Brandon Shaffer? Evie Hudak is the “Extraordinarily Partisan” Candidate

by Ben | 9:42 pm, October 31, 2008

Laughable quote of the day from Democrat state senator Brandon Shaffer, as reported in Politicker:

In state Senate District 19, Shaffer gave Democrat Evie Hudak the edge over Republican Libby Szabo, saying Szabo is “extraordinarily partisan.”
“Eventually, there’s enough of a base there, enough unaffiliated voters who are looking for more of a collaborative approach to getting [...]

Godzilla vs. Big Labor Cash

by randomridge | 4:06 pm, October 31, 2008

What’s missing from Protection Colorado’s Culture of Corruption Future’s ridiculous Godzilla ad is a good movie poster:

The Choice Is Clear – Quote of the Day

by Mr. Bob | 2:53 pm, October 31, 2008

From the RockyMountainAlliance’s own Night Twister.

The choice before us today is clear. We can choose to be led by a man without experience, who has been a part of the implementation of the very policies that has devastated our economy, who has never been proud of America, who pals around with domestic terrorists, who’s campaign has been involved in or turned a blind eye to corruption and hatred, and who offers only unspecified Hope and Change. If you listen closely, you’ll find out what that represents. Higher taxes, government handouts for people that don’t participate in the system, and a significant reduction of our freedoms.

Or can choose to be led by a man that loves his country. This man has fought and sacrificed for his country his entire life. He’s made friends and foes on both sides of the aisle, but has always placed the good of his country over his own. A man with his qualifications and experience could have made millions in the private sector, but such a man is not motivated by money or power, but by love of country. This man is John Sidney McCain III. His campaign slogan says it clearly; Country First.

I could not have said it better…so I swiped it. READ THE REST – A President and Vice President For Our Time

Gallup: Little evidence of surge in youth vote

by Rossputin | 2:43 pm, October 31, 2008

In an interesting report Friday afternoon, Gallup argues that the turnout of voters between the ages of 18-29 does not seem likely to be substantially higher than it was in 2004 in terms of share of the total number of votes cast.

Although some Republicans will take this information as giving them stronger hope that McCain will win, I don’t think it’s very important…and I continue to believe this election will end up being a substantial blow-out for Obama in terms of electoral votes.

What’s more important, in my view, is that the Obama campaign (in large part due to their huge money advantage) is “beating McCain on voter outreach.”

I believe this election will be won (and lost) among suburban independent voters, particularly women, and that they’ll break for Obama because he’s more charismatic, younger, and better looking.

Of course, I hope I’m wrong, but as I’ve said a few times recently, the people are about to get the government they deserve.

They deserve it for not getting educated about economics, for letting Congress enact the Bush tax cuts as temporary rather than permanent, for not screaming at Republicans for spending like drunk Democrats, and for being so easily fooled by Barack Obama, described by ABC reporter Michael Malone as a man who is “essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.”

Unfortunately, the rest of us are going to get the government that Americans who are too lazy to care or, too stupid to see through the lies, deserve. Our economy, our liberty, our Republic will survive, but with great damage.

Gallup: Little evidence of surge in youth vote

by Rossputin | 2:43 pm, October 31, 2008

In an interesting report Friday afternoon, Gallup argues that the turnout of voters between the ages of 18-29 does not seem likely to be substantially higher than it was in 2004 in terms of share of the total number of votes cast.

Although some Republicans will take this information as giving them stronger hope that McCain will win, I don’t think it’s very important…and I continue to believe this election will end up being a substantial blow-out for Obama in terms of electoral votes.

What’s more important, in my view, is that the Obama campaign (in large part due to their huge money advantage) is “beating McCain on voter outreach.”

I believe this election will be won (and lost) among suburban independent voters, particularly women, and that they’ll break for Obama because he’s more charismatic, younger, and better looking.

Of course, I hope I’m wrong, but as I’ve said a few times recently, the people are about to get the government they deserve.

They deserve it for not getting educated about economics, for letting Congress enact the Bush tax cuts as temporary rather than permanent, for not screaming at Republicans for spending like drunk Democrats, and for being so easily fooled by Barack Obama, described by ABC reporter Michael Malone as a man who is “essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.”

Unfortunately, the rest of us are going to get the government that Americans who are too lazy to care or, too stupid to see through the lies, deserve. Our economy, our liberty, our Republic will survive, but with great damage.

Kittens for Amendments 47, 49, and 54

by T.L. James | 12:23 pm, October 31, 2008

Out-of-state Big Labor-funded front organization Protect Colorado’s Future Culture of Corruption has really gone overboard with its latest mailing. Check out the scans of their “Godzilla vs. A Fire Station” ad over at Peoples Press Collective if you haven’t already received a copy of this thing yourself.
I think “Zombiehunter” hit on a great idea, though — [...]

12 Counties Already Have Amendment 49 Language

by jccaldara | 11:13 am, October 31, 2008

I’d like to piggy back off my Sheriffs post yesterday and include another newspaper that got it right.  The Pueblo Chieftain ran a piece called, “Amendment 49 wording nothing new in Colorado.” They highlighted that 12 counties already have language similar to 49, which means that over half of Colorado’s population already lives under 49.  [...]

Who’s Fighting Amendment 49 Now?

by jccaldara | 10:53 am, October 31, 2008

Yesterday we filed a complaint with the Secretary of State against the ridiculously named “Coloradans for Middle Class Relief.”  They are a registered group opposing only Amendment 47, however they have been floating print and radio ads against Amendments 49 and 54 as well (exactly how opposing these Amendments is “for middle class relief” is [...]

Breaking News: Bill Richardson lowers Obama’s definition of rich down to $120,000

by Rossputin | 10:23 am, October 31, 2008

This morning, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, and enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama, continued the downward ratchet of the level of income at which Barack Obama intends to confiscate income.

Obama started at $250,000, then said $200,000.

Joe Biden then dropped the bar to $150,000 three days ago.

And now, Bill Richardson says that “there is a tax cut for those” making $120,000 and under, implying that anyone making over $120,000 will be penalized by an Obama administration.

I realize that liberals will argue with that conclusion. But what alternative is there other than a weak argument that Obama might lower taxes below $X of income, raise taxes above $Y of income, and do nothing in between. I believe that outcome is unlikely, and if he tries it, he’ll blow a huge hole in the budget.

Since Obama is planning one of the largest expansions of government spending in history it will not be possible to cut taxes for people below $X without having to either raise taxes on people above $X or create a budget deficit which dwarfs even the worst of recent government profligacy. And, as the repeated lowering of that bar shows, the Obama campaign is realizing that their budgetary sleight of hand during the campaign is simply too large to be believed, even by gullible Americans.

Maybe anticipation of record-breaking deficits is the reason that Barney Frank has been out talking about why we should ignore the deficit for a while, but I don’t believe the American public will stand for government spending citizens’ money freely while we all have to cut back…indeed causing us to have to cut back more because the dead hand of government is that much deeper in our pockets.

Of course, the only people who would be surprised by this are people who have a “willing suspension of disbelief” about Obama’s impossible promises.

As I mentioned yesterday, you know Obama’s claims are truly outrageous when even the AP and CBS News all but call him a liar.

In case it’s not clear enough from those articles, however, I’ll say it: Obama is a liar. His claims about how much he plans to spend are directly contradicted by his own web site. And his suggestion that he can pay for his planned massive increase in the size of government by just taxing the rich is also a lie. To get even close, he’d have to define rich somewhere around where we now have the poverty line, and even that would probably not cover it.

As Obama gets closer to winning, he’s lowering the expectations bar so that it will be hard for others to call him a liar later. But if you believe that even $120,000 is where the confiscation will start, you’re fooling yourself. The only people who may do better under Obama are those currently at or below the poverty line. Unfortunately, the benefit to those will be more than offset by the increasing number of people who are moved from the middle class to poverty by his misguided “soak the rich” mentality.

Breaking News: Bill Richardson lowers Obama’s definition of rich down to $120,000

by Rossputin | 10:23 am, October 31, 2008

This morning, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, and enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama, continued the downward ratchet of the level of income at which Barack Obama intends to confiscate income.

Obama started at $250,000, then said $200,000.

Joe Biden then dropped the bar to $150,000 three days ago.

And now, Bill Richardson is telling us that anyone making over $120,000 will be penalized by an Obama administration.

Of course, the only people who would be surprised by this are people who have a “willing suspension of disbelief” about Obama’s impossible promises.

As I mentioned yesterday, you know Obama’s claims are truly outrageous when even the AP and CBS News all but call him a liar.

In case it’s not clear enough from those articles, however, I’ll say it: Obama is a liar. His claims about how much he plans to spend are directly contradicted by his own web site. And his suggestion that he can pay for his planned massive increase in the size of government by just taxing the rich is also a lie. To get even close, he’d have to define rich somewhere around where we now have the poverty line, and even that would probably not cover it.

As Obama gets closer to winning, he’s lowering the expectations bar so that it will be hard for others to call him a liar later. But if you believe that even $120,000 is where the confiscation will start, you’re fooling yourself. The only people who may do better under Obama are those currently at or below the poverty line. Unfortunately, the benefit to those will be more than offset by the increasing number of people who are moved from the middle class to poverty by his misguided “soak the rich” mentality.

Endorse McCain, You’re Off the Plane

by T.L. James | 9:33 am, October 31, 2008

Gosh, and I thought only the hated Georged W. Bush treated antagonistic press this way:
The Obama campaign has decided to heave out three newspapers from its plane for the final days of its blitz across battleground states — and all three endorsed Sen. John McCain for president!
The NY POST, WASHINGTON TIMES and DALLAS MORNING NEWS [...]

Well-Heeled Union Lobbyists Flout Law to Oppose Ethical Standards

by Ben | 8:57 am, October 31, 2008

The Rocky Mountain News reports on a complaint filed yesterday by Amendment 49 supporters:

Backers of Amendment 49, which would prohibit union dues from being deducted from public payrolls, have filed a complaint with the Colorado secretary of state alleging that an opposing group failed to disclose its intention to campaign against them.
Instead, Coloradans For Middle [...]

Godzilla Loves Amendment 54 and 49

by zombiehunter | 7:45 am, October 31, 2008

Apparently the misleading, contentless mailers with the Firefighter Union Boss, Police Officer Union Thug, and Teachers and Nurses Union BAs  just aren’t enough for Protect Colorado’s Culture of Corruption Future.  Now they’re telling us that if we don’t vote against these amendments, Denver will be destroyed by…
GODZILLA!!!!

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4
 
Right.  These guys are so [...]

Boudreaux on Obama’s “Socialism-lite”

by Rossputin | 2:49 am, October 31, 2008

I was tempted to put this in the other “Barack the Redistributor” posting, but it’s such an important article I decided to post a separate link to it.

This article is by Don Boudreaux, Chairman of the Department of Economics at George Mason University, one of the best economics departments in the nation, complete with Walter Williams, Bryan Caplan, Russ Roberts, and Nobel Laureate James Buchanan. Don is a non-partisan loather of politicians and does not write this article because he’s promoting John McCain.

One of the main objections I get from liberals when I call Obama a socialist is that his explicit desire for redistribution doesn’t fit precisely in the dictionary definition of the word which revolves more around ownership of enterprises. I have argued that redistribution is such a fundamental aspect of socialism that the liberals’ argument is a distinction without a difference.

My reading of Boudreaux’s article is that he agrees with me.

I’d also like to emphasize a paragraph in the article:

Consider the words of longtime Socialist Party of America presidential candidate Norman Thomas: “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.” In addition to Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlement programs, the gathering political momentum toward single-payer healthcare – which Obama has proclaimed is his ultimate goal – shows the prescience of Thomas’s words.

See “Is Barack Obama really a socialist?”, Don Boudreaux, Christian Science Monitor, 10/30/08
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1030/p09s01-coop.html

By the way, Don writes a letter to the editor of a newspaper almost daily and distributes them to an e-mail list. They’re short, to the point, and generally brilliant. If you’re interested in being added to the e-mail list, please let me know by e-mail at rossputin@rossputin.com or by message or comment from this page.

Boudreaux on Obama’s “Socialism-lite”

by Rossputin | 2:49 am, October 31, 2008

I was tempted to put this in the other “Barack the Redistributor” posting, but it’s such an important article I decided to post a separate link to it.

This article is by Don Boudreaux, Chairman of the Department of Economics at George Mason University, one of the best economics departments in the nation, complete with Walter Williams, Bryan Caplan, Russ Roberts, and Nobel Laureate James Buchanan. Don is a non-partisan loather of politicians and does not write this article because he’s promoting John McCain.

One of the main objections I get from liberals when I call Obama a socialist is that his explicit desire for redistribution doesn’t fit precisely in the dictionary definition of the word which revolves more around ownership of enterprises. I have argued that redistribution is such a fundamental aspect of socialism that the liberals’ argument is a distinction without a difference.

My reading of Boudreaux’s article is that he agrees with me.

I’d also like to emphasize a paragraph in the article:

Consider the words of longtime Socialist Party of America presidential candidate Norman Thomas: “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.” In addition to Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlement programs, the gathering political momentum toward single-payer healthcare – which Obama has proclaimed is his ultimate goal – shows the prescience of Thomas’s words.

See “Is Barack Obama really a socialist?”, Don Boudreaux, Christian Science Monitor, 10/30/08
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1030/p09s01-coop.html

By the way, Don writes a letter to the editor of a newspaper almost daily and distributes them to an e-mail list. They’re short, to the point, and generally brilliant. If you’re interested in being added to the e-mail list, please let me know by e-mail at rossputin@rossputin.com or by message or comment from this page.

“Barack the Redistributor”

by Rossputin | 1:41 am, October 31, 2008

On the increasingly prominent subject of Barack Obama’s overt support for income redistribution (i.e. socialism), allow me to suggest the following three columns:

First, an excellent short piece by Pittsburgh Tribune-Review columnist Salena Zito:

see “‘Barack the Redistributor‘”, Salena Zito, 10/27/08
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/blogs/fortyfourthestate/show_comments.php?entry_id=3442

Second, from the Wall Street Journal, a broader take on the risk that an Obama presidency poses to our nation’s judicial system and to the fundamental character of our Republic:

see “Obama’s ‘Redistribution’ Constitution“, by Steven Calabresi, 10/28/08
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html?

Last, but not least, this editorial from Investors Business Daily:
see “The Real Obama“, IBD Editorial, 10/27/08
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=309999370915090

Gordon Gekko and Barack Obama

by BlueCarp | 7:20 pm, October 30, 2008

Gordon Gekko, Oliver Stone’s evil corporate raider in the 1987 movie Wall Street, said “Greed is good.”

Stone, with his usual subtleness, let us know that, in fact, greed is not good. And Stone is correct.

Greed is bad.

However, somehow the condemnation of greed has morphed into a hatred of profit.

It is as if the upcoming New Great Society promulgated by our next president is an all out attack on profit.

The “windfall” profit made by greedy oil companies must be taxed so that the wealth can be “spread around a little.”

The existence of profit does not equate with the existence of greed. Greed is evil.

But profits keep children fed. Profits pay wages. Profits buy medicine. Profits create jobs.

The government, contrary to the overwhelming belief of our next president and his army of well-intentioned supporters, does not do any of these things.

Government, by itself, does not feed children. It does not pay wages. It does not buy medicine. It does not create jobs.

People confuse the government confiscation of someone else’s profit with government money. The government does not earn its money. The government confiscates money earned by people and uses it to political ends. In some instances, like funding police and national defense, this confiscation is necessary. In most, it is not.

It is easy for the government to dole out largesse when it is doling out money it did not earn.

A faith in the inherent benevolence in the government is as misplaced as Gordon Gekko’s belief in greed.

No, greed is not good. But neither is government largesse.

Any belief otherwise is misplaced.

And we are looking straight ahead at four years of government benevolence. When Obama’s term is up, we will not be nearly as worried about “windfall” profits. There will not be any.

And we will learn, yet again, what happens when there is no profit for the government to confiscate.

Quote of the Day – Hewitt

by Mr. Bob | 12:20 pm, October 30, 2008

This is an astonishing moment in the history of journalism. In the last presidential campaign, an arm of MSM attempted to influence the race by inventing a major story. This time, a different arm is influencing the race by censoring the news.” Hugh Hewitt speaking of the LA Times suppression of news about Obama

Some are saying that 2008 will be known forever as the year the media died.

Believe “Nonsense” Against Colorado Amendment 49? “Don’t Be Stupid”

by Ben | 11:30 am, October 30, 2008

The Rocky Mountain News today provides the most systematic deconstruction of the grossly misleading, multi-million dollar Protect Colorado’s Future campaign against 49:

There’s no obligation for political campaigns to be fair, let alone balanced, but there are times when messages go beyond the pale.
Case in point: the advertising, largely bankrolled by labor unions, to defeat Amendment [...]

Republicans For Obama – Whatever

by Mr. Bob | 11:25 am, October 30, 2008

Must see to appreciate.

Sheriffs Debunk Bogus Claims Against Amendment 49

by jccaldara | 11:15 am, October 30, 2008

You’ve heard it before.  “Amendment 49 will deprive firefighers and police officers from obtaining adequate equipment.”  “Amendment 49 will silence workers’ voices.”  blah blah blah, etc etc.  These sorts of lies and distortions deserved a response, so we found some folks with the authority to debunk those claims as absolute nonsense.
Sheriff John Cooke of Weld [...]

Front Range County Sheriffs Refute Campaign Lies against Amendment 49

by Ben | 8:56 am, October 30, 2008

Readers of this blog are now well familiar with the orchestrated deception by a group called Protect Colorado’s Future (PCF) against Amendment 49, the Ethical Standards initiative. In addition to numerous Colorado newspaper editorial boards, respected public figures like former U.S. Senator Hank Brown and former state treasurer Mark Hillman have refuted the lies.
Many of [...]

The Obama Muzzle

by Rossputin | 1:59 am, October 30, 2008

The LA Times’ refusal to release a video tape they have which apparently includes Barack Obama heaping admiration and friendship upon Rashid Khalidi is just the latest in a frightening trend of the dominant liberal media becoming the propaganda wing of the Obama campaign, and the not-playing-along-with-Obama media being targets for censorship and attack. (The original LA Times story about the event is HERE.)

Khalidi, a vehement anti-Semite who worked with the terrorist Palestine Liberation Organization under Yasser Arafat, remains a leading hater of Israel while in his teaching position at my repugnant alma mater, Columbia University.

Then there’s Joe Biden who was asked some hard questions by a TV interviewer in Florida on Friday, 10/24:

Liberals are going crazy about the hard questions. Remember, you’re not allowed to ask hard questions of the Democrats…only the Republicans.

And the Obama campaign’s response? To cancel all interviews with that TV station.

But what do you expect from a campaign whose MO is to try to shut down any and all voices which don’t support their messiah?

They tried to shut down two Chicago radio interviews by overloading the station with phone calls. (First time and second time.)

That’s a symptom of their disease, a desperate cult-like fear of criticism. And their proposed cure is likely to be the “Fairness Doctrine“, simply an attempt to force conservative talk radio shows off the air.

A House vote on the Fairness Doctrine failed widely last year, but only because Democrats knew that they would not have enough votes to override a Bush veto. Their language, however, was clear: They want it back and expect to bring it back if a Democrat becomes president.

The arguments for the Fairness Doctrine are weaker than ever, with so many more media outlets than a generation ago. We now have the internet, cable TV, satellite radio, etc., the combination of which has massively multiplied information sources. If people want to listen to Rush Limbaugh, they can do so. If not, there are hundreds of other stations they can change to. There is a liberal radio network, Air America. It’s not the fault of lack of airttime that it is a perennial failure. Apparently if people want news spun by leftists, they go to MSNBC or CNN or NBC News instead. The point is that they can do so, so there is no need for regulation muzzling talk radio simply because the conservatives are relatively dominant there. It simply comes down to the Democrats wanting to suppress anyone who disagrees with them.

Monica Crowley hit the nail on the head in a recent article for Human Events called “Watch What You Say“:

Whenever confronted by difficult questions posed by people who haven’t succumbed to the creepy Obama Hypnosis, the Obama Team’s reaction is to silence them. They did it to a Chicago radio station that dared to interview someone critical of Obama’s past. They did it to Joe the Plumber, seeking to destroy him for daring to ask Obama a question about taxes. They are threatening to do it nationwide with the Fairness Doctrine.

You aren’t allowed to raise Obama’s middle name, Hussein. You aren’t allowed to say that half of his family is Muslim. You aren’t allowed to say that he was born to a Muslim father, which, under Islam, automatically made him a Muslim. You aren’t allowed to discuss Reverend Wright. Or Bill Ayers. Or Bernardine Dohrn. Or Louis Farrakhan. Or Father Phleger. Or Tony Rezko. You aren’t allowed to point out that so far, the Iranians, the Russians, the Syrians, Hamas, parts of al Qaeda, Hugo Chavez, the Castro brothers, and Kim Jong Il have endorsed him. You aren’t allowed to ask him about the vote fraud or illegal campaign contributions being done in his name. You aren’t allowed to say he’s lying about his tax plan. Or about his past associations. Or his past, period.

If you raise any of these issues, you risk being punished, smeared, and silenced.

If this is the chill that has set in already, just imagine what it will be like once they take the White House.

Watch what you say. Or else.

Liberals will learn the wrong lesson from the election

by Rossputin | 12:57 am, October 30, 2008

[This is an elaboration of a comment I made to David Sirota’s article of 10/24…]

Politicians and political activists of all stripes have a tendency toward a particular error: Believing that their side winning an election means the voters have given them a mandate and have made clear that they support all the ideas espoused by the winning candidates.

My view is that more often than not, these people learn the wrong lesson, and that the results of elections are as often votes against candidates or parties that the voters are sick of but not necessarily demonstrations of enthusiasm for the winners.

The GOP learned the wrong lesson in 2002 and 2004, with the GOP picking up 8 seats in the House and 2 seats in the Senate in 2002, and 3 seats in the House and 4 in the Senate in 2004.

In my view, those elections represented primarily two things: Not wanting to “change horses midstream” during a time of war (especially the 2002 election) and good and improving economic conditions in 2004.

The elections did NOT represent public acceptance of the profligate spending of the GOP with President Bush refusing to rein them in, nor did they represent public acceptance of the social agenda of the GOP which had spent far too much time on the issue of gay marriage in 2004.

But the Republicans learned the wrong lesson: They learned (erroneously) that the public supported everything they’d been doing and saying rather than that the public supported a small fraction of those things but was generally happy with the economic situation despite, not because of, actions taken by government. (The only thing the government had done right, economically speaking, for four years was the Bush tax cuts.)

I am convinced that the next two or four years will bring the same errors on the part of Democrats, with them believing that an Obama win and strong gains in Congress will show public demand for “spreading the wealth around”, unilaterally renegotiating free trade agreements, and believing that the world’s dictators are just one meeting away from seeing it our way.

David Sirota’s article is a perfect example of self-deception and the same naïve hope shown by those Republicans who hoped for a “permanent majority” just a few years ago.

First, Sirota claims that recent years have creating “regressive redistribution” despite the unchallenged fact that the income tax system is the most “progressive” it has ever been, with the highest percentage of Americans in modern history paying zero income tax.

He follows that with the remarkable statement that “Barack Obama is a lot of things, but he’s hardly a socialist.” Wrong. Obama’s own words show him to embrace the key aspects of socialism. From his endorsement by the socialist New Party in Chicago to this interview from 2001 that’s making the rounds now, right up to his “Joe the Plumber” moment, Obama has been remarkably consistent: He believes in massive income redistribution. That is the essence of socialism.

Democratic politicians and activists like Sirota will believe that the election means voters support Obama, Barney Frank, and Harry Reid’s fundamentally anti-American economic views. They will work to enact legislation that would make the socialist governments of 1970’s Europe proud, and they will get that legislation passed because of their large majorities in Congress.

The American people will be reminded, as they apparently must be each generation, that socialism doesn’t work. Liberals will believe they’re punishing the rich, but at the end of the day, short of outright confiscation of existing assets, the rich will still be rich. It is the poor who will get destroyed. When the unemployment rate spiked in 1975, 1982-83, and (to a lesser degree) in 1992, do you really think it was rich people who got hurt?

There is a lot of academic discussion about whether raising taxes has an effect on employment. The data in America appears to show a short-term increase in unemployment from higher taxes, though it also appears that other factors can overwhelm that and cause stable unemployment as the market “gets used to” higher tax rates. However, this exhaustive study of the OECD published in 2002 shows that not only do higher tax rates cause unemployment, but it can work the other way as well with higher unemployment causing higher tax rates. Beyond that, I believe it stands to reason for all except blinded “progressives” that punishing economic success must lead to fewer employment opportunities as entrepreneurs become less likely to take the risks involved in starting businesses.

Sirota says that voters will be voting against “deregulatory, free-market fundamentalism of business tax cuts, corporate welfare and everyone-for-themselves health care policies” that Republicans ostensibly support. People are being told that what’s happening around them is happening in a free and deregulated market whereas the housing crisis in particular was anything but free and deregulated. The part of the market that has been basically free and deregulated has help up relatively well, such as with the credit default swaps for Lehman being settled out in an orderly manner, despite it being over $400 billion in total settlements.

And the Republicans are not smart enough to tell people that they’re being lied to about free markets, choosing instead as John McCain and Sarah Palin have done to pander about “greed and corruption on Wall Street” which was one of the least important parts of the current crisis, with the possible exception of the behavior of the credit ratings agencies…which is not what McCain and Palin are talking about.

Sirota believes that a big win for Obama following McCain’s “demonizing of socialism” will mean that the American people support Obama’s socialism. Again, it won’t mean that. It will mean that people are angry with the current situation and blaming it on Republicans, partly for good reasons and partly because Americans don’t understand economics and the liberal media has no interest in helping them understand. He believes that the election will mean a “crystal clear rejection of Reaganism”, which is also wrong except to the extent that the public believes that the last 8 years have had anything to do with “Reaganism”. (Hint: They haven’t.)

David Sirota is the perfect example of learning the wrong lesson, as he shows in his closing sentence: “it is intellectually dishonest to argue that a national Democratic victory would be anything other than a wholesale rejection of conservative economic doctrine and an embrace of an aggressively progressive economic agenda.”

One example of Sirota’s error is a question in a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll from last week in which respondents were asked whether cutting taxes or increasing government spending is more likely to help get the country out of recession. 59% said cut taxes and only 20% said increase spending. Even among Democrats, cut taxes beat increase spending by 45% to 30%. The next two years will prove this question accurate as increased government spending will be implemented at great peril to our economy and our nation’s finances.

Sirota’s thinking is exactly why I believe 2010 and 2012 could bring very large Republican victories in elections around the country, but only if the GOP gets back to standing up for conservative economic principles rather than acting just like Democrats while calling themselves “compassionate conservatives” or other such junk. They must be proud of standing up for lower taxes, lower government spending, and liberty as an end in itself. And if they’re not, then they’re useless anyway…nobody should support a political party as if it’s “our team” rather than a group of power-hungry politicians and bureaucrats who want to take our money to support their goals and their own quests for even more power.

Fundamental “Reaganesque” principles are ingrained in the American spirit, not because Reagan created them but because he reflected the truly American views of our founders. These views are just not among people like Sirota, Obama, Frank, Pelosi, etc. The “progressives” (i.e. socialists) will be taught a severe lesson, but not before the American working class is taught a truly brutal lesson about the danger of believing in the progressive free lunch.

Sarkozy opposes Obama’s position on Iran?

by Rossputin | 12:06 am, October 30, 2008

The American left believes everything would be OK if only we did things to make other nations, particularly in Western Europe, just like us more. They write breathless articles about an Obama presidency bringing us closer to Europe.

But Europe has been moving away from the direction of socialism and appeasement that Obama represents.

Now, a report from an Israeli newspaper shows that Obama won’t blind Europeans to his faults simply because he represents “change”.

see “Sources: Sarkozy views Obama stance on Iran as ‘utterly immature’“, Ha’aretz, 10/28/08
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031943.html

Do You Think Maybe Political Yard Sign Theft Has Gotten Out of Hand?

by Ben | 10:07 pm, October 29, 2008

(Face The State)
Do you think maybe the sign stealing has gotten a bit out of hand? This kind of repeated vandalous behavior has all the trademarks of *union goon activity. Hey, union goons, don’t pretend like you don’t know what I’m talking about.
Less than a week. Take a deep breath. It will all be [...]

Military Guest Commentary: Why I Will Vote Republican

by elpresidente | 5:25 pm, October 29, 2008

* * * This insightful essay comes from a U.S. officer serving in Iraq. I quite enjoyed it, and hope you all will as well. Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A. * * *
By CPT. Hunter Hawke
The upcoming election is extremely important to everyone, but perhaps especially to members of the military. Thus, as a member of [...]

Ohio Public Servant Investigates Joe the Plumber for Obama

by Mr. Bob | 12:43 pm, October 29, 2008

Looks friendly doesn’t she….don’t count on it.

Meet Helen Jones-Kelly, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services and a personal donor to the Obama campaign of $2500. (Wow, they must pay those “public” servants a lot over there in Ohio.

It was revealed earlier this week that she sanctioned a government-backed investigation to probe into the private records of Joe Wurzelbacher (JOE The PLUMBER) immediately following the October 15th presidential debate.

This marks the fourth state computer check on Mr. Wurzelbacher since he became a major talking point in the presidential race. State and local investigators are now looking to see if these government probes—especially that of Mrs. Jones-Kelley—are illegal.

The politically motivated invasion into the personal life of ANY Ohioan who had the audacity to ask a politician a question is illegal and talk about BIG BROTHERish!!
For Ohioans, Mrs. Jones-Kelley is the very face of Big Brother.

Perhaps there is some other “Joe the Electrician,” or “Joe the cook,” or “Joe the Waiter” in Ohio who might subsequently have asked Obama a tough question, but refrained out of fear of being investigated. Knowing the stakes—and knowing you might be subsequently burned at one—wouldn’t you abstain from questioning Barack Obama if there happened to be some kind of blemish on your record? Or, if you simply didn’t like the idea of Ohio’s enforcers slithering over in your direction. LINK

Will the Republicans learn anything from the massive defeat looming ahead?

by BlueCarp | 9:44 am, October 29, 2008

From the Associated Press:

Barack Obama, gunning for a national landslide, now leads in four states won by President Bush in 2004 and is essentially tied with John McCain in two other Republican red states, according to new AP-GfK battleground polling.

The results help explain why the Democrat is pressing his money and manpower advantages in a slew of traditionally GOP states, hoping not just for a win but a transcendent victory that remakes the nation’s political map. McCain is scrambling to defend states where he wouldn’t even be campaigning if the race were closer.

This is what happens when the Republicans nominate a liberal.

They get their collective ass kicked. The Democrats are the liberal party. By nominating a liberal, the Republicans have made themselves irrelevant.

The only small government party in this country is the Libertarian Party.

If small government Republicans can not retake their party, the Republicans are going to join the Whigs in the historical dustbin.

An Obama presidency, combined with Democratic control of congress, is going to result in a tremendous economic setback for this country.

And it’s largely the Republicans’ fault for letting it happen. They failed to provide any real alternative. The only defense of McCain from even hardcore Republicans is that he’s’ “not as bad as Obama.” That is insufficient.

The Libertarian Party is in a position to make massive gains in the aftermath of the impending economic debacle ahead.

The question is whether or not small government Republicans try to rebuild the rotting infrastructure within their crumbling party, or join the party that actually supports their limited government philosophy.

It is the same choice faced by those on a sinking ship with plenty of lifeboats. Go down with it, or jump the hell off a ship that no longer serves its intended purpose.

Frazzled – can’t wait till the election is over!

by Mr. Bob | 9:36 am, October 29, 2008

My wife is a volunteer coordinator at a McCain Victory office…what that means is she is gone from 8am to 10pm 7 days a week. For the last two weeks, I am Mr Dad, Mr Mom, Mr Navy Reservist, Mr IT manager, Mr Musician (I have to play drums this weekend at church) and Mr Blogger and I am running out of steam, my house is a mess, my children are feeling neglected and I can’t get enough sleep….aaaaaaagh.

Follow PPC

Search