Todd Akin, the Republican running for the senate in Missouri, tried to explain his opposition to all abortion, even in instances of rape, by saying that “legitimate rape” rarely leads to pregnancy.

The stupid party: Todd Akin, the Missouri Republican running for the Senate, tried to explain his opposition to all abortion, even in instances of rape, by saying that “legitimate rape” rarely leads to pregnancy.

Note that this is more evidence that Republicans should listen to Sarah Palin, who endorsed and campaigned for one of Akin’s opponents in the primary. It is also evidence that for voters to favor a tea party candidate is not necessarily a big risk.

Faced with small crowds at their campaign events, the Obama campaign is now claiming that they are intentionally limiting crowd size at rallies to save money on security.

They can’t seriously think anyone will believe this? Faced with small crowds at their campaign events, the Obama campaign is now claiming that they are intentionally limiting crowd size at rallies to save money on security.

More embarrassing is the original New York Times article, which goes out of its way to sell this absurd claim.

“Are they prepared to listen to reasoned arguments articulated by Ryan about the need for entitlement reform, or will they succumb to simplistic liberal cant about pushing grandma over the cliff?”

The choice of the electorate in November: “Are they prepared to listen to reasoned arguments articulated by Ryan about the need for entitlement reform, or will they succumb to simplistic liberal cant about pushing grandma over the cliff?”

Sadly, at this moment in the campaign we don’t know what the electorate will do. What we do know is that the Democrats are going to use some of the most absurd, hateful, and despicable attacks against both Romney and Ryan, as they did in 2008 against Sarah Palin and have so far against Romney. It is their idea of civility.

Landslide on the horizon.

Landslide on the horizon.

I lived through the 1980 election, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, and I was struck at the time by the fact that next to no one among the political scientists who made a living out of studying presidential elections, communism in eastern Europe, and Sovietology saw any of these upheavals coming. Virtually all of them were caught flat-footed.

This is, in fact, what you would expect. They were all expert in the ordinary operations of a particular system, and within that framework they were pretty good at prognostication. But the apparent stability of the system had lured them into a species of false confidence – not unlike the false confidence that fairly often besets students of the stock market.

There were others, less expert in the particulars of these systems, who had a bit more distance and a bit more historical perspective and who saw it coming. The Soviet dissident Andrei Amalrik wrote a prescient book entitled Can the Soviet Union Survive 1984? Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn predicted communism’s imminent collapse, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan suspected that the Soviet Union would soon face a fatal crisis. They were aware that institutions and outlooks that are highly dysfunctional will eventually and unexpectedly dissolve.

In my opinion, none of the psephologists mentioned above has reflected on the degree to which the administrative entitlements state – envisaged by Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives, instituted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and expanded by their successors – has entered a crisis, and none of them is sensitive to the manner in which Barack Obama, in his audacity, has unmasked that state’s tyrannical propensities and its bankruptcy. In consequence, none of these psephologists has reflected adequately on the significance of the emergence of the Tea-Party Movement, on the meaning of Scott Brown’s election and the particular context within which he was elected, on the election of Chris Christie as Governor of New Jersey and of Bob McDonnell as Governor of Virginia, and on the political earthquake that took place in November, 2010. That earthquake, which gave the Republicans a strength at the state and local level that they have not enjoyed since 1928, is a harbinger of what we will see this November.

I agree. However, the author misses one point. There is no guarantee that the American public will vote rationally. Obama might still win. However, the big government welfare state that he and the left believe in is still bankrupt and about to fall apart, no matter what happens in November. The only real question is whether we will honestly face the disaster brewing before us and begin the process of fixing it now, or we will make believe it isn’t there and allow it to overwhelm us in its collapse.

Either way, the federal government is about to go bankrupt, and if we don’t do something about it that bankruptcy will take everything else down with it.

Another set of pro-Obama polls that oversample Democrats.

Living in a dream world: Another set of pro-Obama polls that oversample Democrats.

Why CBS and the New York Times keep doing this mystifies me. It won’t persuade anyone to vote for Obama, and it might even give his supporters the false impression that he is doing better than he is. For example, contrast these results with this new Gallup poll, which found Obama’s popularity below 50 percent in all but 13 states. These are bad numbers for an incumbent, and they are almost certainly more predictive, as Gallup generally samples Democrats and Republicans more accurately, based on recent voting patterns.

The only explanation I can think of for this oversampling is an unwillingness to face the reality that Obama and his leftwing policies are not popular. It is as if CBS and the New York Times are standing there with their fingers in their ears, chanting “la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la!” loudly so they don’t have to hear what they don’t like.

The perspective of one man

The perspective of one man running for President:

[W]hat exactly accounts for prosperity if not culture? In the case of the United States, it is a particular kind of culture that has made us the greatest economic power in the history of the earth. Many significant features come to mind: our work ethic, our appreciation for education, our willingness to take risks, our commitment to honor and oath, our family orientation, our devotion to a purpose greater than ourselves, our patriotism. But one feature of our culture that propels the American economy stands out above all others: freedom. The American economy is fueled by freedom. Free people and their free enterprises are what drive our economic vitality. [emphasis mine]

Sounds good to me, though we should all reserve the right to remain skeptical of anything a politician says. It is what they do that matters. Nonetheless, that Romney is making freedom a central part of his platform is further proof that he recognizes the trends and, like any politician, wants to be on the cusp of that wave. Or to once again repeat the words of Milton Friedman, “The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.”

The Republican establishment choice for Texas senator was resoundingly defeated today by the tea party candidate.

Another tea party victory: The Republican establishment choice for Texas senator was resoundingly defeated today by the tea party candidate.

2010 was a trend, not a fluke. And this detail from the article should give anyone with an open mind a good hint at what November will bring.

More than 1 million Texans voted in the runoff, a surprisingly strong turnout for balloting that came during the dog days of summer.

Just like in Wisconsin, Republican turnout was high. Come November, it will be higher.

Much has been made in the past few days of this NYT/CBS poll that found the Presidential race to be a dead heat.

Oversampling Democrats: Much has been made in the past few days of this NYT/CBS poll that found the Presidential race to be a dead heat. This article however is the first I’ve found that notes this key fact about the poll:

Among registered voters, the NYT/CBS poll also oversamples Democrats and Independents: D-33/R-27/I-41. There’s no way the 2012 electorate will only be made up of 27% Republicans.

That’s right, this NYT/CBS poll purposely skewed the results by polling 6% more Democrats than Republicans. In other words, the race is likely not such a dead heat. Obama is significantly behind, especially since all polls have consistently found that voting enthusiasm is far higher among Republicans than Democrats.

Vice President Paul Ryan?

Vice President Paul Ryan?

I say “Please!” and I say it loudly. Picking Ryan for number two would reverse Ronald Reagan’s biggest mistake, picking moderate George Bush Sr. as his VP. The result of that bad choice was 12 years of Bush rule in the late 1980s and in the 2000s, during which there was little effort to rein in the power or size of government. In fact, the Bushes did a lot to increase government’s power and size.

Picking Ryan as VP would place a competent fiscal conservative into the limelight and make such a person a leading contender for the Presidency in future years. It would also help demonstrate again that the 2010 election was a trend, not a fluke.

Obamacare: the final battle.

Obamacare: The final battle.

Mitt Romney said it best on Thursday. “If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we’re going to have to replace President Obama.” Those who have been sitting on the sidelines, out of complacency or loyalty to someone else from the primaries, must get out of their chairs and get to work. But while that work must end with Mitt Romney in the White House, it must begin with a Republican majority in the Senate.

As I said last week, the only right way to get this terrible law it is for the voters to insist upon its repeal. And the only way to do that is to elect politicians who say they will repeal it. Not only will that get rid of the law, but it will instill such fear in politicians that it will be decades before any of them will attempt to introduce another one of these kinds of draconian laws.

Playing Politics with the Constitution and the Law

Playing politics with the Constitution and the law.

All of Obama’s appointments yesterday are illegal under the Constitution. And, in addition, as too little noted by the media, his appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is legally futile. Under the plain language of the Dodd-Frank Act that created the CFPB, Cordray will have no authority whatsoever.

The Dodd-Frank act explicitly requires Cordray’s confirmation by the Senate in order for his authority to go into effect. Prior to that confirmation he has no authority.

Once again, the issue here is what Obama’s actions tell us about him as an elected official, suggesting that he an arrogant man who is willing to trash the Constitution and create legal hell for business and the government all for the sake of election-year politics. Not a good recommendation at all.

New Rasmussen poll shows Romney beating Obama 45%-39%

A new Rasmussen poll shows Romney beating Obama 45%-39%.

What is more significant about the poll is how poorly Obama stacks up against every other possible candidate. Though he leads all the others, in no case does he get more than 48% of the vote. Even against a non-entity like Gary Johnson Obama only leads 42% to 27%. These numbers suggest that no matter who runs against Obama, the man is toast.

The Gingrich gamble

Another perspective: The Gingrich Gamble.

Yet for the all sloganeering and invective, the truth is that voting for Gingrich or Romney is not so much an ideological as a personal choice, and one that says as much about the psychological make-up of the individual conservative voter as it does about the choices before him. The risk-takers, romantics, and ideologically pure have concluded that Gingrich unleashed is worth the gamble, and that it is better to win big or lose big than to plan on just squeaking by. They welcome the unending contact sport that we could expect from a President Gingrich, who would not just beat Obama, but repudiate Obamism itself. These are the guys who like passing on third down on their own ten-yard line with a seven-point lead; to them, going on fourth-quarter defense is not only not smart, it is a sure way to lose. In contrast, the more calculating know that romance and rhetoric can often disguise reality, and that it is always wiser to down the ball and run the clock out when you’re ahead.

And I must admit, I prefer the gamble. I’ve had enough of “safe” Republican candidates designed to please the moderates who only end up losing because they can’t express what they believe in with any clarity or force.

Explaining Newt

Explaining Newt.

[W]e have a president who wants us to stay there, who is banal, irritating, humorless, reactionary, self-righteous, and narcissistic all at once. He hasn’t said one interesting thing or proposed one creative idea since being in office.

Unfortunately, the Republican candidates aren’t much better. Romney, Perry, Santorum, Bachmann, Huntsman, even Paul, are no more than critics of a system gone moribund. They do not inspire us. Their ideas, even when worth investigating (flat tax, etc.), are no more than rehashes of proposals we have heard for decades.

Only Newt dances. Only Newt, on occasion, is original. Only Newt — and here is the important part — has the capacity to wake us up. What attracts me about the man is the very thing that Romney criticized, the part that wants to explore the moon and stars, maybe even mine them.

Sure Gingrich has an idea a minute, many of which are bad, but at least he has ideas. At least he is thinking. And — guess what — he says what he thinks. Politicians aren’t supposed to do that.

Read the whole thing.

A thoughtful analysis as to why tea party supporters are breaking to Gingrich

A thoughtful analysis as to why tea party supporters are breaking to Gingrich.

Much of what Bill Quick writes parallels what I have said previously: Gingrich might have said or done some disagreeable things, but he was able to win Congress and force the spendthrifts from both parties to produce a balanced budget. And when it comes time for him to face Obama in the debates, Gingrich alone among these Republican candidates appears capable of handing the situation strongly, with skill. To me, that combination appears to be a winning combination, both for the election and the nation afterward.

A new Rasmussen national poll: Gingrich 45% Obama 43%

A new Rasmussen national poll: Gingrich 45% Obama 43%.

Last week, Gingrich trailed the president by six. Two weeks ago, he was down by twelve. Earlier in the year, both Rick Perry and Herman Cain followed a similar path to take a slight lead over the president. However, in both cases, their time as frontrunners quickly came to an end. Neither man led the president more than a single time in a Rasmussen Reports poll. It remains to be seen whether Gingrich follows that path or is able to retain his status as the leading alternative to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

Note that every candidate has polled ahead of Obama at one time or another, suggesting to me that the public wants Obama out, and is fishing for the candidate to do it.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the challenge to Obamacare during this term

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to Obamacare during this term, with an expected decision to occur prior to next year’s elections.

No matter how the court rules, the timing here is not good for Obama and the Democrat Party. If the court kills the law, it will illustrate how misguided it was. If they uphold it, it will only fire up the voter base that wants it repealed to vote against the party that passed and still supports the law. And that voter base has consistently been made up of large majorities of the population, based on every poll taken since the law was first proposed.

New conservative website: Not Mitt Romney

On another campaign note, a new website, put together by some noted conservative Republicans, has just appeared called Not Mitt Romney. An explanation can be found here.

Remember how Nancy Pelosi said we need to pass Obamacare “so you can find out what’s in it?” Well, is it any different with Mitt Romney? Does anybody really have the slightest idea what he’d do as President? Nobody can even reasonably predict where the guy will be on any issue six months from now, much less what he’ll do if he becomes the leader of the free world.

1 2 3