Ironman's blog

The one AZ Democrat who could beat McCain in 2010 is joining the Obama cabinet.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4AJ11220081120

I don;t know what ripple effects this has on the rest of AZ politics, but this has to help us. I am unaware of the AZ Democrats having a similar figure in the wings so if Mac wants another term, he'll probably get one.

Thought I'd post this little AP story about the big Governor's Global Warming summit, where the once promising Arnold Scharzenegger joined a host of other RINO and Democrat governors in endorsing a grandious solution to the global warming problem.

Hey, what's $500 billion a year between friends?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081120/ap_on_re_us/schwarzenegger_summit_10

Now, with the Dow in free fall and GM on the verge of shutdown, you might think there are slightly more pressing immediate problems than whether the temperature in 2050 is going up 0.2C or 0.4C?...especially for the Governors of the epicenter of the financial crisis (NY) and the auto crisis (MI)....naw, got to make sure the media get their "green" moment while their constituents lose all their green.  

By the way, it's mid November. Tomorrow's weather forecast for central CT is a high in the 30's with snow showers http://weather.courant.com/US/CT/Meriden.html.

Central FL has a freeze warning for tonight http://www.weather.com/weather/alerts/localalerts/USFL0163?phenomena=FZ&significance=W&areaid=FLZ036&office=KJAX&etn=0014

Guess that too is an "Inconvenient truth".

When Americans voted for "hope" and "change" I doubt many thought they were voting for a trip down memory lane. But in recent days it's abundantly clear the Obama administration is simply going to be an employment agency for Clinton alumni and in economic policy, seeks to turn the clock back almost 80 years.

Time magazine advocates a "New New Deal"  http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1856381_1856380,00.html?xid=newsletter-daily  for the new President.

Republicans should judiciously---but vocally--oppose the effort.

Michael Barone outlines in specifics what was wrong with the first New Deal. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/obamas_new_new_deal_no_better.html. The bottom line is that while massive government spending and regulation may have arrested the slide in the economy, they did nothing to build a foundation for long term private sector economy growth.

The bigger problem with a "new New Deal" is the concept of the New Deal made sense for a 1930's economy and society. FDR's America was comprised mostly of laborers and farmers, and had comparatively little trade with foreign nations.  Credit and demand had dried up, and abject poverty was manifest.

Trying to force a command economy on a 21st Century skilled wired workforce in the age of globalization would be like trying to play an MP3 file on a Vitrola. Americans have become accustomed to making their own breaks, and are unlikely to stand aside and wait for the slow moving hand of government to make them for them.   Even the definition of an economic nuclear winter circa 2009 doesn;t seem all that dire http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/11/16/depression_2009_what_would_it_look_like/?page=full; in fact, it sounds a lot like middle class life in the late 1970's.......home cooked meals, relatives living upstairs, and watchng lots of TV.

The new President says that right now "we should'nt worry about the deficit" http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOl_Qn1.A4Dw&refer=worldwide 

For Wicca's sake, with the huge Democrat majority in Congress this makes as much sense as making Eliot Spitzer a sorority chaperone.  Every useless, self-serving special interest project known to mankind is going to be funded in 2009 and 2010.

And the Republican Party has best not put its fingerprints on any of it.

We should let the Democratic party fire up the DeLorean and go "Back to the Future" of runway deficit spending  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future

The Republican Party must focus on creating a new , fiscally responsible future based on sustainable budgets, incentives for businesses to grow here in America, an energy policy based on delivering reliable domestic energy to consumers; not appeasing theorists, and yes, building infrastructure based on long term domestic requirements, not wasting captital on short term political agendas.

The 2012 campaign may prove to be the "Battle of the Titans"  Let Barack Obama emulate Franklin Roosevelt. Now we get to fill the void of Ronald Reagan

Breaking news from CT today. Chris Dodd deigned to answer questions from a radio reporter.

The station owners decided not to air the interview.

http://www.everydayrepublican.com/2008/11/12/dodd-watch-day-153-censorship/

Now, Tom Scott is a former hardline Republican state senator and third party gubernatorial candidate. He's made no bones about the poor regard he's held Dodd in well before the "Friends of Angelo" mortgage scandal went public. But we are talking about a host on New Haven's top AM radio station here; not some blogger under a screen name

The New Haven Independent is an "alternative" newspaper that has little use for anything to the right of ACORN, but god bless their heart, they do like the First Amendment.  And here's their take on Tom Scott's last stand  http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2008/11/exclusive_censo.php 

"Dodd Interview Censored"

WELI and Clear Channel are trying to paint this as some "creative disagreement" between Scott and his novice co-host. Sure. The suits at Clear Channel simply thought raking Dodd over the coals would be bad business for the whole chain.

Here's the interview too hot for New Haven to handle  http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/upload/2008/11/102808_edited_Dodd.mp3

I'd like to say this is the last time corporate radio squelches a controversial local host so as to make nice with the Democratic establishment, but I'm sure it won't be.

As is readily apparent, many so-called "conservative" pundits like George Will http://www.thenextright.com/ironman/george-will-empty-suit-behind-the-bow-tie. Peggy Noonan http://www.peggynoonan.com/article.php?article=438 and David Brooks http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_10830202 decided that rather than offer even tepid support to the McCain-Palin ticket, it would be way more fun to fire off a weekly columm attacking them and their campaign as incompetent.

Now John McCain and Sarah Palin are a big boy and a big girl and probably couldn;t give a rat's tukkus that some writers dissed them. And they can look to the political environment and their own campaigns to explain a 6 point loss.  Friendly fire didn't cost them that many votes.

But the elite pundits ought now to consider that while fragging Mac and Sarah for their alleged deficiencies, they inflicted a lot of collateral damage on the rest of the Republican party. Let's assume that some moderately substantial number of right-of-center voters were sufficiently moved by the media blitz of disgrunted conservative writers to stay home.

Well, George, Peggy & David, Senator Merkley sends his regards  http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/11/06/2008-11-06_oregon_race_for_us_senate_called_for_jef.html

Congressman Kratovil also says thanks http://wjz.com/local/andy.harris.frank.2.861518.html

Congressman Perriero also will probably say thanks too  http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-11-07-0207.html

and we're still waiting to see if Senator Begich http://www.aksuperstation.com/news/local/34276439.html, Senator Franken http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/10/Franken_within_204_votes_of_Coleman/UPI-19251226343255/, Senator Martin  http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/stories/2008/11/11/senate_chambliss_martin.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=13 or Congressman Brown http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1383995.html will also be sending warm regards

You see, when you decide to go shiv the top of the ticket, the entire party suffers when voters decide not to bother to vote.  And did it go unnoticed that Republican turnout was down this year.  http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/11/07/republican_turnout_declined.html

Notice how few liberals before the election---even those who were die-hard Hillary people---publicly dissed Barack Obama. That's because. hey ---they actually think winning elections sorta matters.

And it matters a whole lot for people out there in Senate and Congressional races downballot. I'm not sure what any of these people (save Ted Stevens) did to deserve this, but as I pointed out, fragmentation grenades are rather inexact weapons.

At some point a bill will pass that will be horrendously repugnant to any thoughtful Republican. It will pass by one vote---because one of these people wasn't there to stop it.

I look forward to the very erudite apology from the salon set "conservatives" then--hardly--they'll still be blaming the Republican rank and file as if we are the problem.   

Newsweek has done a post mortem labelling the McCain campaign effort among the worst in recent history, even comparing it to McGovern/Eagleton

http://www.newsweek.com/id/167561

The reasons were primarly as per Newsweek a) Palin and b) McCain's failure to be optimistic.

Now I think this is nonsense, pretty much. Had McCain chosen a bland, experienced running mate GOP turnout would have been even more dismal, probably ending another dozen house careers and 2-3 senate careers.  And running "morning in America" in the face of a single digit "right track" number would have been mocked as painfully out of touch and clueless. 

But there's a bigger problem with this thesis. McCain's effort was only mildly subpar compared to its "peer group"

Since 1960, the following candidate have tried to get a third consecutive term for their party.

1960; Nixon 49.5%

1968 Humphrey 42.7% (third party in double digits)

1976 Ford 48%

1988 Bush 41  53.4%

2000 Gore  48.4%

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

McCain ran slighly behind the number that Nixon, Ford and Gore had; all of whom were running in better economic times than this year.  He ran ahead of Humphrey, who was saddled with fallout from a far more unpopular war than Iraq, but due to the weird quirks of 1968, nearly won the popular vote and nearly forced the election into the House.  The only candidate of the bunch that stands out is Bush 41, who ran under times of peace and prosperity; had the brilliant Lee Atwater running the campaign; and faced a very weak opponent.

The proximate cause of McCain's defeat was , in my opinion, the Wall Street bailout. In specifics, once he made the call to suspend the campaign he needed--barring such immovable objects as scheduled debates--to get the issue off the burner as soon as possible.

On September 29, McCain left Washington for a rally with Palin in Columbus OH. Now he was going back to OH plenty more---what he needed to do was beg, borrow and plead with House Republicans to pass the bailout bill that afternoon so he could declare the crisis resolved and get back on the campaign trail without having this hang over him. I have no diea if haunting the Capitol building would have squeezed out enough votes--I just know the bill failed in the House, keeping the crisis at full boil for another precious campaign week.  http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/29/ (Yes, the bailout was a "crap sandwich"; but McCain had already endorsed getting one passed;  the ship had sailed as far as coming out against it)   

September 29, 2008 was the day John McCain's best chance to become President slipped away. This was one political event that should have been left to Governor Palin to handle solo.  Having gone "maverick" and back to DC,  switching gears to go back on the campaign moved to be a tragic miscalculation for McCain.

The Newsweek article does point out McCain's inability to stay on message as far as policy differences between Obama and McCain.  That observation isn;t very novel and when I sit down and catalog the myriad Mac errors, that will be among them. 

I will awake before dawn on a cool New England morning.

I will do something I am able to do not because of celebrities and media stars, but because generations of American men and women have sacrificed their lives on battlefields both nearby and at the other edge of the world.

I will do something that cannot be taken lightly, as to do so risks having the right taken away forever.

I will choose one man to serve as President. On January 20, 2009, that man will be asked to do one thing. He must promise to protect , preserve and defend the constitution of the United States of America.

There is one man who has sacrificed mightily following that oath. His opponent, on the other hand, seeks to declare many of its freedoms optional in the pursuit of political correctness and income redistribution.

I'm not happy with much of what the Republican party has done in therecent  past. But that's not relevant, really.Making what amounts to a fashion statement to placate the rest of the world's whims is not relevant to that decision, either.

What is relevant is the character, experience and agenda of the man standing before the Chief Justice on January 20.

Before dawn's light breaks over Connecticut, I will cast a vote for John McCain. I hope I am joined by 65 million of my closest friends by the end of the day.

In the cool pre-dawn hours tomorrow I will not worry about what the campaign did wrong, what the press failed to cover or what the party needs to start doing right. I will be in the moment and making a very personal statement.  I hope my statement is shared by the nation.      

A few days ago , I pointed out how Democrat Chris Murphy, who received $500,000 in campaign funds from financial firms as a member of the Financial Services Committee, and then rewarded his donors by supporting the $700 Billion Wall Street Bailout, was responding to the charge with a cloying saccharin laden ad  

http://www.thenextright.com/ironman/ct-democrat-uses-saccharin-overdose-to-counter-gop-charges

Well, although I am not privy to Murphy's polls, the saccharin failed. Tonight he is up with a new attack ad trying to link his opponent to President Bush.

http://www.murphyforcongress.org/christv/help

I suppose there must be some form of moral equivalence here for Murphy.  What's wrong in his mind is a Republican president raising money for a Republican candidate. What's not wrong is a member of the Financial Services Committee following in Chris Dodd's footsteps by shaking down the firms he regulates.

I note that Murphy makes no link to Obama in his ad, just the usual MSM liberal incumbent endorsements. And that as an incumbent with a 2/1 funding advantage in a Blue State he needs to attack his opponent. To quote L.P. Berra, "sometimes you learn a lot just watching"

I did a drive to the other end of CT 5 this afternoon and there is a lot of Cappiello visibility in the Danbury area. This race may be headed back to the radar screen. 

One of my friends is a town clerk in eastern CT and she sent me this little rhyme which has been making the rounds.  I think it explains the stakes Tuesday pretty well.

'Twas the Night Before "lection 'Twas the night before elections And all through the town Tempers were flaring Emotions all up and down! I, in my bathrobe With a cat in my lap Had cut off the TV Tired of political crap. When all of a sudden There arose such a noise I peered out of my window Saw Obama and his boys They had come for my wallet They wanted my pay To give to the others Who had not worked a day! He snatched up my money And quick as a wink Jumped back on his bandwagon As I gagged from the stink He then rallied his henchmen Who were pulling his cart I could tell they were out To tear my country apart! " On Fannie, on Freddie, On Biden and Ayers! On Acorn, On Pelosi" He screamed at the pairs! They took off for his cause And as he flew out of sight I heard him laugh at the nation Who wouldn't stand up and fight! So I leave you to think On this one final note- IF YOU DON'T WANT SOCIALISM GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!