Democrats all revved up!

Democrats are setting aside their pro-woman stance and taking it to the streets. Anything to get their views across. Honk if you'd rather be killing Republicans!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136798,00.html

America: Fuck Yeah

Gotta go see Team America

Backfire on Amendment 36

The ineresting thing about this Amendment is that it was originally placed on the ballot as a way of getting some of CO's electoral votes for Kerry. But now that Kerry may actually win CO, this may cost him EV's. The GOP, which originally opposed this initiative, may find themselves supporting it as the Dems start running from it.

Kerry getting above margin of error in CO

From Zogby's daily battleground state tracking poll:
COLORADO 9 Electoral Votes 2000 Vote: Bush
Poll of 602 likely voters conducted Oct. 21 through Oct. 24. Margin of error +/- 4.1 percentage points.

ELECTORS FOR PRESIDENT

BUSH (R) KERRY (D) Other Undecided Oct. 24
45% 49% 3% 3%

Bush's Nader

From the NY Times:

A Nader Nibble From the Right
The commercial made its national debut on Thursday on the Fox News Channel, aimed directly at Mr. Bush's Republican base. It starts with a middle-aged man disgustedly dropping his Wall Street Journal on the kitchen table. "What kind of conservative runs half-trillion-a-year deficits? Gets us into an unwinnable war?" he asks his wife, but adds helplessly, "I can't vote for Kerry."
"Then don't," she says, cheerily suggesting an alternative who is not quite yet a household name: Michael Badnarik, a computer consultant from Austin, Tex.
Mr. Badnarik is the presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, which says he could "Naderize" Mr. Bush. A recent Zogby/Reuters national poll showed him tied with Ralph Nader at one percentage point each - not much, but possibly critical. Unlike Mr. Nader, Mr. Badnarik is on the ballot of every battleground state except New Hampshire.
"If we have a rerun of Florida 2000 in Pennsylvania, Michael Badnarik could be the kingmaker by drawing independent and Republican votes from Bush," said Larry Jacobs, director of the 2004 Election Project at the Humphrey Institute of the University of Minnesota, which has been tracking third-party candidates.
Mr. Badnarik, reached by telephone on Thursday while campaigning in Michigan, said that polls commissioned by his campaign showed him at 2 percent in Wisconsin, 3 percent in Nevada and 5 percent in New Mexico.

If the Dems' were smart they would have built this guy up to the Republican voters the same way the GOP built up Nader. Once again, the GOP is just better.

For Mr. Malone

Kerry lies again! Bush IS smarter than smarypants Kerry. How does being the "smart one" impact Bush's campaign? For Mr. Kerry, which is it, the smart one or the dumb one, when will he quit fip-flopping?

Iowa's real money presidential poll

IEM 2004 US Presidential Election Winner Takes All Market Price Graph

Fun link that all the cool kids are using. Hit the 2004 Electoral Vote Tracker

Los Angeles Times - 2004 Elections

Unknown Blogger adds to political vernacular, what did you do today?

Glad to see my RC and GC thing is catching on. Mr. Malone's (if that's his real name) argument gets circular. In the early part he makes the point that few GC's view the RC movement as a new form of Tyranny, but then later says that GC's are willing to except the the strengthening of the government under the RC's. A true conservative would not except "fight fire with fire" as either results in a loss for those who believe, like Regan, that the best government is a small government. But to the point of the tiff. Dick Armey joined forces with the ACLU over his concerns regarding the Patriot Act, TIPS, and other privacy issues http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/4562228.htm?1c, the Tampa Tribune, an extremely conservative news paper didn't endorse Bush http://www.tampatrib.com/News/MGBU3UEHF0E.html, Former Kentucky Senator Cook http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/editorials/2004/10/20/oped-marlow1020-8060.html, and a growing list of folks are not endorsing Bush. Yes, Clinton had his defectors, but they left over moral issues surrounding Lewinsky, not because of policy. Will the GOP fold? No. But after 4 years of total control the President is locked in a very close race. The question "why?" has to be asked. One would think that after having the House, the Senate, and the White House that this would be the time to see the unfettered vision of the GOP. If it resonated with the people this election should be a slam dunk, yet a wartime President is in danger of losing. I think it is because the GOP is split between the brilliantly titled RC's and GC's. There is not unfettered vision because the GOP can't decide what that vision is. After 4 years, what, domestically, can the GOP hold up and say "This is what the future of the US looks like under our leadership, isn't it grand!" Record spending? No. Larger government? Riiight. Lots of time spent on fines for talking about oral sex on the radio? Next question. Patriot Act? Hope not. No Child Left Behind? Underfunded, so no. Medicare reform that costs much more than expected? Geeze. Cut-backs in pork spending? Ha! Do I want a salad with my dinner? No. (oops, I was on a roll)What policy, what direction, domestically, has the GOP brought forward that the whole party can be proud of? During this entire election I haven't heard much about what was accomplished in the last 4. It's almost like Bush is running as a challenger. What can the GOP show me that excites me? Where' s the vision? This was showcase time. I'm reminded of Lord Acton's quote "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The GOP coalition was fine when it was focused on beating the Dems, but once they got it, I think the stitching broke. Sometimes it's easier to chase than to lead. I AM looking through actions to motives. I'm trying to figure out why there have been so few actions, and it looks like the reason is that the motives of the GOP are split. That's why I see the riff. The simple fact is that after 4 years of control, the GOP could lose the Presidency and the Senate. You have to wonder "why?" Yes, they may hold both, but any reading of the situation puts Iraq as the reason. Without it, Kerry wins in a blow-out. Which brings us back to 2008 is a lock. A Master lock, a big master lock. As for you portfolio, you invest like you vote. The more debt a company or President has the better in the Stalin Malone handbook.

Shout-out

A quick shout-out to McLiberman, a true BoSox fan. Is this the year of the true "Massachusetts Miracle?" Can the state win the Series and the White House in one year, or is the Curse strong enough to derail both?

Buffalo Bills "lock" for Super Bowl in 2008

With such a potent futurist on my rolodex why aren't my stocks doing better? As interesting as the points raised by The Unknown Blogger are, they are hardly conclusive. It is accurate to say that there are differences in the GOP, and the ones sighted are even true. But a fight? Whose picking it? There have been precious few groin gouges or ear bitings in the past four years, why would someone assume there will be far more in the next four? The "values voters" have been gaining in number for a decade now as a reactionary force against a growing antagonistic cultural power base. This power base includes such institutions as universities, Hollywood, the news media and newsmaking judges. These groups are all aligned with the liberal side of American politics. The RCs (as Unknown called them) are these values voters who are reacting to what they perceive as a liberal tyranny imposing its ideas on all of us (limiting prayer and religious expression, redefining marriage, pushing sex ed curricula that is not sensitive to local views). That is why they are not alienating many GCs. Few conservatives see them as another form of tyranny, but instead a movement drawing a line in the sand and saying to the liberal tyranny, "you shall go no further". The Unknown Blogger's point is similar to the one made by those who will equate America and Al Qaeda: both have killed innocents, so both are bad. Knowing the Unknown Blogger as I do (and loving him dearly), I assure you he is much too rational to make that argument, but what that argument shows is the mistake of only considering actions, and not motives. The majority of conservatives do not perceive a new tyranny gathering, but a reactionary defense against an old one. They support the motives. This makes it easier for "small government" folk to accept this strengthening of government that Unknown very correctly identified. The thinking is "fight fire with fire". Therefore, I can't see this becoming a large enough rift to weaken the GOP in any significant way. But I do stand by my football prediction...Go Bills!

2008

Here's my bet. Whatever happens now, the Dems are a lock for 2008. This is the apex of GOP control. The party's future is a fight between the religious conservatives and the government conservatives, and they have major differences. The RC's are every bit a big government party as the liberal left. When the GOP used to talk of less government and a greater roll for charity, they meant for charities to take up the slack so taxpayers would pay less. Bush wants to bring charities onto the federal dole. GC's want less govt, the RC's want bigger govt telling the people how to live (see the FMA). A preemptive constitutional amendment is the antithesis of what the GC's believe. Bush has repeatedly asked "what can the government do for you?" Even Kennedy, the liberal hero said "ask not what your country can do for you..." And Bush's fiscal spending is beyond anything on any Dem. Presidents resume. Bush's Presidency brought the schism between the GC's and RC's to light. The GOP was rebuilt on the backs of the RC's. They started the very effective policy of running real campaigns for school boards, local elections, and state elections, knowing that this would translate into Federal control, and they were right. The whole time the GC's looked the other way at some of the extreme positions, and probably thought they could control them. But Bush shattered that illusion. The next several years, win or lose now, will be a fight for control of the GOP. This fight will cost the party elections, and the Dems are primed to take advantage. They are suddenly the party of fiscal restraint, and less govt intrusion into the lives of the citizens (see their opposition to the FMA and the Patriot Act extension). Redistricting, the Holy Grail for the GOP, only exacerbates the problem. Only the extremes form the GOP can hope to win nomination, and the fight to see who is more overtly pious, and who wants to legislate from that point will push the party even further in the direction of the RC's. It's a huge bet in a country where religion is on the wane. This alliance paid off spectacularly over the last 4 years, but it simply cannot hold. Throw in the fact that there is no VP to run as successor in 2008, well, the fight for GOP nomination is going to messy. The question is whether the nation can handle 4 more years of Bush's spending, and personal invasions. My bet is that even if he wins, the GOP battle has begun, and that Bush will face real obstacles in his agenda over the next four years (and he'll be a lame duck, never a good position anyway).

Has to have it both ways.

From a Rolling Stone interview:

Kerry said his favorite songs were "Satisfaction," Jumpin' Jack Flash" and "Brown Sugar" by the Rolling Stones, and that his favorite album was "Abbey Road" by the Beatles.

Manifesto

I think Bill Butler is cute.

Like a million voices cried out and were suddenly silenced...

For I have entered the world of Blog! Touch me. Love me. Blog me.

Test

test

Test

Test post.