Congratulations to Libertarian Candidate Bob Barr. In both Indiana and North Carolina, Barr received more votes than Obama won those states by. In other words, if you believe that Libertarian votes would have gone Republican (something I think is much less true than it might have been 4 or 8 years ago), John McCain might have won one or both of those states had Bob Barr not been on the ballot. Given that I had bet someone a beer that Obama would get over 340 electoral votes, I really needed one of those states to go Blue. After all, what could have been worse than to get a president Obama AND to lose a beer? I realize the Libertarian Party is far from perfect and will probably not win an election to Congress during my lifetime, much less the presidency. And I disagree with them on a few issues, including open borders (I’m not for them) and isolation (I’d like to get the troops out of Iraq, but not immediately without regard to consequences on the ground.) But they do bring a message of liberty that I appreciate and I hope more Americans learn about over time. I realize that most liberals live in an echo chamber that doesn’t allow them to believe a non-liberal could ever lose a race outside the deep south, but I believe the country is essentially libertarian, at least apart from San Francisco, Manhattan, Boulder and similar places on the left, and Colorado Springs and a few places on the right. What I hope, and the reason I voted Libertarian (again) even though I’m a registered Republican is that the GOP might eventually figure out that they need to get back to being the party of James Madison, i.e. essentially libertarian, in order to win elections. The GOP lost control of the Senate in 2006 because of the presence of Libertarian candidates in Missouri and Montana. Tuesday, they lost two historically red states in part because of the presence of a Libertarian candidate and came within 1/10th of 1% of having the same thing happen in Missouri. It’s time for the GOP to get its act together and to thank Bob Barr for the lesson, just as I thank Bob Barr for my upcoming cold Guinness.
Is it a realization that we now have a socialist government, or just profit-taking from the recent bear-market rally? Only The Shadow knows...
Wow, am I glad that's over. It went about as I predicted in terms of a very substantial Obama victory, with his winning most "swing states". Let's just say the the next two years or four will give those of us who believe that America represents the ideals of the Founders rather than the ideals of Barack Obama and his far-left associates and supporters plenty of fodder to write and speak about. That is if the Democrats don't successfully muzzle all dissent. I have often said in trading that people tend not to learn from mistakes if the mistakes aren't expensive enough. That's just what's happening here. America has just made what I expect is the worst political decision of my lifetime...probably worse than Jimmy Carter in the sense that Carter ran as something different than he was but Obama is running as a socialist with very little respect or love for his country. It will be a very expensive mistake and, I expect, much more expensive for the lower and lower-middle class Americans whom Obama marketed to during this election. All that said, there is no doubt that the GOP is getting what it deserves for spitting on the legacy of Reagan by their pork-barrel spending, corruption, pandering, and generally being so obviously in pursuit of power rather than principle. I'm not sad to see the GOP get bludgeoned, with a few exceptions such as Bob Schaffer here in Colorado and John Sununu in New Hampshire. I hope those guys get back in the game when the board isn't tilted so heavily against them. It will be interesting to see whether liberal Republicans (such as the Senators from Maine) stick with the GOP or vote with Dems when it comes to filibuster issues. It will also be interesting to see if there comes a situation where there would be 60 votes to end a filibuster whether Joe Lieberman votes with the Republicans to uphold a filibuster. One of the worst things about this outcome is that it means we'll never get real investigation into the massive voter fraud that we know about by ACORN and the likely fraud in Obama's millions of undisclosed "small donors". I'm sad and somewhat frightened for our nation, but we shall survive. Over the next couple of years, the GOP needs to return to truly standing for liberty and limited government, to remake the party of Madison and Reagan. If they just become "not Democrats", that won't be enough to win unless the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans have been for most of the past 8 years. And now that I mention it, I certainly wouldn't put it past them to be that bad.
Thanks very much to everyone who participated in my unscientific Election Survey. Here are the results, with a total of 71 people having answered at least some of the survey questions. Question 1: Who will win the presidential election? 65%, or 46 respondents, said Barack Obama 35%, or 25 respondents, said John McCain Question 2: Part 1: How many electoral votes will Obama win? 61 respondents gave an average of 296, with high guess of 400 and low guess of 180. Part 2: How many states will Obama win? 59 respondents gave average of just under 28, with high of 45 and low of 15 Part 3: What percentage of the popular vote will he receive? 63 respondents gave average of 52.29%, high 80% (!), low 30%. (Leaving out the 80 response, the average is 51.84%) Question 3: Which candidate will win Colorado? 29%, or 20 respondents, said John McCain 71%, or 49 respondents, said Barack Obama Question 4: How many seats will the Democrats gain in… Part 1: The House of Representatives? Survey average response: 26 Part 2: The Senate? Survey average response 8.8 Question 5: What percentage of the national popular vote will be won by… Part 1: Bob Barr (Libertarian): Survey average: 1.66% Part 2: Ralph Nader (Unaffiliated): Survey average 1.06% Part 3: Cynthia McKinney (Green): Survey average 0.38% Question 6: Who will win Colorado’s Senate race? 21% said Bob Schaffer, 79% said Mark Udall Question 7: What percentage of the vote will Udall receive? Average response: 54% Question 8: Who will win Colorado’s 4th Congressional District race? A tie in the survey, with 50% each for Marilyn Musgrave and Betsey Markey Question 9: Which of these Amendments to the Colorado Constitution will pass? 46 (Colorado Civil Rights Initiative) survey: 56% pass, 44% fail 47 (Right to Work) survey tie: 50% pass, 50% fail 48 (Personhood) survey: 12.5% pass, 87.5% fail 49 (Gov't paycheck deductions) 44% pass, 56% fail 58 (Raising oil and gas severance taxes) 60% pass, 40% fail 59 (Eliminating TABOR refunds; funneling money to education) 64% pass, 36% fail And finally, Question 10: Will any Libertarian win a race in Colorado this year? 10% said yes, 90% said no. If you’re interested, here were my responses: 1. Who will win the presidential election? Barack Obama 2. How many electoral votes (out of 580) will Obama win? - 333 How many states will he win? - 25 What percentage of the popular vote will he receive? – 53 3. Which presidential candidate will win Colorado? Barack Obama 4. How many seats will the Democrats gain in the... House of Representatives (currently 235)? - 29 Senate (currently 51 including Sanders and Lieberman)? – 8 5. What percentage of the national popular vote will be received by Bob Barr (Libertarian) - 2 Ralph Nader (Unaffiliated) - 0 Cynthia McKinney (Green) – 0 6. Who will win Colorado's Senate race? Mark Udall (I hope I’m wrong.) 7. What percentage of the vote will Mark Udall receive? Udall's % - 55 8. Who will win Colorado's 4th Congressional District race? Marilyn Musgrave 9. Which of these Amendments to the Colorado Constitution will pass? 46 (Colorado Civil Rights Initiative) Pass 47 (Right to Work) Fail 48 (Personhood) Fail 49 (Gov't paycheck deductions) Fail 58 (Raising oil and gas severance taxes) Fail 59 (Eliminating TABOR refunds; funneling money to education) Pass 10. Will any Libertarian win a race in Colorado this year? Yes
Thanks to an anonymous friend for this excellent summary. The Economic Change We Need? Higher government spending fueled by higher taxes is not the change we need. A tax policy that chokes the engine of job creation is not the change we need. An inefficient Government-mandated health care system that limits choice and places a crushing financial burden on small business is not the change we need. Increased capital gains taxes that stifle new investment and risk-taking and encourage removal of capital from the system is not the change we need. Removing capital from the corporate sector and using it instead as just a few more drops in the bucket to fund dubious social programs is not the change we need. Spreading the wealth of people who've earned it to those who government decides could use it is not the change we need. Redistributing wealth to pursue civil rights grievances is not the change we need. Ignoring the role of government social engineering in the housing-bust precipitated economic crisis is not the change we need. Giving driver's licenses and wholesale granting of government benefits to illegal aliens is not the change we need. [Editor's note: For another article on the subject "Economic Illiteracy Is Not the Change We Need", click HERE.] The Change in Integrity and Ethics, and Values That We Need? Ending secret ballots in union elections is not the change we need. Removing any and all restrictions on abortions under any circumstances, through the Freedom of Choice Act is not the change we need. Establishing government controls over political programming content in radio is not the change we need. Saying you don't support gay marriage while speaking out against a California ballot proposition that would prohibit gay marriage is not the change we need. Lying about your relationship with unrepentant terrorists is not the kind of change we need. Lying about your campaign's ties to ACORN is not the kind of change we need. Lying about your relationship with America's favorite wrong reverend—Reverend Jeremiah Wright—is not the change we need. Running as a centrist while holding the most liberal voting record in the Senate is not the change we need. Saying one thing to big-dollar donors in San Francisco and another to the "bitter" folks in Scranton is not the change we need. A campaign theme "the failed policies of the Bush administration" that uses anger over the past to energize its base is not the change we need. Being informed by a "world view" that's garnered the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, the PLO, Hugo Chavez, and the frothing-at-the-mouth Hollywood left is not the change we need. A first lady who's only reason to take pride in America is her husband's candidacy is not the kind of change we need. A president whose candidacy was so supported by the dominant media that they can likely not be honest critics of his presidency is not the change we need. An executive and legislative branch controlled by the same party is not the change we need. The Change in Energy Policy That We Need? Policies that discourage domestic exploration, drilling, and refining are not the change we need. Ignoring our own energy resources while we spend billions on pie-in-the sky alternative technologies, that might pay off in decades hence, is not the change we need. A "cap and trade" system to tax carbon fuel usage is not the kind of change we need. Enacting policies that would take nuclear power off the table as a source of clean energy is not the change we need. Rendering clean coal technology economically unfeasible is not the change we need. The Change in Foreign Policy That We Need? Lending credibility to the likes of Hugo Chavez and Ahmed Ahmadinijad through entering into direct negotiations is not the kind of change we need. A leader who, through a surrogate tells the Canadian Trade minister that his protectionist trade rhetoric is just campaign rhetoric is not the kind of change we need. Prematurely withdrawing from Iraq and squandering the gains we have made at great sacrifice is not the change we need. Worrying about who likes us while enacting policies that make us easy prey to those who hate us is not the change we need. Enacting protectionist trade policies pandering to unions will stifle our exports. It's not the change we need. A leader with no military experience is not the kind of change we need. A leader who is so arrogant that he refuses to acknowledge the success of the Iraq surge is not the change we need. An inexperienced, untested leader, who, in the words of his Vice-presidential candidate will invite a "generated" foreign policy crisis is not the change we need. Obama. Not The Change We Need. -A Soldier in the War of Ideas. November 3, 2008.
An interview of Barack Obama in January was just unearthed in which Obama expresses his desire to bankrupt the coal industry. This is a massive threat not just to the cost of energy in America but also to the economies of several states, including Colorado. For more on this very important issue which I believe should be in the front of people's minds as they decide whom to vote for tomorrow, please see my article at RedState.com: http://www.redstate.com/diaries/ross_kaminsky/2008/nov/03/looking-at-obamas-plan-to-bankrupt-the-coal/
Thanks to John S., a 20+ year veteran of our immigration law enforcement services, for this note. How typical of a Democrat to say on the campaign trail that he "is his brother's keeper"and "his sister's keeper". But apparently not his aunt's...nor his half-brother in Kenya, both of whom live in poverty despite Obama's admission that me "makes a lot more than $250,000 a year." As usual, Democrats are very free with your money but very tight with their own. In the grandest traditions of corrupt politicians, the Obama campaign, and most likely, the candidate himself, are outraged that his Aunt was "outed" by the Associate Press. So much so, that they are heeding the old adage: "If you don't like the message, shoot the messenger". Forget about the fact that the message is true. Forget about the fact that it calls into question whether or not Senator Obama may have used his office and/or his position either as an Illinois legislator or his position as a United States Senator to interceed on his aunt's behalf. Rather, it's now a major federal investigation to determine who it was that dared to breathe a word of this "family matter" to the press. Here is the link to the story: http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20081102/Obama.Aunt/ Hint: Illegal aliens do not enjoy Privacy Act protection. This is a well established fact. Yet, John Conyers is demanding an investigation to determine who "leaked" the information, ostensibly so the government and/or the Obama campaign can destroy this miscreant. Why, you ask? Because someone dared to speak THE TRUTH. Outed in what way you ask? Well it appears that Obama's Aunt (his father's half sister) Zeituni Onyango, apparently entered the US as a non immigrant visitor for pleasure (aka TOURIST), overstayed her authorized period of stay, filed for, get this, political asylum from Kenya, was denied by the immigration judge and ordered to leave the country. Rather than leave, she ensconced herself in public housing and has been receiving other public assistance. Guess that is the meaning of "Spread the Wealth" that Senator Obama was talking about when he spoke with the now infamous "Joe the Plumber". Here are the potential questions that can be raised as a result of this information going "public": A. Did Obama help his Auntie get her tourist visa? Did he "vouch" for her thereby ensuring that her visa would be issued rather than denied by the American Consulate in Nairobi? B. Did he assist her in her application for asylum in the United States (Form I-589). Did he arrange to have someone else help her, or assist her, or represent her (as in attorney). C. Once the application for asylum in the United States was denied by USCIS Asylum and referred to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), did he further involve himself in this matter. If so, if he did so officially, then it is a conflict of interest. D. Did Obama involve himself in her removal hearing? Did he offer testimony, either in writing or in person? Did he try to exert influence so as to skew the outcome of the hearing? E. Once his aunt was ordered removed from the United States, did Senator Barack Hussein Obama II encourage his aunt to remain in the US knowing that she was illegally present and in flagrant disregard of that fact, assist her, help her, shield her from detection, and/or encouraged her to remain in the US illegally? THIS question is really important because if the answer is "Yes" and it can be proven, then Barack Hussein Obama II committed a federal felony. I refer you to 8 USC 1324. Oh yeah, and Auntie? She committed a federal felony as well by failing to depart. 8 USC 1253. One last question. Given the fact that "Auntie" has donated money to Obama's campaign, does anyone dare ask the question: "Is his Aunt, who is an illegal alien in this country, registered to vote?" For if she is, she then committed yet another federal felony, False Claim to US Citizenship, see 18 USC 911. It's also a deportable act for which there is no, repeat "no" relief available. Care to ask if ICE will investigate, or sweep it under the rug? Perhaps a letter to Senator Ted Kennedy or Senator John Kerry asking these very probing questions is in order. Also a letter to Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA is in order given the fact that "Auntie Z" is in public housing. Hmmm. . . . it gets better every minute. Add to this the question of whether or not Barack Hussein Obama II was actually born in the US or not, and you have the recipe for a Presidential Election revolving around the issue of immigration in a way no one ever thought possible. And the beat goes on. John
It seems that many in the media went crazy in Flordia when slightly difficult voting mechanisms might have caused some people's votes not to count. But when outright fraud is involved, the dominant liberal media is silent...including the liberal member of this blog who most frequently writes about voting issues. So let me just offer you one article, by the Wall Street Journal's John Fund, laying out some of what's really going on. see "Falsified registrations become votes", John Fund, Politico.com, 11/2/08 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15189.html Many of you may remember when liberals were squawking (for months, if not years) that George W. Bush stole the 2000 election even though all the recounts showed that he won Florida and it's likely that if there was voter fraud, it helped the Democrat, as always. But if Barack Obama wins Ohio narrowly, you will see some accusations of stealing an election which will have real merit. It's possible that Barack Obama can win Ohio without surrogates cheating for him, and he should be doing everything possible to do so. Instead, he's basically silent on the criminal organization ACORN as is the traditional liberal media. They care so much about getting The Messiah elected that they don't care whether they have to cheat, lie, or destroy our Republic to do it.
It's about time that the traditional liberal media recognizes that Democrats are not their friends. No, the Obama campaign is simply using a compliant media as another tool in their propaganda machine. It's probably too late to save us from electing the most liberal, least experienced president in our history, but at least it seems that the media is starting to push back. Here's my Sunday article for Human Events on the subject: Obama Campaign Turns on Media