Recently in Politics Category

Regarding treatment of Sarah Palin over the weekend, I was going to write something excoriating the Leftist press over this, but Megan McArdle beat me to it. I'm not going to bother with the idiots who accused Sarah Palin of faking her most recent pregnancy to cover for her daughter - that was so mind bogglingly stupid I couldn't believe people were wasting pixels on it.

The dragging through the mud of a 17 year old girl who has not campaigned, not given any speeches, not sought or been pushed into the limelight by her mother is slimy. I said this when it was Chelsea Clinton (before she started campaigning). I believe once they voluntarily step onto the campaign trail (e.g. Laura Bush and Cindy McCain, Michelle Obama) they make themselves fair game, but until that happens, leave them the heck alone. They didn't choose for their famous relative to run for office. They have a life of their own. Let them live it.

I see nothing wrong - and plenty that's praiseworthy - in how Sarah Palin has handled her family. Yeah, it'd be better if her daughter hadn't gotten pregnant, but short of locking her her up 24/7 - something I'd suggest would be evidence of character shortcomings - the girl is going to make her own choices, and 17 year olds are not as level-headed as thirty year olds. But in both the case of her own fifth child (born with Down's Syndrome) and her oldest daughter's pregnancy, she has done exactly the right thing. I've seen the phrase "shotgun wedding" applied more than once to the daughter's upcoming nuptials - but no evidence presented that the young man in question is in any wise being coerced into the marriage. Throughout most of human history, girls of fifteen to eighteen and boys of similar ages have been getting married and starting families. Yeah, it's probably smarter from a standpoint of the young folks not to start quite so early in our modern society, but it's still the right thing to do for the baby. They're accepting a lot of extra problems they don't have to in order to preserve an innocent life and care for it. Isn't that the sort of things those leftists praise working mothers for doing? I agree - it's heroic, not in the military risk your life sense, but in the sense of people who are going to do an awful lot of work they don't have to, over a period of time at least two decades in length, to make certain that child has the family life it deserves. And Sarah Palin, who taught her daughter well enough to take responsibility for the mistake that resulted in the pregnancy, even when they could get out of all of it in several ways? That's the sort of person I want to vote for, a sort of leader who is in far too short a supply in our government at any level.

I've also seen leftists telling Gov. Palin she should become a stay-at-home mom and give up her career, because she's got a special needs child. Say what? NOW may have gone overboard in the last twenty years ago, but that was one thing they accomplished that I agreed with even as young kid whose mother worked. A woman is not a life support system for her ovaries and womb, nor should she be expected to do more in the way of child care than men. Biology already forces her to spend nine months carrying the baby and she's the only parent who can lactate. Sarah Palin is the sort of person the feminist movement was all about in the beginning, the mother who wanted a career as well, and if the leftists who've been criticizing her for having and continuing her career had any conscience whatsoever, they'd appear before her to apologize, metaphorical hat in hand. Or is it that they just can't believe the Republicans have gotten past the 1950s, so they're hoping to peel off some Republican supporters? And for the left to sell out its supposed principles of female economic liberation in order to peel off a few votes in one election should have honest feminsits crossing party lines to vote McCain/Palin, because their own side has certainly demonstrated more than once in the past couple of weeks that when it comes to actually doing the things they say are praiseworthy, the Democrats have not come as far as the Republicans.

As for troopergate, where Gov. Palin tried to get her ex-brother in law fired from his job as a state trooper, that began well before she was elected governor, and if your governor was personally aware of a rogue, out-of-control law enforcement officer, wouldn't you want them to try to do something about it? This clown was guilty of abuse of authority, using it to harass non-police, tasering an 11 year old boy, poaching major game animals, and several other offenses that should cause a law enforcement official to lose his job. I'd prefer the louse was in prison, but having his ability to abuse the law removed might be sufficient for some people.

If this is all the leftist media has on the lady (and it appears to be) than the "revelations" we've seen thus far, then yes, I'd have to agree that the McCain campaign vetted her well, and there's nothing here that should be harmful. It has been reported that McCain himself knew of everything true that's been reported thus far, and chose Governor Palin anyway - something that says quite a bit in favor of his judgment. I'd say that if some people think there was anything wrong in the above actions, that's more a commentary on those particular people than on the Palins. Just because I think abortion should be an available option, and women should have the ability to choose to terminate their pregnancy, does not mean I think that doing so is in any way admirable, nor that doing so should be something anyone should encourage. In fact, if you've got the personal fortitude to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, an unplanned child, or a special needs child by keeping that child and bringing it up in the best way of which you are capable, that is what says something very admirable about you.

Beautiful! I love it!

The head fake with Pawlenty had me fooled.

McCain chooses Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as running mate, campaign officials say

John McCain tapped Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a conservative who shares his maverick streak, to be the Republican vice presidential running mate on Friday in a startling selection on the eve of the Republican National Convention.

Palin's problems? Her home state is safely GOP, so delivering Alaska doesn't add any electoral votes to the R column there. She's been accused of firing a subordinate because he wouldn't fire her ex brother in law from his state trooper job. She's made enemies within her state GOP for her maverick crusade against corruption and pork. She's light on experience at the level necessary - Governor for two years.

Palin's bonuses? She's not in the top spot on the ticket - Nobody ever said Obama wasn't qualified for Vice President, which would give him time to learn what he needs for the top spot, and as young as she is, her experience is still greater than Obama's. The Democrats can't argue that she's too inexperienced without undercutting Obama. Particularly her executive experience is greater than his. Matter of fact, Palin's career reminds me of a certain other young vice presidential candidate.

She has a long history of being anti-pork and anti-corruption, being even more willing than John McCain to root it out, even when practiced by Republicans. Given four years as Vice President (or eight) she'd be ideally suited to run for President next cycle.

Finally, of course, she may not bring in Alaska's electoral votes, but that's thinking small. She gives McCain a good solid wedge to appeal to not only former Hillary supporters in all fifty states - which will likely move a critical number of states into the R column, but she forever shatters any illusions about Republicans keeping women down. Palin's a working mother - and one of her children has Down's Syndrome, and I think she's the first serving governor to have given birth while in office.

I don't think anybody except McCain's inner circle was expecting this. This is masterful political judo on somebody's part in the McCain campaign. Yeah, I think Romney would have brought more credibility to McCain on the economy (far and away the most important issue), but Vice Presidential candidates are selected for their ability to help the presidential candidate win the election. Call McCain-Palin the PUMA slate. Appropriate in a lot of ways, not just from the Democratic, but the Republican side as well. But her selection gives the ticket a lot more, electorally, than it takes away, it forever removes the Democratic ability to slander Republicans as the party of white males, and it sets up a very strong presidential candidacy for her in four (or eight) years, helping secure the future of the Republican party.

I have made no bones about the fact that I much prefer John McCain to Barack Obama. This is a move that makes it much more likely that McCain will win the election, barring some weird revelation about Governor Palin. Where Obama chose the ultimate insider, McCain took a risk and went the exact opposite direction. I think it's going to pay off for him.

Well done, John McCain and Sarah Palin.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey covers the advantages of Palin wonderfully. Best quote:

Finally, based on all of the above, McCain can remind voters who has the real record of reform. Obama talks a lot about it but has no actual record of reform, and for a running mate, he chose a 35-year Washington insider with all sorts of connections to lobbyists and pork. McCain has fought pork, taken real political risks to fight undue influence of lobbyists, and he picked an outsider who took on her own party -- and won.

Who talks the talk, and who walks the walk?

Or,

If a Recession will not come to the US, the Democrats will send the US to the Recession.

Why did IndyMac Bank fail? Charles Schumer wrote a letter saying it was going to, and then published that letter, resulting in a 1.3 Billion dollar run on deposits over a two week period.

I don't know any lender that could remain solvent in the face of that.

From the Office of Thrift Supervision

The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York. The letter expressed concerns about IndyMac's viability. In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts.

"This institution failed today due to a liquidity crisis," OTS Director John Reich said. "Although this institution was already in distress, I am troubled by any interference in the regulatory process."

Some are asking: Did Senator Chuck Schumer Cause Indymac Bank Failure?

The answer is, not by himself. He didn't force them out on a limb by making risky mortgages. But he certainly chopped off the branch they were sitting on. Many institutions in worse shape have survived to become profitable again.

Now if I knew one of my neighbors was struggling to survive, and hanging on but with decent to good prospects of making it back to health, I wouldn't go administering the coup-de-grace while there was that chance. But I'm not a Democratic politician trying to convince people that the economy is in trouble.

The Democrats want a recession so badly that they're willing to create one. Anticipated direct costs to the taxpayer of IndyMac's failure? Four to eight billion dollars. So that people will be mad at the President and vote in Democratic candidates..

More evidence:

Bloomberg: IndyMac Seized by U.S. Regulators; Schumer Blamed for Failure

seeking alpha:

Schumer's letter served no purpose because the FDIC and OTS were already closely monitoring IMB. The letter was only for public consumption, to create publicity for Schumer. The New York Times "Regulators Seize Mortgage Lender" reports Reich saying IMB's deposits were actually increasing before the letter was published, after which withdraws averaging $100M a day started ($1.3B total).

Jerry Bowyer: How Chuck Schumer Caused the Second Largest Bank Failure in US History

Indymac has been under attack from the hard left. The Center for Responsible Lending issued an attack on Indymac within a few days of Schumer's letter. CRL is part of a small army of left of center 'research' groups, community organizers, and public interest law firms who make their living accusing home lenders of racial redlining and predatory lending. On June 20th the Center accused Indymac of unfair practices regarding minority borrowers.

Obama's campaign makes an appeal to pity. Willisms debunks it thoroughly.

neo-neocon on Obama's thin skin.

Private Papers on the Obama Double Standard.

Ever since he started this campaign, he's been telling people he's something special. What he seems to mean is that he wants special consideration, special immunities, and special opportunities for attack. I'm getting real tired of Obama's thin skin, and his, "Play nice while I take choice opportunities to get nasty" schtick. I imagine a lot more people will be before the campaign is settled.

Geez, at least communists and fascists waited until they were in power to suppress dissent.

I wrote the above Friday. Another example today: Obama tells seniors McCain would threaten Social Security;

Democrat Barack Obama told seniors Sunday that Republican John McCain would threaten the Social Security that they and millions like them depend on because he supports privatizing the program.

Gratuitous attack? check. Scare tactics? Check. Blaming McCain for something he's been among the potential reformers trying to save? Check. Tell me, Senator, how is this any different from what you got all indignant about a few days ago when President Bush talked about appeasers without mentioning your name? Where a reasonable reading of the transcript says he's talking about the general concept of appeasement, (in the Knesset of Israel, in the context of events leading up to Israel's founding). Then you jumped up and cried about how he meant you when he was really talking about events that happened before you were born?

But while we're on this subject, Senator Obama, if you dig into the actuarial reality of the referenced programs, the only way to save Social Security at all is a radical change like privatization. Social Security and Medicare are headed for financial disaster too severe to save them from (I'm seeing estimates of $65 trillion of unfunded, uncovered liability under the two programs, and growing. That's every single dollar the US economy produces in five years.) So what's it going to be, Senator? Do something so that these programs are going to be there in some form, or stand athwart history yelling "Stop!" Okay, so you've already made it clear what your choice is: Pretend those two trains heading for each other on the same track are somehow not going to hit. Now go rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic. The adults have work to do.

Another example Monday Obama tells Tenn.'s GOP: 'Lay off my wife'

Obama, his party's presidential front-runner, and his wife, Michelle, were asked in an interview aired Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America" about an online video last week by the state's GOP taking her to task for a comment some considered unpatriotic.

"The GOP, should I be the nominee, can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record," Obama said. "If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family."

The video repeats what his wife said speaking at a campaign even on his behalf. here's a clip containing it (I haven't watched the whole clip in this instance, just enough to see that it had what Michelle Obama was being taken to task for)

Dear Senator Glass House: If you are using someone to campaign for you, they are a fair target. What they say while campaigning for you is a particularly fair target. Let's contrast this with "how Democrats treat Republicans." For instance, Dick Cheney's daughter didn't campaign for him, but she became a campaign issue. Jenna and Barbara Bush became campaign issues when one of them had an underage drink (I don't remember which), but President Bush didn't complain about that because he had used them for youth outreach. Colin Powell decided not to run for President because of what would happen to his family. You decided to run for President in what should have been full awareness of the consequences, and if you didn't, that's hardly a recommendation in your favor - it's not like it's not common knowledge. None of the criticism of Michelle is old or irrelevant. The criticisms of Michelle Obama I've seen have fresh stuff, from campaign appearances she made on your behalf, speaking for you. Even if she were speaking solely on her own behalf, I think it's pretty relevant what your wife thinks and what her values are. Common values are one of the main supports of a viable marriage - her values are a reflection of yours. Otherwise, you wouldn't still be married. For someone who tried a few days ago to bring Cindy McCain's wealth just a few days ago (which has been held separate from her husband's money for their entire 28 year marriage), this shows a lot of gall.

(Every time I post something political, I lose readers. I'm doing it anyway, because the arguments in favor of sane government are a lot more important to the country and the human race are a lot more important than how many people read this particular website. Put bluntly, I'd rather influence ten people towards sanity in the US Government than have ten thousand daily readers to no good purpose. If it bothers you too much to stick around but you still want to read my real estate related stuff, go here. If even that is too much, goodbye and farewell.)

I have to agree that this presidential campaign is already the biggest disaster since 1996 at least. All of the candidates I liked are already out. The choice before me is "who is the least bad candidate left standing?", but this has been the nature of my choice in every election since 1984. Without tantrums on the left and right, it wouldn't occur to me to try to "punish" my party for some alleged failure to nominate a True Conservative or True Progressive, which I couldn't possibly care less about. The choice as to who is least bad is clear, at least to me. But if the choices before me are all evil to one degree or another, I refuse to not vote for the Least Possible Evil. I'm not taking my vote and going home. I'm not voting Cthulhu for President in the hopes it will scare people to my point of view in a few years time, nor on the basis that people of my particular persuasion can disavow Cthulhu's actions. For better or worse, we are going to choose a President for the next four years that will have an enormous power - both given in the actual Constitution and through use of the Bully Pulpit and de facto party leader that being President will give him/her - to enact their particular agenda. Congress couldn't lead a dehydrated man to water - but a strong President can lead the whole country away, and within the Constitution, at that. Any damage done will hurt all of us whether or not we are members of the President's party, and whether or not we voted for that particular candidate.

No matter who you think will get elected in 2012 or 2016, they'll be starting from a better point if they don't have to undo quite so much damage. It's also a heck of a lot easier to win if you're not fighting an incumbent.

Furthermore, I happen to believe that a further four to eight years will only make correct choices on all the important issues increasingly obvious to the electorate, whomever wins the general election in 2008.

If you can stand some foul language, Rachel Lucas (with some help from Bill Whittle in the comments, which are also spectacularly worth reading), makes this point.

I'm not happy with him at all. But he's made some amends of late, and I (for all his demonstrated faults) believe John McCain has also demonstrated himself to be a man of his word. I've made up my mind to vote for him in California's primary (by the time anyone reads this, I will have voted), and, assuming he wins the nomination, I will vote for him in the general election. If the nominee is Romney, I'll vote for him in the general, as well.

You may disagree, and vote for the candidate of your choice, and I will respect you. But if you vote for the Democrat or some third party candidate or don't vote at all because "McCain's not conservative enough!" you will find nothing but disgust and derision here. Ditto if you happen to be one of my few "progressive" readers: Vote the nominee who's closer to your views! I can respect that. In fact, I promise not only to respect that, but to respect the results of the election, even if they're not what I want. I have never gotten everything I want from a candidate, much less a nominee. That's part of living in a republic. For conservatives, even if McCain only moves your way fifty percent (or to use some violent hyperbole being thrown around, twenty percent, when it's more likely about seventy percent) of the time, the fallout from the next few years will be a lot less unpleasant to you and to me than either of the Democratic possibilities. So don't hold your breath, hoping for some kind of White Knight being elected by acclamation or four to eight years. Not. Gonna. Happen. This is a prime example of False consensus.

(While I'm at it, Wikipedia has a really neat list of cognitive biases that creep into decision-making. You can avoid a lot of the worst ones by being aware of the possibility they exist. The largest part of consistently good decision-making is learning how to outsmart your inner poop-flinging monkey, not to mention reptilian hind brain. The largest part of good negotiations is figuring out how to make the other guy's inner poop flinging monkey and reptilian hind brain want to do it your way)

FYI, that weak willed waffler Winston Churchill didn't just flirt with changing parties - he actually did it. Twice. Considering that he was the essential man in the right place for winning World War II, and it was largely his defiance which put spine in a demoralized public, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the viewpoint that because someone isn't somehow a "True Conservative" or in the past flirted with changing his affiliation, they somehow don't deserve the Republican nomination. One more piece of further information: Note that it's called the Republican Party, not the Conservative Party. There is a reason for that. Conservatives are only one part - albeit a large and influential part - of the Republican coalition. Learn, like the evangelical and (diminished) libertarian wings have, that it's better to have someone who agrees with you part, or even most of the way, than somebody who believes the exact opposite of everything you do.

I would draw the line at Huckabee, who apparently has all the corruption of the Clintons and none of the competence. Voting for Huckabee would be essentially choosing the abortion issue as being more important than everything else - and he still wouldn't be able to get justices that would overturn Roe vs. Wade onto the Supreme Court without sixty supporting senators, which isn't going to happen, nor would he be able to outlaw it in any states if it did get overturned. Not to mention that while I think Roe vs. Wade was a severely bad decision (definitely top ten legal mistakes of all time). I nonetheless believe abortion should be legal. Huckabee has all of the bad points of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton combined - with a few of his own thrown in. Obama seems like a great guy I'd love to sit down and have dinner with, or a political argument over a (for me) soda - I just wouldn't vote for him because of his record and the disagreements I have with it. The interests of the Clintons do occasionally coincide with the interests of the country, and so Hillary could be expected to occasionally accomplish something good for the country. Huckabee would be an unmitigated disaster for much the same reasons as John Edwards, or for that matter, Hugo Chavez, and I really hope he doesn't end up the veep choice, either, because I'd have to ask myself if the probability of McCain or Romney living through his term healthy and in command of the country, is worth the possibility that he won't.

But McCain I can live with. The limits of the damage he can realistically do the First Amendment have, to be frank, pretty much already happened with McCain-Feingold. You may not have noticed that, unlike legislators we can all name with continuing axes to grind, that there hasn't been anything new on that front in recent years. Keating Five? I think his experience there explains a lot of his character since - basically honorable man who's learned his lesson, and perhaps given it too much weight, ergo McCain-Feingold. Immigration reform and his support of so-called "shamnesty"? He has recanted, and I happen to believe it's real - see the effects Keating had on his character. Gang of 14? Anti-Idiotarians everywhere are going to be grateful for that if Republicans lose the White House as well as the Senate. Personally forswearing earmarks and fighting government pork? Brothers and Sisters, if that doesn't make you want to sing "Hallelujah John!" then you don't understand what the real basic problem with our country and our system of government is. Run "Tragedy of the Commons" through a search engine of your choice. Read the references until you understand what they're talking about. That's our federal budget in four words. Romney doesn't do nearly so well on either that level or the War on Terror, itself a critical problem and an even more immediate threat to the security of the country. If we're conquered and become dhimmi, we won't have the chance to go bankrupt in forty years.

I disagree with John McCain about many things. I disagree with most people about many things. But there is no doubt in my mind he's an honorable man who loves his country. He didn't spend five years getting tortured by the North Vietnamese when it would have been so easy to cave in because he doesn't love the country, or is afraid to work to do what he sees as the right thing. He will do what he sees as the best thing for this country, and for all of my disagreements with him, those disagreements are a lot less serious and less important than any potential Democratic nominee. Given that either the Republican or Democratic nominee is going to win on November 4th - and that's not changing until we get preferential balloting, which will be never - the choice between those two choices is clear. Consider it a vote against the Democratic nominee if you'd like - most Republican votes will be canceling Democratic ones. I can only hope and work towards there being Republican votes left over at the end when all the Democratic ones are canceled.

So to those who say "McCain isn't conservative enough!" I reply in classic Monty Python "intercourse the penguin!" You've got your eyes fixated on this beautiful illusion on the horizon that not nearly as many people see as you seem to think, and you're about to be gutted and filleted by an ugly reality close at hand - in fact, you're threatening to aid and abet that gutting. You're throwing away the good, or at least not-so-bad you can have because of the illusion of something better that you can't. You're throwing away the very real present in favor of wishful thinking for the future - because McCain's defeat will not cause the Republican party to nominate your dream of a "true conservative" - instead they'll nominate the most left-wing person in sight who's willing to put that R after their name. That's the real lesson electoral defeat teaches a party - that they haven't moved far enough to capture the majority of the electorate. McCain's the closest thing to your "true conservative" the Republicans have considered nominating since Reagan, and if you torpedo his election, it will move even the Republican party further left and completely torpedo your ambitions of moving the country right. That's damnfoolishness, and if you're not mature enough to stop throwing temper tantrums because you can't have everything you want, please do stay home on election day. Primary as well as general. If you can't take what you can get now while casting a vote that might really cause the country to go in the direction you want it to go later, then you are not adult enough to vote, in my opinion. The adults in this country will make better decisions for your absence. Even if it is even less in keeping with my immediate desires. That's the nature of a republic. Everyone votes, every pair of opposing votes cancels, and the one with votes left after all the cancellations wins the election. When your party loses, that means you get nothing, and the message it sends the party coalition in this case is to move even further from what you want in hopes of winning the next one.

Just when you thought being a landlord couldn't possibly get any tougher:

Assembly Bill 976 (law effective January 1st 2008)

SECTION 1. Section 1940.3 is added to the Civil Code, to read: 1940.3. (a) No city, county, or city and county shall, by statute, ordinance, or regulation, or by administrative action implementing any statute, ordinance, or regulation, compel a landlord or any agent of the landlord to make any inquiry, compile, disclose, report, or provide any information, prohibit offering or continuing to offer, accommodations in the property for rent or lease, or otherwise take any action regarding or based on the immigration or citizenship status of a tenant, prospective tenant, occupant, or prospective occupant of residential rental property. (b) No landlord or any agent of the landlord shall do any of the following: (1) Make any inquiry regarding or based on the immigration or citizenship status of a tenant, prospective tenant, occupant, or prospective occupant of residential rental property. (2) Require that any tenant, prospective tenant, occupant, or prospective occupant of the rental property make any statement, representation, or certification concerning his or her immigration or citizenship status. (c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a landlord from either:

(1) Complying with any legal obligation under federal law.
(2) Requesting information or documentation necessary to determine or verify the financial qualifications of a prospective tenant, or to determine or verify the identity of a prospective tenant or
prospective occupant.

Don't you think citizenship and immigration status might somehow effect a prospective tenant's ability to pay future rents? How are they going to pay rent if they cannot legally work in this country?

Contrast this with the brain damaged rules for what happens if a landlord discovers or suspects drug activity, or if law enforcement discovers such activity on the property.

If you're thinking, "have them furnish a large deposit," the law prohibits deposits above the amount of two months rent.

(sarcasm on)
TIP for Drug Lords: make certain your underlings are all illegal aliens, and keep all your "inventory" and "production materials" in their domiciles.
(sarcasm off)

What are the law abiding citizens (of whatever ancestry) who love this country supposed to do?

Roll Call of Shame in the Assembly:

Arambula Bass Beall Berg Brownley Caballero Charles Calderon Carter Coto Davis De La Torre De Leon DeSaulnier Dymally Eng Evans Feuer Hancock Hayashi Hernandez Huffman Jones Karnette Krekorian Laird Leno Levine LieberLieu Ma Mendoza Mullin Nava Parra Portantino Price Richardson Ruskin Salas Saldana Solorio Swanson Torrico Wolk

Those who actually value their country:

Adams Anderson Benoit Blakeslee Cook DeVore Duvall FullerGaines Garrick Houston Huff Jeffries Keene La Malfa MazeNakanishi Niello Plescia Sharon RunnerSmyth Spitzer Strickland Villines Walters

Roll of Shame in the State Senate

Alquist Calderon Cedillo Corbett Correa Ducheny Florez Kehoe Kuehl Lowenthal Machado Migden Negrete McLeod Oropeza Padilla Ridley-Thomas Romero Scott Simitian Steinberg Wiggins Yee

Those who actually value their country:

Aanestad Ackerman Ashburn Battin Cogdill Cox Dutton Harman Maldonado Margett McClintock Runner Wyland

I see both "my" representatives to the legislature in the rolls of shame.

(Yes, I know it's been a while since I did a full article outside my specialty. This one just flowed out)

You know, even as often as the candidates use the word "change", I'd be okay with it if they told us precisely what they want to change in the same breath. If they're really for changes the public wants, they wouldn't have a problem with this. If, on the other hand, the change they want is stuff like more privilege for politicians, more bureaucracy, more government control over individuals, I'd like to find out about these things before I cast my primary ballot on February 5th. I'm not voting for anyone who says they represent change without saying precisely what changes they want to make. There's a lot of things I'm happy with about this country and don't want to see changed. There are many more that, as bad as they are, could be made a lot worse, and are likely to.

When I hear a new program proposed, I want to know how they propose paying for it. Who are they going to tax to pay for this, or what other program are they going to cut? Much as I think the budget is too big, I want to know what cuts the various candidates want to make when they say they want to cut it. Not that I think there's a lot of programs that it's not worthwhile to cut so the people who pay taxes keep more of their own money, but I think it's important information to know. There may be people that don't agree with me on the ideal size of the federal government (small enough to drown in the bathroom sink), and they're entitled to the information. That way, whatever candidate gets elected, there's no crying that he or she didn't campaign on the issue and acknowledge the costs.

So far, precisely two candidates that I'm aware of have gone beyond the cult of personality and given the public some specific plans for what they would do if elected. Rudy Giuliani has done a considerable amount of this, but Fred Thompson is the current front runner in detailing specific plans. No coincidentally, they're the only two who could claim popular support for specific ideas if elected. Not to mention that the voters would have vetted the consequences of those plans as well.

Also not coincidentally, they're at the top of my "likely to get my vote" list on February 5th, and both are lagging their former support in the polls. It isn't surprising to anyone above the age of eight that it's more popular to run a "promise the moon, but don't mention how we're going to pay for it" campaign. Easier to get elected when entrenched interests don't have concrete reasons to oppose you. But by the time you get to voting age, you should be conversant with the fact that government programs don't magically pay for themselves. Before adults tell the salesperson they've got a sale, we want to know and agree upon the price we're going to have to pay.

House passes HR 1852. This raises the limit for FHA mortgages, appears to lower equity requirements (to less than zero) in certain circumstances, lowers their mortgage insurance ceiling. It also lowers the credit score minimum, and prohibits failures to pay from being reported to credit reporting agencies.

CBO report here, which quite frankly looks like a whitewash. You're making it easier for people with credit way below average to obtain financing for which the government is going to be liable, and giving them more favorable terms, to boot. Maybe I missed the part where they clicked the ruby slippers together three times and said, "There's no place like Oz!" (yes, I'm aware that's not the original quote)

Maybe it will straighten everything out before anything worse than what's already happened, and like the beginning of one of the episode of Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy, where the illustrate the illumination of the ultimate question to life, the universe, and everything (which the Vogons blew up before it could be communicated), really nobody will have to get nailed to a cross this time. Nevertheless, I'm thoroughly skeptical.

As a loan officer and real estate agent, this is going to make a very positive difference to my business.

As a taxpayer, here we go with multiple high speed stainless steel counter-rotating shafts, which we're all going to pay for, while those who entered the biggest transaction of their lives without any research are all going to benefit from. As tens of thousands of loan officers and real estate agents who've been setting their clients up breathe a huge sigh of relief.

At first glance and first thought, this appears to be a very poorly thought out and poorly targeted bill. Yes, it's going to save a lot of people, the consumers of which I'm glad of. But it appears to heavily reward severely irresponsible behavior by insulating those practicing it from the consequences of their actions, thereby encouraging more of the same. This is the sort of heavy-handed vote buying that I'd expect from a nascent communist state.

Considering my own individual interests, I'm all in favor of this bill. Considering those of the country as a whole, I find myself hoping the Senate has the intelligence and intestinal fortitude to produce something better. Right now, it's not looking good. There's no way the minority Republicans can filibuster this politically, and the Democrats look like they're ready to run off the edge of a cliff with it. The best hope of fiscal sanity is the President vetoing it (which is probably the funniest joke you've hear today, but there's more chance of that than anything else stopping it).

Reno Realty asks "Maybe I'm missing something here, but if distressed homebuyers can't afford the homes they're currently in, how does making it easier for first-time home buyers to purchase more expensive homes "return stability to the mortgage market"?" (The answer is in economic aggregates, of course, but it's a good point in the context made).

National Taxpayer's Union
recommends a "No" Vote

an apparent foreclosure and short sale specialist doesn't like it either - of course a foreclosure interests as an individual align perfectly with those of taxpayers, here, but the sentiment is correct "Trying to turn FHA into an ATM".

Seattle Real Estate Professionals do note that the President did at least refuse to support expanding the conforming loan limit.

The builders are happy (predictably) with the passage.

Honeycomb Properties sees good and bad.

While I'm on the topic of politics, during the most recent Republican debate, the candidates were asked if they believe in evolution as opposed to creation.



(See Below for update and clarification) Not to put too fine a point on it, not believing in evolution is not a central flaw in a presidential candidate. It may be silly, irrational, and unscientific. However, it just doesn't impact their judgment in a lot of important policy areas. Education, yes, but the President's role in education is small and should be negligible. For the vast majority of our history, there was no federal role in education, and the schools of that time turned out a more educated, more critical, product in less time, so I find the idea of federal funding and mandates for education being beneficial unpersuasive, and the President's role in education and ability to influence its course is rather minimal. In the last several administrations, the Presidential spouse has given more apparent attention to education than the President themselves.



Let's ask presidential candidates what their economic beliefs are. Do they really believe in supply and demand? The power of the market? Capitalism?



Let's ask the presidential candidates what their diplomatic beliefs are. Do they believe in realpolitik? Do they believe in accommodation and hoping a problem goes away, or do they want to not merely deal with the problem at hand, but work to give us better options next time there's a problem?



Being President is about finding stuff out. Nobody can know everything that's necessary to run a country like the United States. Let's ask the presidential candidates who they listen to. Who are their trusted advisers? How would they go about finding the information they need to make the correct decisions, and what direction to lead us in?



Being President is, most importantly, about being a leader, and getting the country to go in the direction they want us to go. If following the crowd or the most recent poll results was what was important, we'd follow the example of Larry Niven's Puppeteers and name our most important decision-making position "the Hindmost." Let the devil take the Hindmost - the most important thing in a President is a leader. Let's ask the presidential candidates to tell us how they would persuade the country that something very unpopular is nonetheless necessary. Matter of fact, if they're anything like the vast majority of the people out there, they believe in some very unpopular truth. Ask them to pick something they believe in that is unpopular and sell us on that belief. I don't want to vote for anyone that only holds popular opinions. That way lies disaster. If that was a good way to pick a President, we'd all just gather together in one big circle and blow on a weather vane to make our decisions.



Let's take it a step further. Let's ask the presidential candidates to tell us how they would go about the process of persuading the country that something they personally find morally repugnant is nonetheless necessary. Give them a short list of topics from various areas - foreign policy, economics, law - and let each of them choose one that they specifically find repugnant and sell us on it. That way nobody can make hay on the issue without leaving themselves open. But how can we expect someone to lead the country if they can't even lead themselves?



All of this prospects for two very important other qualities that are in extremely short supply in our political classes: rational thought, and the ability to respect the opposing point of view while nonetheless persuading them that your viewpoint has merit. It's very easy to accuse someone of being evil for disagreeing with you, but it accomplishes nothing. Our modern short attention span theater of politics does not encourage either quality - but they are the very qualities we need in a President.



This stuff gets tougher and tougher, I know. But we don't spend two years to pick our most important decision maker so they can avoid solving problems. We don't spend billions of dollars in campaign contributions to pick the President because the job is easy or trivial. And some people might vote for the most popular kid in school like they did for class president, but we don't need to spend thousands of hours of broadcast time to find out who's the most popular. We spend all those resources to pick the best leader who is going to make the best decisions for us as a country.







UPDATE and clarification: Yes, someone who believes in creationism is a moron - on one specific topic and those decisions relating to it. My point is that the major presidential decisions having to do with that topic and related items are few. Bush 43 has actually had one (stem cells). Clinton didn't, nor Bush 41, nor Reagan. But I and the country can cope with a candidate who's a moron on this one fairly narrow issue a lot better than we can cope with someone who's a moron on the subject of economics, or practical applied psychology, or any of a dozen areas that are central to the major decisions a president is expected to make on a continuing basis, and on which the vast majority of the candidates out there have convinced any rational observer that they are morons.



To riff on Monty Python's famous spam sketch, we can have eggs, moron, bacon, normal, normal, normal and normal, where there's not much moron in it, but it does not appear that we have an option where there's "no moron at all."

Poll: 79% Will Vote for African-American President

Seventy-nine percent (79%) of American voters say they're willing to vote for an African-American presidential candidate. However, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 55% believe their family, friends, and co-workers are willing to do the same.

See also, "I'm not sexist, but everyone else is"

Earlier, we asked a similar question about voting for a woman and found similar results. Seventy-eight percent (78%) say they'd vote for a woman but just 51% said their peer group would do the same.

The question I'd be asking is how many people don't agree with their positions on the issues, but would vote for them because they're black, or female?



Obama seems a decent senator for his consituents, albeit so left wing I'll never vote for him for President, unlike Hillary, where I might be persuaded to vote for her if the Republicans offer something even worse.



However, the country is 51% women voters, and I suspect a lot of them will vote Hillary despite her stance on the issues simply because she is female and they want to prove that a woman can be president. Ditto Obama and black, but there are more women than blacks, especially when you consider the numbers who actually vote.



(I have voted for a black for President: Alan Keyes, before he went crazy, and I'm willing to consider a woman on the merits of her candidacy, but not "because she's a woman." That's every bit as much a bigoted as voting for Hillary's opposition, if you do so because Hillary is a woman, and not because of their relative stance on the issues.)

Begging the Question 101:



Ford: Bush made 'big mistake' on Iraq justifications

"I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security," Ford told Woodward.

(emphasis mine)



I always respected President Ford, but this does directly impact our national security. I haven't heard the tapes, so I cannot judge context or the way in which it was meant, but this is a common error called "begging the question," which presumes the answer in the premise. For instance, if you are trying to prove that all dogs are blue, and include in your premises a statement that anything not colored blue is not a dog. In this case, it renders the conclusion correct by an immediate logical corollary (the contrapositive), but it's still a worthless conclusion based upon a false premise - I have two dogs at home, neither one of them blue. A very common one is made by abortion proponents, when they argue that women have the legal right to do anything to their bodies that they please, and therefore abortions should be legal. I mostly agree with the conclusion, but not the premise. If you could do anything you like with your body, on what basis do we prevent, stop, or medically treat suicides against their obvious wishes? On what basis do we require drugs which the person freely chooses to be prescribed by a medical practitioner or even outlawed entirely? Error, NOMAD, Contradiction! Sterilize!



Nazi Germany did precisely nothing to the United States prior to the declaration of war after Pearl Harbor. Indeed, they were very accomodating in ignoring many actions, such as the sinking of three German subs by US Coast Guard cutters, that would have been valid causes for war (much like the US is currently treating both Iran and Syria, by the way). Why then, did we make defeating Germany in World War II our main priority and only devoted leftover resources that could not properly be used against the Reich to the Pacific Theater of operations, against the Japanese who so treacherously attacked us? Because Germany was the greater threat for many reasons, and President Roosevelt knew that Germany would have to be fought, and if they were allowed to consolidate their gains they would have been a much tougher opponent.



We could abandon the rest of the world to fend for themselves, wean ourselves of dependence on foreign energy sources, and completely abrogate all of our alliances, in effect walling ourselves off from the rest of planet earth, and still the people we are fighting would come after us when they have consolidated their gains. Indeed, such an act would make it immeasurably easier for them to make and consolidate gains, accelerating the day when they felt ready to attempt conquest or destruction of our homeland. They aren't interested in any kind of reasonable accommodation, any more than the Inquisition was. Indeed, the Inquisition was willing to make allowances for the weaknesses of men and women, and foibles and errors of people, whereas the Islamists are not. The Inquisition was given authority only over professed Christians, while the Islamists are after dominion over everyone.



We have the option of fighting them now, on their territory, or later on when they have grown immeasurably stronger when they are ready to conquer or destroy the United States completely. I would like not fighting them at all to be on the table, but the only way to achieve that is to accept the place of the dhimmi, which would be the death of all of those cultural differences that those arguing the hardest against the war would have us celebrate. Gay rights? Women's rights? Separation of church and state? Freedom of expression? The right to choose any religion, or none? The ability to ignore officious preachers of moralism?



Suppose the Bill of Rights were suddenly repealed by our own elected leaders? Not just the unconstitutional abridgements like McCain-Feingold and all of the limits on the right to keep and bear arms, but freedom of speech, political expression, equality under the law, all of those things particularly in the first, fourth, and fifth amendments that gets everybody all excited? The sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments that protect the due process of law? Do you think a Second American Civil War might be justified? The Islamists mean to impose these changes by conquest. Do you think that means it would be somehow better than imposed by the opponents of your favored politics?



Here's one link to the text of the Constitution. Is there anything there, either individually or in the aggregate, that you might consider worth defending, by violence if necessary? What if our next President proclaims the entire Constitution null and void (without the due process of another Constitutional Convention and ratification by the states)? Well, the people we are fighting want to do precisely that, as well as destroy our way of life and kill anyone who does not submit. Actually, they'll kill a lot of those who do submit, as well. I knew some folks who went back to Iran to help overthrow the shah. I've been informed that more than one of them was purged by the Islamist regime.



War is a horrible thing. But it is not the worst thing. Yes, many of us are going to be killed in the fighting, and much treasure spent, even if we win. That's a lot better than the alternative if we don't fight or if we lose: more of us killed, what treasure we don't spend confiscated, and that precious thing known as the United States which allows us all of these freedoms we take for granted gone forever.

Farewell, Gerald R. Ford. You will be missed.



Unlike so many others, he never wanted to be President, but did a good job with the situation he was handed. I've always thought that had he not suffered by association with Nixon as every Republican did, he would have been re-elected in 1976. Those of us who are old enough to remember the problems of his successor's term wish that he had been. The Mayaguez incident lasted a grand total of 4 days, not 444, and his willingness to take action in the face of Khmer Rouge aggression ameliorated some of the stronger negatives from the fall of South Vietnam.



Of course, his most "controversial" decision was his pardon of Richard Nixon. I was 13 at the time, and even then I thought it a no-brainer. Looking back, I now understand that the "controversial" thing about it was "depriving" the press, which leaned heavily left even then, of several more years of beating the Republicans with "Nixon!" as the case made its way through the courts.



Tigerhawk has more worth reading.



I was comparatively young when he left public life, yet the one thing I remember most about him was that he was never barbed or hurtful in his politics, making his points by persuasion and logic, never by belittling his opponent. For that reason, despite 66 vetoes in two years (12 over-ridden - the Democrats had a truly massive majority thanks to Watergate fallout), he truly was a healer. Nobody ever considered calling Gerald Ford "Hitler." To do so to the President who made his own breakfast would have been ludicrous. There are certainly worse things to be remembered for than his, "You can disagree without being disagreeable."



Perhaps not one of the greats. But definitely one of the good. Would that we had more leaders of his type.

Okay, two years ago, I had advice mostly for the Democrats. This time, my advice is going to be mostly for the Republicans.



The Republicans played way too hard to the wrong part of their base for the last two years, and ignored the more important part. The christian groups rewarded them for their effort, but as is plain to see now, the christian groups aren't enough. Furthermore, the christian groups, the republicans are pretty much going to get no matter what. The reasons that they vote are pretty much anathema to the Democrats. At most they might stay home. But by playing so hard to them, they got maybe a couple percent higher turnout and participation - at the cost of losing ten percent or more of some groups that are much larger in the aggregate directly to the democrats. Small government conservatives and small l libertarians have voted very strongly Republican in the last several elections. After the prescription drug benefit on top of the very necessary war related and homeland security expenses mandated by reality after 9/11, small government conservatives were looking for Democrats to support just on the theory that a divided government slows the growth in the federal budget. I happen to think they're wrong, but they had significant reasons to believe so. Furthermore, the prescription drug benefit didn't buy you much with the older voters who are concerned about social security. It is necessary to reform social security, and now, in order to save it for the long term, but those voters who are worried about cuts to present day benefits aren't going to be swayed by drug benefits, and those drug benefits were a major chink in your armor with small government voters.



I fully realize that political parties are creatures of privilege, nonetheless you have a situation where necessary government programs of surveillance for the War on Terror created significant anxiety among the libertarian minded voters. Now the hardcore Libertarians wouldn't vote for you anyway, but they vote Libertarian, not Democrat, essentially taking them out of the political equation. However, those who trend libertarian and vote based upon economic issues have tended in the past to vote very heavily Republican. You did a poor job explaining the reasons for the surveillance and the safeguards on it. Yes, I realize that the national media, being Democratic partisans, did their best to confuse the issue, but the means exists to get your message out. Just a simple factually complete email to a dozen of the largest bloggers on the right and center would have done more than all the press conferences and hostile questioning you went through with a hostile media. Furthermore, you could and should have made it a plain policy of enforcement that nobody was immune to these programs. If calls to the White House are subject to the same criteria for monitoring as calls to Achmed the immigrant cab driver, and everyone in between, that says they you consider it important enough that nobody is immune, which goes a long way towards showing how essential these programs are. You didn't do this, thereby exacerbating the perception that caused libertarians to trend a bit less economic libertarian and a bit more civil liberties libertarian, a reaction that always has bad consequences for Republicans. Piled on top of the Terri Schiavo controversy, this caused libertarians to think more civil liberties and less economic.



Finally, the American public has roughly the patience of mayflies. That the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan has been going on so long, and is actually being conducted quite well considering the underlying political realities, cuts no slack with the American people after three and a half years. You've got to explain it to them, constantly. You didn't do that, as a result of which we may have lost the war Tuesday night. If the Democrats consider it a mandate to leave Iraq, we have lost the war, plain and simple, and I strongly doubt we will have another Ronald Reagan to turn it around for us. It's going to take something else as big as 9/11 to get the attention and the support of the American public again, and by that time, it will probably be too late.



Now, just as two years ago I had some advice for the winning Republicans, which included the advice that the Republicans would have a lot more at stake this year than the Democrats, here's some advice for the Democrats. If you look at the Democrats who won, they ran as centrists, not leftists. Calls for the impeachment of President Bush or another go-around of something like Iran Contra will not endear you to the American public. Most of your leaders are leftists, but it's the centrists who won on Election night, and if they don't want to be swept out in their next election, they are going to have to act like centrists, talk like centrists, and most importantly, vote like centrists. The national media, which the Democrats control, pulled out all of the stops in spinning things your direction this cycle. Furthermore, the Republicans were completely inept politically, and it was the sixth year of a Presidency, and the majority who don't understand the War on Terror wanted to register a protest vote, and you benefited from all of that. The Republicans had a lot less going for them in 1994, and in 2004. If this is as good as you can do with everything like that in your favor, you are in no less trouble than you were two years ago. More actually, because now you're going to be held responsible for solutions, instead of merely criticizing the opposition, if not in the media, then at least by the citizens, who are more and more learning to bypass inappropriate filters on the news. Try to run the country hard left, like most of your leaders have been talking until very recently, and you'll be the minority party again in 2008. Stay in the center, and you'll do very well.



Now actually I'm very encouraged by what I see from the actual politicians of both parties in the two days since the election. But the test is not in how they talk prior to taking office; the test is in how they act and vote once they have taken office.



Worthy Articles from here and there

Don Surber on what won and what didn't.

Decision '08 on the death of the conspiracy theories

Coyote Blog: Parties are partisan, so get over it.

Blackfive on Pelosi's quote that Iraq is not a war

Q and O Dems actually have to do something now.

Michael Barone on what Bush is likely to do.

Eject! Eject! Eject! on the way to react to Republican defeat.

Scrappleface on something that would guarantee a Republican sweep in 2008.

Michelle Malkin notes that there are already indications it may happen.

Don Surber New for 2007: Most corrupt Congress ever!

(This will be updated as further thoughts strike)



1) Very Surreal moment: Fox News just called Maryland for Cardin - despite the fact that Steele is leading the actual count.



2) They just did the same thing to Ehrlich, the Maryland governor, who is ahead in the count. Do they have the feeds to the public reversed?



3) Republicans find absentee ballots after all the ballots supposedly counted in Ohio. Not much detail. (Later clarification on my part) These were found after all absentee ballots were supposedly secure.



4) Harry Reid bloviating about investigating Halliburton, how he wants to be a uniter. Bull. His actions of badmouthing the opposition are pure divider.



5) They're griping about Steele refusing to concede in Maryland. He's ahead in the count right now. I wouldn't concede either.



6) Conrad Burns in Montana is badly behind in the initial report.



7) Allen and Webb very tight race. Lass 11000 votes out of 2 million plus margin for Allen right now. 3% remaining, and still too close to call.



8) Looks like Democrats have successfully lawyered DeLay's seat. That was low, even for the party of Richard "Dead Man Voting" Daley.



9) Official projection of Democratic House Control.



10) Talking about Dems in Control. Conyers running amok, playing political games along the same lines they've been playing, then portray themselves as "bipartisan". If they do that, after two years you're not going to believe the spanking the Dems get in 2008.



11) Bloviating about immigration reform "which was stalled by the Republican House". Actually, it was stalled in the Senate.



12) With the Dems who are winning being mostly conservative, look for the Dems to overplay their hand, especially if Pelosi interprets this like as a mandate of some sort for liberals.



13) Webb now has a razor-thin lead in Virginia.



14) Lieberman, of course, blow NutRoots candidate Lamont out.



15) With Tennessee effectively out of reach, the Dems need to run the table on Missouri, Montana, and Virginia, but the way the counts are going now, it's looking like they'll do it. The Senate is the only real excitement left nationally.

Better Late than never: Bush challenges Democrats to offer plan for Iraq



Mind you, by leaving it this long, it has become apparent to anyone of any intelligence whatsoever that the Democrats have no plan on Iraq. "Cut and run" is not a plan, and neither is "Starve the troops for funding.". "Get the French (or Germans, or Andorrans) involved" is a plan on the

level of "Fly to the moon by flapping your arms." It's not going to happen. Mind you, with the intifada on their streets every night, I think France is wishing they had sent some troops right about now, but they've committed too strongly to change course now.



The Democrats could have changed this at any point in the past three and a half years by getting real about their planning on the situation in Iraq. So as angry as I am that President Bush has let them go this long on a free pass, they have only themselves to blame that the effort does any damage. Kind of like a knight going into battle with no breastplate and a target on their chest.



Wars are not neat, clean surgical affairs. Not victorious ones, anyway. I had severe reservations before the invasion, mostly having to do with the American will to deal with extended conflicts of this nature, but I thought (and still think) the consequences of not invading were worse than the consequences of invading. Yes, there have been many mistakes made. This is a by-product of the fog of war. The next war in which even the victorious side makes no major mistakes will be the very first.



Meanwhile, terrorists are openly rooting for Democrats. The Right Place refers us to Mideast terror leaders to U.S.: Vote Democrat

Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. - including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

You want to know how stupid withdrawal is? The Islamics don't believe the Democrats would actually do it

Saadi stated, "Unfortunately I think those who are speaking about a withdrawal will not do so when they are in power and these promises will remain electoral slogans. It is not enough to withdraw from Iraq. They must withdraw from Afghanistan and from every Arab and Muslim land they occupy or have bases."

What would American withdrawal mean?

Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."

Unfortunately, I think I have to agree with him there. Why should anyone ally with us if we make a habit of leaving our allies high and dry? The US is the glue that holds the civilized world together. Without us, the world will fall piecemeal.



Q and O has more worthwhile information.



May the universe help us when the terrorists get to be as smart as "dumb" President Bush, who refused to endorse Joe Lieberman because it wouldn't help the Sentor with the people who were voting for the opposition.



Victor Davis Hanson has some perspective.



I have a theory about pre-election polls: They skew away from the party in power, as those who are disgruntled are more likely to want their voice heard. I've hung up on more than one of these idiots in the past week or so, and dozens of their even stupider kin, campaign telemarketers (I just don't have time to torture them mentally, the only worthwhile thing to do with either of them). The only poll that means anything is on Tuesday, November 7th. That's close enough, and I am patient enough, to be content waiting until then to get my answers. I happen to believe that we're likely to see two years of Speaker Pelosi, although not Majority leader Reid. I also happen to believe actual power-sharing with the Democrats in the session leading up to the 2008 elections will be a dream gift to any Republican with Presidential aspirations in that year. If I'm wrong on any of these beliefs, well, it won't shatter my world. We'll find out about the 2006 elections very soon. I can wait.