Data Point: How Many DREAM'ers Are There?

Buried in this eye-roll inducing story about the proto-typical "illegal immigrant college kid whose parents brought him to the US and is now threatened with deportation," (by the Big Bad Obama Administration!) is an interesting data point on Obama's much-hyped DREAM Act: there's actually not a lot of DREAM'ers out there eager to change their status:

The California Dream Act, passed in 2011, allows undocumented students who were brought to the United States when they were under 16 to apply for state aid at public universities and community colleges. President Obama enacted the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in June. That program provides temporary, renewable work permits for unauthorized immigrants who are 30 years old or younger and were brought to the United States before age 16.

Through Oct. 10, nearly 180,000 people had applied for coverage under the federal program, and 4,591 had been approved, federal figures show. (emph. added).

 The immigrants advocates say that the small number of applications is due to young immigrants' "fears" of a possible Romney Administration which they thought would not only withdraw the program, but also deport everyone who came forward. Is there any seemingly baffling phenomenon that can't be explained by Evil Republican Racism?

Maybe DREAM'ers are just as wary of Pres. Obama, who could rescind his executive order just as easily as the never-neverland Pres. Romney, and had taken note of his chest-beating on the increase in deportations under his watch.

Less likely, but still plausible, maybe the DREAM'ers are budding constitutional scholars who suspect that Obama overstepped his bounds, and his executive order is vulnerable to a constitutional challenge. They may even be aware of Justice Jackson's levels of presidential power whereby the president's power is at its weakest when he acts without the support of, and in opposition against, Congress. Either way, it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of DREAM'ers suspect that Obama's executive order is not on very firm legal footing.

Maybe the numbers of potential DREAM'ers are not as great as we've lead ourselves to believe. After all, the sort of aspiring middle class types who would send their kids to college, or urge their kids to join the military - both DREAM requirements - are not as likely to be undocumented, but would make sure their immigration status was secure.

Maybe DREAM'ers are typical of the low-information voters in their cohort, and were only vaguely aware of the DREAM Act. Who says immigrants aren't assimilating?

Or, maybe the DREAM'ers recognized that the DREAM Act was less about them, and more about the activitsts and leftists who wanted Obama to have an applause line (Obama: "We have brought millions of DREAM'ers out of the shadows and into college and the workplace!" Assembled multitudes: "Yayyyyyy!") without accomplising all that much.

DREAM'ers are the low-hanging fruit of the immigration debate: photogenic, sympathetic people who just want to go to college and get ahead. They have little in common with the literally millions of uneducated, unassimilated people - most of them from a single country for no better reason than it shares our southern border - and who are the true source of America's immigration angst.

Keeping Tabs: What's Going On at the National Enquirer

You know what I'm tired of? Politics, at least for this week. Why don't we relax and check out the hard-hitting headlines at America's last objective news source, The National Enquirer?

Well, right off the bat, I see that Larry Hagman just died. In Dallas, of course. It's funny how a guy who was famous for two iconic macho roles - astronaut and Texas oil man - had such a, uh, twinkly quality in real life.

Hope Solo, who is some kind of women's soccer star (sorry, I missed the Olympics this year) is getting married to a former pro football player who seems to have been arrested on his wedding day for --- beating up his soon-to-be wife and some of her male relatives. People always tsk-tsk over women staying with their abusers - bad role models for young girls, and all - but hasn't it become obvious that (a) some women enjoy these sorts of relationships and (b) their "communities" approve of them on some level?

Halle Barry's ex-BF and current BF got into a brawl at her house (this is at TMZ, but I couldn't stand not to use it), no doubt egged on by their nutty mutual inamorata. (Check out Berry's crazy look at the link. She looks like a skinny Adam Lambert). Nothing like drugs, sexual jealousy, and Frenchiness to get the sap running.

John McAfee is still on the lam in Belize. What I can't get over is that he only made $100 million from the sale of his software. I drive by the McAfee building all the time. You'd think the guy who "built that" would have another zero next to that number.

There's a new theory that OJ was not the murderer of his wife and her waiter. Rather, the deed was done by a serial killer named Glen Rogers who just happens to be on Death Row, and has decided his new hobby is making up crazy stories.

Did you know that Thursday was the 49th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination? That's just not a big deal any more, is it? Also, the Enquirer says "questions remain."

A "blockbuster" tell-all book - is there any other kind? - purports to blow the lid off of Elizabeth "Bewitched" Montgomery's red-hot sex life, including passionate affairs with the likes of Dean Martin, Gary Cooper and Elvis; further evidence in support of my long held theory that there was plenty of sex to be had before the Sexual Revolution.

Kristen Stewart was spotted eating lunch with Ben Affleck. (Don't worry! He's just casting a movie!) Am I alone in thinking she's the least attractive "sex symbol" of the modern era?

Add Dawn "Mary Ann on Gilligan Island" Wells to the list of celebrities gone to seed. My recollection is that Ginger - the loose sex siren - was, in real life, a conservative Republican. So, the "good" girl was bad while the "bad" girl was actually OK. H'wood is congenitally incapable to casting to type.

Matt Lauer is supposedly heading forcibly out the door from the Today Show. Apparently, the show's female audience doesn't want to watch a guy who cheats on his wife (including an affair with married co-host/hussy Natalie Morales) and gets his female co-workers fired. The morning news format has to be the most overrated of them all: too many "regulars;" an ackward mix of hard news and soft Martha Stewart-type stuff; the anchors never do well away from their AM thrones. But, the anchors are a WMD that the media can deploy one time to destructive effect - like, say, when you need to "destroy" a female conservative - so you still have to watch out for them.

The 74-year old Jane Fonda has called off her forthcoming wedding. Not to rub it in, Baby Boomers, but in a couple years, Hanoi Jane will be the same age as Henry was when he died.

Mrs. Petraeus is getting ready to file for divorce. I guess she's decided it's too late to "fight for her man" given how much she has let herself go.

Regardless of how badly Patraeus behaved in betraying not just his family but also the military and all of the civilians who supported him during the "Betray-us" days, it's also a measure of the low, dishonest era we are living through that he has acquired household-name status via a sex scandal, rather than through winning the Iraq War.

Randy "Macho" Comacho has died after being shot in the face. If he had survived, he could have made PSA's about not sitting in cars with guys carrying packets of cocaine in their pockets.

And, Christina Aguilara fell down and split her pants. Might be time to invest in some Muu-Muu's.

Santa v Jesusland: Critiquing Mitt Romney's Post-Election After-action Report

Mitt Romney is one of those guys whose "gaffes" are in the category "inadvertant utterance of the truth" rather than simple misstatements or mispronunciations. (I thought his "corporations are people, my friend" was one of his best moments despite the ignorant caterwauling that arose in response). Even in defeat, the "gaffes" keep coming as Romney has sought to blame his loss on Obama giving "gifts" to certain targeted constituencies.

In a conference call with fund-raisers and donors to his campaign, Mr. Romney said Wednesday afternoon that the president had followed the “old playbook” of using targeted initiatives to woo specific interest groups — “especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people.” 

“In each case, they were very generous in what they gave to those groups,” Mr. Romney said, contrasting Mr. Obama’s strategy to his own of “talking about big issues for the whole country: military strategy, foreign policy, a strong economy, creating jobs and so forth.” 

Mr. Romney’s comments in the 20-minute conference call came after his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, told WISC-TV in Madison on Monday that their loss was a result of Mr. Obama’s strength in “urban areas,” an analysis that did not account for Mr. Obama’s victories in more rural states like Iowa and New Hampshire or the decrease in the number of votes for the president relative to 2008 in critical urban counties in Ohio. 

“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift,” Mr. Romney said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.” 

The president’s health care plan, he said, was also a useful tool in mobilizing black and Hispanic voters. Though Mr. Romney won the white vote with 59 percent, according to exit polls, minorities coalesced around the president in overwhelming numbers: 93 percent of blacks and 71 percent of Hispanics. 

“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity — I mean, this is huge,” Mr. Romney said. “Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”

This has inspired a furious counter-reaction from some Republicans who have have accused Romney of dividing the country and engaging in some kind of corporatist politicking that excludes the lower half. John Podheretz probably came up with the best summation of this latest attitude du jour:

Romney didn’t say on that call that the election had come out as it did because Obama’s team had outplayed and outfoxed his. He should have, because that’s the truth. 

Rather, he said that Obama had won the second term essentially through bribery — or what he called “gifts.” According to The New York Times, Romney said Obama had pulled out an “old playbook” to woo “the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people.” 

Obama and his team, Romney said, were“very generous in what they gave to those groups.” He mentioned certain immigration reforms the White House designed without the need for congressional vote and ObamaCare policies mandating free contraception and extending a child’s ability to stay on his parents’ insurance to the age of 26. 

By contrast, Romney said, he talked about “big” national issues: “military strategy, foreign policy, a strong economy, creating jobs and so forth.” So, compared to the “gifts,” he just couldn’t compete. 

Aside from being bad sportsmanship — Romney basically said Obama won by cheating — he was displaying the same obtuseness about the wants and needs of ordinary people that did more to torpedo his campaign than any goodies Obama might have had to dole out.

Podheretz is a Serious Thinker (who writes for the New York Post, but still) or at least is descended from Serious Thinkers,  so you'd think he'd know what he's talking about. I mean, is there any doubt that what Romney said was true? Podheretz seems to have forgotten that Obama just won a national election, in large part, by motivating the constituent parts of his base with gifts or with outsized claims about the efficacy of his various bailouts. Not only that, these groups came relatively cheap. Remember how restive Hispanics complained about the absence of comprehensive immigration reform? All he had to do was sign a constitutionally dubious executive order authorizing the DREAM Act. Don't tell me that didn't satisfy most Hispanics.

Even better was his "evolution" on gay marriage. Obama was calling for legalizing gay marriage back in the 1990's, then cynically switched positions to say his "religious beliefs" told him marriage was between a man and a woman. Everyone knew he was lying - about gay marriage and about his having religious beliefs that had any influence on his "evolution" on marriage. The Left was especially aware of the lie, and simply waited for an electorally motivated evolution in their direction, and then voted accordingly. Let's see a conservative get away with this.

Most important, there was the Democrat Convention, which featured speeches offering one "gift" after another. As I said at the time, if a Libertarian (or serious conservative) saw any part of that convention, they would be overcome with despair at their philosophy's bleak prospects in the face of millions of voters for whom such gifts are highly prized and worth their vote. To deny this is to deny reality, not to mention experience.

Podheretz points to Gov. Bobby Jindal as a Young Turk who knows how the world works:

Bobby Jindal, the brilliant and effective governor of Louisiana, raged against Romney in response. The former candidate was “absolutely wrong,” he said. Romney was “dividing the American voters.” Republicans, Jindal asserted, “need to continue to show how our policies help every voter out there achieve the American Dream.”

Sorry, is that a joke? The governor of Louisiana has trouble understanding how Democrats use pay-outs and patronage to win elections? And thinks that discussing such matters is out of bounds?! If true, then he literally should not run for president, but should stay in the Pelican State. The man clearly does not know the enemy, and that has to be a foundational requirement for any serious conservative presidential contender.

Is Romney over-selling the "gift" spin? Absolutely. There were a lot of other factors involved in his loss including the catostrophic failure of his GOTV, and his hesitant campaigning style that saw him ease off the throttle in the last debate and in the final 3 weeks of the campaign. Romney is, unsurprisingly, not ready to admit to his own failures.

But, Democrats have been winning elections since Andrew Jackson's time by running against moneyed interests and offering gifts to their supporters. This is basic stuff! I assume Podheretz, Jindal, et al. would recognize this dynamic if they saw it play out somewhere like Argentina and France (and it has played out in both countries in the last 18 months). That they can't see it in the good ol' US of A tells me that they, and many other Republicans, are woefully unprepared to compete in the current environment.

Beached Whale: What Happened To Mitt Romney's Project ORCA?

One of the infuriating data points that came out of Mitt Romney's loss on Election Day was the catastrophic failure of ORCA, a GOTV effort, based around a computer program that brought live voter data to the Romney camp's Boston HQ so that they could better deploy resources to hustle up voters who hadn't made it to the polls. At least that's what it was supposed to do. The program apparently crashed, stranding tens of thousands of volunteers and leaving the GOP blind. This is why tech companies don't like to release the beta version of their latest products. (Word on the street is that Romneys wizz-kids didn't do a system-wide test before election day. We kept being told this was the "most important election of our lifetime" but it sure is beginning to look like a lot of people in the upper levels of the GOP didn't act like it.)

By contrast, check out this inside look at the Obama campaign's data-mining system, named Narwhal. Obama hired top tech guys from Google, Facebook, and other companies. They set up a complex cloud-based system on Amazon's servers, and then subjected it to rigorous tests, including a number of live-action practice runs. They worked 14-hour days, etc. You get the feeling Romney's guys were doing this (or were as smart)? Me neither.

That there was a massive failure of some kind is undeniable (people have testified to experiencing it in Ohio, Colorado, Florida and Virginia). But, there has been precious little talk of it from the Romney camp's after-action reports (that's in contrast to his "notorious" comment about how Obama won by giving voters gifts. more on that tomorrow). I'm sure there are a lot of red faces out there, at least there better be. But, we are being told that the GOP needs to make all sorts of dubious ideological adjustments based on a narrow election loss that you could plausibly blame,  at least in part, on a crippled GOTV effort. At the very least, we should know who put this disaster together so we can make sure they are never allowed near a Republican campaign ever again. (the enterprising Stacy McCain has already named some names).

Word is now coming out that Anonymous claims to have hacked ORCA and brought the system down. Is that true? Well, they have hacked plenty of other systems in the name of global leftism, ranging from San Francisco's BART system to websites daring to support Israel. Hacking a Republican campaign would fit right in with their modus operendi. And it's not implausible that someone disabled ORCA, whether as a dirty trick or for darker reasons. Plenty of characters inside and outside of the US had reason to dread the return of Republicans to the Executive Branch, and hacking into a buggy system like ORCA - apparently ramped up in a hurry in a few months - doesn't seem like all that daunting a task, especially since the Romney camp was bragging about ORCA in the months before the election, in contrast to the tight lipped Obama operation.

Mitt Romney lost a very close election that he genuinely believed was in the bag. You could make a list of "reasons he lost" as long as your arm. The absolute failure of his GOTV operation in states where he lost by tens of thousands of votes has to be a factor, and is deserving of a lot more attention before we start making any "deals" as a sop to this or that disenchanted voting block.

Bedroom Farce: The Petraus Matter Gets More Ridiculous

I know the Petraus scandal is Serious Business, but I dare you to read the following without laughing:

The federal agent who launched the investigation that eventually led to the resignation of CIA director David Petraeus was taken off the case during the summer over concerns that he "might have grown obsessed with the matter," The Wall Street Journal reports. 

The FBI agent began the inquiry on behalf of a friend, Jill Kelley, who reportedly received about a half a dozen hostile emails from Petraeus' mistress Paula Broadwell.The agent referred the matter to a cyber crimes unit but was prohibited from any role in the investigation after the FBI found out that he sent shirtless photos of himself to Kelley, people familiar with the probe told The WSJ

Btw, Mr. Shirtless was, apparently, the whistleblower who contacted Congressmen David Reichert and Eric Cantor back in October after he became concerned his superiors were going to sweep the Petraus matter under he rug.

Ms. Kelley is something else, it seems. The general presently in charge of our retreat from Afghanistan also sent inappropriate emails to the Central Command's sexiest unpaid "social liason."

In a new twist to the Gen. David Petraeus sex scandal, the Pentagon said Tuesday that the top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Allen, is under investigation for alleged "inappropriate communications" with a woman who is said to have received threatening emails from Paula Broadwell, the woman with whom Petraeus had an extramarital affair. 

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in a written statement issued to reporters aboard his aircraft, en route from Honolulu to Perth, Australia, that the FBI referred the matter to the Pentagon on Sunday. 

Panetta said that he ordered a Pentagon investigation of Allen on Monday.
A senior defense official traveling with Panetta said Allen's communications were with Jill Kelley, who has been described as an unpaid social liaison at MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., which is headquarters to the U.S. Central Command. She is not a U.S. government employee.

Despondent conservatives have been muttering post-Election that "we are Europe." Certainly the Petraus matter has the air of a French bedroom farce.

UPDATE: turns out, the "shirtless" photo was a gag sent out years ago to a number of people on Agent Chest's email list.

A New Hope: Getting Ready For The 2014 Senate Race

If you want to distract yourself from your post-Romney gloom, here are the potentially vulnerable Senate seats that are coming up for re-election in 2014. These are the people who last ran in 2008, winning seats in the year of Hope & Change. Each and every one of them voted for Obamacare, which will be fully implemented as of 2014. Absent an Akin-esque GOP challenger, these seats should be eminently attainable (I'm not bothering to include entrenched Blue State Dems like Carl Levin and Dick Durbin):

DEMOCRATS

Mark Begich (ALASKA): Begich (barely) unseated Ted Stevens's following Ted's conviction for corruption, a conviction that was later overturned due to ... corruption by the prosecution. This guy never would have won, and Obamacare never passed, without the political prosecution of his rival. This really should be a GOP seat.

Mark Pryor (ARKANSAS): another liberal representing a Red State. Should go the way of Blanche Lincoln

Mark Udall (COLORADO) a one-termer swept into office by Obama's coattails.

Chris Coons (DELEWARE) remember Coons? He was the "bearded Marxist" who defeated Christine O'Donnell for his seat. Supposedly, a more "moderate" Republican would have won. Let's see if that's true.

Mary Landrieu (LOUISIANA) a scion of the corrupt Democrat establishment that led their state to Biblical ruin. Her Obamacare vote was literally bought in a backroom deal. Her elections have tended to be resolved by the classic "late returns from Orleans Parish."

Al Franken (MINNESOTA): a one-termer who won thanks to the classic "keep doing the re-count until the Democrat wins."

Jean Shaheen (NEW HAMPSHIRE): a one-termer with a near-empty war chest.

Frank Lautenberg (NEW JERSEY): come on, he's going to be 90 years old in 2014

Tom Udall (NEW MEXICO): anyone know of any Hispanic women politicians who might want this seat?

Kay Hagen (NORTH CAROLINA): a "talk right at home, vote left in DC" liberal representing a purple state. Defeated the dispirited Elizabeth Dole in the fluke 2008 election. Should go the way of Beverly Purdue.

Jeff Merkley (OREGON): early polling shows him losing to Congressman Greg Walden.

Tim Johnson (SOUTH DAKOTA): a liberal representing a red state who has had serious health issues, including a near-debiltating stroke.

Mark Warner (VIRGINIA): a one-termer from a purple state whose potential rivals include heavy-weights Ken Cuccinelli and Bob McDonnell.

Jay Rockefeller (WEST VIRGINIA): a state that has been getting redder, represented by a querelous liberal who has been actively undercutting the state's coal industry. I am going to make the bold prediction that this could be the potential upset election of 2014.

REPUBLICANS

And then there's (cue ominous music) Republican Senators deserving of a primary challenge:

Pat Roberts (KANSAS): could be 2014's Richard Lugar - a Farm State "moderate" representing an increasingly red state whose main pre-occupations are service on the Foreign Affairs Committee and standing behind Chuck Schumer during press comferences announcing the latest bi-partisan compromise.
 
Susan Collins (MAINE): the last Senate Republican remaining in office who voted for the 2009 Stimulus.

Lindsay Graham (SOUTH CAROLINA): has been undercutting conservatives and Republicans at the worst possible times. This seat really should be placed in steadier hands

Lamar Alexander (TENNESSEE): Is Lamar! really the most conservative person who could win this seat?

Sotto Voce: Bitter Recriminations Edition

Good thing I wrote that "What If Romney Loses" post last week. Now, I can start at #11

11. You ever get the feeling that Republican candidates and their consultants have never run for office before and/or never participated in a national election?

12. Mitt Romney is a fine man: decent, charitable, hard working, brilliant, etc. For the first time in my lifetime, the lesser candidate won the presidency.

13. But

14. After crushing the first debate and taking a 5% lead in many polls, he took the foot off the pedal, didn't he?

15. The most shocking stat out of the election was that Romney underperformed McCain by 3 million votes, (second most shocking was that Obama underperformed by approxiamtely 7 million).

16. We heard all about how the GOPGOTV effort was going to blow everyone away, but that didn't happen, did it?

17. If you want  to be angry, read this first-person account about Romney's Project ORCA, which was supposed to mobilize 30,000 GOP precinct workers. The GOP establishment is literally throwing away money and votes.

18. Everyone's talking about how they missed this, or missed that, in the polls; but it's amazing how everyone missed the depressed turn-out among Republicans. We told ourselves this was a "broken-glass" election (as in, crawling over broken glass to vote), but it really wasn't. There was an enormous, unspoken unhappiness out there that our side missed.

19. But, you're not going to hear me knock social conservative voters. They loyally turned out as they always do.

20. Social conservative leaders and politicians on the other hand? You guys are killing us. Todd Akin should have been thrown bodily off the ticket for what he said about how women's bodies can "shut that thing down" during rape. Instead, you guys closed ranks and insisted that he stay in.

21. Richard Mourdock, meanwhile, showed how frankly unprepared social cons are in dealing with basic politicking. He had advanced warning that "abortion/rape" questions were going to be an issue...and still f***ed up.

22. We got along for many years with the formulation that abortion should only be allowed for cases involving incest, rape and to save the life of the mother. What happened?

23. During the Iraq War, you could always count on a Lincoln Chaffee or George Voinovich to undercut the president. On Gitmo and "torture," there were Lindsay Graham and John McCain, ready to give aid and comfort to the left. Ben Bernanke has given the president whatever feeble lift in the economy he might need. And when it came time to be a man and strike down Obamacare, John Roberts was at the ready to vote to the left of Anthony Kennedy.

24. Which brings me to Chris Christie.

25. Has there ever been a time when a prominent politician made a very public display of support for the incumbent president of the opposing party the week before a national election? If, yes, someone has to tell me where, when and who, because I think what Christie did was unprecedented and unforgiveable.

26. I mean, does the guy read the newspapers? Was he in a coma in 2005? Back then, Democrats were not interested in working with W to deal with the aftermath of a destructive hurricane. Why are we repaying that perfidy with political cover for a leftist president?

27. The day after the election, the stock market tanked. I swear, I heard over and over on the radio that the sell-off occurred because of the recession in Europe and "investor worries about gridlock in Congress." No mention at all of the just concluded presidential race. What a joke.

28. The other joke is that, the day after the election, suddenly the news was full of talk of the "looming fiscal cliff," something that I'll bet will come as a suprise to the typical low-information voter. Maybe someone should have brought that up during the campaign.

Free Will 2012 Post-Election Wrap Up

Developing...

Fingers Crossed: Get Out And Vote

Here's hoping!

I've been seeing a lot of aggressively optimistic election predictions from lefty analysts. From the right, the analysis is more in the category of "quiet determination." Regardless, there's no excuse to stay home today (nor, if you live in a swing state, is there an excuse to vote for Gary Johnson). Then again, if you are still "undecided," you probably should stay home.

I've been seeing some anecdotal tales of people stroking their chins, if not their nether regions, over the idea of voting for Romney for president; but then voting for Kaine in VA, Donnelly in IN, McCaskill in MO, etc. Ticket splitting, in other words. I guess people have forgotten, or never knew, that ticket splitting was one of the great banes of the Reagan Revolution. Voters, especially Reagan Democrats, had no problem electing a full-throated conservative president, but then voted into office some of the most vituperous and obnoxious leftists imaginable to Congress. Reagan didn't have a Republican House to work with until 1994 (D'oh!) which meant every step of the Reagan years was made with the dead weight of querolous liberals attached. Back in those days, Democrats could still get away with the old "talk Right at home, vote Left in DC," but surely those days are past. Keep it simple and just vote (R). Remember, a brain-dead Todd Akin is better than a fully engaged Claire McCaskill.

See you tomorrow. (hopefully with a still-intact television set).

Confident Men: Bucking Up the Troops Before The Election

It's the weekend before the election, and the 'net is filled with aggressively optimistic pronouncements from lefty analysts:

Sam Stein says the Obama campaign has personally contacted 125M voters. And I'm sure all of those people politely nodded and said, yes, of course I will vote for the president.

Eleanor Clift says the Obama campaign is working hard to make sure young single mothers get to the polls. Funny how the spohisticates on the Left are so reliant on naive, poorly educated people who have made bad life choices...and who don't tend to vote in large numbers.

Charles Blow says Romney is "unraveling" and his time is running out. Blow is right. Romney's been wasting his time going to all these huge rallies in Democrat precincts.

Bob Shrum has a long list of mistakes that have doomed Romney. If there's a guy who understands mistakes made in presidential campaigns...

Greg Sargeant says Obama's in good shape with three days left. He even says the polls would have to be systematically and catastrophically wrong for Romney to win. Of course, if there's one thing we've had a lot of in the last 10 years it's the phenomenon of once-unimpeachable institutions being systematically and catastrophically wrong

Jesse Jackson says (in the UK Guardian) America and the world "need" Obama because that mess he inherited was so deep, a standard no Democrat ever afforded "mess" inheritors Reagan and Bush 43.

Sean Sullivan, quoting David Plouffe, says Mitt Romney's play for Pennsylvania is a desperate ploy. Look, I get it that PA is a stretch, but didn't conservative stalwart Pat Toomey just win a Senate seat two years ago? (and didn't Rick Santorum represent PA for two terms when the state was even more Blue?)

Roger Simon says the "swift boating" of Obama (via Beghazi-gate) has failed, which is why everyone in the Obama Administration is pointing the finger at everyone else.

And, of course, Paul Krugman says you would have to be stupid to think the election will be close. I agree that a lot of people will look stupid come Wednesday. Hopefully, we won't be among them.

Sotto Voce: What If Romney Loses?

Like most evil right-wingers, I find it hard to believe that Mitt Romey could possibly lose the election this Tuesday, but here are some of the things I might be muttering under my breath should Obama squeak out a win with a mandate based on "binders/birth control/Big Bird/Benghazi-gate:"

1. The GOP really is the Stupid Party.

2. Winning debates and "looking presidential" don't mean s***.

3. If Republicans can't win with a brilliant, articulate, data master like Romney, we might as well stick with our gaffe-intensive evangelicals and Texans.

4. We had an incredible foreign policy debacle with the murder of our ambassador and the virtual abandonment of a dozen staffers, plus a cover-up featuring bald-faced lies by the president on down, and the best Romney could do was a hurried "fact check" during the second debate???

5. I mean, you don't have to go out there and talk about drones, and Catherine Herridge, and "layering the target," but, jesus, run an ad or two!

6. The only possible excuse is that Romney learned that there was some brilliant, but classified, "eyes only" reason for the president to act the way he did, and that behind the scenes Obama was weeping in Romney's arms over the anguish of it all.

7. Years of high unemployment, spiraling debt, government take-over of health care, Israel kicked to the curb, cash-for-clunkers; plus, Obama broke his fundamental 2008 promise to govern as a pragmatic moderate; but apparently if you stroll through hurricane damage with Chris Christie for an afternoon, that's enough to restore your "presidential" luster.

8. To paraphrase the Free Will Brother ca. November 6, 2008: "I'm very disappointed with the American People."

9. Then, what the heck was the 2010 mid-term election all about?

10. We're gonna need a bigger boat

2012 California Propositions

On top of everything else, California voters will be voting on the usual baker's dozen of ballot propositions. When people talk about the structural problems in California governance, the state's very liberal approach to putting issues to a direct vote is often at or near the top of the list. They are the playthings of frustrated legislators, left-wing activist groups, and wealthy donors seeking to spend their millions to obtain a particular result. There isn't a single proposition on the ballot today (except maybe Prop. 32) that doesn't combine two qualities: (1) they could have been put to a vote in the legislature passed but (2) none of the brave worthies in the Assembly and State Senate actually want to vote on the tax increases and radical revisions of the state Constitution that they no doubt hope will pass. This year's propositions can be divided roughly into 4 categories:

1. Tax hikes
2. "Good governance"
3. Crime & Punishment
4. The Nanny State

I would not blame voters for taking the easy way out and voting "No" on all of these things, even the one or two that are backed by Republicans. In fact, I would actively encourage people to vote "No." There seems to be no immediate propect of reform in the proposition process, yet I would bet a majority of voters would vote to get rid of them entirely, if given the chance. They won't, so the next best thing would be to make sure propositions fail on a mass scale. If we can't get rid of them, we should at least send a message that anyone considering spending a couple million dollars should think twice. That might be all the "reform" we need.

THE NANNY STATE:

PROP. 33: Automobile Insurance Persistency Discounts

The promise is that passing Prop. 33 would allow auto insurers to set car insurance rates based on a person's history of insurance coverage. The proposition would allow insurers to offer discounts to new customers who can prove that they have had cintiuous insurance coverage the previous five years. We need to vote on this??? Apparently, yes, but that's what you get when you have a state where people love inveterate tinkering with the insurance industry. Offering "persistency discounts" is the sort of thing that would occur in a normally functioning competitive market, so of course state liberals are against it. They think passage of Prop. 33 will allow insurers to jack up their rates unconscionably. Spare me.

Vote Yes

PROP. 37: Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food

Probably the dumbest proposition this year, and specifically designed - engineered if you will - to appear to the sort of neurotics who feel a chill when they hear phrases like "genetically modified food." The truth is that humans have been "genetically engineering" plants and animals for millenia. Does it really make a difference if the engineering is done in the lab versus over 50 generations of pea pods? Prop. 37 would also prevent GMO manufacturers from describing their products as "natural," another bugaboo of the organic compost crowd.

Vote No

GOOD GOVERNANCE

PROP. 31: Two-Year Budget Cycle

Officially, this is known as the "two year budget cycle" proposition, and would indeed seek to reform California's out of control budgeting by creating a Texas-style budget cycle. (Yes, that's why Texas is growing while CA is not: it's the budget process!) It would also make minor gestures towards "transparency" by requiring state budgets to be posted on-line for several days before any vote. But, this is a proposition where you have to read the whole thing to know what's really going on. If you do, you will find that it is literally incredible. Prop. 31 would amend or add no fewer than six provisions of the state constitution, and would amend a number of sections of the Government Code. It would give the governor broad powers to declare a fiscal emergency, and then amend the budget by executive fiat. It would also create regional governments that could collect and redistribute taxes from the suburbs to big cities (NRO's Stanley Kurtz was the first commentator to highlight this). Prop. 31 is the ultimate deceptive proposition, hiding a radical re-drafting of the state constitution behind a relatively minor change in the state's budgeting process.

Vote No, No, No.

PROP. 32: "Paycheck Protection"

Every year, there's one "conservative" proposition among the several left-wing props. Prop. 32 is 2012's right-wing initiative. It is advertised as a Scott Walker-style reform directed against unions. It would ban unions and (hisss) corporations from donating to state and local candidates. It would also prevent unions and corporations from deducting $$ from workers' paychecks for use in politics. Could someone please name one "corporation" that is deducting money from its employees' paychecks and then using that money to make political donations? This is the proposition being funded by Charles Munger Jr. and a couple other high profile conservatives. It has also inspired a furious counter-campaign, and both sides have already raised $120 million to pass or defeat Prop. 32. With all the money being spent, and at stake, this has been surprisingly under the radar. Much of the media coverage focuses on Charlies Munger and the supposed sibling rivalry with Prop. 38's Mollie Munger, so that a lot of people think Charlie is spending his $$ to oppose Jerry and Mollie's tax increases. But, no, he's trying to pass something of his own. Do I have to tell you how to vote on this?

Vote Yes, Yes, Yes; but get ready for it to be challenged in court like all of the other victorious right-wing propositions.

PROP. 40: Referendum on the State Senate Redistricting Plan

Try to follow this, if you can. Voters in 2008 passed a proposition that took the task of drawing state legislative districts out of the abusive hands of the Legislature, and turned it over to a citizens' panel. State Republicans had been campaigning for this for years, but then when the time came to pick citizen panelists, the panel was packed with leftists who drew Democrat-friendly districts. D'oh! Prop 40 is designed to object to the new lines, but its proponents (including Prop. 32's Charlie Munger) have withdrawn their support, and are now working against it. That's because the whole point was to seek a court injunction against the new lines for this year, but the state Supreme Court declined to stop elections under the new boundaries. That's the CA GOP for you. They'd rather f*** around with propositions, rather than do actual work like, say, show up at the meetings for the panels drawing new districts.

Kill me now.

CRIME & PUNISHMENT

PROP. 34: the End The Death Penalty Initiative

Gotta love the Left's way with a Long March. California has been a tough-on-crime state for decades, but that hasn't stopped state liberals from trying to undermine crime fighters and the state's punishment regime. Originally, liberals tried to eliminate the death penalty through judicial fiat, with the notorious Rose Bird Court overturning every death penalty case that came before them. Bird and two of her fellow justices were turned out of office, but their system of "review" lives on, leading to interminable appeals of death penalty verdicts with killers spending decades on death row. Even better, liberals convinced death penalty proponents to agree to switch from the gas chamber to lethal injection on the theory that this was the most compassionate way to dispatch unrepentent killers, and then turned around and convinced a federal judge that the drugs were cruel and unusual and punishment leading to the current mortatorium on executions. This proposition is supposed to turn the moratorium into a permanent ban. The most annoying thing about this is that Prop. 34's proponents are using the expense of the appellate process and the endless time on death row - both of which are directly the result of left-wing anti-death penalty agitating - as one of the "practical" reasons to pass this thing.

Vote No, early and often

PROP. 35: Ban on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery

I'm pretty sure both of the above are already illegal, so we're not really "banning" anything. We're just increasing fines and prison terms. The arguments against this thing are pretty funny. Apparently there is some concern that the definition of "pimping" is so broad as to sweep "ordinary" prostitution between two consenting adults. Pretty sure that's already illegal, too. Interestingly, many advocates for victims of sex trafficking are also against Prop. 35, apparently because they don't think they get enough of a share of the fines and asset forfeitures set out in 35.

Vote Yes, what the hell.

PROP. 36: Changes in the 3-Strikes Law

Along with anti-death penalty agitation, California liberals have long railed against the state's three-strikes sentencing laws, which were put in place through an earlier proposition after state residents got tired of the revolving doors at the courthouses and the prisons. Prop. 36 would change three-strikes so that the third  strike would only come into play if the bad guy commits a "serious or violent felony." Sorry, but if you can't keep yourself out of trouble - or get the hell out of the state altogether - after two felony convictions, prison is probably your natural habitat. Nice to see George Soros has donated $1 million to this dubious cause. Mind your own business.

Vote No.

TAX HIKES

PROP. 30: Jerry Brown's tax increases

This is the "headline" proposition. Jerry Brown claims that the only way to save the state's finances is through passing these "temporary" (hah!) tax increases. As an inducement, he is threatening to cut education, prisons, and first responders (i.e. the government services people actually want) while leaving intact every left-wing sinecure and pay-out. You know, "evil" Republicans like Pete Wilson and Ah-nold never made this sort of one-sided offer to the voters. Good thing Democrats are the "good" party!

Vote NO

PROP. 38: State Income Tax Increase To Support Education

This is the "other" tax increase proposition. Its proponent is Mollie Munger, usually described in the media as a "civil rights attorney." What she should be described as is "the multi-millionaire trust fund daughter of Warren Buffer's business partner." (that's certainly how her brother Charlie is portrayed in the media). She has donated $44 million to the cause. Mollie wants to increase taxes, and says all of the increases are earmarked for education, but if there's one thing CA knows how to waste, it's education money. Supposedly, people making as little as $17,000/yr will see a tax increase. Funnily, Mollie's fellow progressives are getting down on her because Prop. 38 is supposedly draining support from Prop. 30, but how does that make sense? If you're going to vote to raise taxes through one, why not the other? Munger at least has a point in saying that, if we are going to raise taxes, why not apply that money to something most voters consider an essential service?

Vote NO

Shadow Boxing: CA Liberals Sue Anonymous Donors

Jerry Brown's Prop. 30 - that's where he's asking Californians to raise taxes on themselves, or else - has reached the inevitable stage of every high profile liberal initiative that falters: state liberals are raising a furor over supposedly anonymous donations by conservative groups, in this case by a non-profit from Arizona. The state is suing the group to find out who is spending all of this money to defeat Brown's tax hike.

A Sacramento Superior Court judge scheduled a court date for Tuesday -- one week before the Nov. 6 election -- to consider whether an Arizona-based nonprofit must provide transaction data related to an $11 million donation made this month. 

The state Fair Political Practices Commission sued little-known nonprofit Americans for Responsible Leadership to obtain information related to the eight-figure check and determine whether the group violated campaign disclosure laws. The group donated $11 million to a business committee that is fighting Gov. Jerry Brown's tax initiative, Proposition 30, and supporting a measure to restrict union dues collection, Proposition 32. 

After a brief hearing in a packed courtroom today, Judge Barry Loncke asked both sides to submit court filings by Monday ahead of a hearing Tuesday morning, saying the court needed more time to consider whether Americans for Responsible Leadership must provide records.

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/10/sacramento-superior-court-judge-hearing-on-11-million-donation.html#more#storylink=cpy

Sorry, guys, but shadowy non-profits from Arizona that make multi-million donations to conservative causes are bulwarks of democracy. They are especially needed in places where a one-party political establishment is threatening to cut basic government services, while leaving intact the sinecures and pay-outs to their political allies, if voters don't raise taxes on themselves.

Instead of suing people in court (so you can splash their names in the media for instant vilification), why don't you go out and tell us why it's so freaking important we should raise taxes that are already high enough? Or better yet, raise them in that legislature where you have majorities that will pass whatever you want?

That's Lena Dunham's "when you do it the first time, do it for Obama" ad that queasy conservatives have been mocking all day. Watching it, I am struck by a number of questions:

Does Lena Dunham like it rough?

Has she ever done the walk of shame?

Does she have trouble finding contraceptives?

How many people watched this and wanted to see her naked?

Are Today's Young Men attracted to mannish-looking, vaguely lesbian-ish, girls?

Are we supposed to believe this asexual tart actually has "Experience?"

If she does have "Experience," doesn't it seem likely that her's was a one-night stand with a tall dark stranger?

Sorry to reduce her to her sexuality, but, uh, wasn't that the point of the ad?

Does she know what the Lily Ledbetter Act does?

Are the three most important issues in American life birth control, Lily Ledbetter, and gay marriage?

Anyone thinks it's weird that Lena Dunham's name sounds earily like Stanley Ann Dunham?

Anyone ever seen these pictures of Mama Obama?

Do Democrats think single, college-aged women do anything besides f*** and get tatoos?

I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again: the GOP may be the Stupid Party, but what do you call a party that has Ivy Leaguers crafting arguments designed to appeal to stupid people?

UPDATE: These comments at Althouse are classic. "The first time Romney governs you, he might scare you a little. Because he's a Republican, and he knows how to do things..."

All The Young Dudes: The Boy Scouts Release Their "Perversion Files"

The Oregon Supreme Court ordered the Boy Scouts to release their "perversion files" - an internal system the Scouts set up to keep known child molestors out of the organization - to the world. No doubt hoping to turn this into Catholic Church, Mach 2, the news media has been hyping the breach of trust:

Again and again, decade after decade, an array of authorities — police chiefs, prosecutors, pastors and local Boy Scout leaders among them — quietly shielded scoutmasters and others accused of molesting children, a newly opened trove of confidential papers shows. 

At the time, those authorities justified their actions as necessary to protect the good name and good works of Scouting, a pillar of 20th century America. But as detailed in 14,500 pages of secret "perversion files" released Thursday by order of the Oregon Supreme Court, their maneuvers allowed sexual predators to go free while victims suffered in silence. 

The files are a window on a much larger collection of documents the Boy Scouts of America began collecting soon after their founding in 1910. The files, kept at Boy Scout headquarters in Texas, consist of memos from local and national Scout executives, handwritten letters from victims and their parents and newspaper clippings about legal cases. The files contain details about proven molesters, but also unsubstantiated allegations. 

The allegations stretch across the country and to military bases overseas, from a small town in the Adirondacks to downtown Los Angeles. 

At the news conference Thursday, Portland attorney Kelly Clark blasted the Boy Scouts for their continuing legal battles to try to keep the full trove of files secret. 

"You do not keep secrets hidden about dangers to children," said Clark, who in 2010 won a landmark lawsuit against the Boy Scouts on behalf of a plaintiff who was molested by an assistant scoutmaster in the 1980s. 

Clark's colleague, attorney Paul Mones, said the files "show how pedophiles operate, how child molesters infiltrate youth organizations." 

"These guys (abusers) basically were in a candy store, the way they thought about it," Mones said.

No one's going to disagree that molesting boys is disgusting behavior. Certainly, the Scouts were demonstrably concerned and actively worked to keep perverts away from kids. There's a lot of querelous plaints about how the Scouts failed to go to the police, and they better watch out lawsuits now. Well, what were they supposed to do? Let the guys keep working with kids while the police did a (perhaps half-assed) investigation, or get them out of there ASAP? The Scouts clearly chose the latter.

But, you know what's funny? In all of this perversion file discussion, we haven't heard much talk about the Scouts' other policy that has brought opprobrium down upon it: the policy of keeping gays out of the Scouts. Doesn't anyone now think that the Scouts actually have a rational reason to work actively to exclude gays from the Scouts? Wouldn't it stand to reason that at least some gay men might try to get into the Scouts so they can have ready access to young males? There's been a whiny controversy here in the Bay Area over a 17 year old Scout who wrote a letter to the organization announcing that he was gay. The Scouts, not surprisingly, have refused to make him an Eagle Scout, and now all the beautiful people are weeping over his fate. Well, if you were a parent of a 10 or 11 year old, would you want a gay 17 year old taking your son on a camping trip? Would you still want to after searching the perversion file data base? It's crazy. No one would expect a straight man to lead a Girl Scout troupe, but somehow having gay men as Scout Masters should be a worry free endeavor?

People love to bemoan the loss of trust in yet another American institution, but what's really happening is an American institution is being attacked from both sides: trial lawyers are seeking to revive decades-old legal claims for sexual molestation while gay rights activists are seeking to infiltrate the Scouts with the sort of people who were doing the molesting in the first place. It's crazy, literally crazy, but the Scouts are not the crazy ones.

A Nation Of Immigrants: LA County Assessor Arrested For Accepting Bribes

LA County's Assessor has been arrested for systematically reducing appraisals (and the concominant property tax bill) in exchange for bribes. Wow, sounds like a real culture of corruption, if you are looking for that sort of thing.

Los Angeles County Assessor John Noguez and the tax consultant accused of bribing him, Ramin Salari, pleaded not guilty to a long list of corruption charges Thursday. 

The men, who were arrested Wednesday, are being held on more than $1-million bail each. They are scheduled to be in court again Monday to argue for lower bail and to prove that any money they use to pay it was not acquired through criminal means. 

Prosecutors allege that Noguez took $185,000 in bribes to illegally reduce the values of properties represented by Salari so their owners would pay lower taxes. Salari charges his clients a percentage of their tax savings, typically 50%. 

Salari is also charged with paying $100,000 in bribes to a lower-level assessor's office employee, Scott Schenter, to illegally reduce property values. Schenter pleaded not guilty to fraud charges in May. 

In total, the alleged scam deprived the county of at least $1.16 million in tax revenue, prosecutors say. 

On Thursday, Salari's attorney, Mark Werksman, asked Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Shelly Torrealba to reduce Salari's bail from $1.36 million to $575,000. 

Although Salari lives for much of the year in Phoenix, he has deep family and business connections to Los Angeles and is not a flight risk, Werksman said. 

Further, Werksman said, the alleged crime had "no victims, so to speak, except for the tax collection efforts of the county." 

"No, just every taxpayer in the county of Los Angeles," Torrealba shot back. She called the alleged crimes "an extreme abuse of public trust."

Noguez is, of course, a Democrat. He is also the former mayor of Huntington Park, a burgh conveniently located next to the notorious town of Bell; and, like Bell, a "heavily Latino city," as the media likes to phrase it. Noguez was also an anchor baby, born in LA, but raised in Mexico for the first six years of his life. In other words, we have a guy who has brought third-world approach to elected office to an American city. (Check out this long article from the LA Weekly, which details the brazenness of the scandal, and the big bucks his donors were willing to pay to get Noguez elected to these relatively low-level political jobs). The only thing we're missing are the names of the property owners who paid the bribes.

America never needed Mexican immigrants to come here to corrupt our institutions, of course. We've done just fine on our own, thank you very much. But, it sure seems like our progressive betters are aiding and abetting a spectacular level of corruption everywhere they take over.

Night of the Living Todd Akin: A Big Comeback In Missouri

I asked the rhetorical question several weeks ago, "Should conservatives donate money to Todd Akin when the national GOP funding sources were starving his campaign of funds?" My answer was, essentially, Akin needs to prove he can solve his problems himself:

The drop-dead date for him to withdraw from the race is 9/25. I don't think anyone should donate money to him until after that date. If he really is a great/smart guy who slipped up one time (not the case, as he has a list of gaffes as long as my arm, but let's assume that he is great/smart), then he should be able to recover from his "shut the whole thing down" comment without the help of anyone outside of MO. My feeling is he made this mess and he needs to clean it up.

Well, a funny thing happened. Akin is running strong, successfully attacking Claire McCaskell as an Obama-ite who campaigned to the right and then voted to the left in her term in the Senate. Crazy as it might sound, Akin might pull this thing out:

None of this changes the basic fact that Akin is a dangerous gaffe machine. The only reason he's pacing McCaskill is the strong anti-Obama wave in MO, a once-purple state that has gone decidedly red. McCaskill is good at playing a tough-talking moderate, but she voted as a liberal and was Barack Obama's first Senate ally to support him as president. That's not going to work in Missouri under optimal (for a liberal) conditions.

(btw, up until very recently, you heard all about how Missouri was a "bellwether" state whose electoral votes and voters were eagerly sought out in presidential contests. The stat you always heard was that Missourians had voted for the winners in virtually every presidential election since The Compromise. This year, Obama is running 11% behind. He's not contesting the state at all. And, magically we're not hearing about how that might a bellwether.of anything)

Akin is still running a few points behind due to his own grievous self-inflicted wounds. But, as he's close, and no Missouri Republican has come forward to run a write-in campaign, the time has come to send Akin the funds to replace the funds the national organizations have withdrawn. A brain-dead Todd Akin is still superior to a Claire McCaskill operating at the height of her powers. Ideally, he will win and, after a few years of service, receive some sort of Executive Branch appointment he can't refuse, at which point a Missourian who can better articulate conservative principals can be appointed to his seat.

Sotto Voce: the Town Hall Debate

I hate "town hall" debates. We've only had them since 1992, (can you imagine Tricky or LBJ sitting through an exasperating series of earnestly uninformed questions from "regular" people?), but the media loves 'em, no doubt because Republicans visibly struggle with the format.

I have to call BS on the idea that these were "undecided" voters. The girl asking about why women "only make 72 cents for every dollar a man makes" was repeating one of the indestrucable bits of feminist camp. (it will outlive roaches).

Obama and Romney's answers to that question were ludicrous, of course.

Obama nearly asphixiated himself when he reached behind to pat himself vigorously on the back for signing the Lily Ledbetter Act. Hey, big shot, it was already illegal to not pay a woman the same as you would pay a man for the same job under the same circumstances. All Ledbetter did was extend the statute of limitations for some gender discrimination claims. Big Whoop.

Romney, of course, offered us his "binders full of women." What he didn't offer was the names of some of the high powered women he had worked with in government and in business. (Meg Whitman spent time at Bain, for example), or debunk the myth that women - as a rule - only make three-fourths of what men do. He did dance around it a little, alluding to flex time and talking about how women in his governorship appreciated his flexible approach to scheduling. But, he couldn't quite bring himself to say, "look, kid, women have to make different choices in life than men, like it or not. They have to decide whether they want to have kids, how many, and who will take care of them. The answers to those questions will impact their career prospects, usually negatively, until the kids are teen-agers. Sorry to be the one to explain that to you." But, he would never say that. The unforgiving "town hall" format does not allow for truth telling.

Romney also semi-screwed up the tax cut issue. First of all, it should be a rule in GOP Debate Club that you should never allow a liberal to get away with the line about tax cuts that aren't paid for. For God's sake, you don't pay for tax cuts! It's our money, not the government's!

Romney also made no attempt to explain (for the one millionth time) that a tax cut will not mean a decrease in revenue, just as a tax hike will not lead to an increase. Quite the reverse happens, and you don't need to mention the Laffer Curve to get there. Just mention JFK like Paul Ryan did. This was Romney showing his RINO roots, as far as I'm concered.

Romney's Big Moment came when he was able to lay out all of the economic failures of the Obama Administration. Really, it was devastating, and the reason the GOP hired him for this job. Rick Perry would never have remembered all those numbers, while Rick Santorum would have run out of breath.

I listened to the debate in the car, so I missed all of the supposedly intense body langauge between the two combatants. Instead, I heard Romney's earnest soft-shoe, always with a bit of smile lurking, and Obama's rapid fire yapping. Neither of them sounded all that great, but Obama's timbre really betrayed his youth. Romney at least sounded presidential.

I did NOT hear the great Crowley fact check. What I did hear was her constant shutting down of the argument. She simply wouldn't let Romney or Obama finish their sentences. That was completely out of bounds, moderator or not.

If time is that important, why not use a clock like they use in debate club, or the Supreme Court, for that matter? I'm sure that got nixed somewhere in the mists of time because the media wanted to be able to control the flow of conversation.

I keep hearing that Obama personally dislikes Romney. I find that incredible, as Romney is a decent man, regardless of your feelings about capitalism. I like to think Obama's media people put that out to get their base into fighting mode. If Obama truly dislikes Romney, then Obama would personally dislike a majority of the country, that majority being the earnest strivers who get married, raise a family and try to treat people decently.

Remember that 60 minutes interview where Obama smirked and said his opponents were "new to foreign policy?" (Haw! Haw!) His struggles over Benghazi are a deserved bit of nemesis for that singular bit of hubris.

Never forget that this was coming at the time when (1) Obama had declared the consulate attack to have been the result of a YouTube video even though (2) he already knew al-Qaeda was behind the attack. Romney's initial response to deplore terrorism and denounce efforts to blame the First Amendment was the correct response, but Obama was arrogent enough to think he could get away with a cover up. We'll see you on Monday for the foreign policy debate, bud.

I said this before, but it bears repeating: the GOP might be the Stupid Party, but what do you call a party where Ivy Leaguers craft argument designed to appeal to stupid people?

Sotto Voce: The Vice Presidential Debate

This should probably be titled "yelling at the television," not "muttering under my breath."

Joe Biden was who we thought he was.

Was Joe Biden an a**? Absolutely. But, there were times he really took it to Paul Ryan, especially during the segment on Social Security.

Everyone's focusing on Biden's smirks, interruptions, and giggles, but those were only a portion of his presentation. In fact, the debate featured four distinct Joe emotional modes:

PHASE 1: The Happy Warrior: the first 30 minutes saw Biden laughing, smirking, interjecting, and guffawing. These moments coincided, funnily enough, with the moments when Ryan was laying into the Dems on Libya, taxes, the economy, etc. Biden wouldn't let Ryan have a moment to speak because Ryan's words were dangerous.

PHASE 2: The Angry White Male: at some point, Joe shifted (I think during the Social Security segment) and became visibly angry, yelling at Ryan and at the moderator. His anger reached a crescendo during the Afghanistan discussion when Biden accused Republicans of wanting to start another war. (Paul Ryan: "No, we want to prevent war!" Me: "And not lose the wars that we were winning when you took office")

PHASE 3: The Invisible Man: for a short time, Joe seemed to disappear, although it could be that he simply started acting like a regular person.

PHASE 4: The Penitent: during the segment on abortion and the Catholic Church, Joe suddenly spoke with a hushed voice, refusing to even look at the camera. It was almost as if he were looking at his shoes. I don't buy this business that he is personally pro-life but doesn't want to impose his religious beliefs on the rest of us (wow, thanks). Sorry, but Joe has been an abortion warrior through too many Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

Paul Ryan is well known as a budget/numbers wonk, but he was suprisingly effective on the questions of Iran and Afghanistan. Kinda makes you think that having the right answers in foreign affairs is less a matter of knowledge and more a matter of knowing where our interests lie.

Ryan's pro-life statement towards the end of the debate also excellent. Superb, in fact. Pro-life Republicans with perfect voting records are a dime a dozen, but few have spoken as effectively as Ryan did last night.

In fact, I need to stop for a moment and crank the PA system up to 11: HEY! TODD AKIN! CAN YOU HEAR ME? I'M YELLING BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU CAN HEAR ME OUT THERE IN MISSOURI! The next time someone on teevee asks you about abortion, or life issues, do what Paul Ryan did: keep the focus on the innocent unborn, completely helpless and fragile, rather focus on bobbing and weaving to avoid answering the sort of questions that every Republican who seeks higher office will face.

It's no surprise that Biden would lie throughout the debate, but it was annoying how the moderator was willing to let so many obvious falsehoods go by.

There was his claim that he had voted against "both wars" that Paul Ryan voted to put "on the credit card." Really, Joe? You voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan? As it happened no one in the Senate voted against AUMF, althought there were two abstentions.* Joe Biden was not one of them.

There was the more plausible, but still false claim that he voted against the Iraq War. Yeah, there were some leftist Senators who voted against that, but not "middle class" politicians from Deleware trying to appeal to some mythical voting bloc in Scranton.

There was his side of the mouth comment that he's always coming to these VP debates and hearing Republican Vice Presidential candidates talk about death panels. Ryan, of course, never said "death panels." Neither did Sarah Palin. She coined the term in 2009 during the Obamacare debate.

Either the moderator is not as plugged in or politically aware as she thinks she is, or she was simply unwilling to call Biden out on this patent BS.

Joe Biden's performance reminded me of WH Auden's line about how the Thirties were a low dishonest decade.   If his schtick works, and sometimes it does, we are in big trouble.

* (Jesse Helms and Larry Craig, if you must know).

Campaign Anecdotal

I may be just one man living in a Blue State (and living in the Bluest part of one of the Bluest States in America), but that doens't mean I can't offer some pertinent 2012 campaign anecdotes:

One of great bits of presidential campaign conventional wisdom is that people don't start to focus heavily on the presidential campaign until October when the debates begin. I hadn't heard much campaign talk here in the Bay Area...until last Wednesday when suddenly everyone was buzzing about Romney & Obama.

In fact, I heard two guys at the gym spend 20 minutes talking about the merits and demerits of Obamacare (get a room). Their conclusion: sure health care is expensive, but WTF do we need some crazy 2000 page law to deal with that?

The stationary store near my office is selling a box of mints with Obama's face on them. The mints are called "Disappoint-Mints." Ouch.

In 1992 & '96, the official progressive position was that there was no difference between the parties; so if you voted for Bush or Dole, you got the same pitying look as someone who voted for Clinton. (this "no difference b/w the parties" business always results in Dem victories, btw, so it's best to ignore it.)

In 2000 & 2004, if you dared to announce that you were voting Republican, you had to be prepared to take an undeserved rhetorical beating. Some folks literally could not abide such a thing.

In 2008, we Republicans would gather in quiet rooms with the shades drawn and shake our heads ruefully over our fate, the unerring genius of the American voter being of the "unappreciated" variety that year.

(of ourse, there were the loudmouth Republicans who voted for Obama due to disgust with TARP and/or the Crash of '08. Smoove move geniuses, electing a leftist because you were upset over government spending. If you were that righteously angry, you should have voted for Bob Barr.)

In 2012, people will walk up to you unsolicited and declare their intent to vote for Romney-Ryan. I'd say the great Democrat Social Enforcement Mechanism has broken down this year.

Been seeing a lot of openly displayed (hubba-hubba) Romney-Ryan bumberstickers, attached to cars and everything. I've also seen a lot of handmade Romney signs, some with elaborate messages and mini-essays, in car windows. People want to get their message out. 

A friend who just spent six months in Michigan caring for her father reported that people in her dad's ostensibly Democratic town were not shy in voicing their anger at the government.

I don't want to oversell this. Obama is going to carry California. Diane Feinstein's going back to the Senate. Jackie Spier is going to continue to represent my District (although her campaign is leaning heavily on her holding the Pentagon accountable for rapes in the military. You go, girl). But, there is a discernable anti-Dem buzz that I haven't previously experienced in California presidential politicking.