Joust The Facts

Congratulations, Belatedly

I was perusing Wizbang! absentmindedly this Sunday evening, as the Patriots were losing blowing it against the Steelers, with way too many second half turnovers, dropped passes and soft defenses, and I noted an oblique reference to the "loss" of Jay Tea.  I've been terribly busy with work and a variety of other projects lately, and my blogging has been sporadic (and my reading of blogs even moreso.)  Still, I was puzzled that this news had gotten past me. Jay is a fellow Granite Stater, and a superb blogger, putting far more thought into his posts than any seven bloggers combined.  He once surprised me by dropping his Wizbang!calling card at my desk while, I believe, seeing one of my partners at the office.  While I don't agree with him on everything, he and I do agree on many things.  And even in those disagreements I certainly found that he gave a topic full and thorough consideration before discussing his conclusions.

Commentary Magazine's blog Contentions has snapped him up.  They wanted him exclusively, and so Wizbang is a much more empty place.  Congratulations, I wish you well in your new gig.  And remember, J.T., you're always welcome as a commenter at Joust The Facts.

A Belated Happy Thanksgiving

In this castle we have a lot to be grateful for.  We wish you all a happy Thanksgiving and a splendid and joyous holiday season.

Did anyone watch much football?  The games were fairly lame matchups.  I hope there's plenty of leftover turkey.

Shades Of The Who Concert, 1979

Eleven died in the rush for prime viewing angles.

For more than 14,000 fans—out of approximately 18,500 the only viewing options inside the Coliseum were festival seating (standing room) or general admission (unreserved seats). That is why thousands of loyal Who fans came to the concert hours early to stand in the chilled wintry evening. They knew that the best concert viewing positions would be up for grabs once the doors opened. Anticipation ran high as the friendly crowd amassed.

Besides the forced competition among fans that festival seating brought to the event other crowd safety lapses would appear on December 3. The situation was made worse by, among other things, an absence of communication between event organizers, security and the waiting crowd; a lack of crowd management of any kind, including queuing; and, a refusal by those in charge to respond to a police call to open a sufficient number of main entrance doors to relieve the festering crowd crushing.

At a Long Island, NY Wal-Mart today

NEW YORK – A worker was killed in the crush Friday after a throng of shoppers eager for post-Thanksgiving bargains burst through the doors at a suburban Wal-Mart, authorities said.

At least four other people were injured, and the store in Valley Stream on Long Island was closed...

"He was bum-rushed by 200 people," co-worker Jimmy Overby, 43, told the Daily News. "They took the doors off the hinges. He was trampled and killed in front of me. They took me down too. ... I literally had to fight people off my back."

Very sad, indeed.  The word "savages" doesn't somehow seem harsh enough.  Come on, people, we're talking earthly material goods here, for cryin' out loud.  Does anyone see a parallel between this economic bloodlust and the nothing down, ARM and bubble mortgages that got us in financial trouble nationally?  Too many people wanting something for nothing, or at least very little?

Thanks For The Memories

I'm pretty sure GM CEO Rick Wagner is not going to be relishing this trip down memory lane.  The Vega, man.  Although I have to take issue with having the H2 Hummer on the list.  It has lousy fuel economy, but the bad rep is based mostly on the buyer they seem to attract.  My favorite head-scratchers were the X-cars (#2 on the list) and the Cadillac Cimarron, as unispiring a Caddy as ever there was.  Cimarron was even a horrid name.  What joker in marketing came up with that?  I never did get the whole Saturn thing.

From the lead in to the article, the best news for GM is, if they can survive bankruptcy, this:

It's ironic that right now, just as it teeters near bankruptcy, GM has never had a stronger lineup of cars and trucks. From the shockingly good Chevrolet Cobalt SS, turbocharged and solid Saturn Astra, to the sweet-natured Cadillac CTS and the brilliant Chevrolet Corvette ZR1, the corporation's product portfolio is strong. But each of those cars is weighed down by the legacy of products like the ten listed here.

Don Surber doesn't think it's the product problems, but the improved quality that has caused the problems.  When cars were falling apart every three years - and financeable over three years - you could turn cars over.  But people began insisting that the cars last longer, and some companies actually made products that did (cough - Honda Accord - cough).  So the paradigm shifted and the sales projections necessary to fund gold plated assembly lines didn't materialize.

Yeah, could be.  But some of these cars were plain awful.

The Change After - #1

After the election, that is.  And there's been a lot of it.  Let's take taxes first, for example.

WASHINGTON – An economic crisis, rising joblessness and a credit squeeze can make a president-elect refine his words. Today's word is "repeal." During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to repeal President George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy ahead of their scheduled expiration in 2011.

It was part of how Obama would pay for an overall net tax cut aimed at low- and middle-income taxpayers, and an effort to bring what he called "fairness" to the tax system.

No one is talking tax hikes now.

I see.  Increasing taxes on "the wealthy" - in MSM/liberalspeak it's known as "repealing the Bush tax cuts - has detrimental effects on employment and other economic metrics.  After all, if it was really a good thing for the economy he'd still be proposing it, because the economy could use it.

So here's the question.  When did Mr. Obama become a believer in "supply side" economics?  As a followup, I'd like to know at what point in the campaign he realized this while continuing to insist that the opposite was the case.  Or, as DrewM over at Ace of Spades more succinctly puts it:

Still, even with that kind of mindset it's funny how the facts of life are slapping The One in the face so soon after the election. It's almost as if a lot of what he said was just crap to get dumb people to vote for him.

On a side note, perhaps he could now do a little research with his new economic team to find out when a 'stimulus package' has ever produced prolonged benefit to the economy, rather than a temporally fleeting sense illusion of well-being.

A Breath Of Fresh Air

One of the supposedly unassailable assertions of the left is that embryonic stem cells are necessary to make progress in medical research on diseases that afflict us everyday.  The tale, at this stage certainly, falls apart when the evidence of medical progress with stem cells is reviewed, virtually all of it coming from more differentiated adult stem cells.  Today's case in point: a new trachea, built from the patient's own stem cells.

Once doctors had a donor windpipe, scientists at Italy's University of Padua stripped off all its cells, leaving only a tube of connective tissue.

Meanwhile, doctors at the University of Bristol took a sample of Castillo's bone marrow from her hip. They used the bone marrow's stem cells to create millions of cartilage and tissue cells to cover and line the windpipe.

Experts at the University of Milan then used a device to put the new cartilage and tissue onto the windpipe. The new windpipe was transplanted into Castillo in June.

"They have created a functional, biological structure that can't be rejected," said Dr. Allan Kirk of the American Society of Transplantation. "It's an important advance, but constructing an entire organ is still a long way off."

As I've pointed out previously, embryonic stem cells may not be the panacea that everyone envisions; far less differentiated than adult cells they hold a lot of promise, but a lot of unpredictability as well.  I think I speak for everyone when I say that we should go whole hog on adult and non-destructive stem cell research.  On the other hand, moral guidance and extremely cautious optimism are necessary when dealing with the embryonic issue.

"Informed" Voters

And supposedly the media can't influence elections. (h/t Power Line)

Interesting how they know all of the damaging items - both true and untrue - re: Sarah Palin, but none of the damaging items about Senators Obama and Biden.  And why would they think Republicans are in charge of Congress?

To Bail Or Not To Bail ...

... that is the question.

This report at ABC gives a good overview.  Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) states the interventionist case.

General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, who, earlier this month, made an urgent plea to lawmakers for cash, say they need a government lifeline to survive. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Saturday that House leaders would secure aid for the auto industry, "to ensure their long-term economic viability."

"You've got to have this interim support, as every other country with an automobile industry is going to do. No other country with an automobile industry will allow it to go down," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday

"Got to have" it?  And I suppose if Johnny Finnegan jumped off the Empire State Building you'd have to jump off the Empire State Building,"  You don't spend $25 billion just because the "cool" kids are doing it.

Besides, is bankruptcy - and reorganization - really unthinkable?  GM, Ford and Chrysler have been operating under a handicap for quite some time, a handicap that hinders their competitiveness in a global market.  Or even in just the American market, for that matter.

Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code allows for a company "makeover" under court supervision. But it's not your grandfather's liquidation bankruptcy.

"It doesn't mean close the doors, lock it up, sell it off," said [Michael E. Levine, professor at New York University School of Law]. "It means reorganize, financially. Americans at this point are fairly used to dealing with companies that are in reorganization."

Bankruptcy, Levine argues, gives companies greater leeway to restructure and emerge stronger. Bankruptcy protections could, for example, let GM out of its expensive union contracts that pay $71 an hour in wages and benefits, compared to the $47 that Toyota pays.

And under bankruptcy law, the company could rewrite contracts with dealers and drop less profitable brands to concentrate on newer, more fuel efficient models, like the Chevrolet Volt.

"It's really better to focus on your most successful brands and products," said Paul Ingrassia, former Dow Jones executive and Detroit bureau chief for the Wall Street Journal. "So instead of having eight brands with 20 percent of the market, why not have two or three?

Would there be enormous turmoil for the next 12-24 months?  Yes.  Would the "big three" be smaller when the dust settles?  Yes.  Would they be more competitive?  Yes again. 

The auto makers need to have a) quality products, b) a sensible distribution system and c) controllable costs.  The unions have, over time, gotten such enormous ongoing benefits for even their retired employees that the companies carry those handicaps on the assembly line toward every car sale.

Eric Torbensen covered all the bases in the NY Post yesterday.

"We're funding a day care system for people with extinct skills," says Michael Covel, an entrepreneur, trader and author who is among many to back the simple argument: "let them die."

"We'll be a heck of a lot stronger in the long run if we just take the pain on this right now. They'll burn through it and be back for more. We're turning auto jobs into government-supported jobs and it's a shame." In just under two years, GM has lost $57 billion. The current quarter will provide more huge losses, and even in its regulatory documents the company admits that demand for its products isn't coming back soon.

The choice comes down to this.  Without bankruptcy there can be no reorganization, retooling, and revising of a failing business model with crushing long term costs.  With a bailout there can be no bankruptcy, at least not immediately.  But, rest assured, we'll be right back here asking the same questions six months from now $25 billion of taxpayer money poorer.

This isn't tough love, it's brutal love.  But it's still love.  I've owned cars by both GM and Ford, and also owned or leased a Toyota, a Nissan, a Saab, and Audi, and a BMW.  I enjoyed my GM vehicles (Ford not so much).  They can come back, and it's not just hybrid and electric vehicles that will do it.  It's quality vehicles that people want to drive.  Cars that make you want to say, "Yeah, that's mine.  Want to go for a drive?"  But that takes imagination.  And flexibility.

See also the essay in the weekend WSJ, "Just say no to Detroit."

The implications of this story for Washington policy makers are obvious. Investing in the major auto companies today would be throwing good money after bad. Many are suggesting that $25 billion of public money be immediately injected into the auto business in order to buy time for an even larger bailout to be organized. We would do better to set this money on fire rather than using it to keep these dying firms on life support, setting them up for even more money-losing investments in the future.

Ouch.

11/19/08 1400: I knew I liked that guy Romney. 

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

An Unsurprising Revelation

Another politician of questionable honesty.  This is not the Barack Obama I thought I knew.

In a new afterword to his memoir, 1960s radical William Ayers describes himself as a "family friend" of President-elect Barack Obama and writes that the campaign controversy over their relationship was an effort by Obama's political enemies to "deepen a dishonest narrative" about the candidate.

Ayers describes phone threats and hate e-mail he received during the campaign, and he bemoans Obama's guilt by association.

During the campaign, Ayers' friendship with Obama was a favorite subject of conservative bloggers and talk show hosts who insisted the two were closer than the candidate was admitting. Ayers' new description of the relationship seems to contradict Obama's statements.

Obama had dismissed Ayers as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood" and "somebody who worked on education issues in Chicago that I know."

It wasn't a "dishonest narrative" because the narrative was never what it was characterized as by the media and the Obama campaign.  Rather than indicating anything anti-American about Mr. Obama it indicated a lack of judgement in associating with someone who hated enough about America to resort to a domestic bombing campaign.  And it indicated a lack of honesty in discussing that association.  "just a guy who lives in my neighborhood" indeed.

The admission by Mr. Ayers of a closer relationship than Mr. Obama and his campaign admitted has essentially verified the gist of the conservative blogosphere's discussion of Ayers-Obama.  The right insisted that a) Mr. Obama wasn't telling the truth about the relationship because it b) would reflect poorly on his judgement to have had a friendship with an unrepentent domestic terrorist and far left radical.  That judgement is in question not because of acts of the Weathermen in 1969, but because as the NY Times story that came out on 9-11 indicated Mr. Ayers continued to hold his radical beliefs and espoused violence.  Mr. Obama was 40.

Next thing you know we'll find out that Mr. Obama actually did hear most of the anti-American and racist diatribes of Jeremiah Wright, since he was in that church "every week," leaving his church only when it became politically untenable.

11/16/08 2350: Howard Kurtz noticed the media's creation of what they want a President Obama to be, and the endless fawning that creation spawned.  Well, that is his job.

What's troubling here goes beyond the clanging of cash registers. Media outlets have always tried to make a few bucks off the next big thing. The endless campaign is over, and there's nothing wrong with the country pulling together, however briefly, behind its new leader. But we seem to have crossed a cultural line into mythmaking.

"The Obamas' New Life!" blares People's cover, with a shot of the family. "New home, new friends, new puppy!" Us Weekly goes with a Barack quote: "I Think I'm a Pretty Cool Dad." The Chicago Tribune trumpets that Michelle "is poised to be the new Oprah and the next Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis -- combined!" for the fashion world.

Whew! Are journalists fostering the notion that Obama is invincible, the leader of what the New York Times dubbed "Generation O"?

Each writer, each publication, seems to reach for more eye-popping superlatives. "OBAMAISM -- It's a Kind of Religion," says New York magazine. "Those of us too young to have known JFK's Camelot are going to have our own giddy Camelot II to enrapture and entertain us," Kurt Andersen writes. The New York Post has already christened it "BAM-A-LOT."

Aaacck!  I'm sorry.  I just threw up a little in the back of my throat.  Excuse me.

Note to the media: Settle down.  He's just an inexperienced child of the Chicago political machine, and given that he's only been a senator for 4 years, and was running for president for three of those, it's extremely unlikely he's all that you've made him up to be.  Had you done the job you were hired to do, rather than the one you wanted to do, we'd know a lot more about him.

Furtive Glances - "Whither The GOP" edition

Chicken Little Republicans lose elections; Chicken Little Democrats win them.  Several conservatives offer their prescription for reviving a moribund party on the pages of the Wall Street Journal today.

• Danny Vargas, chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly argues for diversity.

Sadly, too many Americans view the GOP as out of touch, intolerant, the party of the rich, and unable to govern effectively. To be successful and regain the majority, we must change these perceptions and communicate more effectively with all segments of society, expand the base and allow for varying view points, while remaining true to our core values of limited but effective government, individual liberty and personal responsibility, and respect for traditional values.

All of those "sadly" points are Democrat and media caricatures of Republicans.  Then when one shows up who cannot possibly be painted to fit that mold they attack her in other ways.  However, the "core values that Mr. Vargas highlights are exactly the ones that need to be highlighted, emphasized, repeated.  You'll gain diversity by convincing diverse peoples of the virtue of those positions, not by abandoning them.

• A similar message from Richard Land, the president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, who wants the GOP to "stay faithful to core values."

He advises five core values: 1) Stay Pro-Life  2) be pro-family, including economic policies, school choice, and anti-gay marriage  3) pursue diversity among GOP candidates  4) economic concern for Main Street not just Wall Street and 5) strong national defense and the promotion of freedom globally.

A thorough discussion of each of these is beyond the scope of this edition of Furtive Glances, but I would quickly point out that 1) and 2) were not abandoned, 3) depends on convincing minorities that the party wants to include them more than anything, 4) is a slur on the GOP that is as untrue coming from Mr. Land as it is from Mr. Obama, and 5) has been Mr. Bush's most consistent approach.  What they've lacked are communication skills, and channels.

• For diversity look no further than Michael Steele, who advises the GOP to listen, adapt and be positive.

True, the country has changed and our party must adapt. However, it is wrong to believe we must change our principles or become conservative-lite. After all, the voters did not suddenly become liberal; but they have lost any sense of confidence that the Republican Party holds the answers to their problems.

Most Americans today see a Republican Party that defines itself by what it is against rather than what it is for. We can tell you why public schools aren't working, but not articulate a compelling vision for how we'll better educate children. We're well equipped to rail against tax increases; but can't begin to explain how we'll help the poor. We exclude far better than we welcome...

We must articulate a positive vision for America's future that speaks to Americans' hopes, concerns and needs. It's time to stop defining ourselves by what we are not, and tell voters what we believe, how we'll lead, and where we'll go; how we Republicans will make America better; how we'll make their families more prosperous, their children better educated, their parents more secure, and all of us healthier, safer and stronger.

Our challenge lies not in beating Democrats, but in uniting around a message that solidifies our ranks and attracts new people to our cause.

Absolutely.  I have nothing to add.  The difficulty, again, is communication, particularly with the young.  They are receiving world-class leftist indoctrination in grade school, middle school, high school and colleges and universities that eventually is tempered as the reality of the real world is encountered.  But it would certainly be helpful to get a positive message of liberty, limited effective government and personal responsibility to them before the age of 25.

• Henry Olson, the vice president of the American Enterprise Institute, wants to exhume Reagan, or at least his spirit.

Our principles can flourish only if our policies resonate with average Americans who deal with concrete problems and who are resistant to radical change. One thing is certain: A conservatism that abandons freedom as its core principle is not distinctively American; and a conservatism that ignores reality will not win.

• Peter Robinson of Stanford University's Hoover Institution thinks that California can be in play for a Republican coup d' etat.  He wants to focus on assimilating the Hispanic population, largely Catholic and culturally conservative, into a working Republican majority by emphasizing welcome assimilation into America itself, citing Ron Unz work to eliminate bilingual education programs.  Those programs are the education equivalent of a "colored only" bathroom, "separate but equal."

"Hispanics didn't come here to go on welfare or rip off California's taxpayers," Mr. Unz argued, "and their support for Prop. 227 proves it. They came here to become Americans. They have a strong work ethic. They believe in family values. As Catholics, they're pro-life. They're natural Republicans."

Proposition 227 was the last time a California Republican made a concerted, intelligent effort to reach out to the state's newest immigrants. Now Republicans -- particularly Republican candidates for governor in 2010 -- need to try again.

• Finally, have a look at an insightful look at the culture wars from the Baseball Crank.  He reminds us that just as it takes two to tango, it takes two sides to fight a culture war, and the left has no intention of stopping their march.  They just want you to believe they're not pushing the fight in the least.

At its core, Beinart's thesis is grounded in one of the familiar tropes of passive-aggressive liberal pundits: the idea that the "culture war" - political battles over cultural and social issues ranging from abortion to crime to immigration to racial preferences to same-sex marriage to guns to the role of religion in the public square - consists entirely of conservatives picking fights against liberals who just want us all to get along. In this narrative, two things are true: (1) that liberal positions on, say, economic issues are popular but liberal candidates keep losing elections over cultural issues that shouldn't matter in elections; and (2) that conservative positions on cultural issues are outside the mainstream and doomed by their unpopularity. Of course, it's logically impossible for both of these things to be true (unless liberals win all the time, and it will take more than two bad election cycles to prove that), but that's not really my point.

The point is this: we have political conflict over social and cultural issues because we have two sides that disagree on a broad range of issues, and neither is willing to change its position. If these issues were actually unimportant or indefensible, the side that was losing elections on them would throw in the towel and adapt its positions, as for example happened with the end of the political battles over segregation and Prohibition. And if cultural liberals disdained conflict, they would never start battles on these issues - yet they do so all the time. Indeed, abortion wasn't an issue in national politics until Roe v. Wade; the NRA wasn't a force in politics until liberal politicians pushed increasingly intrusive gun-control measures.

Pundits like Beinart like to frame these issues as a "war" promulgated by only one side because they can pander to the sensibilities of voters who think it's rude to fight about these issues. It's a political strategy designed to seize the moral middle ground.

Read the whole thing.

If Philadelphia Doesn't Immediately Apologize ...

... the mayor should be ashamed.  Sure it's provocative.  Is that criminal now?

Stolen from Ace of Spades.

11/10/08 2310: This just in: The media treated the election participants unequally.

Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, said, "There are a lot of things I wish we'd been able to do in covering this campaign, but we had to make choices about what we felt we were uniquely able to provide our audiences both in Washington and on the Web. I don't at all discount the importance of issues, but we had a larger purpose, to convey and explain a campaign that our own David Broder described as the most exciting he has ever covered, a narrative that unfolded until the very end. I think our staff rose to the occasion."

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces about McCain, 58, than there were about Obama, 32, and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.

Ed Morrissey points out something missing from the ombudsman's autopsy.

Howell never answers the real issue here — why did the Post, and the rest of the national media, go on the attack with Sarah Palin and not with Barack Obama?  The two candidates had a similar amount of time in politics, and Palin had more executive experience than Obama.  Obama ran for the top job, while Palin ran for VP.  And yet the national media parachuted dozens of reporters into Wasilla and Juneau looking for dirt and scandal, coming up with a tanning bed in the governor’s mansion (which Palin bought herself) and the Troopergate story that turned out to be a nothingburger and was already known prior to her nomination.

Where were the Post reporters doing the same thing in Chicago?  Why didn’t the Post want to look at the files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama’s only executive experience prior to his run for the presidency?  The media never bothered to make a hundredth of the effort on Obama that they did with Palin, and they had two years to do it.

The easy answer is, of course, that they were afraid of what they'd find.  It's a lot easier to not print information you haven't uncovered than to sit on information you have.

Even More Redistribution Than Promised?

Remember the tax cuts income transfers that were promised during the campaign?

Now this: My guy Dan Clifton, superanalyst at Strategas Research, has noticed that Speaker Pelosi is pushing for a permanent refundable tax credit on payroll taxes paid. Clifton thinks that tax credit could be paid for by a five percent surtax on higher income taxpayers.  "While this achieves the same goal of raising the top tax rate, to achieve the permanent middle class tax cut, the 5 pct. surtax will fall on top of the higher income tax rates after the Bush tax cuts expire (39.6% + 5%)."

So we could end up with a top rate of 45 percent, higher than the top rate during the Clinton years. And up it goes.

Joe understood.

Unseemly Behavior

Real men (and women) take responsibility.  They don't point fingers of blame, and they in particular don't make up things out of whole cloth in order to make themselves feel better.  And they never air such inside discussions in public, because the weakness that you might hope would be cleared by such an airing is not, and all that is demonstrated is your own weakness.

The old adage is that there is no "I" in team.  Teamwork means that you all win together, and you all lose together.  The star may fumble the ball on the final drive, or call a timeout in the championship game when no timeouts are left.  But you rally around your team, and your team rallies around you, because you don't make the team stronger by weakening any of its parts, even when the season is over.  Such discussions are behind closed doors.  You don't recall any quotes about soon-to-be-VP Joe Biden's gaffes from members of the Obama team, do you?

Can you jettison a weak teammate to improve the team?  Of course.  But the proper way to do this is to thank them for their effort, to wish them well at their next stop, and to focus on the new member of the now stronger team.

John McCain is a good man, perhaps as Charles Krauthammer wrote today the best man to have lost the presidency.  His campaign team needs a lesson from this strong man, who withstood the torture of the North Vietnamese to nearly become the leader of the free world, in what it means to be strong.  And Mr. McCain should show that strength again and come to the defense of his running mate, as airing of bad blood will do nothing to change the result.

11/7/08 1710: It seems the possible future RNC chairman Katon Dawson agrees with me on this.

"The disappointment felt by many Republicans following Tuesday's election is certainly understandable," Dawson said. "However, the attacks on Governor Sarah Palin made by a disgruntled handful of political insiders are unacceptable.  Their claims, made under the veil of anonymity, can never be verified and only serve as fodder for our opposition. The media has already demonstrated its propensity to discredit Governor Palin, and the Democrats are undoubtedly rejoicing at the sight of this Republican cannibalism...I respectfully ask my fellow Republicans to join me in condemning these divisive attacks so that we can focus on the task at hand – moving forward as a Party and moving forward as a nation."

Continue the nonsense if you will, but if I were a Republican interested in running for high office the parties involved would never be allowed near the campaign.

Not A Night For Mavericks

It's looking like Obama 44 is inevitable.  He campaigned on the left of Hillary Clinton in the primaries, then tacked to the center and even found himself perceived to be to the right of McCain on some economic questions.  Obama the tax cutter?

Ohio?  Virginia?  Indiana?  North Carolina?  Probably Florida also.  Granted all were close, but close doesn't get you any electoral votes.  On the other hand, it looks like McCain will hold North Carolina.

In any event, barring shocking irregularities in exit poll data there is no route for McCain to get to 270 electoral votes.  Here's hoping that Mr. Obama looks at the national vote totals (now 51%-48%, and unlikely to get much beyond a 4 point spread), realizes that he needs to bridge the divide between those who voted for him and those who didn't, and govern from that bridge.

I'm a bit disappointed in New Hampshire going for a weak poliician in Jeanne Shaheen, over a John Sununu who as a freshman senator called for oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac early on.  Ms. Shaheen will be a Democratic rubber stamp.

Exit question: How much of an influence, and how ridiculous - were the polls from, for example, Gallup showing Obama +11 on their traditional model, and CBS with Obama +13 +9, and Newsweek all along?

And it's official.  John McCain is now showing just how to give a concession speech.

A Brief Word About Those New Voters

Sure, there are a bunch of new voters.  Four years of students finally over 18, immigrants who've gained citizenship, and previously disenfranchised minorities held down by THE MAN!  The youth vote and the previously suppressed will overwhelm the system bringing hope of needed change ... or something like that.  Report is that it's 10% this year, 11% in 2004.*

Remember, though, as many new (liberal) voters as there are, there are also four more years of formerly liberal voters slapped in the face with confiscatory taxes, a dangerous world, and new concerns for a blossoming family who wake up and smell the coffee.  Remember the old adage attributed to Winston Churchill (and no, I'm not going to research it now.).

Winston Churchill is credited (perhaps wrongly) with having coined the term "If you're 20 and not a liberal you don't have a heart; if you're 40 and not a conservative, you don't have a brain." I could not sum up better the transformation I went through since first voting in 1979, as a 20-year-old Marin County liberal, to a 49-year-old closet conservative in 2008...

Although the reasons are many, I'll mention the top five. One: History. Reading about evil in the world and the failures of liberal policies has led me toward more-conservative thought. Two: Marrying a conservative Catholic woman from Mexico. (I should also note that my centrist wife would prefer I vote for Obama.) Three: Having kids. Nothing makes one grow up faster and learn how the real world works than having kids. Four: Listening to conservatives on talk radio, in particular the eloquent and mild-mannered Dennis Prager. Five: The final blow, the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

*New voter numbers could be higher, depending on whether early voting has been taken into account.

Redemption Too Late

Gov. Sarah Palin acted "properly" in the manufactured 'Troopergate' pseudo-scandal.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Gov. Sarah Palin violated no ethics laws when she fired her public safety commissioner, the state personnel board concluded in a report released Monday. "There is no probable cause to believe that the governor, or any other state official, violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in connection with these matters," the report says.

Of course, the goal wasn't to investigate and punish actual wrongdoing.  The goal, rather, was to hyperventilate and wheeze with faux outrage so that those who pay less than full attention might think there was something there, and to use that impression to influence an election.

And I include a number of media half-wits in that group.  Why do I pick on Mr. Olbermann (and others like him)?  Because his blindspot causes him to find it proof-positive of wrongdoing that Republican lawyers and Republican politicians would rally to defend the Republican nominee for Vice President, but not at all noteworthy that in the middle of a heated presidential election Democratic politicians would push a smear to generate a fake scandal.  You don't assess the truth of the accusation based on who is involved.

Meanwhile, years from now - probably four years from now - the left/media will offhandedly throw out this episode as a "documented" past Palin scandal.  Ask Ray Donovan.

... And Your Smile Is A Thin Disguise

I thought by now you'd realize

There ain't no way to hide your lyin' eyes.

(with apologies to The Eagles, doing it right below)

New Mexico Too?

More from Tiffany Wilson at Palestra.net:

More Obama campaign staffers, more illegal registrations, and no way to verify them. It's interesting that it seems to occur where there's either no way to check, or an apparatus that acts complicitly.

My B.S. Detector Just Went Off

Barack Obama responds to a question from CBS' Katie Couric on his illegally-in-the-U.S. Aunt Zeituni:

Couric: YOU HAVE AN AUNT WHO'S BEEN LIVING IN THIS COUNTRY APPARENTLY ILLEGALLY, AND YOUR CAMPAIGN SAYS ANY AND ALL APPROPRIATE LAWS SHOULD BE FOLLOWED.  SO WOULD YOU SUPPORT HER BEING DEPORTED TO KENYA?

Sen. Obama: If she is violating laws those laws have to be obeyed.  We're a nation of laws.  Obviously that doesn't lessen my concern for her, I haven't been able to be in touch with her.  But I'm a strong believer you have to obey the law.

"Haven't been able to be in touch?"  The same woman so fondly remembered in his (first) memoir?  Right.  I'm fairly certain that once her presence was publicized the ability to contact her was not the issue.

11/3/08 1750: It appears my B.S. Detector was right on the money.

Senior aides to Sen. Barack Obama and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick were aware that Obama's aunt, Zeituni Onyango, was living in the United States illegally and in a South Boston public-housing project, and were monitoring her at the request of senior Obama campaign officials, according to a current employee for Obama's key political consulting firm, AKP&D Message and Media.

Back in early 2007, as Obama's chief campaign strategist David Axelrod was organizing and planning the Obama campaign, he identified Obama's unique family situation -- a number of half-brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, some living overseas -- as a potential problem, says an employee for Axelrod's political consulting firm, and who has done work on the Obama campaign. "Given [Obama's] father's family history here and in Africa, David wanted the campaign to know who was who, where they lived, and what they were doing. No surprises. We knew she was here illegally. We knew her income levels, but I don't think anyone from the campaign had had contact with her."

But it appears that not only the "haven't been able to be in touch with her" but the "strong believer you have to obey the law" parts should have set it off.

New Hampshire's Palin

The Republican candidate, Jennifer Horn, for my district in New Hampshire is running against incumbent Democrat Paul Hodes.  Rep. Hodes won his seat in the 2006 purge that knocked out Charlie Bass.  A mother of five, Ms. Horn is a former columnist and radio talk show host.  The Manchester Union Leader endorses her for the House seat, noting a curious accusation from Mr. Hodes that occurred during one of their debates.

In his televised debate last week with challenger Jennifer Horn, Hodes claimed that if Horn were elected in his place, she would "seek to pack the Supreme Court" with pro-life judges.

Hodes, who is also a lawyer, is either deliberately lying or he is clueless as to the constitutional role of the House of Representatives in which he sits. House members do not have any vote on court nominees. It is the duty of the U.S. Senate to advise and consent on such matters.

Even if the House had such a vote, to think that a member of that large body could single-handedly "pack" the court her way is preposterous.

If the voters who previously put Mr. Bass into office - twice - show up this year after going shopping in 2006 then Mr. Hodes may become a Democratic House casualty.

Here's a Q&A with Ms. Horn at GraniteGrok from June.  Love the answer to the first question.

1. If you could ask General Petraeus any question, but only one question, what would it be?

Jennifer responds: What do you need?