Mitt Romney gave a speech that was well received at CPAC

Mitt could have given a “well I wasn’t conservative enough for you eh? How’s that working out, but that’s simply not his nature.

It hasn’t taken long for the country to figure out it’s made a huge mistake, by 2014 I suspect the people will have no doubt.

I was researching my archives for a post I’m planning when I came across this rather prophetic one from Jan 13th 2012, one year ago today

Two years ago it appeared the tide of to progressivism had been stemmed, that the basic philosophy of government being there to take care of the people who served, was rejected.

Instead today we have four more years in the White House, a House retained despite overwhelming odds and here in Massachusetts the decisive senate seat held so long by the lion of liberalism Ted Kennedy back in the hands of the Democratic party where it belongs.

the best advice I can give the GOP is to read the entire thing and remember.

Hey Guess what Charlie Crist decided he now believes as of yesterday:

Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who throughout his long political career has been staunchly pro-gun rights, said Wednesday that after the Connecticut school slayings, he now backs controls

That quite a switch but the explanation is simple:

Crist recently became a Democrat and is considering a challenge to Gov. Rick Scott, who long has favored gun rights. Scott has refused to comment on gun measures after the Connecticut shootings, saying it is too early to debate.

Javier Manjarres is not amused

Is there a phonier political opportunist in the country than Charlie Crist?

A reminder the NRSC endorsed Charlie Crist 15 months before the senate primary after which he left the party and eventually joined the Democrats, but until that moment the GOP Establishment sure loved Charlie and that love had more than a political cost:

During a single three-month span of that year, Republicans contributed $4.3 million to the doomed campaign of Charlie Crist.

How’s that workin’ out for ya?

and that money was not only lost it terms of what was done, but in terms of what could have been done: Jimmie Bise:

Divide $500,000 into $4.3 million. That’s how long I could run a hypothetical conservative news site with the money dunderheaded conservatives gave Charlie Crist in just three months.

On the other hand let me remind of a poll that the GOP Establishment didn’t have any use for, a fellow named Rick Santorum. I remember (and videoed) him saying this in New Hampshire:

America is a melting pot, not a salad bowl. America is a set of values by which we hold together. That’s what holds us together, but there is a different point of view. Some have suggested that no America shouldn’t be and is wrong to be, one thing. It needs to be many things. It needs to be what any everybody wants to do. Out of one many. If that’s the case then is anybody surprised that we have trouble getting anything done for the one, the country?

Lisa Graas yesterday reminded of these words before the DeMoins Register saying this:

But as Rick Santorum told the editorial board of the Des Moines Register back during the primary, most politicians think of the issues as “little silos” and if one of the “silos” is not popular, the politician can just kick that silo down and take a new position. He sees “the big picture” of where our rights come from, and the very limited role of our government in defending only those rights.

I come back to Santorum’s answer on Gay Marriage in Concord NH against a Hostile College Crowd, he didn’t duck, he didn’t flip he explained and educated:

The GOP Establishment didn’t like Rick Santorum, they didn’t like his willingness to talk on key issues, he didn’t duck, dodge or hide. That scared them. Mitt Romney didn’t scare them or the consultants they invested in. The GOP established sure liked Mitt Romney…

…..right up until the day he lost.

Perhaps conservatives should consider a different set of investments, rather than enriching consultants by spending on pols who are so changeable we should invest in selling our ideas to the people they would benefit:

the only hope to go to the people.

Go to the Latinos and Black Americans, explain WHY conservative economics work for them. Explain why an open border hurts THEM and theirs and explain why the entitlement society makes them peons and slaves to the state as sure as if they were in the plantations of South America or the old South.

Go to women explain WHY not only conservative economics works for them but WHY conservatism in social issues benefits them, their children and themselves.

Let Americans know that WHY a strong America makes them safer than a weak one, make the case and do it every single day.

That is a better investment than any dollar to any superpac

This is what new media does, as Stacy McCain put it

For the $4 million that the permatanned RINO Charlie Crist collected during that single three-month span of 2009, you could fund eight spiffy little New Media operations for a year (or four such operations for two years). And FEC contribution limits do not apply to people making “investments” in news operations, so that the rich Republicans would not be restricted in their generosity toward New Media, as they are toward political candidates.

Why is a Media Matters & Think Progress or even a Brett Kimberlin funded? How does the left manage to push this agenda from the web to the MSM and why do they succeed? because as Stacy McCain put it

Soros has figured this out. Rich Republicans have not.

Guys it’s time to figure it out.




Update: NRSC not NRCC corrected

While we ponder the questions the left isn’t asking about the reaction to Operation Pillar of Defense Granite Grok is still there and keeping an eye on some questions that have yet to be answered about the late election, first the stats:

First, in a town with 5000 plus voters there were 630 new registrations for this year’s election.

The law give NH citizens the ability to see public documents

New Hampshire State law (91-a) allows the citizen to review, examine, or inspect, any public document that is available. They can even take pictures of it, or make their own copies or abstracts as long as the document(s) are on site and it occurs during regular business hours.

Granite Grok however reports that there was a slight issue when a citizen wanted to see the form concerning these 630 new registrations…

These 630 new voters piqued the interest of a Barrington resident, who decided that they wanted to get a copy of this public record, but when they asked the Town clerk said it would cost him $300.00.

The Grok folks have some questions about this, but wanting to be fair to all concerned I called the Town Clerk’s office myself. I spoke to a very nice lady who asked me if I could submit those questions via an e-mail to make it easier. So I did, providing a link to the Grok article quoted above with the following questions:

Per said article I have the following questions

1. Is the record of the voter rolls in Barrington available to be viewed by the public

2. Is there a separate record of new registrants and/or same day registrants available?

3. Did a person come in to obtain said records?

4. If so was said person told it would be $300 for said records?
4a. If there is such a fee, is that set by the city or state? Is it a standard fee for records?

5. The GROK article states that such public records are available under state law saying the following:

New Hampshire State law (91-a) allows the citizen to review, examine, or inspect, any public document that is available. They can even take pictures of it, or make their own copies or abstracts as long as the document(s) are on site and it occurs during regular business hours.
5a Is this correct and if so can said person make their own copies without charge?

6. Will said records be available electronically (in PDF format etc) and available either to the public on request or on the Barrington site eventually?

7. If I came down to see said records would they be available for viewing?

Any help in answering these question would be appreciated

Thank you.

That was on Wednesday November 14th when I first wrote this post but held back posting awaiting a reply and while I’m sure Barrington NH can be a busy place I think five days is plenty of time for it to come.

By an odd coincidence while I haven’t received a reply the day after I sent that request Granite Grok’s person went back to the town hall and was told the following:

Our intrepid checklist warrior went back to the clerk armed with 91-a and was informed that they didn’t actually have the list prepared yet. He was told that it would be a few weeks but that they would give him an electronic copy of the new list when it was complete. Skip has encouraged him to go back and ask for the existing list, which they used for election day, and which we now know is available in electronic form. For free, apparently.

Amazing how things change after an e-mail from a guy with 50,000 watts behind him isn’t it?

Maybe it’s just me but if you multiply this question by small town after small town in NH and you get a margin of victory that doesn’t show up in polls.

That’s apparently a question our friends on the left aren’t asking, but we will.

Update: Apparently Barrington replied to my questions promptly but due to an e-mail glitch I missed their e-mails (along with 7 weeks of them from a particular account) until December 29th.

My apology post is here, and the e-mail responses from Barrington follow below:

Dear Peter “DaTechGuy” Ingemi,

My answers are listed below:

1. Is the record of the voter rolls in Barrington available to be viewed by the public YES

2. Is there a separate record of new registrants and/or same day registrants available? NO, PER Secretary of States Office

3. Did a person come in to obtain said records? YES

4. If so was said person told it would be $300 for said records?NO, the fee would be actually be $379 which is the rate for the current MARKED CHECKLIST, which is based on our current photocopy fee per page, which is $1/page.

4a. If there is such a fee, is that set by the city or state? Is it a standard fee for records? For a marked checklist

the fee is what the Town or City charges for a copy.

5. The GROK article states that such public records are available under state law saying the following:

New Hampshire State law (91-a) allows the citizen to review, examine, or inspect, any public document that is available. They can even take pictures of it, or make their own copies or abstracts as long as the document(s) are on site and it occurs during regular business hours.

5a Is this correct and if so can said person make their own copies without charge? A person may view and takes notes on the marked checklist, but NO there will be no copies made without a charge, PER NH STATE LAW (91-a;IV)

“If a photocopying machine or other device maintained for use by a body or agency is used by the body or agency to copy the public record or document requested, the person requesting the copy may be charged the actual cost of providing the copy, which cost may be collected by the body or agency.”

6. Will said records be available electronically (in PDF format etc) and available either to the public on request or on the Barrington site eventually? An electronic copy will be available upon request after the Supervisors of the Checklist have entered and scanned the checklist and new voters into the statewide database for a fee of $26.50.

7. If I came down to see said records would they be available for viewing? YES

I have answered all your questions to the best of my ability, if you have any further questions please

feel free to contact the New Hampshire Secretary of State at 271-3242.

Kimberly Kerekes

This weeks’ Subscription Commentary involves hiring standards and what a person does to get a job.

Strangely enough it seems we don’t use these standards when selecting a president, funny that.

The full commentary available only with the password is here, to view it simply hit DaTipJar




and I’ll send you the code as soon as I see the confirmation e-mail. If you don’t want to worry about ever missing a single video choose any subscription level




and I will e-mail you the codes every week as soon as the videos are uploaded and the posts are ready.

This weeks show where we talk election 2012 with our listeners is now available here

You’ll want to pay attention particularly to the Obama defenders. I asked them for positive reasons to vote for him, I heard Abortion, but when I asked about the economy it was all: “It’s not his fault”

That in itself in an interesting argument and we’ll be discussing this later on today.

Today on Morning Joe the magic word is “mandate”

The people around the table are insisting that the president has a mandate for tax increases. Strangely enough the MSM didn’t have that opinion after a different president had a larger margin of victory:

Begin with the facts: A 51-48 percent victory is not a mandate

That EJ Dionne in 2004 as opposed to Dionne in 2012

Obama will have the strongest argument a politician can offer. Repeatedly, he asked the voters to settle Washington’s squabbles in his favor. On Tuesday, they did. And so a president who took office four years ago on a wave of emotion may now have behind him something more valuable and durable: a majority that thought hard about his stewardship and decided to let him finish the job he had begun.

Now what people are forgetting is that there was not one election on Nov 6th, there were 470 elections on the federal level and the result of that election was a GOP majority in the house but this apparently doesn’t count as a mandate.

And apparently some on the left seem to have forgotten just how this works:

Apparently now we elect the house based on the national popular vote, and if challenged on that fact the left has an interesting reaction. :

So we are talking “Moral” mandates? I wonder who just decides what laws are “moral” and which are not, does that now mean we can safely ignore the mandate of Obamacare? Gun laws? Tax laws?

The bottom line is our friends on the left can speak about mandates till they are blue in the face. The fact is that the GOP hold the house now, and after Jan 3rd will still hold the house, all spending bills must come from the house. What is required now is nerve.

If the house keeps it’s nerve they will be able to make the best possible deal for the both the party and the American People. And if you must have tax increases, some good suggestions are out there.

as A Time for Choosing writes:

During the primary season, Sarah was batting 1000 until Missouri, when her candidate, Sarah Steelman, who was polling the strongest against democrat Claire McCaskill, and was an almost sure winner, lost to Todd Akin after some shenanigans by democrats. Akin almost immediately lost the election by saying incredibly stupid things, allowing one of the very worst of the worst to be re-elected.

and in the general election?

That brings us to the general election. Sarah outperformed the Republican Party by a bunch. Out of the eight candidates she endorsed, six of them won:

And the Lesson:

Always listen to Sarah Palin. Chances are you’ll have better results.

That presumes of course your goal is to get the most electable conservative into congress rather than to enrich the establishment consultant class and those who want to be them.

Perhaps those who blew $400 mil plus on Rove etc should remember this.

Eyes on the prize, if your goal is to The problem is, listening to Sarah Palin doesn’t make a lot for high priced consultants

Stacy McCain has a great post up about the “bizarre statistical improbabilities” of Obama winning over 99% of the vote in some districts that also have over 100% turnout.

We can complain about voter fraud and sound like a bunch of conspiracy theorists and/or sore losers, or we can prove voter fraud and thwart it in the future.

Let’s talk about thwarting voter fraud.  Indiana has one of those nifty photo-ID laws (which also helps the poor, in that the state gives free photo IDs to those who cannot afford them). Work to get one in your state.  Remember, we swept state legislatures and governorships in 2010, and continued to pick up governorships in 2012.  We have friendly legislatures and friendly executive offices.

If you aren’t able to get “show ID to vote” laws passed, why not try to lobby for the low-tech, tried-and-true purple finger approach?  Sure, it won’t eliminate absentee voter fraud, but people will have to work a lot harder to commit voter fraud if they can only vote once on Election Day.

Troops, those are your marching orders.  Get it done in your states.

Now, the tedium of proving voter fraud.  What you need to do is prove that people who voted do not actually exist, do not live in the district, or are otherwise ineligible to vote (e.g. are not citizens).  Given that over one hundred million people cast ballots in the last election, we need to narrow down a search and to get a, er, um, army of Davids to work through the data. Voter registration (name and address) is public information, as is the number of times a person has voted and in which elections.  Now, if I were trying to steal an election, I wouldn’t bother as much with non-swing states, nor with getting people to the polls for primaries and municipal elections.  I wouldn’t bother with small suburban areas where everyone knows everyone else.

So here’s how to do it: we (yes, dear commenters, want to join in the fun?)  get voter lists from counties, pick off people who are registered Democrats and only voted in the general election, not the primary election.  Then we look at their addresses: does each and every address actually exist?  Is it a residence, or did people register with the address of the local Kroger?  Do you have far too many people all registered at the same address, given the size of the residence? (With this thing called the internet, the USPS site, and Mapquest’s satellite function, we can make short work of this.)  Now for the voters themselves: did anyone dead vote?  If you’re feeling particularly ambitious and have the shoe leather to do so, you can mosey around the district, knock on doors, and ask if the voter lives there.

At the end of it all, you have a spreadsheet showing a lot of legitimate, low-turnout voters.  But you also have a whole pile of people who registered at non-existent addresses, at businesses, who died before the election, or who do not live where they claim they live. (Proving that non-citizens voted is a nightmare.)

Just a thought. Sounds more productive than sitting around and complaining.

Update: (DaTechGuy) I second Roxeanne’s post