Believe it or not I still have interviews from CPAC to post. One of them is a brief interview with Tea Party Favorite Chris Cassone
You can find his book on amazon here
Believe it or not I still have interviews from CPAC to post. One of them is a brief interview with Tea Party Favorite Chris Cassone
You can find his book on amazon here
John Sexton at Verum Serum has the story:
Therefore, Anonymous has decided to openly declare war on the United States government. This is a call to arms. We call upon the Citizens of the United States to stand beside us in overthrowing this corrupted body and call upon a new era. Our allegiance is to the American people, because they are us, and we are them.
John isn’t surprised but figures these guys are clueless
I really find it hard to believe Anonymous could be this dumb. Really. Do they really think the internet and whatever proxy servers and anonymizers they have at hand can shield them from the NSA? Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think so. I think that once you cross this line you’ve really made yourself an issue for the full attention of people who can probably eat your lunch without breaking a cyber-sweat. Not smart. But I’ll give you this: I respect your honesty.
It is actually stupid on a 2nd level, once you call for the violent overthrow of the government and violence then you give a reason for all those draconian measures you oppose, right Mr. Lincoln?
What do I think? Assuming this is real, it clarifies things. This is not a game of “Call of Duty”, these people are calling for armed rebellion against the elected US government. No matter how “principled” their positions or beliefs might be I think this is a bad idea as Winston Wood Bolt and his comrades would tell them if they were still around.
And if real I think the US Government, Military and Secret Service, should take these people at their word and like Mr. Bolt be treated accordingly.
James Delingpole made this point in his latest piece.
…It’s not people on my side of the debate who want to ravage the countryside with wind farms (with no provision for decommissioning them), rein in economic growth, introduce wartime-style rationing, raise taxes, destroy farmland and rainforests to create biofuels, and base heinously expensive public policy on hysteria and junk science. It’s not people on my side of the debate who are condemning those “future generations” to a lower standard of living and an uglier environment in order to deal with a problem that doesn’t exist. So how dare they have the gall to try to take the moral high ground?
This was during an exchange with a leftist in a cab, but the real gem is when Mr. D, not known for his civility, finishes thus:
“Why can’t I swear, you’re not my Dad. Anyway, you’re changing the subject. All I’m asking is that you do what any half-way decent journalist would do and defend your position using facts. If you’re incapable of that then, I’m sorry, but boll***s is what you were talking. So, can you advance any facts or arguments to defend your position?”
“I’m not going to because you’re so rude.”
“You’re not going to because you HAVE no arguments, that’s your real problem mate.”
Read the whole thing and note the warning here. The Global Warming nonsense is just another tool toward the same goals the left and elites have always had.
In addition to several local, state and congressional candidates who mixed with the crowd there were top primary speakers. Brad Marston of Four Tier Strategies on the use of social media in campaigns:
It was quite an education and every candidate in the room soaked it up, but the biggest education of the night came from Bonnie Johnson:
She talked about election law in Massachusetts and it’s enforcement or non-enforcement of election laws, many times due to simple ignorance. But the big bomb she dropped was referenced in my latest for the Examiner:
Every January Massachusetts Cities and town send out a city/town census to every residence. It lists the registered voters in the dwelling and how they are registered. I’ve filled it out every year without a thought, not noticing the warnings on the form if it is not done.
There is a warning on the bottom of the form saying: Failure to return this form may affect your voting status. I never paid much mind to it but Bonnie really dropped a bombshell on what that actually means:
If the form is not returned the people on them are marked as an “inactive” voter. By law an “inactive” voter who attempts to vote must fill out and sign a form and provide proof of both residence and identity to be able to vote.
Read the whole thing.
The problem seems to be a lot of people are not aware of the law, and if you want it enforced you need people at the polls volunteering and working to ensure it IS enforced.
OK if you are in Massachusetts and care about honest elections, are you willing to give a day working at a polling place to do something about it?
Update: Welcome Insty readers, if you’re up for some provocative reading I have a challenge for American Muslims, an Answer to Anonymous declaration of War on the US and of course there is my weekly under the fedora column here or here.
A week ago there was a story that didn’t raise a lot of eyebrows in Maine:
Andrew Ian Dodge says he’s giving up his Republican primary challenge against Sen. Olympia Snowe. Dodge, a former tea party activist, told the Lewiston Sun Journal that he’s dropping out of the Republican Party and will run for the Senate seat as an independent.
Dodge, 43, told the paper he decided to leave the party because he wasn’t happy with the way the GOP caucuses were handled. He accused state GOP Party chair Charlie Webster of having a “patronizing attitude” toward those who complained.
Andrew is a Tea Party Guy, his withdrawal meant that Snowe was facing a single primary opponent, Scott D’Amboise of Lisbon Falls.
Well it’s amazing a difference a week makes when you are a left leaning Republican with one primary opponent:
Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, R-Maine will not stand for re-election this fall. Snowe, one of the handful of moderates left in the Senate, is reportedly tired of the gridlock that has paralyzed Congress.
Sorry that doesn’t wash, the GOP is gonna take the Senate and Snowe as a moderate republican would be at a point of power if the margin of advantage for the GOP was small and of even greater advantage if was near 60-40 since the party would have to appease her to get things passed.
Of course it’s just speculation that Snowe would retire a week after discovering the primary vote would not be split.
Sure it was
Update: Allahpundit’s analysis doesn’t wash Snowe would have had much more leverage if re-elected. If she was really concerned with promoting moderation her re-election would have put her in a great spot to force the GOP to sing to her tune…if she thought she would win the primary.
All business and politics and no fun makes DaTechGuy a dull boy so Joe and I made a stop at O’Connor’s restaurant in Worcester Mass. on rte 12
As the name suggests it’s a very Irish place with a very Irish menu, but there are plenty of choices outside of the blarney stone:
So if you are looking for a good meal with an Irish Twist, give O’Connor’s a shot
“Those two have known each other since Jack (Kennedy) was three years old. The president lived next door to Austy (Austin O’Connor). He likes him. Not only that, but I brought Austy in three times during the campaign. The first time he gave twenty-five thousand dollars. The second time he gave twenty-five thousand dollars. The third time he gave fifteen thousand dollars. That’s sixty-five thousand dollars he contributed.” (1960 dollars btw)
“Sure” said (Kenny) O’Donnell, but he wasn’t with us until after West Virginia.”
Tip O’Neill Man of the House 1987 pp 80
One of the things I’ve noticed about the Romney campaign is that other than the good folks at Kacio cleaners (who absolutely LOVE him) it’s very hard to find people who like Romney because they…like Romney.
Last night at the Twin City Tea Party people during a segment Romney was mentioned, and support for him was expressed based on him having “the best chance to win”.
Romney has also used the inevitability argument. I suspect it has helped him get many an endorsement from people who might otherwise have been expected to support different candidates (Nikki Haley for example). Fat cats don’t want to risk being on the outside like Austy O’Connor during a Romney Administration because they were on the wrong side during the primaries, and as Stacy McCain notes, after Florida many thought it was a done deal:
Show of hands: Who thought Mitt would have had the nomination practically locked up by now? Who expected Romney would have to fight like hell just to win his home state? After Mitt won Florida and Nevada, I thought he might be on the verge of running the table
Even worse consider the point he makes in his American Spectator column:
If the more moderate Romney is really a stronger candidate, why has he struggled to close the deal with voters of his own party here in his native Michigan? It hardly adds to Romney’s “electability” argument that — even with the backing of Michigan’s top Republican officials — he would consider himself fortunate to escape Tuesday with 40 percent of the vote and a narrow win over Santorum’s low-budget campaign. Even if Romney wins Michigan, one of Santorum’s top advisers told CNN Monday, “We have already won. No matter what the results are, we’ve won. This is Romney’s home state.… The Romney campaign is spending a fortune they never expected to spend in Michigan, and every dollar they spend in Michigan is a dollar they don’t have on Super Tuesday.”
What has really struck me has been the use of surrogates to do his dirty work. I remember Romney all the Palin sniping from the Rove school before the field had come out. Every day I see people I follow on twitter relentlessly attacking Rick Santorum while never making a positive case for Mitt Romney and the “dirty tricks” lines coming from the Mitt Camp is…interesting Stacy again:
How much has Mitt Romney’s campaign used dirty tricks in the 2012 campaign? A lot, I’d say. While I always suspected that the sexual allegations against Herman Cain were pushed to the media by the Rick Perry campaign, others whose knowledge I trust have since assured me that Team Mitt was behind it.
Take that with a grain of salt, if you wish, but it’s something I’ve kept in mind the past three weeks as I’ve watched Rick Santorum being hounded by the media over “controversies” that looked for all the world as if they were ginned up by a certain rival campaign with a notable aptitude for “the devastating oppo hit.”
Mitt has a lot of money and hasn’t been shy about spending it, I would be very surprised if the incredible volume of Anti-Santorum stuff getting out there and the incredible amount of time some folks are giving to it didn’t come with some kind of remuneration. Or to put it another way, I would think people who were supporting Romney because they support Romney would be able to mix a positive reason or two to vote for their man.
Now I have not received a penny from the Santorum Campaign (although blog/radio ads and Tip Jar hits Will be happily accepted as this is what I do for a living these days) but I endorsed him at a time when such an endorsement elicited laughter and derision. As for Robert Stacy McCain, I directly asked him today if he was on the payroll of the Santorum Campaign. He answered decisively:
Who would say such a thing?…The future ambassador to Vanuatu can not be bought or sold!
That might explain the bums rush he got at the Romney HQ in Michigan.
All the empirical evidence I’ve seen suggests Romney’s support is solely based on three factors: his inevitable victory, the match-up vs Obama and who he can buy, except for Maria at Kacio’s. Mitt whatever she sees in you. I suggest your team needs to isolate and bottle it; STAT!
Now given Obama vast appeal, I submit even this reality would not stop Mitt Romney from winning the general election (barring something REALLY stupid) but given Romney’s inability to motivate the base while running for president for 5 years, to the point where winning his home state would be a major victory, do you want to risk it?
And much more seriously while it’s been suggested that Romney at the top of a ticket might help Scott Brown is he really going to be a help down the ticket in swing districts where the big issue for many races is the repeal of Obamacare?
Update: Well this explains a lot:
The Political Wire asks, Did Santorum Regain Momentum in Michigan?
I guess we will see if Romney’s guarantee is as good as Broadway Joe’s almost feel sorry for the guy.
If you do EVERYTHING You’ll win
Lyndon Baines Johnson only lost one election, that was a special election for Senate in 1941. Johnson campaigned hard and furious, spent an incredible amount of money, used some brilliant strategy and stole a fair amount of votes in corrupt counties that his allies controlled, but as told by Robert Caro in the first volume of his LBJ magnum opus Lyndon Johnson the Path to Power, Johnson made a rookie mistake. He found himself so confident on election day that he gave permission for some of the counties he controlled to report results early. This telegraphed to the liqueur interests desperate to get Pappy O’Daniel (a prohibitionist) out of the Governor’s mansion, the number of votes they would need to steal in corrupt areas not controlled by Johnson to win.
Johnson would never let anyone out hustle or out steal him again. He ran his future elections by his rule and would know only victory from that point on until the presidential primaries of 1960. W
Which takes us to 2012…
I have stated for quite a while that Obama is going to lose spectacularly and that conservatives should be confident not worried (ride right through them they’re demoralized as hell and all that). In that spirit I was pleased to see Kevin Jackson’s latest post (buy his book) suggesting Obama is panicking.
There are reasons why he should be panicked but looking at his list I have to disagree with Kevin on an important point.
Supporting Super Pacs, launching Spanish Web Sites, the Truth Teams and shifting right are all prudent things. Obama needs the money to win, the Spanish vote is very important (particularly after his dis of the Catholic church), the “Truth Teams” no matter how much they backfire are a logical tactic and shifting right will hurt him very little since the left assumes that any such pronouncements (such as opposition to gay marriage) are lies for public consumption.
Assuming he has the recourse he claims the investment in all these groups is wise, to quote a coach accused of running up a football score
“It’s not my job to stop me from scoring. It’s his,”
So none of those items in my mind constitute panic, they are instead a wise application of LBJ’s election rule.
There is one item on his list that doesn’t just suggest panic, it screams it.
One might argue that Black Americans might not be as motivated as they were in 2008. After all Obama’s re-election would not be nearly as historic as his initial election but even so the launching of African American’s for Obama sends a very interesting signal.
If the black vote was historically more evenly divided then forming such a group might seem prudent, but Democrats routinely take nearly 90% or more of the black vote. If This president feels the need to form an “African Americans for Obama” it is pretty telling.
Let’s do the math, Blacks make up 11% of the population. In 2004 Kerry took 88% of the black vote that accounted for 11% of the total vote. That 9.7% of the popular vote for the democratic candidate vs 1.3% for the GOP. A net 8.4% for the democratic candidate.
In 2008 President Obama took 96% of the black vote that consisted of 13% of the electorate, that adds up to in terms of the popular vote.12.5 vs .5% for the GOP a net of 12% for the Democrats.
The difference between the two is a net 3.6% of the vote. Now in terms of The popular vote 3.6% would still give Obama the edge if all things remain equal to 2008, but all things aren’t equal.
One can rationally assume that even if this president is less popular among the black community than he once was he would still easily outdraw John Kerry among Black voters. So lets say that the president gets 92% of the black vote this time 4 points better than Kerry but three points worse than last time and crunch the numbers.
If the black turnout is 11% the split is 10% Obama vs 1% RomneySantorumGingrichPaul +9% for the dems
If the black turnout is 12% the split is 11% Obama vs 1% RomneySantorumGingrichPaul +10% D
If the black turnout is 13% the split is 12% Obama vs 1% RomneySantorumGingrichPaul +11% D
So Obama would naturally get a +9 to a +11 even if his popularity drops with the black electorate by a full 3 points.
Or alternatively if his popularity doesn’t drop but the black turnout does, what are the numbers
If black turnout drops to 12% at 96% the split is 11.4% to .6% a difference of 10.8
If black turnout drops to 11% at 96% the split is 10.6% vs .4% a difference of 10.2
If black turnout drops to 10% (unlikely) at 96% the split is 9.6% vs .4% a difference of 9.2
Given these figures and estimates at worst the black community will provide a +9% for Obama and at Best +11 a difference on only 1-3 points of a vote that he won by 7.2 points.
Yet given these figures the Obama administration finds the need to invest time and money in a “African-Americans for Obama” organization where the return potential return is from such a venture is miniscule statistically. That suggests one or both of the following:
1. Press reports about the weakness of the current GOP field not withstanding the Obama administration understands the GOP is united in their dislike of his policies and their base, which was largely absent from John McCain’s corner is highly motivated to turn out decreasing the overall impact of the black vote.
2. The rumors of dissatisfaction of the black community with president Obama are not rumors but fact and even the prudent estimates I have given overstates his popularity among African-Americans requiring immediate action to motivate the uninspired and pressure the wavering to make sure Black turnout doesn’t drop.
This means that for all the propaganda driven by the left the Obama administration knows it is in deep trouble and needs every vote it can persuade, browbeat, buy or steal to keep it in office after Jan 20th 2013.
I don’t know what it tells you but I know what it tells me:
Update: Instalanche, thanks Glenn helps me toward that Millionth hit for next month hopefully.
Valley of the Shadow raises a great point concerning election 2012:
Stay on message. Remember the Surber Rule: The economy alone will get a Republican elected president next year. Talk about nothing else.
Surber himself gives this example:
Reporter: Is homosexuality a choice or genetic?
Answer: That’s above my pay grade, as the president likes to say. But unlike the president, the economy is not above my pay grade. I can promise you a lower unemployment rate when I am elected president and the economy is allowed to grow.
Me I’d answer a different way:
Reporter: Is homosexuality a choice or genetic?/Do you believe in evolution/should the church pay for contraception/ etc. etc etc..
Answer: Are you serious? Unemployment is over 8%, Millions have given up on looking for work, Gas prices are skyrocketing and that’s the question you’re asking? Is that really the question your viewers/readers want asked?
Reporter: It’s a topic on people’s minds
Answer: No it’s the topic you and the media want to talk about because you understand that a conversation on the economy is a loser for the left.
Reporter: So you are refusing to answer the question?
Answer: Look if a voter in a town hall asks me a question I’ll answer it, my views are not a secret, but if you want to get fodder for your talking points you’ll just have to do the legwork.
Surber is right in the sense of not playing the reporters but if the voter asks, you answer, unabashedly, unashamed and without reservation.