Hillary gives an interview

Hillary is on a roll. On the heels of her abortion speech, she leaps back into the spotlight by giving an interview to an Arab daily in which she rips the American Iraqi situation up one side and down the other.


I lose very quickly an ability to understand how someone can think this is appropriate. Our democracy is built upon open and frank discussion, upon cat-and-dog fights - but all within our home. When radical Arabs (calling them Muslims seems to denigrate the faith, just like saying people who murder abortion doctors are Christians) repeatedly kill and try to kill United States citizens around the world for the sole reason that they are American, when our country resolves to put an end to the carnage, the bickering stops - and if we are in an election year, the bickering is allowed but only within our borders. Someone wants to claim that the manner of war is different than they would pursue, let them claim it here. To go overseas and to give the interview directly to an Arab daily that is hostile to us anyway is not far off from an act of sedition.

Some highlights:

"[T]he Bush administration had not been frank with the American people concerning the human
and financial costs in Iraq.

"[T]he Bush administration did not have a plan for Iraq and did not have a full understanding of the situation there.

"Clinton described the Bush administration as 'stubborn and arrogant' for refusing to admit its mistakes which were endangering US soldiers, Iraqis and stability in the Middle East."

I wonder what nickname history would have given her if she spoke similar things on the Japanese mainland or in Germany during the early 1940s? Wasn't this the same person who put a lip-lock on Suha Arafat? How pathetic. Let's see ... it has to have the word or concept of "pig" in it. Maybe a not-so-veiled reference to her closet sexual proclivities. I think the oink factor covers her planetary thighs and the apple-gobbler face. I need to think about this. And calm my nauseous stomach.

Toomey packs it up for six years

A gallant effort. No sites are disclosing final numbers yet. Pat Toomey is a good man. He term limited himself out after three terms in the House. I hope he'll run for the Senate again in six years.

OK ... um, ugh, rally 'round Specter ... gag ...

The Village Voice Says Kerry Must Go

Ut oh!! Cereal time!!! First Peter Jennings hoists Bullwinkle over the quick sand, then The Village Voice stirs up the mixture. The latter is so weepingly "Where's a democratic Howard Baker when you need him?" I just have to print it in its entirety.

John Kerry Must Go
Note to Democrats: it's not too late to draft someone—anyone—else
April 27th, 2004 11:45 AM
by James Ridgeway

WASHINGTON, D.C.— "With the air gushing out of John Kerry's balloon, it may be only a matter of time until political insiders in Washington face the dread reality that the junior senator from Massachusetts doesn't have what it takes to win and has got to go. As arrogant and out of it as the Democratic political establishment is, even these pols know the party's got to have someone to run against George Bush. They can't exactly expect the president to self-destruct into thin air.

"With growing issues over his wealth (which makes fellow plutocrat Bush seem a charity case by comparison), the miasma over his medals and ribbons (or ribbons and medals), his uninspiring record in the Senate (yes war, no war), and wishy-washy efforts to mimic Bill Clinton's triangulation gimmickry (the protractor factor), Kerry sinks day by day. The pros all know that the candidate who starts each morning by having to explain himself is a goner.

"What to do? Look for the Dem biggies, whoever they are these days, to sit down with the rich and arrogant presumptive nominee and try to persuade him to take a hike. Then they can return to business as usual—resurrecting John Edwards, who is still hanging around, or staging an open convention in Boston, or both.

"If things proceed as they are, the dim-bulb Dem leaders are going to be very sorry they screwed Howard Dean."

Kerry's problem is that he doesn't recognize that the best thing to do in quicksand is stay still ... very still. Then try to float on the surface ... but don't just accept my word on it.

Next step: Bill Clinton is the dems Howard Baker.

New link - UN Oil-for-Food Investigation

I have been following this site for a while. It seems to be very focused and insightful. I am pleased to share it. Friends of Saddam will follow the scandal. I feel strongly that this scandal can unmask the UN, France, Russia, and perhaps Germany.

Can Kerry Survive?

You can easily find a dozen articles detailing Kerry's inability to walk and chew gum at the same time on a national level, but I always like to return to one of his hometown newspapers, the Boston Herald for a few recent examples.

But, wait, there is no need to visit the particulars. It is a continuing theme of complete and abject ineptness.

The results in the electorate are not surprising - no one is supporting him. Go to the third entry - Kerry Runs, Dems Shrug.

"Among Kerry supporters polled, 41% say they're backing him for essentially negative reasons ("Not Bush" 38%, "Electable/can beat Bush" 3%). Only 43% give positive reasons ("Positions on the issues" 22%, "Character/values" 7%, "Iraq" 7%, "Intelligent" 3%, "Strong leader" 3%, "Veteran/military service" 1%). Eleven percent give the neutral reason that they're backing him because he's a Democrat.

"By contrast, among Bush supporters only 7% say they're backing him because he's "Not Kerry" and another 7% because he's a Republican. Fully 81% have positive reasons for supporting the president ("Doing good job as president" 28%, "Character/values" 19%, "Positions on the issues" 14%, "Strong leader" 11%, "Iraq/Saddam" 8%, "Tax cuts" 1%)."

43% of Kerry backers are supporting the man; 81% for W. Just not a winning comparison for Bullwinkle.

When I wonder aloud if Kerry can survive, I do not mean whether he can win in November. I think his ineptness is fodder for a Howard Baker moment. And if Kerry is taken out of the race, the only person that could step in and handle a national campaign would be Hillary.

Watching Kerry flounder makes that possibility not that unlikely.

Abortion speaks

I fall into the pro-life camp. I have friends that do not - they support a woman's right to opt for an abortion. I don't ostracize them. We all have a right to individual opinions. My opinion is based upon two experiences. First, when my wife was pregnant with Andrew, our first child, we saw him in utereo at just several weeks old. He was active and bouncing around and so very lively. We both knew that we had created life. We both knew that we could never end that process. The second experience is my on-going study of the Bible. Psalm 139:13 (NIV) - For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I see God's hand in creation. This is important to me. It is not for me to interrupt His work. I stumble into that enough without trying ...

Please don't think of Roe v. Wade as an abortion case, giving a woman the right to choose. Roe was and is a privacy case. It recognized the right to privacy as one that is as fundamental as if it was written in the Bill of Rights; it recognized that the right was personal, rather than dependent upon the place that the person was when invoking it. The right to an abortion that arose from Roe was an application of this newly recognized fundamental and personal right.

So I have a right to feel as I do, and others have a right to feel as they do. We can co-exist. In our representative democracy, I will vote for politicians that feel as I feel, and another will do the same. In the collective nature of our society, a consensus will develop.

But a distinction arises along the way. My children will know what I feel and why. But the children of other people will not know how I feel. I do not wear my personal beliefs on my sleeve for all to see. Seems rather crude and presumptive to me.

That brings us to Washington, DC, this past weekend. National Review Online describes the event. The most commonly heard word was spelled out at the beginning of Country Joe's famous rendition of his Vietnam song at Woodstock. It was moronic then and is moronic now. (btw - Joe McDonald lives in Berkeley now and is quite the Florence Nightingale expert.)

Some quotes from the rally are instructive:

"At a pre-march rally on Saturday night at the D.C. Armory by RFK Stadium, California congresswoman Maxine Waters told George W. Bush to 'go to hell.' Going to hell with him, said Waters, should be John Ashcroft, Don Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice." (What does Condi have to do with abortion rights?)

"Pro-life is to Christianity as al Qaeda is to Islam." (Really? But from the sounds of the rally, I can't seem to find many Christians ... is this just a cute turn of words?)

"I wish Barbara Bush had had choice available to her." (Trust me, Barbara isn't the aborting type.)

"Get Bush Off My Bush" (Cute!! But what is W doing in your yard?)

The mood at the gathering was "crass, angry." I'll share something - I don't know people that act like this. I have met them, of course, but I avoided getting involved on any kind of level.

I used to party in my youth. But I avoided people who didn't know when to stop, who got loud or messy when under the influence. I rounded my mileage up instead of down when filing expense reports, but I never entered trips I never took - as I saw others do.

In one formulation, there are two types of people in the world - those who hold their opinion, and those that wave them like a flag for all to see. Unfortunately, the latter usually do so in an unintelligent, unconvincing manner. They gather like-minded people, but rarely convert anyone.

I have made a personal choice. It is only felt deeper and with more conviction when someone else says my president should burn in the eternal fires of Hell because he thinks in the same manner that I do.

Which leads me to wonder what was accomplished by the rally. Nothing, I think, absolutely nothing. All that energy, all of those heart-felt feelings, for nothing. What a shame.

Tracking Electoral Votes

I read all sorts of groupings of what constitutes the "battleground" states for 2004. It seems the number of states changes from as few as 7 up to twice that number. Whenever someone changes a definition like that, I always suspect ulterior motives. Remember, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that they are not watching you ...

I think a fair way to group the states is to define the "battleground" states as those won by either W or Gore by 7% or less of the popular vote. This definition includes 18 states representing 191 electoral votes in the 2004 election. The states are AR, AK, FL, IA, ME, MI, MN, MO, NE, NH, NM, OH, OR, PA, TN, WA, WV, and WI.

In 2000, the split was rather close - 97 to 90 electoral votes (advantage W) - so any major swing in these states would have a profound impact on the outcome of the election. Also, to set the proper baseline, due to the reapportionment as a result of the 2000 Census, the same results in 2004 would result in a division of 99 to 92, ad W.

The other two groupings, then, are those states won by W by greater than 7% of the popular vote - AL, AK, CO, GA, ID, IN, KN, KY, LA, MI, MT, NE, NC, ND, OK, SC, SD, TX, UT, VA, and WY. In 2004, these states represent 179 EVs.

Gore's greater than 7% states are - CA, CT, DE, WDC, HI, IL, MD, MA, NJ, NY, RI, and VT. These states bring 168 votes to the 2004 table.

Here is where I see it today. Of the 191 Battleground EVs, the split is 142 to 49, ad W. I see Kerry fumbling away NM, OR, PA, and WI - a total of 43 votes changing columns.

The W>7% EVs stay the same. I suggest Kerry will drop NJ, worth 15 EVs.

Today's count is 336 to 202, ad W.

Short-term knowable issues that could change things - Arafat's dirt nap (ad W in FL, MI, and NY); UN Oil-for-Bribes scandal (if Kofi's son is implicated, the complete gig is up - new SG, capitulation by France and Germany)(ad W in CA, FL, NJ, NY, PA, and WV).

Wild-card issue - Afghanistan, people expect Iraq to be difficult, but if Afghanistan melts down, a lot of public reassessment will occur (ad Kerry).

Non-issues - Iraq, it won't be totally solved or go into total chaos; Air America, nothing they do will affect the election, I just wanted to say they were a non-issue.

Robert Novak relates a funny ...

What do you do with a spouse who thinks she is bigger than the presidency? Who thinks that you running for office is cute, in a furry woodland creature sort of way?

Robert Novak provides the fodder:

"STAY IN PITTSBURGH. Teresa Heinz Kerry, Sen. John Kerry's vivacious wife, was a major asset on the campaign trail during the primary elections but has run into backstage criticism since then -- particularly in Philadelphia last week.


"Mrs. Kerry asked Rep. Bob Brady, master of ceremonies at the event, whether she could introduce Gov. Edward Rendell (who in turn would introduce the prospective Democratic presidential nominee). The candidate's wife then launched into a 10-minute speech about her early life in Mozambique and on the iniquities of George W. Bush, but forgot to introduce Rendell.

"After the event concluded, Brady told a Kerry aide: 'Next time you come to Philadelphia, leave her in Pittsburgh (Mrs. Kerry's hometown when she was married to the late Republican Sen. John Heinz).'"

One thing is telling about this episode - Kerry is not the one wearing the pants in the family.

When your opponent is destroying himself, get out of his way

The Vatican represents about 16% of the world's population. Leaving behind an era of making rules and letting its members do whatever they please, the Church mentioned some time ago a desire to end granting communion to politicians that take public stands against the positions of the Church. It was stated with no uncertainty recently concerning the Church's position against abortion.

Specifically, a "top Vatican cardinal said Friday that priests must deny communion to Roman Catholic politicians who support abortion rights, but he stopped short of saying whether it was right for John Kerry to receive communion." Interesting reporting. Representing over one billion people, does the Church have to mention Kerry by name? How absurd.

But the point is made. It is now time to live the religion of which politicians claim to be a part. This is not a matter of our base sinful nature. I think it was Kerry, actually, that quoted James 2:14 - "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?" (Kerry used a version other than the NIV, where "deeds" is replaced with "works.") It is now time, according to the Vatican, to match faith with deeds and works.

So what does Kerry do? The ink is barely dry on the Vatican pronouncement and he proudly and quite publicly reaffirms the centrality of abortion rights to his campaign.

"More than 30 years after Roe vs. Wade became the law of the land, it has never been more at risk than it is today," Kerry said. "We are going to have a change in leadership in this country to protect the right of choice."

I thought Kerry was running against W. Now he is picking a fight with the Vatican. This guy is truly, deeply, through-and-through a toon.

Ann Coulter brings Arlen to bear

Ann knows how to strip a person to their skivvies. She cites the Toomey Anointing due next week as the single most important election this year, second only to W's coronation. She is viciously accurate in detailing Arlen's sins. Among the atrocities in Arlen's wake are: States can't prohibit partial-birth abortion; voluntary prayer is banned at high school football games; flag-burning is a constitutional right; the government is allowed to engage in race discrimination in college admissions; the nation has been forced into a public debate about gay marriage; and we have to worry about whether the Supreme Court will allow "under God" to be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.

If it weren't so serious, we could congratulate Arlen for being the antithesis of Bullwinkle J. Kerry - someone who actually accomplished something in his Senate years.

Think she overstates a tad? Let's continue ...

"Specter voted against a slew of conservative Reagan appointees, including Jeff Sessions to a federal appellate court ... Specter pretended to weigh the attacks on Bork thoughtfully and after careful consideration announced he would vote against Bork ... "

Specter has consistently voted against Republican judicial nominees. He has consistently sought to impose a "living constitutionalist" approach to the bench.

Ann references "penumbra" rights. A penumbra is a shadow, often associated with an eclipse. A penumbra right is founded in the 9th Amendment to the US Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

These "others" may exist, so the Framers provided, but have not been listed. Based upon the enumerated rights, the USSC builds rights in measured tones. They start with a wiretapping case during Prohibition. The government runs the mail service, but they can't open the mail. Is that a proscribed activity or a reflection of a right to privacy held by the sender? And since mail is private, isn't a phone call private? It wasn't in that case, but the ground was prepared.

Next came a few bedroom cases in the 1960s. Privacy existed, but the place was important.

Finally came Roe v. Wade in 1973. A right to privacy not only exists, but is personal and fundamental. The government must have a compelling interest to touch it.

Now, we all agree that the right to privacy is a good thing. But look at how it has been used - abortions since Roe - 45,667,997 and counting.

So the living constitutionalist approach has brought us abortion ... and partial-birth abortion; voluntary prayer being banned at high school football games; flag-burning as a constitutional right; the government being allowed to engage in race discrimination in college admissions; the nation being forced into a public debate about gay marriage; and we now have to worry about whether the Supreme Court will allow "under God" to be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.

If re-elected, Arlen will be the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I think Ann understates the problem.

Pennsylvania Pubs - Specter is not your friend

The National Review has a well-prepared, deeply logical analysis on why Specter cannot help republicans if he wins. Very worth the read.

Arlen's Support is Utilitarian

Yes, I should consider the source. I know. It is outdated and inherently biased. But CNN has a piece (sorry) that reminded me of conversations I am hearing now. And it presumes that Pennsylvania Republicans are malleable and perhaps even stoopid.

President Bush and Senator Santorum are actively supporting Specter out of political necessity. I do not doubt for a minute that they would embrace Pat Toomey as a brother if he wins next Tuesday. But Specter is owed support not for his past but for fear of his future. If re-elected, he will chair the Senate Judiciary Committee. President Bush needs his judges pushed through. The Chairman has a lot of power to support that process.

W is putting chips onto the poker table for Specter to win ... today. And if Specter should survive, W will point to the pile in front of Arlen when judicial nominees enter the process in the next congress and say, "I want some of those back, good buddy."

It's always winter on liberal radio

You know you are in trouble when your target audience is embarrassed for you. David Shaw writes for the LA Times and declares himself to be a liberal. I've never heard of him. His misguided politics aside, I'm sure he's a nice guy.

He wrote today of his angst over Air America. He listened for 17 hours on Good Friday. He claimed it may have been the most boring day of his life. But "boring" isn't what he goes on to relate. Typical liberal, speaks in half measures and requires you to read more to understand what he truly feels.

Some quotes: I greatly overestimated Air America's potential. ... But I laugh easily, and I didn't get a single laugh from Franken, Garofalo or Rhodes or from any of the other Air America hosts I listened to. ... her voice is so grating that I found myself wincing, no matter how vigorously I agreed with what she said. ... in a segment he called "morning devotional," Maron began his prayer for divine guidance on behalf of President Bush by saying, "Dear Lord, what the hell is going on up there?" ... Maron also ticked off a mock list of chores the president would do that day including ordering "an extra inch" for his penis.

Makes we wonder why he quotes an announcer, without contradiction, when he said "Liberals have always occupied the moral high ground."

(Cartoon courtesy of Jeff Bucchino)

To release or to not release - have or had ... Russert gets duped

Bullwinkle J. Kerry makes a plain statement on Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: The Boston Globe reports that your commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibberd has suggested that you perhaps didn't earn your first Purple Heart and question whether you should have left Vietnam after six months. In order to deal with those kinds of issues, when I asked President Bush about his service in the Texas Guard, he agreed to release all his military records, health records, everything. Would you agree to release all your military records?

SEN. KERRY: I have. I've shown them--they're available to you to come and look at. I think that's a very unfair characterization by that person. I mean, politics is politics. The medical records show that I had shrapnel removed from my arm. We were in combat. We were in a very, very--probably one of the most frightening--if you ask anybody who was with me, the two guys who were with me, was probably the most frightening night that they had that they were in Vietnam and we're...

MR. RUSSERT: But you'll make all your records public.

SEN. KERRY: They are. People can come and see them at headquarters and take a look at them. I'm not going to--but I'll tell you this. I'm proud of my service. I'm proud of what we did. I know what happened. And the Navy 35 years ago made a decision and it's the Navy's decision and I think it was the right decision.

But was it so clear?

" ... when a reporter showed up yesterday morning to review the documents, the campaign staff declined, saying all requests must go through the press spokesman, Michael Meehan. Late yesterday, Meehan said the only records available would be those already released to this newspaper. 'He is releasing all military records he has released to The Boston Globe,' Meehan said in a telephone interview. In a follow-up e-mail, Meehan said it was those particular records to which Kerry was referring on Meet the Press."

Hey, Tim!! Bullwinkle made you look like a fool. C'mon back and comment on this fiasco you helped create.

Another 500,000 jobs - these at the beach!!

Bullwinkle J. Kerry has his cane and hat at the ready. Under the cover of environmental protections, Kerry promises to end pollution as we know it and create 500,000 jobs at the same time.

When articulating his message, Bullwinkle said, "What we need to recognize is that being responsible about the environment is not some goo-goo, do-gooder, silly notion that you embrace once a year on Earth Day." (Do you believe this guy? Did the kindergarten book-reading not leave his psyche? What's a goo-goo notion?)

Kerry claims that W is cutting sewage construction projects and that this has led to increased runoff into the ocean. "The truth is, our air is more polluted today and getting more polluted, our water in many places is getting more polluted."

Further, Bullwinkle's "campaign released a lengthy critique of Bush's environmental policies, contending they have led to the dumping of an additional 21 tons of pollution into the air and contributed to an additional 100,000 premature deaths."

OK. Let's see. Here's an overview of how an ocean-front sewage system works. How long does it take to construct a plant? Here's an upgrade at six years.

Did W mothball a whole bunch of almost-completed plants? Otherwise, of course, the plants would still be in their construction cycle.

Twenty-one tons of pollution? This doesn't have to do with Clinton-era planned decreases in pollutants that W delayed because to implement them would have been cost prohibitive to industry and therefore to consumers? Is that like increasing a budget by 3% but being condemned for decreasing it because last year it went up 5%?

So how does a new administration march in and within three years contribute to 100,000 premature deaths? What does "contribute" mean? Is it anything like "yes" in response to a question about whether Bullwinkle will release all of his war records?

What a toon ...

Kerry's shows a way to a better tomorow: free college



Kerry proposes a plan that would result in a free college education in return for public service. Let's deconstruct ...

The problem is stated as "ending a $13 billion 'windfall' that banks earn for making government-backed student loans."

How does it get this "windfall"? Glad you asked. "The federal government guarantees student loans at an interest rate of 3.4%. If bank collections fall below that level, the federal government will make up the difference. With real interest rates higher than that level and collection levels relatively high banks are essentially guaranteed a profit under the program. This is a windfall that creates excess profits for the banks" Kerry said.

I see no claim of usury or even premium interest rates on the student loans. I see no guaranty of market-prevailing rates to an unproven class of credit risks. I do see social engineering in the federal law - you go to college, get an education, and we will see to it that you can get a loan - with one proviso: you have to pay it back!!

So at what interest rate are these loans made? Glad you asked. The rates to students are 3.42% and parents at 4.22%. Inflation takes at least half the rate, then figure administration costs, lost opportunity ... where is the room for a windfall?

These rates are slightly less than prevailing home equity rates, but in the neighborhood. How many kids own homes? If their parents are not getting involved, then the loan will be a personal one - move about that site and you will find personal rates are over 13%. Now there's a windfall for you ...

And this "windfall," let me understand because it is confusing me, this "windfall" exists because college students are paying back their loans? So if they didn't, the banks would get the same sub-market return, a "windgap" let's say, and that would be good? So the issue is removing the credit risk? But you compelled the removal of the credit risk by requiring a sub-market interest rate. Part of a higher interest rate is to offset credit risk.

Let's see .. make sub-market loan to protected class, realize "windfall," bad; lose money on sub-market loan, achieve "windgap," bad. High payback rate = Windfall = bad. High default rate = Windgap = good. Sub-market loan = Windfall. Lose on cost of loan = Windfall. Windfall = profit. Lose = profit. Lose = good. Windfall = Windgap. High payback rate = High default rate ... This guy makes my head ache ...

Isn't the long run issue the education of America?

Next, the solution. Kerry proposes that a student - instead of getting a loan that is somehow or another resulting in a windfall to a bank - would now have the tuition paid directly by the federal government. In return, the student would work for the federal government, unpaid, full-time for two years.

OK, doing what? Roadside cleaning crews? State issue. Volunteering to help some needy folks do whatever? OK, so we can make it up. But these are the same kids that could not afford college and needed a loan. I know these kids today - I teach at a community college. Most of my students have jobs - and these are kids just out of high school. How can they feed, house, and clothe themselves for two years? Will Kerry put the burden back on the parents until the kid is 24 - and thereby adjust the tax code to allow for dependency?

The depth of dysfunction in this proposal is astounding.

... by the friends we keep

Sen. Arlen Specter (R*-PA) keeps some rather liberal friends by the look of his campaign contributors and supporters over the years.

George Soros, billionaire with an attitude. His latest claim to fame is that he can write a check. Have you ever heard this guy talk? He's like Elmer Fudd going wabbit huntin'. I have read and listened and searched and sought ... I cannot find an articulate argument from him as to why he thinks the United States should change administrations. He speaks in conclusions, injects emotions ... but never a cogent argument. I like being poor. I think a lot of money makes you stoopid.

Harold Ickes Jr., former Clinton aide. Nothing more need to said.

Ron Carey, Teamsters fame. "I won the election. Uh, I didn't? Who are you?" "United States Justice Department, sir. You didn't win the election." Do we have to discuss this criminal anymore?

Arthur Coia, another union hack, former president of Laborers Union, another person the Justice Department was interested in. No longer legally able to participate in the union. Something to do with organized crime.

Richard Ben-Veniste, dem party hack who questions pubs appearing before the 9-11 Commission as if they were child molesters. I listened to his treatment of Condi Rice. It was funny, in a do-you-have-a-brain-tumor, maybe-something-organically-wrong-here sort of way. He was a stage show. Like the actors that do the commercials for satellite or cable tv where they read letters from people in a dramatic manner (Danny DeVito (the guy from the sitcom where they drove taxis around; he married the short waitress on Cheers) did one of the early ones). Dicky B-V (sounds like a brandname for a new and improved jockstrap) is just a lapdog. He must think he comes across as suave, perceptive, stingingly accurate. My children used to think that, too, when they were 6 and 7 and brought me a mud pie with eyes ablaze and smiles as broad as the horizon ... boy, I love my kids. Dicky B-V can have the sweat off my ... {sorry!}

Sen. Chuckie Schumer (D-NY) wants Arlen on the USSC. 100% pro-abortion/-0%- pro-life ... that should send a chill down a conservative's spine. It's tough to be serious when it comes to RugRat Chuckie, but for a moment: a squeaky voice cracks and whines into your ear, spittle sprays from your collar to your eyebrow, "Maybe someday there will be a favor you can do for me." That chill running down your spine is not fright; it is a stream saliva that exited his mouth at something below room temperature.

With a republican like Specter, who needs an opposition party? It is time to show Arlen the door. Congressman Pat Toomey (R-PA) is running for Arlen's seat in several days. People give Arlen a few points in the polls, but never over 50%. As I drive around, I see Toomey signs 10:1. Perhaps the Broken-Glass Republicans will be coming out. I sure hope we don't see a false-positive in dems registering as pubs to vote in the primary.

It is time, Arlen. Pack your bags. Maybe Kerry is looking for a "cross-over" VP? You would be perfect. I'll give you cab fair to Harlem so you can kiss Bubba's ring.

Real News from Iraq

A contractor wrote an amazing letter from Iraq. In case the blog to which you are being directed changes posts, it was posted on April 15, and entitled, "A Contractor Tells About his Mission."

Electoral Update W 336 to 202

The RCP Polls give a starting point for the analysis. Those states not addressed are given to the 2000 winner.

The problem for Kerry is simple - the only states changing sides are those won by Gore in 2000. The latest run of switching states includes NJ, NM, PA, OR, and WI, a total of 59 electoral votes.

Polls show W back and forth on FL, but I don't believe it. The panhandle will vote completely this time, and it is clear that the Jewish vote is shifting. It will shift enough to give W FL, the only question is whether it will shift enough to give W NY.

Even more trouble for Kerry is that his grasp on IL and MD is slipping. IL was won by 12 points by Gore; Kerry is up only 8 points. MD was Gore's by 16, presently Kerry's by only 9.

The movement in all the states is away from Kerry and towards W, or towards the incumbent, however you want to view it.

How long will it be before Kerry's numbers are less than 200?

Kerry Veep Position Update

I knew there was someone else I was thinking about ... Representative Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-TN). I have listened to some speeches and interviews. Articulate, focused, polished.

So what positions does he take?

The National Political Awareness Test folks are rather testy about this gentleman: "This candidate would not provide this information to citizens in the candidate's own state - no matter who asked them, when they were asked or how they were asked."

I have no problem understanding NPAT's position. Very clear.

To the Interest Groups we go ...

Abortions Rights - 2003 rates 30%, down from 100% in 2001.
Right to life - 2001/2002 19%, up from 6% in 1999/2000.
Arts & Humanities - 100% for several years.
Chamber of Commerce - 2003 48%, Business & Industry 20%.
Separation of Church & State - 2003 75% down from 100% in 2002.
Christian Coalition - 2003 33%.
The NEA - 91%, 67%, a pair of 100%s (2003 ... 2000).
Family Research Council - 2003 15%, down from 100% in 2000.
Neither the Arabs or the Jewish people seem to care for him.
Gun Owners of America - 2003 F- (Wow, that's a statement!).
American College of OB/GYNs - -0%- for last two years.
Ah, found it!! Labor issues - 70%'s, 80%'s, and a whole bunch of 100%'s

Where are we? Mixed on business issues; a favorite of liberal teachers and abortionists; not appreciated by gun owners, families, and Christians. Seems to be a closet socialist. Good match for Kerry.

Electoral Votes - 329 to 209

The combined effects of reallocated electoral votes as a result of the 2000 Census and Gore's slim margins of victory in several states make Kerry's battle much more difficult.

The 2000 final tally was 271 to 266 (1 DC delegate abstained). With the same exact voting outcomes, due to reallocation of electoral votes as a result of Census 2000 data, W's victory tally would change to 278 to 260. The increase in EVs is similar to winning CT, IA, OK, or OR, all of which have 7 votes and as a group were won 3-1 by Gore. But that is just the beginning of the battle.

Gore's margin of victory in states is much more slim than I expected before I delved into the data. I calculated two initial sets of data. The goal is to calculate the margin of victory per electoral vote, both per state and a national simple average of state calculations. To do this, I took the margin of victory in each state for W or Gore and divided that number by the electoral votes won in that state. I suggest that this indicates the relative strength of the win in individual states and in the aggregate. The first set of data includes the votes cast for Nader; the second set excludes any votes cast for Nader.

(Votes cast for Nader exceeded the margin of victory between W and Gore in 7 states. Gore won 5 of those; W, 2. I have read opinions all over the map concerning from whom Nader draws votes - there is not a reliable manner to reallocate Nader's votes. No more discussion of Nader will occur in this post.)

The aggregate data is as follows:

Set 1 - with Nader votes

Average MOV for each Bush Electoral Vote - 17,619
Average MOV for each Gore Electoral Vote - 14,765

Set 2 - without Nader votes

Average MOV for each Bush Electoral Vote - 23,496
Average MOV for each Gore Electoral Vote - 21,865

These data suggest that W's wins were on average larger than Gore's.

But the data needs to be refined, I suggest, to remove the extreme vote totals. I recalculated the sans-Nader data after removing the three 1MM+ vote wins (and DC because the data is so skewed), the difference comes alive:

Set 3

Average MOV for each Bush Electoral Vote - 22,073 (w/o TX)
Average MOV for each Gore Electoral Vote - 14,602 (w/o CA, NY, DC)

Within the above data, Gore had four narrow escapes - in each of IA, NM, OR, and WI, representing collectively 30 EVs, his margin of victory per electoral vote was less than 1,000. W's only <1K victory was FL - and who knows what the outcome would have been if the pro-Republican panhandle had not been messed with by the main-stream media calling the state before the polls closed.

Present polls have four states leaving the dem side and switching to the pubs - NJ, NM, PA, and WI. Two of these four are in the narrow escapes above.

Kerry is losing half the close states and some of the majors. The present electoral vote count is 329 to 209. Who says this is going to be close?


Sources:
Change in Electoral Votes by state from 2000 to 2004
2000 Election, Popular & Electoral Votes
RCP-Gathered Polls

Anatomy of a question: W's April 13, 2004, Press Conference

I am going to review just the questions asked of W, not the answers given. How a question is posed, what facts it subsumes, what answer it suggests or demands - all give insights to the questioner. Let's see what the beautiful people are like ... if you want the full text of the interview, WaPo has it here. (WaPo is a free registration ... sorry ... I just gave up on boycotting such things. I made up a unique user name and password and registered it everywhere.)

QUESTION: Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half of Americans now support it. What does that say to you? And how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

" ... turning into the deadliest ... " Is this a straight line extrapolation based up one-half observations? Why would you ask a question whose initial premise can be disproved in a mere two weeks? It further presumes that every month can be accurately compared one to another. It relies on emotion and not fact. How amateurish. If it proves correct in the body count, the guy is smug ... until the next similarly posed almost-fact proves wrong. "What does that say to you?" seems to modify, or belong to, the alleged declining polls. Polls are mentioned only when the end result supports the preconceived notions of the questioner. Do other polls show that most people continue to support the president? This inclusion of selective fact is thin at best. So we have speculative fact and selective fact. But the best part of the question is using the words "Vietnam" and "quagmire." The only people making such comparisons are the leaders of the democrat party. Kennedy must have heard that question and responded: "Good boy, that reporter. Get me his name and picture of his wife. Is she a good swimmer? Get me a drink while you're up ..." Just as many outside of Kerry's camp are saying the Vietnam quagmire comparison is ridiculous.

This question does not lend legitimacy to the Vietnam comparison because the questioner is not a person of respected insight and intellect. He is just a pretty boy who can read with an appropriate range of affect. It does, however, tell you that the pretty boy and his employer think the comparison is so ingrained in the American psyche that they should focus on it as their only topic. That shows how deeply out of sync with the public the mainstream press is at present.

Speculative fact, selective fact, opposition allegation. Poor use of time.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. What's your best prediction on how long U.S. troops will have to be in Iraq? And it sounds like you will have to add some troops. Is that a fair assessment?

Not a bad question. Presumes very little fact and asks W to verify what little fact is presumed. It is also teed up for stock answers like, "as long as it takes." Fairly worded, but not probing. Should have been one of many questions posed, not the reporter's only shot.

QUESTION: Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq: that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers; that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction but, as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, we know where they are. How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series of false premises?

Little Johnny takes a test and gets a "B." He answered 85 questions correctly and 15 incorrectly. Instead of praising him for getting the overwhelming majority of the questions correct and also for substantially achieving the objective of a high grade, Little Johnny's parents berate him for getting 15 answers wrong: "You're stupid!!! How could you do this?!? Do you have any idea how it makes us feel?!? What the neighbors must be thinking about us as parents?!?"

The question is in three parts: selective facts; broad inquiry; narrow inquiry.

The selective presentation of facts - particularly the "sweets and flowers" reference which is an absurd phrase to draw out of hundreds stated - were all made by Rumsfeld in his daily briefings. None were made by W. The questioner doesn't balance with even a toss-away - "Although many of the things you said were true, such as ... " But it is only a set-up. It lays the groundwork for the "middle eight" that is the broad, almost impish, inquiry that can be easily slapped down - "got things so wrong" is to stare at a tree and ignore the forest. But then the real question: Having presented you with selected facts and mentioning as a toss-away the word "Americans," tell us how you went to war based upon false pretenses? Did you feel the knife? "False pretenses" is a lie, not a mistake. The questioner hides behind the tree of "opponents" when asking it. How pathetic. How transparent.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE), Mr. President. To move to the 9-11 commission, you yourself have acknowledged that Osama bin Laden was not a central focus of the administration in the months before September 11th. "I was not on point," you told the journalist Bob Woodward. "I didn't feel that sense of urgency." Two and a half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?

Typical Monday-morning quarterback inquiry. "Looking back on {insert anything here} ... would you have done it differently?" John Madden once said that success is a great deodorant, meaning that if your football team wins people will lose sight of the badly played downs, the missed opportunities, the poor decisions. Those things still existed and an honest coach will focus on them for the next performance. An honest coach - who lost a game - will still discuss the good performance he or she witnessed.

So if W was successful in stopping attacks, he will look for ways in which to improve data gathering and analysis; if an attack happens on his watch, he will do the same thing. To translate this to "personal responsibility" for an attack is feel-good, let's-all-hug-and-cry journalism. No substance. Next.

QUESTION: Mr. President, I'd like to follow up on a couple of these questions that have been asked. One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9-11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism, and do you believe that there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?

The first question presumes that he never admits mistakes. It can be fairly rewritten as, "You never admit a mistake in a manner acceptable to me. Why?" We do not express ourselves in the same words, with the same outward emotions. My father passed away two years. He never once told me he loved me. Never once. He had many opportunities. He died when I was 42. He told me once he was proud of me (June 1981, when I received my undergraduate degree). Yet even when he was alive, I knew he loved me, I knew he was proud of me many times.

I know W has made mistakes, and I know that he knows. He says, "We can always do things better. We are always looking for better ways to accomplish our tasks. We are always open to suggestion." That tells me that he is focused on solving the problems facing the country. Should he look over his shoulder and use words that effect an apology to liberal journalists? No.

The second question, asking if he made any errors in judgment, is again backward looking. Why does the press ask W what he did and Kerry what he will do? Because W's past is commendable and an error must be ferreted out. Kerry's past is to be avoided.

QUESTION: Mr. President, good evening. I'd like to ask you about the August 6th PDB. You've mentioned it at Fort Hood on Sunday. You pointed out that it did not warn of a hijacking of airplanes to crash into buildings, but that it warned of hijacking to obviously take hostages and to secure the release of extremists that are being held by the U.S. Did that trigger some specific actions on your part in the administration, since it dealt with potentially hundreds of lives and a blackmail attempt on the United States government?

Excellent question. The facts are current. Quoting very recent statements by W. Probes into what he did in response that may not yet be part of the public record. Commendable.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You mentioned the PDB and the assurance you got that the FBI was working on terrorism investigations here. The number they had used was 70. But we learned today in the September 11th hearings that the acting director of the FBI at the time now says the FBI tells him that number was wrong, that he doesn't even know how it got into your PDB. And two of the commissioners strongly suggested the number was exaggerated. Have you learned anything else about that report since that time? And do you now believe you were falsely comforted by the FBI?

The facts are clean and objective in the opening. The questioner loses focus when he claims that two members of the 9-11 commission "strongly suggested" the number was high. Anyone can strongly suggest anything. Ask Galileo when he said that the Earth revolved around the Sun and the Catholic Church got up close and personal with him - strongly suggesting that he was wrong. In the press conference question, the cite to the 9-11 commission is simply unnecessary and undercuts the questioner's credibility.

"Have you learned anything else about that report since that time?" is the appropriate manner to proceed.

"And do you now believe you were falsely comforted by the FBI?" That presumes that W was "comforted" by the report - a term widely open to interpretation. "Informed" is much more on point.

In total, the question simply has too emotion and not enough focused inquiry. Probably reflects the liberal education of the mouthpiece.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9-11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you prepared to give them one?

How pathetic. The question presumes that Mr. Clarke's apology was "unequivocal" and appropriate. Clarke's actual words: "Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you, and I failed you. "We tried hard, but that doesn't matter, because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask -- once all the facts are out -- for your understanding and your forgiveness."

He speaks beyond himself. "Your government," and "those entrusted with protecting you." Further, "We" tried hard. "We failed."

But wait ... let's not cast aspersions just yet ... let's wait until "all the facts are out."

For Clarke to speak on behalf of the entire United States government is the height of hypocrisy. For the reporter to lend credence to such a selfish act is pitiful. To ask the president to buy into such claptrap and emulate it is journalistic malpractice.

QUESTION: Mr. President, thank you. You mentioned that 17 of the 26 NATO members providing some help on the ground in Iraq. But if you look at the numbers -- 135,000 U.S. troops, 10,000 or 12,000 British troops. Then the next largest, perhaps even the second-largest contingent of guns on the ground are private contractors, literally hired guns. Your critics, including your Democratic opponents, say that's proof to them your coalition is window dressing. How would you answer those critics? And can you assure the American people that, post-sovereignty, when the handover takes place, that there will be more burden-sharing by allies in terms of security forces?

In general a fair question because its focus is on the post-sovereignty era. But the set-up is atrocious. If a poor widow gives to the church two small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny, and a wealthy man puts in one hundred times that amount, who has given more? Isn't the concept one of equal sacrifice, not equal giving? How dare the pseudo-reporter propound a question whose natural extrapolation is that the life of a Polish man is worth less than the life of an American. Is that not a conclusion in the same realm of denouncing the Polish contribution because it is so much less than our commitment? The Polish soldier is "window dressing?" What a drive-by insult. The basic premise of the question, then, is revolting.

Better stated, "To date, America has contributed significantly more resources to the Iraq situation than other countries. Will the contributions of those other countries increase, thus allowing our relative contribution to decrease, as time moves forward?"

QUESTION: Mr. President, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9-11 commission? And, Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th? ... (OFF-MIKE) I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.

Direct, straight-forward. Requests information. No subsumed or speculative facts. Good job.

QUESTION: You have been accused of letting the 9-11 threat mature too far, but not letting the Iraq threat mature far enough. First, could you respond to that general criticism? And, secondly, in the wake of these two conflicts, what is the appropriate threat level to justify action in perhaps other situations going forward?

Couching something in "general criticism" is unfortunate. Frankly, I have heard support and criticism in every conceivable combination of action and inaction. To label any of it "general" is inaccurate.

"Could" you respond? Yes. Next question. I remember an old movie where a schoolkid needs to go to the bathroom. The teacher would not let him leave the room based upon "Can I go ...," insisting instead on "May I go ..." Seems rather fundamental English to me.

"In the wake of these two conflicts" assumes that the positions can be reduced to such a common denominator that they can be seen to conflict. Very amateurish.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, you've made it very clear tonight that you're committed to continuing the mission in Iraq, yet, as Terry pointed out, increasing numbers of Americans have qualms about it. And this is an election year ... [w]ill it have been worth it, even if you lose your job because of it?

"Increasing numbers" is ambiguous. "We all know ... the overwhelming majority of Americans ... the American people feel that ... speaking on behalf of the American people ... " Make my skin crawl!! Can't these people focus for a moment? Can't they articulate a question without trying to work in a personal dig? Whatever happened to respect? Compare resumes, ladies ... where's your Harvard MBA? Where's your successful management of a major league baseball team? Where's your re-election in Texas?

Ask him a simple question - "If public sentiment expressed in November removes you from office because of your Iraq policy, will it be worth it to you?" Direct. No garbage. But without the frills, the question lacks substance. If I lose my job because I stood up for principle ... would that bother me? If I meet an Iraqi father whose son is alive because my decision to remove Saddam saved that boy's life by removing him from prison, would I say or feel, "good for you, but I lost my job"? Wow. Knowing the question came from a reporter hostile to the president makes the question he asked absurd and simplistic.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?

Is this a recurring theme in this conference? Do collusion laws apply to this pack of jackals? What is the reason for trying to get the president to say some magic phrase, "if I could do something differently, it would be ... "

The question itself is framed properly, but is otherwise useless. This isn't group therapy.

QUESTION: Looking forward about keeping United States safe, a group representing about several thousand FBI agents today wrote to your administration begging you not to split up the law enforcement and the counterterrorism ... because they say it ties their hands, it gives them blinders, that they're partners. Yet you mentioned yesterday that you think perhaps the time has come for some real intelligence reforms. That can't happen without real leadership from the White House. Will you? And how will you?

The set-up and questions are dissimilar. The letter has not surfaced on the net yet (I did a very quick look). Let's presume that the use of the word "begging" isn't hyperbole - but, really, do you think FBI agents would form a group across several thousand and write a letter that "begs"? I doubt it, too.

The next statement begins, "[y]et you mentioned ... " This takes a stance that W is about to do something adverse to the wishes of the agents. But the question doesn't continue in that vein. Very poor, but perhaps insightful, beginning.

The next opinion is amazing. In order to make a change, "real leadership" is required from the White House. As opposed to, say, fake leadership, soy leadership, or surreal leadership? How about strong leadership? Or, um, dare I suggest, simply "leadership"?

Then - will you lead? How will you lead? Man, what a convoluted question. Insightful only in that it reveals the depth of the problem in the American educational system ... a reporter left behind.

QUESTION: Following on both Judy and John's questions, and it comes out of what you just said in some ways, with public support for your policies in Iraq falling off the way they have, quite significantly over the past couple of months, I guess I'd like to know if you feel, in any way, that you have failed as a communicator on this topic. ... Well, you deliver a lot of speeches, and a lot of them contain similar phrases and may vary very little from one to the next. And they often include a pretty upbeat assessment of how things are going, with the exception of tonight. It's pretty somber. ... But I guess I just wonder if you feel that you have failed in any way. You don't have many of these press conferences where you engage in this kind of exchange. Have you failed in any way to really make the case to the American public?

Where do I start? "Quite significant" falling off of public support? From the time of active engagement in battle when numbers are always extremely high? Kinda like the Primary Bounce Kerry saw and has now eroded.

"Failed as a communicator ... " Did anyone miss the deliberate intent to draw a distinction between W and Reagan?

"Your speeches vary very little ... " Gee, sorry, Don, I try to give a personal message in a lot of different locations. I would love to hear you express the same thing twenty different ways and not be accused of changing positions. This questioner is such a child ...

"Have you failed ..." No, Don, you failed. You give equal voice to absurd positions vomited by democrats.

Overall impression of the questioners - a sorry set of people. No deep, probing questions. Too many weak facts. Too many opinions drawn from dubious sources. Anyway, I think W performed well. He seems to suffer fools gladly.

Kerry's Origami Economics - Home Ownership

Home ownership is expressed as a percentage and is "computed by dividing the number
of households that are [occupied by] owners by the total number of [occupied] households" (Census Bureau). The source data from 1965 to the present is here.

Kerry seeks to view this statistic as a rate of change from one period over another. This introduces the first problem. Quite by definition, as a percentage approaches 1.00, the rate of increase decreases even though absolute increases continue to be seen. You see, by analogy, if everyone is poor and makes $1.00 a year and they thereafter earn $3.00 a year, then Kerry would think that is good - a 200% increase. But if everyone is rich and makes $100,000 a year, and thereafter makes $110,000 a year, Kerry would think that is bad because they only made 10% more, as opposed to the 300% increase of the other group. Personally, I would rather be in the 10% increase group.

Viewing the source data, home ownership for Q4/2003 is at 68.6% - the highest rate in history. Higher, ergo, than at any time in the Clinton years. In fact, every quarter under W has been higher than any quarter in history. And since we are on the topic, Clinton's time saw rates as low as was seen in 1967.

I don't need to invert the standard deviation as Kerry wants me to in order to understand that more people own homes than ever.

Who does this guy's figuring?

Origami Economics Update

Kerry has published the details of his new misery index.

Taken from Kerry's site:

"Median family income. Median family income is from the Bureau of Census’ Income in the United States report. It is adjusted for inflation. Census has not released the 2003 income data yet; this study constructs the 2003 number by assuming that income grows from 2002 to 2003 at the same rate as Usual Weekly Earnings reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"College tuition. College tuition is the average tuition and fees for public four-year universities adjusted for inflation from the College Board’s Trends in College Pricing 2003. (NOTE - see the Fox News September 2003 article linked in an earlier post.)

"Health premiums. Health premiums are for private health insurance available from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. CMS has not release the 2003 data yet; this study constructs the 2003 number using the Kaiser Family Foundation’s estimate of 2003 health premium growth. All data is adjusted for inflation.

"Gasoline prices. Gasoline prices are the average national price for unleaded regular gasoline from the Energy Information Agency, adjusted for inflation.

"Homeownership. The homeownership rate is available from the Bureau of the Census.

"Private-sector job growth. Available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"Personal bankruptcies. This is non-business bankruptcies and it is available from the American Bankruptcy Institute."

Now, although Kerry lists the items above, he doesn't give us hot links to the source data. Thanks, pal. We'll get there eventually.

The kick is this: the calculation. "The growth rate of the index is formed by adding up the growth rates of these seven series – weighting them by the inverse of their standard deviation to ensure that each series contributes equally to the overall index. The index is set at 100 in 1976."

OK. I can pull out my statistics book and calculate the standard deviation ... but why? This guy needs to relate to the voter sitting at the bar, stubbing out his Camel. Can't you just see Kerry drawing a bell curve with a set of dotted lines on either side of the apex? Intoning in that French dialect of his, "you see, it measures the dispersion or variation in a distribution. OK? Look it, you take the square root of the arithmetic mean of the squares of the deviations from the arithmetic mean. It's a standard deviation! Don't you get it?"

Me thinks Kerry is the one who just doesn't get it.

Kerry Mystery Theater - Origami Economics

Remember when Reagan nailed Carter with the "Misery Index"? It was plain, simple, easy to understand - add unemployment and inflation. More people were unemployed and the cost of living was going up. Clear. Easy to add. 7.1% unemployment + 12.5% inflation = a Misery Index of 19.6.

Kerry tried pounding W on unemployment. Then March numbers came out. 308,000 added jobs. OK, nevermind.

Now, he has a new misery index. We'll call it the "OMI," (pronounced, "oh, my!") for Origami Misery Index. The miserable part is trying to calculate it and make sense of your answer. Kerry's website is no help - doesn't mention it. It begs the question: Is this another trial balloon?

Let's return to the first linked article for clues. The variables are reported to be "a combination of soaring college and health care costs and stagnant incomes."

First issue: college tuition. Dual system of public and private schools. In our capitalistic society, we do not tell private institutions of any kind what they can charge for their product (with the obvious exception of regulated industries). Prices are set by supply and demand. If Stanford wants to price itself out of the market, that is up to them.

Fox News has an article from September 2003 that is instructive and worth the read. An excerpt: " ... the average yearly 9.6 percent jump in state school tuition comes to just $356 more per year. And even with the increases, the average tuition for a four-year public college is $4,081." State colleges have wonderful teachers, dedicated teachers. I know. I am one.

Second issue: health-care costs. I bristle whenever the dems bring up this issue. It introduces comparisons to the high taxes and poorly run systems in Canada and England. Universal health care is universally bad. Why does England have private hospitals? Why do Canadians come to the US? But let's bite for a moment. No, wait, I refuse. America has the best quality of health care in the world. Everyone comes here to be treated. There may be problems, but there isn't a better system out there. You can only control prices by regulating the industry. Take you socialist ideas and run for office in Europe - we don't want it here.

Third issue: stagnant incomes. The Bureau of Labor Statistics allows you to create your own table of historical data. I checked "Total Private" in the first column, then went to the bottom of the page and selected "Retreive Data." Maybe I'm silly or not too bright, maybe I shouldn't rely on my Economics undergrad so much, but I don't see flat earnings. I do see relatively flat inflation.

So Kerry's Origami Misery Index isn't highlighting some critical, grossly unfair, burdensome situation. It is, yet again, his nuanced mind finding something to talk about.

Maybe it's because he likes the phrase ... Misery Index ... sorta rolls off the sophisticated palate like so much goose liver pate. The problem for Kerry is that when Reagan said it, we looked away from him for someone who fit the bill - and we found the tired-looking Carter; when Kerry says it, our eyes remain fixed.

Lithuanian Presidential Election Watch

With the removal of Paksas through impeachment, Lithuania will have a special election. We have the opportunity to watch this process from toes-in-the-tepid-waters maybe-I'll-run semi-announcements to election night returns.

Here's the first names to surface.

Over the next few months, I'll present the laws, the process, and info on the players as best I can. Any Eastern European political handicappers out there looking for a place to view cogent opinion?

Cracks in the Kerry Campaign

The NYT cites in opinionless fact (a distinction that needs to be made with them) the rapid joining and departure of long-time political hack Howard Wolfson to then from the Kerry campaign.

The reason cited by Wolfson is "[i]t proved difficult to extricate myself from my client responsibilities." The cover story is attacked in their own party - "Democrats expressed surprise that Mr. Wolfson had taken a position running the Kerry campaign's so-called rapid-response operation — a mid-level job he had held earlier in his career — and suggested Mr. Wolfson might have find his responsibilities less than challenging."

C'mon, ladies. Wolfson served on Hillary's and Schumer's campaigns. He knows the commitment, he knows the job, and he knows this time in history. Someone with his experience does not make a mistake in assessing the publicly available and privately disclosed information.

What did he see when he showed up for work the first day? A campaign out of control? Perhaps. A wildly diverse and perhaps volatile group of personalities? Sure. A rat's nest of bad decisions? OK. But those are challenges to be expected in any organization. Any seasoned person knows those problems will be present, the only issue is degree. When Wolfson got up close and personal, he viewed the inner workings of the Kerry machine and saw a completely unfixable situation. Perhaps he even felt misled.

Whatever the specifics, he had but one option: leave. And he did. Within 72 hours.

Veep Positions on the Issues

Unlike Kerry, who has refused 23 times to provide answers on a non-partisan form, the various people being discussed as veep choices have provided a variety of positions in response.

Sen. John Edwards (D-SC) did not outright refuse to provide responses, as did Kerry, but he did refuse to use the options listed - he instead selected "other" and provided his own narrative. Sometimes. Other times, he simply refused. You can read his responses, but trust me, it is carefully crafted trash. Interest groups tell the story. 100% from pro-abortion; -0%- from pro-life. -0%- ratings from tax and budget reform groups. -0%- ratings from business and industry groups. Such extreme ratings indicate a man who has sold his soul.

We can dispose of Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) quickly - he refused to respond. He was asked once. I guess nobody really cares what he thinks. And that includes me.

Sen. Evan Bahy (D-IN) completed his form. He opposes public financing of abortions. Yet Planned Parenthood gave him an 80% rating; pro-life groups a -0%- rating. He wants use of the death penalty broadened. He supports education vouchers and block grants. Yet the NEA gave him a 91% rating. The document is a bit dated (1998), but his position then was to support US unilateral action in Iraq if it "threatened our National Security interests" - his own words, thereby passing the options given that included defying UN resolutions. Overall, his answers and his interest group ratings seemed to be at odds - a moderate tone in his words, a liberal edge in his votes. Seems like a good democrat.

John McCain completed his form and shows why he would be a non-traditional voice on the ticket. McCain is strongly pro-life in his indicated positions. His voting record is 33% with pro-life groups, but -0%- with pro-choice groups. Following the last link a little further down to Civil Liberties, and you can see that the ACLU gave him a -0%- rating. Putting McCain on a dem ticket is happy talk out of the media. He will never adopt Kerry's views nor endorse the DNC platform. Lieberman is still hurting from his capitulation to Gore.

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) had no problem answering questions - this is why I think he is the perfect VP choice. (See a post a couple headers down.) "I'm liberal and proud of it. Get me a drink." I understand W doesn't have alcohol at state dinners - boy, that data would be normalized real quick if Kennedy gets in office.

Sen Joe Biden (D-DE) refused. The interest groups indicate pro-abortion, pro-animal rights, low ratings on tax reform, and the ACLU likes him while conservative groups do not. But my gut feel is that he is too smart (or savvy - I refuse to accept that people who are intellectually dishonest in their public positions can be smart) to carry the water for a buffoon like Kerry.

Now Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) is a classic dem. He would also sell his soul to carry anyone's water at the national level. Abortions should always be legal, pile money into public schools, and ban semi-automatic weapons "except when being used for hunting." How does one determine that phrase? Must I have a valid hunting license when I buy the gun or only when the gun inspector comes? Rendell always has been and always will be a political whore and loud mouth. Perfect match for Kerry. "Uh, Mr. Kerry, what's our position today?" (btw - true story - he just got pulled over for the 9th time on the Penna. Turnpike for having his limo traveling at speeds in excess of 100 mph. such abject disdain for the safety of other people.)

I'll hit some more folks soon ...

Sen. Gregg (R-NH) KO's Schumer in the 2d Round

Sen. Schumer apparently got onto the Senate floor during a debate on a pension bill and launched some diatribe about W doing nothing about terrorism, W could have prevented September 11, W not learning the lesson of history, and so on. It was a typically unhinged, unsubstantiated, easily dismantled liberal statement. And, of interest, you just know it was prepared ahead of time.

NH Senator Gregg took strong exception to it - in an unprepared, eloquent floor speech.

Some excerpts:

"Mr. President, I hadn't thought that this debate was going to enlarge itself into the issue of the testimony before the 9/11 Commission, but it appears that the other side of the aisle has decided the pension bill is not enough to debate today ...

...

"Well, I'll tell you something, this Administration did learn from lessons of the past. And lessons of the past were the lessons of the Clinton Administration, which when we were attacked, our Embassies were attacked in Africa and when our ship was attacked in Yemen, what was the response of the prior Administration? They lobbed a missile into an empty -- an empty! -- terrorist camp in Afghanistan and then lobbed another missile into the wrong factory in Sudan. And then they washed their hands of Mr. Bin Laden and said they had done their purpose of defeating terrorism.

...

"I hesitate to think where we would be today had Al Gore been elected President. I suspect we would still be negotiating with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

...

"Saddam Hussein was a significant, dramatic threat to world peace and specifically was a dictator who had used weapons of mass destruction, who was oppressive at a level which hadn't been seen since the times of Nazi Germany, and who had the capacity to use his oppressiveness and his megalomania and his criminal view of the world to our detriment. He was a threat to us because of his ability to pass on that threat, the capacity to pass on weaponry, the capacity to be a sanctuary, and the capacity to be a feeding ground for people who caused us harm."

When liberals speak as Schumer did and Gregg responds as he felt he must, I can smell that unmistakable whiff of freshly cut grass and cigarette smoke, cotton candy and oil-burning engines running carousels. It is a carnival. And there in a hat with a $1.00 cane is Chuckie Schumer, barker extraordinaire, with all of his oversized polyester stuffed pandas. "Right here, just make three shots in a row and pick your choice!" Sen. Gregg just wants this babbling idiot to shut up, so he puts his dollar down and quickly launches three shots, all in, another dollar, another three in, another dollar ...

Barker Chuckie doesn't respond because he has nothing worthwhile to say. He just waits until Sen. Gregg walks away and then starts to flap his oddly shaped lips again.

Kerry Mystery Theater - He can't seem to answer anything

The National Political Awareness Test is a list of questions on important issues put to every candidate in office or running for office. The issues run from abortion to welfare. The history and content of the test is well described here.

On the left side of their main page are fields within which you can look up any candidate. Very informative.

Kerry has been asked 23 times to complete the form by: MSNBC; CBS News; Cox Newspapers; Knight Ridder; National Journal; MTV; New Hampshire Public Broadcasting; Tucson Citizen; St. Paul Pioneer Press; Portsmouth Herald; Nashua Telegraph; Iowa Public Radio; Ames Daily Tribune; Cedar Rapids Gazette; Iowa City Press; The State (SC); WHYY Philadelphia; San Jose Mercury News; Geraldine Ferraro, Former Democratic Congresswoman; Michael Dukakis, Former Democratic Congressman; Bill Frenzel, Former Republican Congressman; Jim Leach, Republican Congressman; and Richard Kimball, Project Vote Smart President.

He has refused every time.

Just what are Kerry's positions?

McAuliffe's early selection may be Kerry's early exit

The DNC Grand Poohba has credited himself with a brilliant move in establishing a primary/caucus system that selected the dem presidential nominee early in the cycle. (I wrote some time ago about how an early selection makes more sense without an incumbent; see March 13 postings.) In Kerry's case - a nominee who happened to be the next guy to walk past the office door after demented Dean imploded - the early selection is killing him.

His message is being found on the general election - not primary - road. A dangerous place to find such a thing. Susan Jones writes of his inability to articulate a proactive message.

Kerry complains about W's Iraq policy, but cannot answer what he would do instead.

According to a CNN transcript, anchor Judy Woodruff asked Kerry, "What exactly -- right now -- would you do differently?"

Kerry: "Right now, what I would do differently is, I mean, look, I'm not the president, and I didn't create this mess so I don't want to acknowledge a mistake that I haven't made. The president needs to step up and acknowledge that there are difficulties and that the world needs to be involved and they need to reverse their policy that countries that were not involved in supporting us are not going to be part of the reconstruction."

So, I guess, he would include other nations in the reconstruction. To what end? Purely a profit motive? How does that make things better?

Would he seek to share authority over US troops? Would they be asked to commit troops to protect their workers? What if they do then pull-out? What if the UN would rather do nothing?

Kerry seems completely unable to just answer the question as posed. "What exactly -- right now -- would you do differently?" Paraphrasing Kerry - W has made a mistake, other countries need to get involved, W needs to reverse the policy of excluding countries.

Excluding countries? Three things are happening: 1. Military management; 2. Military operations; and 3. Civil reconstruction. Kerry doesn't mention military issues at all.

Even if he did, would France or Germany commit troops? No.

Should we subject our military to the management of the Franco-Bismarck alliance? Surely not.

That leaves civil reconstruction. Including the Franco-Bismarck-Soviet trio in reconstruction activities would take American taxpayer money and distribute it to the former arms suppliers of Saddam. How quaint.

I still fail to see how this changes anything over there.

Another quote from Susan's article. NPR's Edwards asked Kerry, "President Bush says Sadr's defiance can't stand. What should the U.S. do?"

Kerry: "Well, ah, it's interesting to hear that when they shut a newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq and, well -- let me, let me, let me change the term 'legitimate.' When they shut a newspaper that belongs a voice, because he has clearly taken on a far more radical tone in recent days and aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment. So he has his own set of needs in order to deal with the possible, you know, future spread of terrorism."

What? I can't even parse that answer to make any sense. First, of course, he stammers his way out of calling a supporter of terrorism "legitimate." Then he concludes by saying, "So he has his own set of needs ..." The question was what should the president do. "He has his own set of needs ..." Oh.

Kerry is so bad at executive politics. His legislative politics lacked as well, but his executive politics are incredibly lacking.

Rush noted today a recent proclivity by the press to use the adjective "presumptive" when describing Kerry's status as the dem nominee. I noticed it myself to the point where yesterday I read something that did not include it and I noticed its absence.

Will the party rise against Kerry? Who will be his Howard Baker (who told Nixon the time to leave had come)? Can Hillary pull together a campaign in late July?

Teddy for veep?

I just can't ignore this gut feeling. It is wrong on so many levels. So depraved, so guttural, so against every political rationale ... that it might just be brilliant.

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) for Vice President.

Kerry has the "most liberal" senator label based on his voting record. How benign. Cute in a Massachusetts way. Teddy invented it. He owns liberal. His entire life oozes liberalness like he oozes sweat on stage.

I remember a bumper sticker from the 1970s - "More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than in nuclear power plant accidents." Wouldn't it be great to have those discussions again?

Kerry needs some serious help. He needs to wear who he is on his chest and thump it constantly. "I'm rich, I married it, I'm liberal. You got a problem with that?"

Who better than Teddy - the ultimate enabler? A complete lush in his personal and public life. No apologies. How many times has he said, "Get out of my way," "make yourself useful - get me a drink," and "poor people suck"?

Teddy can bring the liberals out to vote like ants on a sidewalk lollipop. People will register to vote across generations - graveyards will be popular, genealogy resources will be at a premium as names are added to voting roles. Our population will swell to 400 million virtually overnight. A W campaign cash advantage? "Hey, you, get me my check book." A festive time akin to Chinese New Year's Parade in San Francisco will ring across the liberal land as they line up to vote - then vote again and again.

Yes, only Teddy can bring this excitement to the Kerry campaign. Can I be the only one suggesting it?

Electoral Count as of today

Real Clear Politics tracks the latest polls and presents them on a single page.

I have put the latest numbers into an Electoral College Calculator.

The RCP data does not cover every state. Regardless, the tally from the RCP polls is 178 for W, and 145 for Kerry.

Using the 2000 actual data to fill in the blanks yields a result of 314 for W, and 224 for Kerry.

I put the missing RCP states in alphabetically ... and it was the Great State of Texas that put W over the top!!

The states that Kerry could not afford to lose but did were PA, OH, and FL, collectively contributing 68 electoral votes. A sweep of those three states by W ends the counting.

California's 55 EVs are in play. Gore took the state by 11. Kerry was up 13, and now is up only 9. It is not just W's ads, of course. It is Arnold's continued success. Just today, Arnold has suggested that the legislature be reduced to part time. I trust he didn't state that flippantly. If it was a trial balloon, having lived there, I think it is a great idea. The operational cost savings, the reduced legislation ... if packaged properly, I think it can be a model for smaller government across the country. And you just know W will share the stage at key times.

New York's 31 EVs are in play. Statements praising terrorists, calling them legitimate voices, and then quickly questioning his own words play strongly in New York. They may have a strong history of voting for dems, but they do not vote for idiots - Dukakis, Mondale, or Carter II.

If the country sees polling data with NY and CA in play, Kerry's prospects of being on the wrong side of an electoral blowout blossom.

This brings The American Thinker's piece outlining a dem disaster scenario into play. Could Kerry be so bad that he walks away? As much as I respect their logic, I think Kerry is much too arrogant, much too convinced of his rightful place in history to ever drop out of the race.

An analogy can be drawn from Clinton to him: Bubba was too smart to resign, he knew political storms were most fun in the eye and that their strength dissipates over time; Kerry is too stupid to know he's standing in the rain. Let's hope he doesn't look up with his mouth agape.

Clinton's last word on national security

A NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY FOR A GLOBAL AGE , is a document issued by the White House in December 2000. It is Clinton's last word on the challenges facing our country, our priorities, and accomplishments.

Search in vain for recognition of OBL and his network as a priority. Do note the labeling of terrorism as a crime rather than an act of war. Do note the accomplishment of arresting a "dozen" terrorists. I guess if you don't set your sights too high, then 12 seems like a lot.

Paksas is out

In the second day of debate, Lithuanian President Paksas has been removed from office on all three counts.

A new day has dawned. Lithuania has reasserted its separation from Russia.

American Presidential Elections & the Media, Part One

Our elections are not traditional boxing matches. In such a match, observers can draw their conclusions by watching the two pugilists. A solid right responded to with a leer and a smile wasn't as damaging as it seemed. A hurt fighter can be perceived via shaky legs and lowered elbows protecting sides. Cuts are plain to see.

Our elections are like boxing matches on tape delay, and at times out of sight. The commentators soundtrack the delay with commentary about issues far and beyond the interaction at hand. At other times, the commentators tell us about the fight on the other side of the wall. We get the pieces they want us to have, sharing snips that further their desired outcome.

Every election we hear how close the fight is, how strong the opposition combatant is. Yet Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale admitted years later that they knew Reagan had won the election on Labor Day.

So today we hear how this election is going to be very close. Clearly, neither side can give up or assume an easy victory. But close? Dick Morris writes of Kerry's challenges in a way that belies the substantive nature of them.

To watch Kerry's speeches, to see his ads, it is clear that his campaign lacks focus. His response to W's ads is anemic; his own policy statements are thin and easily disputed.

Yet the media has him weighing in at 235 lbs. with a reach of 72". To read the press accounts, you would think he had no neck. And W, of course, is a beefed-up cruiserweight or should not even be fighting in the same ring for the title with a true heavyweight.

The one similarity between a traditional boxing match and an election is our saving grace - we are the judges. Only our scorecards count. The one unanswered question is how deeply into the 300's W will go in the electoral count. He may even break 400.

Just gotta get this out ...

Being conservative is like being the only adult in a room full of kids. Liberals run around with such lack of perspective, screaming their heads off ... just like children.

Proof? You raise several million dollars to start a radio network to air your views. You have been concerned that the other side has a de facto monopoly.

Your centerpiece is a comedian with political views. Strike one.

He has zero radio experience (Sean and Rush had many years in before being syndicated - it's ironic that the phrase "cutting your teeth" is apt). Strike two.

You don't limit your overhead or enhance your goodwill by offering a menu from which stations could choose; you compel them to take you entire day's offerings - from 600AM to 1100PM. Strike three.

You change your mind about the policy in strike three. You do so inconsistently so that one station gets nothing to air on your first broadcast day but another station does. You come across as unprofessional and disorganized. Stations think you are a bunch of amateurs. Strike four.

You focus on small stations that have limited access and very little broadcast power. You ignore that these niche stations are actually filling a community role and don't need you to help them. The result is an African-American station in NYC has its on-air personality pool queuing in the unemployment office. Strike five.

Your major talent can't help himself - he has never been original, only reactive. As a result, he names his show after a television show that expresses conservative views. The joke, as all jokes, will wear thin and the name will change. Of course, this presumes the show survives. Either way, your major talent loses face. Strike six.

Your second major talent is also a comedian. She is known primarily for her foul mouth. This alienates a large segment of your potential audience. Strike seven.

First impressions are lasting impressions. Look at the titles in this Google News search. I searched on "Air America" - no adjectives or adverbs or modifiers of any kind. The hits? Air America Radio is a Joke (#1); Black community turned off Air America (#2); Franken's Air America not Flying Here (#3); Join Our Air America Listening Room! (#5) (sounds ok, then you look at the url morons.org); Nader Blasts "Hot Air America" (#6). Even Nader despises you? You're in trouble, pal. Strikes eight through twelve.

To paraphrase Pat Buchanan - that great sucking sound you hear is a radio network on life support.

Twelve strikes? Yes, for those of you my age (45), perhaps you recall when we were kids, our baseball leagues played by the rules - three outs and you're done. Then about the time the next group of kiddies came (mid-1970s) the folks thought that the rule was too tough, some kids had their feelings hurt when they didn't get to bat. So they willfully violated a sacred rule of baseball and created a 4th out. (They later had to created yet another rule cutting off an inning when 7 sevens runs were scored.) After the killing of Bobby Kennedy, I think that changing the rules of youth baseball may be the single most defining moment when society changed from conservative to liberal.