor side of the ledger were easy to remember, from Ted Kennedy to John Lewis, the civil rights icon whose defection had been so painful that Bill Clinton seemed to be in a state of denial about it. In private conversations, he tried to explain away Lewis’s motivations for switching camps midstream, after Obama began ratcheting up pressure for black lawmakers to get on “the right side of history.”

Lewis, because of his own place in American history and the unique loyalty test he faced with the first viable black candidate running for president, is a perfect example of why Clinton aides had to keep track of more detailed information than the simple binary of for and against. Perhaps someday Lewis’s betrayal could be forgiven.

Ted Kennedy (another seven on the hit list) was a different story.

He had slashed Hillary worst of all, delivering a pivotal endorsement speech for Obama just before the Super Tuesday primaries that cast her as yesterday’s news and Obama as the rightful heir to Camelot. He did it in conjunction with a New York Times op-ed by Caroline Kennedy that said much the same thing in less thundering tones. Bill Clinton had pleaded with Kennedy to hold off, but to no avail.

John Lewis is easy to explain — Race race race race race.  Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama over HRC is harder to figure, but I think I know the answer, though it might be an answer he took to his grave so we’ll never be able to confirm in this world — One hint to the answer is the use of the word “Camelot” here.  The only Kennedy that was ever President was John, and only for 1,036 days.  If HRC would have been elected President in 2008, it would have meant that the Clintons would have instantly become more of a credible Democrat Presidential dynasty than the Kennedys, by definition of two different Clintons winning the White House as opposed to just one Kennedy.  If I’m right, look for either an above or below the surface jihad from the remaining living political Kennedys to bring down HRC when the Presidential campaign season begins in the second half of next year going into early 2016.

Other reasons why I don’t think HRC is inevitable in 2016.

Behind You, All the Way

19 03 2012

This image has been on the Drudge Report all day.  Yeah, the angle that Santorum was for Romney in 2008 is the most obvious.

What grabbed my eye is who is in the background.  I won’t blame you for not knowing who he is, because most of you aren’t supposed to know.  But I won’t even blame you even if you’re supposed to know and don’t; he’s been that passe and irrelevant for a long time.

He’s very relevant to me.

Pop quiz:  Who is he, and why is he relevant to me?


Six days of nobody having the answer is enough.

It is former Missouri Governor Matt Blunt (2004-8), son of current U.S. Senator Roy Blunt.

Why is he relevant to me?  All this St. Louis Countian have to do is look at my drivers license with the CCW endorsement.

While it was under his predecessor as Governor, Bob Holden, that CCW was passed (over his veto, that was the subject matter of the very first post on this blog), the bill that ultimately got passed forgot to require the collection of a permit fee.  St. Louis City and St. Louis County hid behind the Hancock Amendment curtain to deny issuing anyone permits, even though every other county in the state had no Hancock problems.  It was just an accidental legal loophole that St. Louis City and County exploited not to issue permits.  It wasn’t until Matt Blunt’s first year as Governor that the General Assembly passed the fix and Blunt signed it.  If Claire McCaskill would have won Governor in 2004, (yes, her), she probably wouldn’t have signed the fix legislation, or the General Assembly would have had to try to override like they did CCW in general in 2003.

Buyer’s Regret Presents Itself in Georgia

2 12 2008

In the days and weeks before the election on November 4, a lot of talking heads thought that if Barack H. Obama won, that there would be a lot of buyer’s regret in the weeks after the election.

Today’s special election in Georgia is the first numerical evidence of it, I think.

Let me start off by saying that I wanted Saxby Chambliss to lose.  He’s an amnestyaire and bailoutaire.  Based on that, I’m not happy with tonight’s results.

In November, McCain beat Obama in Georgia by a 52-47 margin, a 5-point win.  Saxby Chambliss got 49.75% in the Senate race, compared to Jim Martin’s 46.83%, not even a 3-point spread.  Since Chambliss didn’t get above 50%, Georgia law required a runoff between the top two votegetters.

With 96% of the boxes counted in today’s runoff, Chambliss has 57.6%, to Martin’s 42.4%.

The most pressing issue for conservatives in the last several years has been immigration, and the biggest issue in the last few months has been the bailout.  On those issues, Chambliss = McCain = President Bush.  For the tenure of his time in the Senate, Chambliss has been closer to President Bush than John McCain.  But both Chambliss, McCain and Bush suffered from the sullied Republican brand name thanks to the latter, in the minds of 2008 voters.  Jim Martin = Obama in that he actively courted Obama’s support, and the support of Obama’s rapper friends, and even used vacated Obama offices in Georgia for his own runoff campaign.  Sarah Palin campaigned hard in the state for Chambliss.  In essence, this was McCain vs Obama all over again in Georgia, one month later.

So, in a matter of one month, Chambliss went from 49.75 to 57.6, Martin sank from 46.83 to 42.4.  Chambliss’s 57.6 today is higher than McCain’s 52.1 percent in November.  That means a 5.5 swing for Chambliss over McCain in a month, and 7.85 percent swing for Chambliss over himself in a month.  Split the difference, and let’s say that this represents a 6.6% swing towards the Republicans in Georgia in a month.

That said, if you apply that 6.6% swing as a “buyer’s regret” within a month to the Presidential election, this would swing VA, NC, OH, IN and FL from blue to red.  It wouldn’t be enough to swing the other states that swung from red to blue from 2004 to 2008, like IA, NM, CO, NV.  So Obama would have still won with 279 electoral college votes, with a very slight (about 0.35%) popular vote win, if you take the 6.95% he did win by and take away the 6.6% buyer’s regret.

I Don’t Wonder

13 11 2008


The Catholic Connection to Barack Obama

Do you wonder why 2008 election data show that the majority of Catholics voted for Barack Obama even though his record as Illinois State Senator proves him the most pro-abortion candidate who ever ran for President?

No, I don’t wonder, because I know the answer:


St. Louis County…That’s All Folks.

12 11 2008

Jo Mannies compares the St. Louis County results for Bush v. Kerry in 2004, and McCain v. Obama in 2008.  You will see that Democrats made gains in north county, central west county, Kirkwood, parts of near south county, Overland-Olivette-Creve Coeur.

Jay Nixon beat Kenny Hulshof for Governor in St. Louis County by a 65-33 margin, compared for 60-39 Obama over McCain.  However, the Obama/Nixon victory in the County didn’t go far downballot, for the two contested Senate districts, the 15th and the 1st, both containing a lot of Delta Obama precincts, was retained by the Republicans and flipped to the Republicans, respectively.

I have said it before in this medium, and 2008 proves it — St. Louis County, the most populous county in the state, is now politically irrelevant in statewide elections.

The Red Delta Map

9 11 2008

This is a map of U.S. counties that, in 2008 compared to 2004, voted more Republican.  The New York Times had a version of this map, but they also showed, in varying shades of blue, counties that voted more Democrat in 2008 compared to 2004.  Since most of this map that you see is white, you can deduce that most of the NYT version is blue.  Indeed, most counties in Indiana are dark blue.

Though, just because a county in this map or the NYT map is red does not necessarily mean that McCain got more votes than Obama in the county, nor does a blue county in the NYT map guarantee that Obama beat McCain there.  It’s just measuring the delta factor.

Looking at the red delta counties, John McCain made advances in eastern Kentucky and eastern Tennessee, eastern Oklahoma, and north Alabama, and of course, Arizona.  What’s interesting is that most of Arkansas is red, and a lot of southern Louisiana is red.

Steve Sailer accounts a lot of this to the “Scots-Irish Gap,” that is, so-called “Scots-Irish” of the mid-South were voting for one of their own.  Ironically, John McCain had roots in Carroll County, Mississippi, and it is not red on this map.  Dr. Brent Nelson, disputing Sailer’s “monocausal” thesis, vis-a-vis Dr. Nelson’s own home state of Arkansas:

There are several factors.   (1)  There may be something to Sailer’s spiel about the Scotch-Irish,  but I think that is a bit of a stretch this far along.   It is a factor, but it is not as knock down drag out important as Sailer wants to think it is.   But we will dignify it by calling it a cause, albeit a secondary one.

(2)  White Democrat turnout was slightly lower than one would expect.   Some white Demos were disappointed that Hillary was not the candidate.    Others did not want to vote for a black but did not want to vote for a Republican either.   They decided not to vote.

(3)   The rumor was widespread that Obama is really a Moslem/Muslim (however it is transliterated this year).    This had an impact because close to 80 percent of the people in Ark. are Southern Baptists.   The Moslem rumor gave people an excuse to vote against Obama on religious grounds when they were really uncomfortable with him as a black.      The religious factor was probably also strong in Okla.,  another heavily Baptist state.    Racial feeling would be weak in Okla.  because Okla. is only 7 percent black.

(4)  Strong pro-military sentiment in Ark.,  many military retirees.   Little Rock Air Force Base is a big operation.

Most of the blue counties are black-impacted Delta counties.  The other 2 blue counties are Pulaski (Little Rock) and Jefferson (Pine Bluff).

In this a good year for Democrats, Arkansas went in the other direction.  This is one extra complication in the process of figuring out a state whose voters that, on the same day in November 1968, voted for a segregationist (by modern standards, not those of 1968) for President (George Wallace), a liberal Republican for Governor (Winthrop Rockefeller), and a liberal Democrat for Senate (J. Wm. Fullbright), simultaneously.  Whoever truly figures out Arkansas politics deserves a Nobel Prize.

Also noteworthy is southern Louisiana.  Two words:  Katrina, Rita.  And the black voters that will never return.

The McBlame Game

6 11 2008

A few articles on the McLame postmortem.


McCain Lost Ground with Hispanics, Despite Immigration Stance

Two-thirds of Hispanics – 66 percent – voted in favor of Barack Obama on Election Day, despite Republican John McCain’s long-time support of the Hispanic community, his work on comprehensive immigration reform, and the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill.

McCain won 32 percent of the Hispanic vote, less than the 40 percent garnered by President Bush in 2004, but more than the 21 percent that former Sen. Bob Dole received in his presidential race in 1996.

Not hard:  Because McCain was somewhat liberal, this gave the Democrats permission to become even more liberal.  No matter how liberal Republican gets, a Democrat can always out-liberal them.  Therefore, Hispanics will generally go with the more liberal party.

Notice that President Bush got 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004.  That is described as “doing well,” but most sane political analysts call that a landslide defeat.


The gossip on the part of McCain’s cretins about Sarah Palin is reaching a feverish pitch, and the MSM is running with it like it’s gospel.  I don’t necessarily believe the gossip:  These McCain hacks spreading the gossip are probably the ones that wanted Lieberman as the running mate.  There has been more negativity from the McCain campaign about their own running mate than there ever was about Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bern Dohrn and Louis Farrakhan combined.

Conspicuously, Sarah Palin got out of the Arizona Biltmore Hotel and back to Alaska rather quickly on Tuesday night.  In the next several days, we’ll hear stories from her people about the clamps that the McCain campaign put on her, how she had to defend McCainiac policies that she never agreed with.


John Lott:  John Fund’s list of mistakes made by the McCain Campaign

They’re about to roll out 2TB hard drives.  That should be big enough to hold that txt file.


2008 General Election in Review

5 11 2008

Or, as it might otherwise be titled, me eating crow.  You can read my predictions here, so I won’t have to repeat them in their entirety.


Recommendation:  None

How I Voted:  McWhatshisface/Palin

Prediction:  McCain by 5-10 point margin, etc etc.

Analysis:  The Bradley Effect no longer exists.  Mark it today.

Let’s run down some of the states and concerns that I think are of interest:

NC:  It hasn’t yet been declared, but Obama has a slim lead.  If it holds, then I’ll be most acutely disappointed in North Carolina.  I can rationalize the loss of Virginia, but NC is a huge loss if it’s now permanently blue.  And it might well be, for the margin for Governor was more than for Obama over McCain.  (See below.)

IN:  Second most acutely disappointed.  But I doubt that IN is permanently blue.

MO:  McCain will probably win here very narrowly.  It’s the first time since 1956 that the Show Me hasn’t gone with the winner.  I don’t know if this is a sea change, or just an anomyaly.  My guess, based on the weird circumstance of NC and IN, that MO will again be a bellweather.  The argument for it not being a bellweather anymore is that demographics in other states favorable to Democrats will mean that the country overall is looking less and less like Missouri.

McCain only beat Obama by 9 points in St. Charles County, and by 15 in Greene County.  The Obama strategy in swing states was to keep the margins close in solidly red counties within those states.  It probably worked in OH and FL, and almost worked here.

AZ:  Only a 9-point win for McCain.  Don’t forget, in the AZ-R primary, McCain only beat Romney by a 47-34 margin.  This might affect McCain’s political future, if he runs again for Senate in 2010, see below.  Hell, if McCain didn’t live in the state, one wouldn’t be foolish to think that Obama could have won the state.  Maybe a little bit of the reason is that a portion of the state’s significant Mormon population are upset over the McCain trickery in hoisting the nomination away from Romney (see UT).

TX:  Bush got 59 and 61 in his own state in ’00 and ’04.  McCain got only 55%.  It was either McCain’s weakness, or just shifting demographics.  Probably a little of both.

Margin:  A 5-point win for Obama in the popular vote count, at the time of this writing.  It’s higher than any of George W. Bush’s margins over Gore (which was actually negative in this case) and Kerry (which was three points), but under the margins that Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996.  Assuming that the MO and NC results hold, meaning McCain wins MO and Obama NC, then Obama will have finished with 364 electoral votes, which is close to the Bill Clinton electoral college totals.  However, I would not call it a landslide, merely a clear and solid victory.

Various Red States:  Again, the media played games, by dragging its heels on declaring states like GA, AL, MS, TX and AZ.  Of course McCain was going to win those states, but the media do this all the time.  I doubt that their “heel dragging” changed the eventual outcome very much, all the blue states in the western half of the country would have still been blue if the media weren’t trying to depress conservative turnout there by this trick.

Surprisingly, Utah was not the reddest state this time.  McCain got 63% there, which is below the usual Republican take of over 70%.  My guess is demographics, or the frustration that some Mormons had over Romney not winning the nomination.  The reddest state was Oklahoma (66%).

Turnout:  The 2004 Presidential election featured about 122 million votes cast overall.  At the time of this writing, there are only slightly more than 120 million votes cast.  If the total for this year surpasses 2004, it won’t be by much, and nowhere near the 140 million predicted.

Obama’s Cabinet and McCain’s Future:  There was talk that former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) would be Chief of Staff, but the news is that BHO has already offered that job to Rep. Rahm Emmanuel (D-IL), someone who’s part of the same Chicagograd political machine, and even more shrill than Daschle.   If Emmanuel takes it, this means that HRC will not be offered anything in the cabinet or SCOTUS (I don’t think she was looking for it anyway).  Emmanuel and HRC despise each other, from the early Bill Clinton administration, when the story is that Bill took Rahm’s advice to lead off his Presidency with gays in the military, over HRC’s push to do health care first.

My bet for AG is Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA).  John Kerry is talked about at State, but he doesn’t seem to want it, though if he would, and with the upcoming passing of Ted Kennedy, this would open up both of MA’s Senate seats at almost the same time, not that there’s a chance at an R pickup.  My bet for State is Richard Holbrook.

Claire McCaskill in the cabinet has been talked about for a long time, but she does not seem to want it.   Jay Nixon winning Governor, and thereby having the right to replace her (probably with Mrs. Antolinez), might change her mind.

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) is rumored to go somewhere in the cabinet, and if she does, this will affect John McCain’s future or the prospect of his successor.  It was thought that Napolitano herself could run up against and beat McCain head-to-head in 2010, or be the big favorite if McCain would retire.  If she’s in the Obama cabinet, then she’s out of contention for that, meaning that the Democrats in the state won’t have an easy time flipping the seat, and certainly not if McCain wants another term.  Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer (R) would become Governor if Napolitano leaves for the Cabinet, as the state does not have a Lieutenant Governor, and weird rules of succession.

If McCain would have won, Napolitano would have gotten to appoint his replacement, though state law stipulates that it has to be someone of the same political party of the person s/he would be replacing.

John McCain won the Republican nomination in 2008.  He succeeded Barry Goldwater in the Senate, who won the Republican nomination in 1964.  Both lost.  Either it’s a lucky Senate seat, or an unlucky one.

The Future of the Presidency:  You Republican types better enjoy the moments up until January 20, 2009 at 11:59 AM Eastern Time.  For then, I think the last Republican President will ride out of town.  It wouldn’t surprise me if the last white President will ride out at that time, also, for there is no shortage of semi-articulate empty-suited mulattoes and mestizos in the Democrat Party, that they’ll run up the flagpole one after another after another after another.

I think the United States of America is at the same point now as the Western Roman Empire was in 476 A.D., when a German drove out the last emperor of truly Roman stock.  Don’t forget that the Western Roman Senate met for 100 years after that, and for that time, people there still thought of themselves as Romans, even though a German was on the throne.  Eventually, though, demographics carried the day, and historians mark 476 as the end, even though it didn’t seem like it at the time.

Misc.:  Someone who I know, who is of like mind to myself, voted for Obama over HRC in the MO-D primary in February.  His theory is that Obama was more beatable, and that the United States of America would never elect a black President.  My retort at the time was that, yes, there are whites who would never vote for a black President, but those whites, mainly in the deep South, wouldn’t vote Democrat anyway.  What you had to examine were whites in OH and PA.  As it turns out, there were enough whites in states like these that are far enough away from the “problem,” so their “thirst” hasn’t been “cured” by a “good dose” (Patterson’s First Axiom) — they voted the economy, and blamed Bush.  If such whites lived in MS, they wouldn’t have.

The only reason I thought Obama couldn’t win is that enough white people were lying to pollsters (the Bradley Effect).  I once made a bet with someone in Mobile, Alabama some time back that this country could never elect a black Prez because a significant percentage of whites wouldn’t hear of it.  I owe him some St. Louis-themed food item.

It’s highly likely now that the 2016 Summer Olympics will be given to Chicago.  The decision will be made next October, when (presumably) Obama will be in the White House.

Did you notice how quickly Sarah Palin left the McCain party in Phoenix?  I think that sends a lot of messages about what she thought about the man at the top of the ticket.  If she wins re-election for Gov. in ’10, she probably will run for President in 2012.  Then we’ll know who the real Sarah Palin is.

Oh, and?

As David Spade might say about her Presidential ambitions:  Daaah dah duh dah, duh dah, duh dah it’s over.


Recommendation:  None

How I Voted:  Hulshof

Prediction:  Nixon, by a close margin

Results:  Nixon wins by 19 points

Analysis:  Looks like I should have stuck with my original 20-point blowout prediction.

What I did get right is that Nixon’s and Obama’s fate in MO weren’t intertwined.

The old joke, that Nixon lost Senate to Jack Danforth in 1988, lost Senate to Kit Bond in 1998, and ran again for Governor in 2008 was that he had the propensity to “lose on the eights.”  Nobody’s making that joke anymore.


Recommendation:  None

How I Voted:  Constitution Party

Prediction:  Page

Results:  Kinder 49.9, Page 47.3, Libertarian 1.8, Constitution 1.0

Analysis:  The only Republican to win a statewide race yesterday is precisely the one I didn’t want.  Note that the third parties (not counting AG, which had only an R and a D) did better in statewide races relating to MO than they did in MO’s Presidential vote.


Recommendation:  Gibbons

How I Voted:  Gibbons

Prediction:  Gibbons

Results:  Koster 53, Gibbons 47

I thought Koster couldn’t win based on liberal frustration.  I hate to say it, but maybe one reason that Koster won and Gibbons didn’t is that Koster has more hair.  This is Michael Savage’s theory, that the best hair wins.

In my preview of these elections, I may be mistaken on the relationship between Chris Koster and Rich Koster, and exactly what Rich Koster did at Channel 5.  I’ll find out the truth and correct myself.  All I know about this is what I saw on Donnybrook.


Recommendation:  Lager

How I Voted:  Lager

Prediction:  None serious one given

Results:  Zweifel 50.4, Lager 47.2, Constitution Party 2.4

Analysis:  The consequence of a good day for Democrats.


Recommendation:  Anybody but Mrs. Antolinez

How I Voted:  Constitution Party

Prediction:  Mrs. Antolinez, easily

Results:  Mrs. Antolinez, 62%.  The two third parties got 2.6% combined.

Analysis:   I wonder if she celebrated her re-election with her husband last night.

If Claire McCaskill is offered and takes a BHO Cabinet job, Nixon will probably appoint her to take her place, meaning that MO would have two Senate elections in 2010.


Recommendation:  No

How I Voted:  No

Prediction:  Wins

Results:  Yes 56, No 44

Analysis:  In the final days, Pro-A forces bought adds accusing the Illinois casino owners (probably truthfully) of funding what little Anti-A media campaign existed in MO.  I wonder if Missouri casinos had anything to do with those ads, ya think?

Since this gambling vote won, the next one will probably fail.


Recommendation:  None given

How I Voted:  Settled on Yes

Prediction:  None given

Results:  Yes 75, No 25

Analysis:  I certainly I hope it’s as good as the margin by which it won.


Recommendation:  No

How I Voted:  No

Prediction:  None given

Results:  Yes 66, No 34

Analysis:  A similar proposition failed in California, though it required bigger percentages from “clean sources” more quickly than ours.  This proposition could boomerang on the libs, because if the dorkey windmills aren’t improved upon, and there are no great advances in photovoltaic technology, as I am hoping for, then the only way to comply with this proposition is to build more nuclear fission reactors.

PROP M (St. Louis County Only)

Recommendation:  No

How I Would Have Voted:  No

Prediction:  None given

Results:  No 51.5, Yes 48.5

The county’s sales tax will not go up by a half cent, and the proposition’s defeat will also mean that city sales taxes will go down by a quarter cent.  Now we’ll see if Metro’s threats of service cuts were just voter intimidation or actual budget realities.

St. Louis County voted Obama 60-40 over McCain, so I imagine the reason for M’s defeat is concern over taxes, not race.


Recommendation:  Yes to the power of 10

How I Voted:  Yes

Prediction:  Wins

Results:  Yes 86, No 14

This was the only instance of real nationalism on the ballot, and it won big time.  Avalanche, not landslide, por favor.


This one was the stormwater thingey.  It won.


Recommendation:  No

How I Would Have Voted:  No

Prediction:  None given

Results:  No 58, Yes 42

Analysis:  Most of the left-wing in the state (not like IL has a right wing anymore) opposed it.  I tend to think that the scam behind the call for this con-con was a con job on the part of Gov. Rod Blagojevich, in order to cover up his corruption scandals.

U.S. HOUSE, MO-2 and MO-3

Both incumbents won.  The third parties got 2.3% and 3.2% of the vote, respectively.  My own vote in MO-3 was for the Constitution Party, if I lived in 2 I would have voted Akin.


Blaine Leuktemeyer (R) won, but by only a 2.5% margin.  The Libertarian got 2.5% herself.  Because Boone County (Columbia, Univ. of MO) is in MO-9, elections in the district always tend to be close.


I predicted the Republicans would make a few gains.  So far, the Dems have picked up 18, with 8 still up in the air at the time of this writing.  Here are the ones that I highlighted:

MO-6:  Graves won re-election easily, the only other flippable district in MO other than the 9th.  Even though the Democrats might well have gained some 60 seats by the time this counting is over, and counting 2006, no seats in Missouri have changed parties yet.  MO remains 5-4 Republican.

CO-6:  Coffman wins with 60%.  IINM, this margin is higher than any of Tancredo’s margins of victory in CO-6.  Coffman is a Ft. Leonard Wood, MO native.

PA-11:  Lou came close, very close, but didn’t win.  Maybe Lou should have waited until a more favorable R-year, if there will ever be such a year again.

PA-12:  Murtha won easily, Lt. Col. Russell made some innane personal comment about Murtha a few days before the vote.

NY-18:  Nita Lowey beat Jim Russell by more than a 2-1 margin.

CA-52:  Duncan Hunter is still the Congressman from this district, though he seemed to have gotten a lot younger all of a sudden :)

FL-16:  Republican pickup.  Now let’s hope that this person can keep it in his pants.

IL-14:  Foster wins easily.  This is a blue district now.  Jim Oberweis’s chance at a serious political career is over.

LA-2:  Cold Cash was unopposed.

MN-6:  While she didn’t win by much, Michelle Bachman was a red politician who survived in a blue state on a blue day.  I think she’s headed for big things.

MS-1:  Childers won the rematch with Davis.  But I don’t think this district is permanently blue, maybe it’s because Childers has something.  You certainly can’t be liberal and win in the white areas of Mississippi.

TX-14:  Ron Paul was unopposed.  Hopefully now, his voice in the Republican Party and in the diminished House Republican caucus will intensify.

VA-5:  Virgil Goode and his opponent will go to a recount.  Goode is losing by less than 100 votes with over 300,000 cast.

New England:  All of the region’s House members are Democrats now.  To supplement the fact that all but one county in N.E. (Piscataquis Co, ME) voted Obama.


Democrats pick up five, with four left to decide.  If those four remain R, as they probably will, the Democrats will only have 56, not a filibuster-proof majority.  As I predicted.

IL:  Durbin, of course.

Illinois’s other seat is now of great interest.  I notice that Jesse Jackson, Sr. was in the Obama crowd at Grant Park in Chicagograd crying his eyes out.  (We’ve come a long way from wanting to cut Obama’s nads off.)  Not only because of the Obama victory, but also because his son, Jesse Jr., a 13-year tenure Congressman from the Chicagograd area (IL-2), might well get Blagojevich’s nod to replace Obama in the Senate.

VA:  Warner.

SC:  This was the one Democrat pickup I was hoping for.  But it was not to be.  Gooberface got 58%, compared to McCain’s 54% in SC.  This means that 4% of the people voted Obama and Graham, I’m guessing principled white liberals who voted Graham because Conley was more conservative.

CO/NM:  The Udall cousins both won, both replacing retiring Republicans.  Tom in NM had an easier time than Mark in CO, though.  It was thought that Tom Tancredo could have beaten Mark.  Yesterday was a blue day, and I wouldn’t have wanted to risk one of our pretty good people and stain him with a loss.  Tom’s better chance for Senate will be in ’10, versus Salazar.

NE:  Johanns.  The next immigration vote in the Senate will tell the tale about him.

DE:  Democrat Gov. Elect Jack Markell will choose a replacement for Joe Biden in the Senate.  My bet is on Beau Biden, Delaware’s AG.

LA:  Mary Landrieu.  Not by a huge margin over Jack Kennedy.  But she did win, preventing another “Camelot.”

MI:  Not only did Carl Levin win re-election, most of the counties in heavily-Dutch western Michigan were blue, too, with the Republican having a Dutch surname.  It looks like Hoogendyk did win his home county in W MI, one of only four in the state in this race.

MT:  Baucus, by almost a 3-1 margin.

RI:  I was mistaken in the previews.  Jack Reed, the incumbent, is a Democrat, not a Republican.

SD:  Unlike six years ago, Tim Johnson won re-election easily.

AL:  Jeff Sessions vs a black woman in AL?  Gee, I wonder how that one turned out.  Honestly, I wish McConnell would have lost in KY, so that Sessions can be Senate Minority Leader, and maybe run the Senate one of these days.

AK:  I can’t believe it.  I would think that even a deep red state like Alaska wouldn’t re-elect a convicted felon.  But then again I’m writing from the state that elected a dead man to the Senate.  The good news is that Gov. Sarah Palin will appoint his replacement after his upcoming imprisonment.

GA:  Chambliss didn’t get over 50%, so he and the Democrat will have to go to a runoff.  Chambliss is amnesty and bailout, so I hope the Democrat wins.

KY:  As I implied above, Mitch McConnell eked it out.

MN:  Looks like Norm Coleman is going to eke this one out.  The consolation for Al Franken is that he could emcee the Coleman re-election party, and that he tells a lot of jokes about the loser.

MS:  Thad Cochran won with 62, and Roger Wicker won with 55.  The Democrats put up former Gov. Muskrat against the latter, so they actually tried hard in that one.  Alas, no.  Wicker will probably be there for a very long time.

NH:  Shaheen’s win in the rematch vs. Sununu and Obama’s winning there, plus the Kerry win in NH in 2004, tells the tale about NH.  Write it off.

NC:  The surprise of the night, for me.  I understand that Kay Hagan kept saying that Liddy Dole was “Too Washington, and not enough North Carolina.”  It worked.  To be frank, I’m not too unhappy that the Dole name is now retired from American politics.

OR:  At the time of this writing, Gordon Smith (R) is losing by only 40 votes, with almost 600,000 votes counted and 73% of the boxes counted.  Stay tuned.  Smith was an Obamaite.

TN:  Lamar Alexander, by almost a 2-1 margin.  I don’t know why the Dems think Alexander to be so invincible that they didn’t run a really credible someone up the flagpole, because I think Alexander is too moderate and thus beatable.

TX:  Cornyn wins.  The opponent had a Hispanic surname, and thus is probably an even bigger amnestyaire than Cornyn.  Cornyn got the same 55% that McCain did in TX.

WY:  Enzi won a new term, and Barrasso won a special election, both with over 70% of the vote.

ID:  Replacing Larry Craig (R), Lt. Gov. James Risch (R) holds the seat for the GOP.


NC:  Perdue beat McCrory by 3 points.  This is a disappointing loss, and it was the only chance for any Senate or Governor chair flipping from D to R this year.  I don’t know if he will remain Mayor of Charlotte, if his running for Gov. meant resigning as Mayor.

WA:  Landslide Chrissie didn’t win by a landslide this time over Dino Rossi, but there were no suspicious boxes required.  Six point margin.

IN:  Surprisingly, Mitch Daniels (R) held on.  So the losses for the Republicans in Indiana in 2006, and Obama winning IN now, have nothing to do with Daniels.

VT:  Douglas (R), big time.

Everything else was a foregone conclusion.


All of the judges up for retention under the Missouri Plan Nine from Outer Space were retained, most by a 65-75 percent yes vote.


1:  Lembke (R) has a 56-vote lead over Barry (D).  If the lead holds, this South St. Louis County district would flip from D to R.

7:  “Deseg” Cunningham won easily.  Too bad there wasn’t a third party.

15:  Eric Schmitt reels in Steve Trout, retaining the 15th for the Rs, and taking Mike Gibbons’s place.

Don’t quote me, but it appears that the Republicans retained control of the Senate.  The Jefferson City News-Tribune reports that the Republicans have at least gotten back to the 20-of-34 majority they had in the last session, and may get three more.  UPDATE 11/6:  Now it’s 22 Rs, and if the Lembke lead over Barry in the 1st survives the recount, then the Rs will have picked up 3 seats, to make a 23-of-34 majority, meaning a better than 2-to-1 vetoproof supermajority.


Cole McNary won in the 86th.  In the 100th, Sue Schoemel won.  The 100th is a St. Louis City district.  Is that any relation to Vince?

I think the Republicans retained control of the House. The Jefferson City News Tribune reports that, while the GOP started out with a 92-of-163 majority before election day, that they have 85 already (82 needed for a majority), with five more probable, and four more where they’re behind but close.  UPDATE 11/6:  It looks like the Rs will have 89.  It’s a three-seat loss, but not enough to flip the House back to the Ds.

Both the House and Senate being in R hands will be important to resist the Nixon agenda, and will mean that, at least for two years, Nixon will be unable to fulfill his grandiose Medicaid and education campaign promises.  Also it means that the General Assembly can keep sending up to Nixon bills on immigration, to test his meddle, whether he’s really with the majority of Missourians, or with La Raza.


AZ:  Two years ago, a measure to define marriage (i.e. prohibit homosexual marriage) in the state constitution failed, the first such measure to fail.  I understand that there were other problematic rhinestones in that proposition, which drove enough conservative voters away from it.  Now, a similar rhinestoneless measure won.  Also, a measure to weaken prohibitions on hiring illegal aliens lost, i.e. the anti-invasion side won.  Needed some good news.

CA:  Ban on gay marriage passes.  Narrowly though, but California doing this in 2008 is perplexing.  Not that I’m opposed.  UPDATE 11/7:  Also, San Francisco voters approved a non-binding proposition supporting JROTC in city high schools.

CO:  It and NE had the Ward Connerly initatives on the ballot.  It’s too close to call whether it will win or lose in CO.

NE:  Unlike in CO, the Connerly initative won easily.

WA:  The state’s voters endorsed the concept of legal suicide.  They then proceeded to use these privileges and voted for Obama.

IL:  Fourteen counties in Illinois had informal referenda on conceal-carry.  It passed in ten and failed in four.  Of the ten counties where it passed, eight are south of Springfield.

When former Sen. Paul Simon (D-IL) passed away, the media went on and on about how much “integrity” he had.  However, when Cairo, as far south in Illinois as you can get, had race riots, and blacks were driving whites out, Simon told interested parties that he didn’t care what was happening in southern Illinois, because there were more black voters in Cook County than there were all voters south of Springfield.  Simon was a native of Marine, Ill., near St. Louis, and definitely south of Springfield.

That said, if you people in the southern Illinois counties that voted for it want CCW, you should ask Congress for your own state.

Top Hat Conspirators

28 10 2008

How do we know that they really wanted to assassinate Barack Obama, and do all the awful things they keep telling us they wanted to do?

Yes, we’re told all these things, but the only two sources are the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), and the MSM.  Both have been known not to be truthful on occasion.  NBC, though, unlike the rest of the media, does not seem to be assigning great significance to this; they’re essentially telling us that there’s nothing to see here, move along.  Even the Obama campaign is blowing this off.

And if they had all these grand plans, where are the indictments for conspiracy?  AFAIK, at the time of this writing, the only Federal charges they face are violating technicalities of Federal firearms laws.

My theory?  The ATF, perhaps seeing an Obama victory, is trying to make nice and suck up to its future boss, by pretending that they just foiled some grand ethereal plot against him.  The MSM is eating it all up without asking any critical questions, because it makes white people look bad and drives public symapthy to their preferred candidate for President.  And just wait, you know who is about to send thousands of fund raising letters out from a certain Post Office in Montgomery, Alabama.

All of this was started by two gooberheads chatting with each other on internet chatrooms, letting their mouths run way ahead of their wee little brains.

UPDATE 4:30 PM: UK Telegraph bombshell:

It also emerged that the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil rights organisation, helped lead federal investigators and local police to the pair.

The ADL, which monitors white supremacist groups, discovered that Cowart was involved in the Supreme White Alliance, a racist skinhead group.

In other words, the ADL provoked all of this.  I get the picture now — the ADL, knowing that these two gooberheads were probably the type to fall into this sort of trap, ordered the ATF to send in a provocateur, who gets one or both of them drunk, and then one or both start running their mouths, arrest, “foiled a grand conspiracy plot,” boo hoo hoo for Obama.  It seems like the ADL is trying to elect Obama.

Or, a better theory is this:  The ADL sent in an ATF spy to get these two guys drunk, and mouth off about assassinating Obama, get them arrested, brag about “foiling a grand conspiracy plot,” brag about how their efforts stopped the “assassination,” and raise lots of money in earnest.  Hegel couldn’t have been more proud.

UPDATE 10/29: The AP does a follow up, and quotes Mark Potok of the SPLC, who seems to think, like NBC, that this was not a serious plot:

“Certainly these men have some frightening weapons and some very frightening plans,” said Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, who studies the white supremacy movement. “But with the part about wearing top hats … it gets a bit hard to take them seriously.”

Now that I think about it, it makes sense that the SPLC is sorta dismissing this.  The reason is that, as you read above, the ADL is gloating about stopping the conspiracy.  You see, the SPLC and the ADL are firece competitors in what I call the Paranoia-Industrial Complex, a phrase I coined in 2002 that describes the propensity of such groups to hustle money based on the paranoid fear of right-wingers.  A dollar given to the ADL is a dollar not given to the SPLC, and vice-versa.  While there may be many dollars, there are only so many dollars in the universe of those donated by rich lefties who can be demagogued up into a fear of the right wing.  The SPLC is poo-pooing the notion that this was a grand, organized plot, simply because the ADL is.

2008 General Election Preview

27 10 2008

As usual, my recommendations and opinions are my own.  I’m hoping that they’re also the opinions of many other people on November 4.


Recommendation:  None

How I Will Vote:  To give Sarah Palin a future in national politics, and to prevent the eternal historical embarrassment of having a non-white head of state.

Prediction:  McCain, by about 5-10 point margin nationally.  I think he’ll win VA, PA, OH, MI, MO, CO, FL, NV, NH and ME.  NM and IA are still question marks in my mind, but I was hoping too much for MN, WI and OR.  The other states will go as they have gone four and eight years ago.

Analysis:  Again, I will vote to give Sarah Palin a future in national politics, and to prevent the eternal historical embarrassment of having a non-white head of state.  But the disparate impact of my actions will be to make John Sidney McCain III the most powerful man on Earth.  Believe me, after he has spent most of the last decade flipping the bird to us right wingers, that is going to be a very bitter pill to swallow.  I intend on drinking heavily after voting.  In order to cast this vote, I might have to drink heavily before voting.

I am not making a recommendation, because those of you who cannot bring yourself to vote McCain have very good reasons for doing so, which I would agree with and act upon if the Democrat were white.

This Presidential election will be the ultimate test of whether the Bradley Effect still exists.  I think it does, but only real election returns (notwithstanding what will surely be massive and unimaginable black voter fraud) will tell.


Recommendation:  None

How I Will Vote:  Hulshof

Prediction:  Nixon wins, but nowhere near the landslide margin I predicted in August

Analysis:  My heart is warming towards Kenny Hulshof.  The reason?  It’s not that he voted against the “rescue” (nee bailout) in the House the first time, it’s that he voted against it the second time, resisting what had to be massive pressure from his own party and the media to do so.  I don’t really expect much from him as Governor, but I think his commendable behavior on the “rescue” (nee bailout) should be rewarded.  Also, I’m not fond of Nixon associating himself with Barack Obama, after Nixon made opposition to school deseg his keynote issue during his first term as AG.

I am not making a recommendation because all those reasons that I said I could never vote for Hulshof are reasons you might still believe, and those which I would agree with and act upon if this “rescue” (nee bailout) never arose.

Back in August, I said that Nixon would ride to an at least 20 point romp.  But the polls have showed a closer election than that, and I think Hulshof can finish within five points.  The reason is that Kenny has kind of a dorkey charm and personality that appeal to a lot of people.  That and his media buys seem more substantial than Nixon’s.  Still, Nixon has had sixteen years of publicity as AG, and that makes him significantly more well-known than Hulshof.  Nixon will win simply because more people have heard of him.

I don’t think that Nixon’s and Obama’s fate in the state are inexorably intertwined.  I think McCain will win the state and Nixon will win Governor.  Again, because people have heard of Nixon over Hulshof.

Before Kenny Hulshof won MO-9 in 1996, he was a special prosecutor in the Attorney General’s office.  During his last few years on the job, his boss was Jay Nixon.


Recommendation:  None

How I Will Vote:  James Rensing (Constitution Party)

Prediction:  Page

Analysis:  Peter Kinder’s pandering to blacks to an insane and incorrigible level has frustrated me so much that I don’t care if he’s good on one or two other issues.

Don’t forget, Kinder won Lt. Gov. four years ago by the skin of his teeth.  If he can’t get the votes of people like me, I doubt he can win.  I think a Nixon win might have just long enough coattails to affect this race.  But I don’t think it’s going to go any further downballot.


Recommendation:  Gibbons

How I Will Vote:  Duh

Prediction:  Gibbons

Michael Gibbons should be rewarded for his efforts to get conceal-carry enacted into law in Missouri in 2003.  Gibbons, then (and is now the outgoing) Senate Majority Leader, had the Senate take the issue up, in spite of the fact that his Senate district voted heavily against Proposition B in 1999.  The opposition was even heavier in Gibbons’s own home town of Jerkwood, er, I mean Kirkwood.  (Freudian slip.)

The Gibbons & Gibbons law firm is one of the most prominent in Kirkwood, though you would never know it by driving by the firm’s office on Clay Avenue.

Chris Koster is his Democrat opposition.  If the name sounds familiar, then you’re not imagining things — Chris Koster is the son of the late Rich Koster, who was the GM at KSDK for a number of years, who got the Rush Limbaugh TV show on Channel 5 and put it at a good time slot, and was the conservative counterpoint to Ray Hartmann on Donnybrook since its beginning in 1987 until his passing a number of years ago.  Chris Koster was born and raised in St. Louis, but somehow he ended up in the Kansas City area, and among other things, he was the Cass County Circuit Attorney before he won the Senate seat in the district where he lives.  Up until 2007, he was a Republican, but switched parties last year out of pure expediency.  Somehow, he eked out a Democrat Primary win over a real Democrat, Margaret Donnelly, this past August, and this has the state’s libdems upset.

The fact that Koster has almost no liberal support, that he is embroiled in ethics scandals aplenty, and perhaps also that people have it in their minds that Nixon will win Governor and that the AG should be of the other party, and that the state NRA seems to be pushing Gibbons even more enthusiastically than Hulshof, are reasons that I think Gibbons will win.


Recommendation:  Lager

How I Will Vote:  Lager

Prediction:  Depends on people’s tastes for beer :)

Analysis:  Really, couldn’t some Democrat named Ale have run?  :)

The Treasurer’s race pits 33-year old Senator Brad Lager (R-Maryville) against Clint Zweifel, a 34-year old Rep from Florissant.  Lager would do what the Constitution states that the Treasurer should do, while Zweifel somehow thinks that the framers of the 1945 Constitution did write “college affordability” and “help struggling homeowners” into Article IV Section 15, but wrote it in disappearing ink.

That said, the choice for me will be easy.

Whoever wins will be young enough to have a potential of a bright political future.


Recommendation:  Anybody but Mrs. Antolinez

How I Will Vote:  Denise Neely (Constitution Party)

Prediction:  Mrs. Antolinez, easily

Analysis:  Other than that Jo Mannies blurb last year, which the P-D has now taken down, you would never know that the former Robin Carnahan got married, save the photo above which I happened to luck into.  That she did get married, but is still using her maiden name as her professional name in order to keep the advantage that it has in this state, and that Juan Antolinez seems nowhere to be found, are the verbally ironic reasons why I call her Mrs. Antolinez.  There is a theory that the marriage is all a cover-up for the fact that she really bats for the home team, if you know what I mean.  That theory makes sense, considering all of this.


Recommendation:  No

How I Will Vote:  No

Prediction:  Wins

Analysis:  I made the mistake at first of analyzing this thing as an education proposition.  Then again, that’s a mistake that most people will make, as the TV ads sell this thing almost entirely in terms of funding education.

They tell you that A would do away with “outdated” and “archaic” riverboat casino regulations, and raise a big pot of money every year, which would be used entirely for Missouri’s schools.  You’ll get the impression that they’ll repeal some 1850s-era casino codes, raise hundreds of millions of bucks per year, and that would be new state education spending.

What they’re not telling you is that the “outdated” and “archaic” regulation they want to repeal is the $500-per-two-hour loss limit for those that gamble.  You know, that was adopted way back in 1994, those ancient days before agriculture, fire, the wheel and written language.

What they’re not telling you is that any casino taxes realized by the state are supposed to go to education anyway.  The reason is that all casino taxes that go to the state have to go to education, no matter the amount.  They didn’t have to stipulate that the new revenue realized by people losing more than $500 a night would only go to education, for if the state gets only $1 in casino taxes or $1 billion, all that money has to go to education.  But I think this stipulation has an ulterior motive.  (See below.)

What they’re not telling you is that, even if they are telling the truth that all revenue realized by lottery and riverboat casino operations are spent on education, that the Missouri Constitution only requires that at least 25% of state revenue goes to education.  What this means is that for every dollar the state takes in from casino taxes, they do spend it on education, but then they go and back out 75 cents of education funding that comes from general revenue.  This happened when the lottery started in 1986, when riverboat gambling started in 1994, and it will happen now.  If $100 million per year comes into the state if A wins, this means that the schools will receive $75 million a year less from the state from sources like income and sales taxes.

All of the things I have said, as a matter of fact or opinion, are true.  But now I realize they’re misguided.

For what Pro-A forces are not really emphasizing is that A would limit the number of new casinos in the state.  Now, who would benefit from that?  Right, the owners of existing casinos.  If people lose more than $500 a night, who benefits from that, especially since they won’t have any new casino options thanks to Prop A?   Right, the owners of existing casinos.

It’s now perfectly clear to me that the casino owners wrote this bill, and used its influence to get this on the ballot.  They’re making a big to-do about how this would all go to the schools (which it would have to anyway, see above).  The reason is that it would get the powerful teachers’ unions on board, so they can use their influence and money to push the issue, in order to make it appear that it’s a matter of education, to keep the casinos’ fingerprints off the gun.  If the casinos paid for the Pro-A media buys, then people would pick up on the hustle of it all.  But having the NEA/AFT do it means that most people won’t realize that it’s a sham.

Also, A would increase the state income tax on riverboat casinos from 20% to 21%.  Big whoop.

If Proposition A merely repealed the loss limit, I might vote for it.  But other than all these issues I raised above, I just don’t like the notion that we need high-stakes gamblers to fund schools.  What kind of message does that send?

Missourians are squirrely about gambling propositions.  Of the four that have made statwide ballot since 1993, two have won, and two have lost.  Just on that basis, I couldn’t make a prediction.  But since there is very little organized opposition, I think it will win.


Recommendation:  None

How I Will Vote:  Leaning Yes

Prediction:  No clue

Analysis:  According to Ballotpedia:

The Statutory Amendment to the Revised Statues of Missouri Relating to Home Care (2008-025) is an initiated state statute proposing to amend Missouri law to establish the Missouri Quality Homecare Council. The Quality Homecare Council would ensure the availability of home care services to the elderly under the Medicaid program by recruiting, training, and stabilizing the home care workforce. The annual cost of the program has been estimated at $510,560.

What B seems to do is to create a situation where Medicaid is more likely to pay for home care services for the elderly rather than nursing home habitation.  After the Nixon/Medicaid/Nursing Home scandal hit earlier this year, I think it’s a good thing that less expensive home care rather than very expensive nursing home care will now become an option.  Since that scandal involved only nursing homes, I doubt that Social Services will want to intercede between spouses to be reimbursed for home care.

The only reason I might vote against it is that the incorrigibly pro-black and Hispanic SEIU is for it.


Recommendation:  No

How I Will Vote:  No

Prediction:  No clue

Analysis:  Would require that eventually, 15% of the state’s energy use comes from unproven and unreliable “renewable sources.”  What it means is that your electric bills are going to go way up.  As you can surmise, the wind turbine industry is for this, and probably financing the Pro-C campaign.

Whenever I see one of those dorkey windmills on TV, I have the same reaction as I do when I see a Toyota Prius Hybrid.  What I see is pompous, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou liberal taking his dong out of his pants and waving it at me.  (Figuratively.)  There are cars other than the Prius that are hybrids and/or fuel efficient, but the Prius has a design that just screams sanctimony.  There are alternative forms of energy production that will soon be far more cost effective and value-conscious than the windmills, but the libs have almost adopted the visage of one as their official symbol.

Meanwhile, these same libs will whine and bitch when someone proposes to generate electricity in the manner that has the lowest carbon footprint of any proven technology, and that is nuclear fission.


Recommendation:  No

How I Would Vote:  Guess

Prediction:  No clue

Analysis:  M is St. Louis County-only.  It would be an extra half-cent sales tax to fund public transit.  In other words, you, St. Louis Countian, are expected to pay for Metro’s blatant and gross incompetence in the last several years.  Curiously, this isn’t on the ballot in St. Louis City, yet public transit is more important there than in the County.  Perhaps the reason is that city sales taxes are already 8.25%.

UPDATE 10/28:  While M is only on the ballot in the County, its results will affect the city.  If M loses, then a quarter-cent transit sales tax approved by city voters in 1997 is automatically rescinded.  If M wins, it stays.

Also, I keep seeing these Pro-M media buys showing Metro Link trains zipping about, taking white people to ballgames downtown.  I think we all know by now that that isn’t the whole racial truth.


Recommendation:  Yes^10

How I Will Vote:  The word is somewhere in the dictionary between “Yell” and “Yet.”

Prediction:  Wins

Analysis:  Would make English the official language of state business.  I would be even more enthusiastic if German were made an official alternative.


Recommendation:  None

How I Will Vote:  No

Prediction:  No clue

Analysis:  This has something to do with how stormwater control projects are financed.  Really, can’t these kinds of things be handled by the professionals we hire to mull it over?

My rule of thumb about propositions and amendments is this:  If you’re unsure about what it does, vote no.  It can’t hurt you if it fails.


Recommendation:  No

How I Would Vote:  No

Prediction:  ?

Analysis:  If it passes, then it gives Illinois permission to remove what few civil liberties remain, and formally adopt Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto as the fundamental law of the land commune.  About the only way around this, if it passes, would be if the Con-Con gives Cook and DuPage Counties to Venezuela, thereby leaving what remains of Illinois to the governance of normal people once again.


Recommendation:  Skip it.

How I Will Vote:  Since she has no opponent, skip it.

Analysis:  After this, I can’t punch a ballot for Joyce ever again, even if it means installing a radical black like Jerryl Christmas.  Since this is the General, and not a primary, defeating her would be an impossible proposition, even if she had token opposition.  The next chance to end her political career would be in August 2012, in the Democrat Primary.

As for Joyce’s partner in “crime,” Bob McCulloch is not up until 2010.  By then, he’ll have been Circuit Attorney in St. Louis County for 20 years.  I have heard buzz that he might try to move on to bigger and better things, either in elected office or by making rain.  But if he runs again, I would vote for someone else if I had the chance.


Recommendation:  Akin

How I Would Vote:  Akin

Prediction:  Akin

Analysis:  Versus the perennial nutcase, Bill Haas?  Spare me.


Recommendation:  Anyone but the brother-in-law of one Juan Antolinez

How I Will Vote:  Cynthia Redburn (Constitution Party)

Prediction:  The brother-in-law of one Juan Antolinez will win

Analysis:  Remember, the brother-in-law of one Juan Antolinez was the only member of the local Congressional delegation to vote for the bailout.


Recommendation:  Blaine Leuktemeyer

How I Would Vote:  Ibid.

Prediction:  None

Analysis:  Liberal Judy Baker vs somewhat conservative.  Otherwise, don’t ask.


MO-6:  The only other competitive House race in MO pits Republican incumbent Sam Graves against former Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes.  The district includes northwestern and north central MO, and some northern KCMO suburbs.  Graves is rural, and Barnes is city.  Ironically, most of Kansas City, Missouri in terms of population is in MO-5, so she won’t have any political benefit from her time as Mayor.  For those two reasons, I think Graves will win.  Sam Graves’s brother, Todd, was U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri until recently.  President Bush fired him, and for good reason, IMHO.

CO-6:  To replace Tom Tancredo.  It’s Colorado Secretary of State Mike Coffman (R) vs a token Dem whose last elected office was in Appleton, Wisconsin, in the reddest district in the state.  Coffman may not be Tancredo, but since MALDEF isn’t happy with his tenure as Secretary of State, and his efforts to prevent illegal aliens from voting, he seems to be the best possible Tancredo replacement that the state’s body politic can produce.

PA-11:  Central Eastern Pennsylvania.  Lou Barletta.  Immigration.  Need I say more?  When Barletta first tried to unseat Paul Kanjorski, he didn’t succeed.  Now, Lou has a record and a keynote issue.  And a very good chance to succeed this time.

PA-12:  Gerrymandered, much of rural southwestern PA, and some Pittsburgh suburbs.  Jack Murtha’s district.  You know, our troops are Nazis, my voters are racists.  Bill Russell has a good chance to send this embarrassment to the unemployment line.  Though with 35 years tenure in the House, Murtha’s pension will probably be quite generous.

NY-18:  Upstate NYC suburbs, including Chappaqua, Disgraceland, where Bill and Hillary Clinton bought into in late 1999 or early 2000, to give HRC New York State residency to run for the Senate seat what was soon to be vacated by Daniel Patrick Moynihan.  The district has been represented by the rancid Nita Lowey (D) for a long time.  Jim Russell, a computer consultant, won both Republican and Conservative Party nominations.  He is challenging Lowey on the immigration issue.  If Russell wins, then Bill and Hillary will have a conservative Republican for a Congressman — just seeing their faces if that happens would be well worth the price of admission.

CA-52:  This San Diego County district is being vacated by my preferred Presidential candidate during the Primaries, Duncan Hunter.  His likely successor his is son of the same name.

FL-16:  Mark Foley’s old district.  Foley’s Democrat successor is also embroiled in Foley-like scandals.  Likely an R pickup.

IL-14:  Denny Hastert’s old district went to Democrat Bill Foster, as he defeated Jim Obwerweis in a special election earlier this year.  Oberweis is trying again vs Foster.  This is probably Oberweis’s last legitimate chance for public office.  If he loses, then any future runs will be interpreted as the usual mehe of a perennial candidate.

LA-2:  William “Cold Cash” Jefferson’s district.  Look for him to win easily, as New Orleans is in the district.  The more crimes you commit, the more likely it is that you’ll get black votes.

MN-6:  Michelle Bachman.  One of the few people that really care, and probably the only person in Minnesota public life that cares.

MS-1:  Roger Wicker’s old district, won by Democrat Travis Childers in a special election over Republican Greg Davis earlier this year.  There will be a rematch.

TX-14:  Ron Paul.

VA-5:  Virgil Goode’s district.  This is the only Republican that I thought could have had a chance of beating Mark Warner for the Senate.  Vote Goode, to keep that possibility alive.

PREDICTION:  Republicans gain seats, but not enough to take over the House.


Missouri has none.  Bond is up in 2010, and the buzz is that he’s going to retire.  Claire McCaskill is up in 2012.

IL:  Durbin will win easily.  Vote third party.

VA:  I don’t think much of either Mark Warner or Jim “Happy” Gilmore.  Vote third party.  Jack Warner (R) is retiring, and a likely Mark Warner (no relation) win will be a D pickup.

SC:  I would definitely vote Bob Conley over Gooberface.  If Conley can pull this off, I highly doubt that he would remain a Democrat once he actually gets sworn in to the U.S. Senate.

CO:  The media say that Democrat Mark Udall has this thing in the bag, but Bob Schaffer, a former Congressman himself, hasn’t run that far behind in the polls.  Schaffer was a big part of the Republican Study Committee, which tried to get the House Republicans to advocate for conservatism.  This seat is being vacated by Wayne Allard (R), so a Udall win would be a D pickup.

NE:  Chuck Bagel (RINO) is retiring.  The race is Bush’s former Ag Secretary, Mike Johanns, vs Scott Kleeb.  I don’t know how I would vote here, because Johanns was Bush’s Ag Sec, and that immigration and agriculture always seem to intertwine these days.  We know President Bush’s position.  Is Johanns for open borders?

NM:  “Pistol” Pete Domenici is retiring, and Rep. Tom Udall (D) is the likely replacement.  If his cousin Mark can win in CO, then it might be the first time in the history of the Senate that first cousins have served at the same time.

AR:  Pryor is essentially unopposed.

DE:  Joe Biden is running for VP and re-election to the Senate at the same time.  If Obama wins, then either Delaware’s current Democrat governor, or its new governor being elected in November, likely also a Democrat, would appoint the replacement.  Vote O’Donnell (R) for that reason alone.

IA:  Dung Heap has some opposition, but I don’t think he has to worry.

LA:  Louisiana recently changed from its French-style “free-for-all-and-runoff” system to a regular primary/general system for electing Federal politicians, it kept for state level offices.  Mary Landrieu will probably win easily; her opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens last year solidified that.  Her Republican opponent flipped parties last year, that being State Treasurer John Kennedy.  That said, don’t discount him just yet — remember the last time someone named John Kennedy ran for U.S. Senate as an underdog against an established incumbent in a year when his party was not expected to win much of anything?

MA:  This time, John Kerry has a token Republican opponent, unlike four years ago.

MI:  Carl Levin’s Republican opponent is State Rep. Jack Hoogendyk, from the heavily-Dutch (Nederlander) western part of the state.  Levin will win, but vote for Hoogendyk because he has a cool name, in addition to everything else.

MT:  Max Baucus’s Republican opponent is more left-wing than Baucus.  Therefore, I would vote Baucus.

NJ:  Somehow, Frank Lautenberg seems to be ticking on and on.

RI:  A Republican is safe in Rhode Island in 2008?  Yes, sometimes even hens can have teeth.

SD:  I can’t understand how South Dakota can keep one of those liberal members of the Senate in the Senate.  It seems like they will do just that this year, in the person of Tim Johnson.

AL:  Jeff Sessions vs a black woman in Alabama.  Duh, I wonder how this one’s gonna turn out.

AK:  Corruptocrat Ted Stevens (R) will probably see his political career ended by Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D).  At that point, Ted can take a long walk off a long bridge to nowhere.

GA:  Amnestyaire and bailoutaire Saxby Chambliss is up this year.  I’m also not fond of the Democrat running against him, for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is.  Vote third party.

KS:  Pat Roberts easily.  Has he been endorsed by Pat Robertson?

KY:  The problematic Mitch McConnell needs to lose.

MN:  Norm Coleman essentially beat the whole world to win U.S. Senate in 2002.  All he has to do now is to beat some washed-out not-funny-anymore comedian.  I think at least one-fifth of Minnesotans who are saying they’re voting Franken will start to have buyer’s regrets once they reach the voting booth.  Coleman wins.

MS:  Both of the state’s Senate seats are up.  Thad Cochran will easily win re-election, and Trent Lott’s appointed replacement, Roger Wicker, faces former one-term Governor Ronnie Musgrove, the anti-South bigot.  Analysts keep saying that Wicker-Musgrove is going to be close.  I can’t understand how someone who got bounced out of the Governor’s office in 2003 has a chance.  Both Cochran and Wicker win.

Up until Trent Lott resigned, the state of Mississippi only had four people that held their state’s U.S. Senate Seats from 1947 to 2007, i.e. 60 years.  Those are John Stennis, James Eastland, Thad Cochran and Trent Lott.  The theory is that, if Wicker wins, he’ll be in the U.S. Senate for a very long time.

NH:  Former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen is challenging John Sununu again, like she did four years ago.  If she wins this time, then this proves that enough Taxachusettsans have moved into NH so that the Republicans can write off the state forever.

NC:  Elizabeth Dole and her Democrat opponent, State Sen. Kay Hagan, have been close in the polls.  But those same NC “polls” have Obama up over McCain.  In North Carolina, yeah right.  Dole wins, she voted against the “rescue” (nee bailout).

OR:  Moderate Republican Gordon Smith has a tough re-election campaign.  If Smith loses, then too many Californians have moved into Oregon so that the Republican Party can write it off forever.

TN:  Lamar Alexander doesn’t seem to have any serious opposition.  The amnestyaire that he is, I wish he would.

TX:  See above, cross out “Lamar Alexander” and insert “John Cornyn.”

WY:  Both of the state’s U.S. Senators are up, both Mike Enzi based on years, and John Barrasso as a special election.  Barrasso was appointed to take the place of the late Craig Thomas last year.  Both Republicans, and both expected to win.

PREDICTION:  Democrats gain seats, but not enough to get to 60.


NC:  Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory (R) vs Lt. Gov. Bev Perdue (D).  McCrory’s good on immigration, which is becoming an ever-more important issue in the state.  (“Welcome to North Carolina, Mexico’s Newest Colony.”)  Polls show it could go either way.  Vote Pat.  Whoever wins will replace Democrat Mike Easley.

WA:  Rossi-Gregoire II.  And, like in 2004, it’s probably going to be a razor-thin victory for either one of them.  Even if you do vote Rossi, your vote might be canceled by that mysterious box full of several hundred Gregoire votes that were somehow “found” and that a judge ruled to allow.

IN:  Mitch Daniels (R) is vulnerable.  Amnesty and the Indiana Toll Road are the issues.  In case you’re wondering, the latter is essentially like Portgate, but involving an interstate highway.

VT:  I think VT is now the last state that does gubernatorial elections every two years.  Jim Douglas succeeded Howard Dean in 2002, and won again in 2004 and 2006.  Somehow, a Republican keeps on winning in this heavily Democrat state.  Competing with him, among others, is Cris Ericson of the Marijuana Party.  Though she might not be campaigning as hard as she should, as Season 3 of “Weeds” just came out on DVD.


Under the Missouri Plan Nine from Outer Space, Supreme Court, Appellate-Level Judges are appointed by the Governor, takes the bench upon the appointment, and are up every four years for a simple yes/no retention public vote.  Trial-level judges from St. Louis City, St. Louis County and Jackson County are also under the Missouri Plan Nine from Outer Space, but trial-level judges from every other country run and sit partisanly.  Since the inception of the Missouri Plan Nine from Outer Space, there have been exceedingly few voter-level rejections of judges.  Your vote and my analysis will be made under the very likely true assumption that all of them will be retained.

Supreme Court:  Pat Breckenridge is the only one of the seven up for retention.  She’s a Blunt appointee, but conservative groups weren’t too thrilled about her.  But, if she’s rejected, Jay Nixon will likely appoint her replacement, so it’s for that reason alone that I will vote to keep her.

Appellate Level, Eastern MO:  For sure, keep Dowd and Odenwald.  I don’t know enough about Richter.

22nd (St. Louis City) Circuit Trial Level:  Ohmer, Dowd, and Wilson — keep those three.  The rest, I don’t know enough about.

21st (St. Louis County):  Don’t know enough about any of the state-level judges in the County.

St. Charles County:  Judges run and sit partisanly.  The only Democrat I could vote for is Ted House.


1st:  Jim Lembke (R) vs Joan Barry (D).  Vote Jim.

15th:  To replace Michael Gibbons.  Eric Schmitt (R) vs Steve Trout (D).  Schmitt.

7th:  Jane “Deseg” Cunningham (R) vs Kevin Leeseburg (D).  Pass this one up.

5th:  Robin Wright-Jones (D) vs Robert Christophel (Lib.)  Vote Christophel.

Overall, it does not appear likely that the Republicans will lose the Senate.


The only House race that interests me is the 86th, in west St. Louis County.  Gene McNary’s son Cole is the Republican nominee.  Everything else should be the usual mehe.  It doesn’t appear likely that the Republicans will lose the House.

Left-Wing Radical Terrorist Crazies: FOB (Friends of Barack)

21 10 2008

The Missouri Republican Party is sending this mailer, received by yours truly today.  Maybe they’re sending it to all voters, or just to those who have voted in Republican primaries in Missouri recently.

At the bottom of the second page, you see the FBI Wanted poster.  The woman on the farthest right is Bern Dohrn, who is, as I understand, also in thick with Barack H. Obama’s rise in the Chicagograd political scene.

The prime question to ask is this:  How is it that Bill Ayers, a self-admitted unrepentant terrorist, got hired by the University of Chicago?  You think if Timothy McVeigh would have beat the rap, that the UofC would have hired him as a professor?  Why is it that left-wing do-badders seem always to have second careers in academia?

Then again, the University of Chicago seems to come up a lot in the Obama story.  Barack himself was a law prof there right after Harvard Law School.  Michelle Obama, until recently, was an affirmative action princess for the UofC Hospital, her salary trebling from the $100G range to the $300G range when her husband won election as U.S. Senator, as if whatever she does is so valuable that it became three times more valuable because her husband won an election.  Yet, this is the same University of Chicago that just ran Prof. John Lott out on a rail.

Colon Bowel Endorses Obama In Exchange For Placement on the $3 Bill

19 10 2008

The first half hour of Meet the Press this morning had Colin Powell on, explaining to Tom Brokaw his endorsement of The That One.  Honestly, it took him a half hour to say what he could have said in three words:  I’m voting race.  He wouldn’t have made as big a fool of himself as he did with Brokaw this morning — not that my estimation of Mr. Powell has ever been that high to begin with.

The late development is that Powell is saying that it isn’t about race.  Whenever you hear someone say that they didn’t do something for or about the money, that’s how you know it was about money.  Likewise on race.

Barack Obama doesn’t want us to fear him even though he might not look like some of those Presidents whose faces adorn money.  Perhaps now Colin Powell has his date with immortality on the three-note.

Remember, this was the goofball that the Republican Party establishment would have nominated for President in 1996 if he would have wanted it.  He can’t bring himself to endorse the Republican Party nominee of 2008 that himself almost switched parties four years ago.  One of these days, we might have Republicans that endorse Republicans that have been Republicans for all their lives and intend to stay Republicans for the rest of their lives.

With Republicans like these, who needs the Democrats?

Joe the Plumber

15 10 2008

Tonight’s debate?  Again, snooze, for the most part.

There were a few interesting parts.  First, Obama and McCain had a back-and-forth about Bill Ayers.  Obama’s standard retort is that Ayers is a “respected professor of education” at the University of Chicago.  Of course, because he was a left-wing terrorist, the universities are chomping at the bit to take them on, because they agree with what people like Ayers did.  Really, Bill Ayers is the left-wing analogue of Timothy McVeigh, but the difference is that if McVeigh would have beaten the rap, no colleges or universities would have hired him as a professor of education.  Also, apart from Ayers’s history, there’s the matter of his current kooky ideas.

Also, McCain mentioned in the final question on education about the “problems” with the Head Start program.  McCain noted that many of the children that benefitted from head start seem to “fall off the map” around third grade, and this was proof, according to JSM, that Head Start needs “reform.”

Really, it’s no mystery.  Until recently, Head Start was mainly aimed at black children.  The theory was that if you get them early, and start teaching them early, then they’ll learn better through the later grades.  When Head Start was first applied to black children, it did seem to be a success, and liberals weren’t hesitant to tout its apparent success.  But once the same children got to the third or fourth grade, they seemed to lose interest in their studies.  And so the pattern continues today.

The answer to this riddle is that black children develop faster than white children up to a certain age, then level off.  Black babies, as a generality and compared to white babies, sit up sooner, walk sooner and talk sooner.  And, during the years that Head Start is applied to them, they’re ahead of white children in terms of mental development.  But their mental development levels off at about the age of nine or ten, and as a measure of central tendency, white children keep on developing mentally for a number of years after.

No, John McCain.  Head Start doesn’t need to be reformed in the way that you want it reformed, because it can never accomplish the impossible goals set out for it.

Oh, and about that Joe the Plumber from Somewhereville, Iowa that they kept addressing?  At this rate, he might decide this Presidential election.  He might be a real-world Kevin Costner in the movie of earlier this year, Swing Vote.

Of Reagan and Clinton

7 10 2008

If the format of tonight’s McNumbnuts-Obambi snoozefest wasn’t a townhall, I would have sworn up and down that they just replayed the debate that happened eleven days go.  If you squint hard enough, Tom Brokaw could easily be mistaken for Jim Lehrer.

Seriously, debates have gone way downhill.  Ronald Reagan would have wiped the floor with both of these clowns.  I hate to say it, but Bill Clinton would have wiped the floor with both of these clowns.  And I wouldn’t easily dismiss Al Gore versus either one of these two.  He might have been dry, technocratic and preachy, but he was the last major party candidate for President who seemed to be able to talk off the cuff in a debate.  Much less the Clintonian “no personal attack ever fed a hungry child” in 1996, much less than that Reagan’s “I will not make an issue of my opponent’s youth and inexperience” in 1984.

The Obamilitia

5 10 2008

They’ll be the ones come to throw you off of your house and property if Robert Mugabe wins the election.


I keep hearing them say that “because of Obama, I’m going to be a” lawyer, electrical engineer, or something else.  They could be lawyers or electrical engineers even if Obama doesn’t win.  If they have the brain pans, almost every college in the country will be falling all over themselves to get them – it has been this way for several decades.  Why do they think they need Barack Obama as President in order to do these things?

These Are the Three That Gave Us McCain

3 10 2008

Jake Wagman:

Rudy and Co. make friends at Steak N’ Shake

As we shake off the grog from last night’s veep rumble at Washington University, the tidbits are rolling in.

We hear that some Republican heavyweights took some late night eats at the Steak N’Shake by the airport before heading out of town: Rudolph Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Lindsey Graham.

The trio, we’re told, ordered hamburgers, er, steakburgers, and fries, and commiserated with members of a high school volley ball team that had stopped in, as well.

All along, I thought that Mike Huckabee was the spoiler for McCain.  But what became perfectly clear at the Republican Convention last month is that Fred Thompson was the spoiler.  To an extent, Rudy was an inadvertent spoiler for McCain, for if he would have taken his campaign seriously before Florida, he and McCain would have split the moderate/RINO vote in New Hampshire and South Carolina, precluding the McCain victories in those states.  And, of course, McCain probably won South Carolina because of Gooberface.

Since they chose the Steak-n-Shake near the airport, here’s hoping that they all made a quick getaway and that they won’t come back.

Who Read Their Own Campaign’s Talking Points the Best?

2 10 2008

That’s what tonight’s debate at Wash. U. was about.  Sarah Palin was not the bimbo the media expected, and Joe Biden at least tried to keep a lid on his acidic arrogance.  But most of this was a matter of both of them reading their own campaign’s bromides.

Sarah Palin had two handicaps against her during this debate:  One, she’s arguing for McCainiac policies that she doesn’t agree with, and two, Gwen Ifill, a public TV black woman who’s totally in the tank for Obama, was the “moderator,” so she got to ask loaded pro-Democrat questions.  That said, based on what little substance that presented itself during this debate, she tied Biden, and that was virtually a win for her.

As far as style, I think Palin’s style appeals to the white working class far better than Biden’s.  One thing I noticed that she, like President Bush, deliberately mispronounces “nuclear” to sound like “nuculur.”  I think she’s laying a trap, waiting for an arrogant know-it-all like Joe Biden to correct her, and his doing so would offend working class whites and drive their sympathy to her and away from him.  Ironically, I’m advising Republicans not to do the same in their criticism of Joe Biden and his gaffes.

One more thing:  It seems to me that Sarah Palin was trying to both support and oppose the “financial markets rescue” (nee bailout).  I think she personally opposes it, but has to sound like she supports it because McNumbnuts does.  I think she was deliberately leaving mixed messages.

By the way, when will the Stupid Party to push the issue to have obvious conservatives as moderators?  If we’re going to have Gwen Ifill, I would have like to have seen someone in the tank for McCain sitting right next to her, e.g. Sean Hannity, asking loaded pro-Republican questions.  You know that if Sean Hannity was going to be the only moderator for a debate, that the Democrats would bitch.

Of Presidents and Pyrrhic Victories

27 09 2008

On last night’s first debate at Ole Miss:

I don’t think either McCain or Obama helped or hurt themselves all that much, especially among undecided voters.  I say that for one prime reason — the debate was on a Friday night.  Who is the moron that decided to put a debate on Friday night?  TV networks don’t put their highly rated shows on Friday or Saturday night for a good reason.

Even if this debate were on a night that people were actually watching TV, I would still stand by my contention.

All I heard was slobbering over Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, but both of them dumped over poor little ole Russia.  Why are these clowns trying to make non-white countries better and insult a fellow white country?

That said, both of these clowns are dangerous on foreign policy, but Obama is marginally worse than McCain, mainly because of Obama’s Afghanistan-Pakistan bellicosity.  First off, if you think Iraq is an impossible imbrogliana, Afghanistan is even worse.  No white country has ever successfully occupied Afghanistan.  Not the Brits, not the Soviets (though, their failure was largely because we secretly helped the Afghanis), and not us.  And I’m of the school of thought that, if we knew in 1980 what we know now, we should have actually helped the Soviets overrun Afghanistan.  Our secret resistance inadvertently created OBL, AQ, Taliban and 9/11.  Nevertheless, putting more American men in Afghanistan would be even a bigger blunder than Iraq.

Then there’s the issue of Obama’s bellicosity towards Pakistan.  I have stated in this medium that the Democrats are obsessed with the person of Osama bin Laden as a singular solution to the “War on Terror.”  I think they have it in their heads that if we get OBL and send him to his 72 virgins, that the “War on Terror” will be over, the Republicans lose their national security advantage, and we go back to a world of September 10, 2001 where Gary Condit and Britney Spears were cutting edge poltical issues.  The trouble is, their obsession is leading their Presidential nominee to start something we might eventually wish he never would have.

Obama doesn’t seem to mind the prospect of engaging in a major incursion into Pakistani territory, across from Afghanistan, in order to apprehend OBL.  Based on the theory that OBL is hiding out in the mountains of northwestern Pakistan; we don’t even know if he’s still alive.  Here’s what Obama doesn’t realize about Pakistan:  One, they have nuclear weapons.  Two, they have a tenuous political situation.  The political party and movement of Pervez Musharraf and the Bhuttos does run the country, but it’s hanging on by a thread, and constantly having pursued by pro-OBL and pro-AQ parties.  The Pakistani equivalent of the FBI is somewhat pro-American and anti-AQ, but their CIA equivalent, the ISI, is AQ/OBL all the way.  If we march into Pakistan just to get OBL, it’s going to inflame Pakistani nationalism and anti-Americanism, Pakistani voters will topple the Musharraf/Bhutto party, install the OBL/AQ party, and then OBL/AQ sympathists will have their hands on a nuke.  You can count the seconds between that and New York City becoming a big deep radiological hole.

(Don’t e-mail me and tell me that Pakistan doesn’t have an intercontinental delivery mechanism.  They could easily get one, from the Russians we seem to be so intent to turn into enemies over something that’s none of our business.  Speaking of Russia, if we are to continue to have NATO, which is based on an obsolete geopolitical situation, Russia should be part of it.  Perhaps move the NATO headquarters to Moscow as a measure of good will.  Also, if we’re going to have a missile defense shield, I don’t understand why we’re trying to marginalize Russia in the whole issue.  Russia should be a part of the missile defense shield, and as a measure of good will, it should be headquartered in Russian territory.)

Sure, we might apprehend OBL, but we’ll lose NYC.  That’s called a Pyrrhic Victory, Mr. Obama.  Look it up.

As far as Iran goes, my personal position on the question seems contradictory.  I don’t fear Iran getting nuclear weapons.  I do fear Mahmoud Ahmadinejad getting them.  Plain words, if a secular dictator like the Shah were still running Iran, nobody would have a problem.  But Ahmadinejad is a nutcase, who may not understand mutually assured destruction, and as he has a propensity to run his mouth and let a lot of genocidal anti-Semitism come out of it, he might not care anyway.  The goal should not be to prevent *Iran* from getting nukes, it should be to disconnect Mahmoud the Nutty from any pretense of Iranian political power.  That would have already been accomplished if we weren’t rattling our sabres at Iran, as Mahmoud the Nutty is unpopular there.  But our sabre rattling has caused Iranians to rally around nationalism and thus their President.  Pretend to back off of Iran, state publicly that they’re not a threat, and wait a year or two.  Mahmoud the Nutty will be out of power, then the new, presumably secular regime in Iran can pursue all the nukes they want, and it won’t bother me any.

Rufus Moosenstein

25 09 2008


Florida congressman points to Palin to rally Jews to Obama

(CNN) – Rep. Alcee Hastings told an audience of Jewish Democrats Wednesday that they should be wary of Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin because “anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks.”

Yes, because we all found out that those moose she killed and dressed were really black and Jewish.

Bob Conley Has 42 Days to Make Up 9 Points

22 09 2008

Rasmussen Reports (H/T Conservative Heritage Times):

Election 2008: South Carolina Senate
South Carolina Senate: [Gooberface] 50% Conley 41%

The first Rasmussen Reports poll of South Carolina’s United State Senate race shows Republican Senator [Gooberface] attracting 50% of the vote while Democratic challenger Bob Conley earns 41%.

In case you’re wondering, Bob Conley is a conservative Democrat, who has promised not to vote for or support amnesty for illegal aliens, or anything that appears to be amnesty for illegal aliens.  He’s against foreign adventurism, and also explicitly opposed to free trade.  Combine all this, and you have exactly the agenda we need to preserve the standard of living of the working middle class in this country; any backsliding on either immigration or trade means that the working middle class disappears.

Conley has even put out a special invitation to both Ron Paul supporters, and those that voted for Buddy Witherspoon over Gooberface in the South Carolina Republican Primaries in June.  Remember, Buddy was able to draw 33% against Gooberface, and those are voters that Gooberface are going to wish to hell he had if he loses a close election to Conley in November.

Dedicated to Barack H. Obama’s Assertion That You Can’t Be Important Or Infleuntial Without Using E-Mail

15 09 2008

Date:  1534 A.D.
Subject:  Re: Re: Need a favor

Well, then, screw you.  I’m starting my own church, one that’ll do whatever I want.  After all, starting new churches seems to be all the rave these days.

Thanks for nothing.


>Date:  1533 A.D.
>Subject:  Re: Need a favor
>No can do.  Catholic marriages are like, well, Catholic marriages.  There
>ain’t no quittin ’em.  They last, like, forever man.
>Maybe you and Kathy can try a fertility clinic?  Oops, I forgot.  Those are
>still about 450 years away.
>Clement VII

>>Date:  1527 A.D.
>>Subject:  Need a favor
>>Yo Giulio,
>>Can you do me a favor?  Untie my knot to the wench.  Her fields are
>>barren, if you know what I mean.
>>Thanks a million.

>>>Date:  1525 A.D.
>>>Subject:  It’s over
>>>It’s over, beyotch.

Here Comes the Dorkey Charm

12 09 2008

I’m still sticking with my prediction that Jay Nixon will win, but I’m backing off my earlier prediction of at least a 20-point margin.  I get the feeling that Kenny Hulshof is going to be able to make this game pretty tight.  He’s got kind of a dorkey charm that appeals to a lot of people.  Hulshof’s media buys have been more numerous, and from a purely neutral and analytic standpoint, better and more substantive than Nixon’s.

Not only that, Sarah Palin is energizing the conservative base of the Republican Party throughout the whole country, and while Hulshof has been one of the more liberal Republicans in the U.S. House during his 12-year tenure, he will benefit from this “Palin Bounce” simply because he has an R next to his name.

My new prediction is that Nixon will win, but only by a 5-10 point margin.  My recommendation not to vote for either Hulshof or Nixon still stands.

Related:  Why Kenny Hulshof Won’t Be Governor

UPDATE 9/22: And the P-D’s new polling data has Nixon 50, Hulshof 43.

A First In My Conscience Lifetime

12 09 2008


Will Joe Biden be dumped off ticket?
Speculation rises about last-minute VP switch for party

Will Sen. Joe Biden be dropped from the Democratic Party ticket before Election Day?

Television pundits, talk radio personalities and blogs have been buzzing with speculation about a last-minute VP switch for the party.

On Fox’s “Hannity & Colmes” last night, Sean Hannity asked Gov. Ed Rendell, D-Pa., “Will they replace Biden with Hillary?”

Rendell replied, “No, absolutely not. Joe Biden is here to stay. Next vice president of the United States.”

However, according to recent polls, Biden’s popularity is not as high as Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Results from a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. national survey released yesterday have Obama and McCain virtually tied – Obama has 49 percent while McCain has 48 percent. But Sarah Palin has surged ahead of Biden on popularity with 55 percent to his 44 percent. Her favorability rating is also 6 percent higher.

In every Presidential election in my conscious lifetime, the Democrat running for Vice-President outpolled the Republican running for Vice-President in polls where people were given a choice separately from the Presidential election.  I was too young in 1984 to follow polls, but I was aware of the fact that a woman could become Vice-President, and I would find out later that Geraldine Ferraro was more popular than George H.W. Bush.  Similarly, Lloyd Bentsen beat Dan Quayle in 1988, Al Gore beat Quayle in 1992, Gore beat Jack Kemp in 1996, Joe Lieberman beat Dick Cheney in 2000, John Edwards beat Cheney in 2004.

Until now.  This is the first time that I have seen a Republican running mate beat a Democrat running mate in a poll between them.

A Tale of Two Sarahs

7 09 2008

If John S. McCain III would have announced the Sarah on the left as his running mate a month earlier, or the Missouri Primaries would have been a month later, I get the feeling that the Sarah on the right would have pulled it off and thus have been one election away from adding another Governor Sarah to the American political repetoire.

Day Four

4 09 2008

A few points:

(1)  Again, with the heaping praise of adopting non-white kids from the other side of the world.  Give it a rest already.

(2)  Is it me, or does Lindsey Grahamnesty sounds gayer and gayer with time?

(3)  The McCain speech was alright, though, as we all know, he’s too ideologically invested in economic globalism.  His big economic plan is to “open markets” across the world for us to sell our goods.  What goods?  Raw materials so that other countries can build manufacturing bases?  He also wants better education and re-training to prepare Americans for the “jobs of the future.”  What, pray tell, are those?  In a global economy such as ours, virtually all jobs can be done cheaper “over there,” if not, then they can be done cheaper by importing “over there” over here.  And all our “education” won’t mean a damn.

Meanwhile, McCain subtly reminded us that he’s for amnesty and open borders, with his “All God’s Children” rhetoric.  Yes, John, we know, but that’s the same God that also took down the Tower of Babel.

The reason this won’t hurt him is that the Democrats believe this, too.  They’re just trying to pretend slightly that they’re against free trade and economic globalism, but they come nowhere hear hurling a knife at the gestalt of American economic frustration.

Still, it was refreshing to hear John McCain talk about selflessness, in contrast to that twit the Democrats nominated, who can talk about nothing but himself and the so-called power of his fake personality.

Total Eclipse

4 09 2008

Obama, Biden, McCain, Barr, Paul, Baldwin, Nader?  Whodat?

One day soon, I fully expect to be looking up near the sun, and all of a sudden, the skies will get dark, and within a matter of a few minutes, the sun will have disappeared, and Sarah Palin’s face will be seen in front.

“Oh, hi!!!”