Sarah Palin Stumps for Saxby

Today the wife, youngest daughter, and I made it over to the big Palin/Chambliss rally at the Gwinnett Arena.

I'd estimate there were about 4000-5000 present. I guess that's not too shabby for a run-off election event. Sarah Palin is the big draw. No one would have attended without her, so it's a good idea for Chambliss to end his campaign with the biggest, most exciting attraction.

The event, for us, was only marred, because some of the more aggressive adults pushed youngest daughter out of the way to get to Sarah for an autograph, breaking a 13 year old's heart. Some old men just gotta get close to greatness, I suspect.

As for the speech by Sarah, it was a pretty vanilla stump speech. I can't really get past her diction and speaking style, but, the regular folks seem to lap it up, and she always has a few good applause lines. I just wish she had better speechwriters, and didn't seem to ramble on sometimes.

I'd say 3,000-5,000 present. The AJC was there and the report is pretty accurate. Note they said about 1000 for the Martin/Ludacris event. Otherwise, she's a great draw and worth the short trip to see her.

Here are a few action shots.

Mom and Daughter await Sarah

Some of the crowd

Saxby

Sarah!

Sarah speaking

The back side of the arena, with the press stand.

Obama voters. Ugh!!!!!!!

With a h/t to Gateway Pundit, you must watch this, the best argument for poll taxes ever made. I am sorry folks, but I am sick of my well informed vote having to contend with these uninformed (though I am sure they are not stupid) people.

It'll make you cry (and, if it doesn't, it's because you voted for Obama, and you are happy we're a nation of ignoramouses).

For more, visit How Obama Got Elected, and stay tuned for the documentary.



Don't...

Obama supporters bored

Ok, I have to pass this one. The Onion tells us what those Barack supporters are doing now that the election is over...


Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

Obama Wins!

Ha! Not yet, but let's be honest, the data in Ohio doesn't look good(update - NBC calls Ohio for Obama, so start saying, President-elect Obama), nor does NC and VA, but perhaps McCain can pull a miracle in those states. Without Ohio, it doesn't matter, and I think that will be the end (Update, the end).

Additionally, I expect Obama to take Colorado and perhaps Nevada.

Republicans did their part in Georgia, though, giving the state to McCain and re-electing Saxby Chambliss. A filibuster proof (until the D's change the rule) majority now rests on the D's taking all the remaining seats. Wicker in MS is going to be a tough one for the Dems, and perhaps Norm Coleman can keep the joke of a jokester, Al Franken, at bay. I swear, a senate with Al Franken is going to be entertaining. Maybe he can replace Joe Biden as the laughingstock of the Senate (if he wins).

So, a rotten night for the GOP, but, we deep down knew it would be that way.

Later, an homage to Obama.

end..

Industries Dems want to kill

This election season, the Democrats have made it clear they want to redistribute wealth. And, they will get plenty of chances, since they are targeting a few industries for extinction, among them:

• The coal industry
• Oil and gas companies
• Talk Radio
• Medical Insurers
• The 25% of defense companies not in John Murtha's district
• Wal-mart (and any other non-union big box stores)
• The mainstream media (ok, these guys did it to themselves)
• Investment Banks (with an assist from G.W. Bush)

If you can think of any more, please let me know!

end..

Fairness Doctrine, here we come!

If the Dems win control of Congress with a filibuster proof majority, and the Presidency, expect a comback of the Fairness Doctrine, and the decline of talk radio.

However, in this piece, Chuckie Schumer leaves an out. If we're ok with pornography on the radio, perhaps we can keep conservative talk radio.

Ok, Chuckie, I'll take the bait. I'm willing to accept the radio porno for the entertaining (and profitable) talk radio.

See Chuckie speak:

Voters intimidated (physically) in Philly

Voter intimidation in Philadelphia:



UPDATE: 2:33PM

A little more video on our Philly situation. Maybe these guys intend to reassure voters that they will provide security. As for me, I'd feel more secure with a uniformed National Guardsman than these gentlemen.

Election Day Thoughts

Sitting around The Varsity last night watching the Redskins get pummelled, I was in the midst of a raft of Obama voters (black men) and it was interesting hearing them talk.

You had the old sage discussing the days when black people couldn't get loans (because of their skin color), the young Obama advertisement getting more stories out of him and making sure everyone was aware of how "caucasions" had kept them down (note to this guy - you can call us "white"), and then their court.

I felt that, for these folks, this election is truly historic. An Obama victory also carries a high price for Obama. He is absolutely, if he wins in big numbers and carries a couple of Southern states (GA, NC, VA), he is going to owe it to black turnout. Black voters have a lot invested in Obama, a lot more even than the Kos-led left. While Obama has spent much of the general election campaign running away from the Kossacks, he hasn't done the same to the black community. Other than throwing Jeremiah Wright under the bus, his populist message and redistributionist policies are right up this group's alley. I sense a huge desire and emotion pent up in this bloc to not extract revenge, but to finally get what they feel is their due from the Federal government, and that will be embodied by Obama, should he win.

I'm not going to crown Obama the victor until I see something significant - like two of those three states going to him. If that happens, the election is his, and we will have to worry about the downticket candidates and whether Republicans can prevent a 60 seat majority in the Senate.

If that doesn't happen, and, if Virginia remains too close to call, we may be in for a long night.

This is a turnout election. There is definite energy on the Left. It must be matched on the right if there is any hope for McCain.

If you care about:

• Energy Prices staying low and energy independence
• Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan
• Staying on the offense in the War on Terror
• Jobs in the energy industry - particularly in coal, gas, and nuclear
• A strong and vibrant and committed military
• Economic growth
• Some measure of fiscal responsibility

Get out and vote Republican. You won't get any of those things from Barack Obama. You'll get retread Leftist Democratic policies that haven't been successful anywhere they have been tried. You'll get a weaker, more France-like United States, and you'll end up with a smaller, lower morale military, and much greater public debt. If you like those things, Barack is your guy.

end..

Barack wants to wreck coal industry

You know what's "unbelievable?"

That we're on the verge of electing a guy who says this kind of crap, wants to bankrupt an industry (coal) that supplies 50% of our electricity to the altar of environmentalism, and actually believes it.

The press loves Obama. They may succeed in their mission to elect the most unqualified, dangerous, and radical man in American history.

YOU can stop them.

end...

State of the race...

This election season, because Barack's got more money than God, and because of a "righteous wind at their back" here in Georgia, we are getting to see ads this season like never before.

I haven't seen too many Obama ads, but I saw the first one tonight. The blatant dishonesty and misrepresentations in this ad make me wish someone would just use that race card, if it's so damn effective (it must be, as scared of it as they are).

But, it's not really Barack's ads that have me angry. There's enough truth in those to make them acceptable, and we're doing it to him, too. No, what really makes me mad are the ads the Dems are running for their Senate candidate, the completely empty (and probably plaid) suited Jim Martin. Most of these are DSCC ads, and they are blatantly false, for example, accusing Saxby Chambliss of wanting to add a 23% sales tax to everyone's taxes. This is a misrepresentation of Chambliss's support of the Fair Tax (which would replace the income tax). Of course, Chambliss may learn that no good deed goes unpunished, like his participation in the energy gang of 10, or his vote for the bailout, which he is also being battered about.

As I said at the time (though, apparently not here), the GOP should have called Reid/Pelosi/Obama's bluff, and made the Dems pass the bailout without a single GOP vote (I expect the RINO's could have safely supported it, but no red state rep should have been asked to vote for this monstrosity) then we would be bashing them about the hands and face with it.

Finally, if Chambliss is defeated,or barely survives, red state congressmen need to understand that they play with Democrats at their own risk. I hate to be the bearer of bad news to these idiots, but, the Dems play bipartisanship one way - their way.

I don't understand why we continue to fail to learn that. Maybe a few years in the wilderness will drive that message home.

Steyn on Auntie Z

Mark Steyn says it all about Auntie Z:

"One thing you can say for certain is that Aunt Zeituni's deportation order will never be enforced. Demanding proof of identity at polling stations, requiring address verification for credit-card contributions, getting hung up on foreigners donating to candidates, enforcing deportation orders ... To raise such footling technicalities as "the law" is racist and so, in a squeamish politically correct culture, we let it slide, even as it corrupts the integrity of the democratic process and the defining act of a free society."


end..

Obama and his Aunt

Barack Obama is a guy who thinks we're all "selfish" for not wanting to pay higher taxes, who thinks the government is the solution to every problem, and who thinks amnesty for illegal immigrants is part of a solution to the immigration problem.

His running mate made $2.5M the last ten years and gave $3.6k to charity. He and Michelle made over $4M last year and found a way to give $240k to charities ( about 5%) - none of it at home.

So, maybe his treatment of his half-aunt ("Barack Obama's aunt, a Kenyan woman who has been quietly living in public housing in Boston, is in the United States illegally after an immigration judge rejected her request for asylum four years ago, The Associated Press has learned.") is just what we should expect.

After all, she's apparently not receiving any "charity" from the Obama, she's here illegally, and she's taking advantage (illegally) of one of those government programs that the left so adores.

So, if you want to know what kind of an America Obama wants for YOU, just look at how he treats his own relations.

end..

Barack Tells Objectivists Where to Stick it...

In a not-so-thinly-veiled remark today, Barack Obama told Objectivists where to stick their philosophy:

"The point is, though, that -- and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class -- it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month"

"John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic. You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."

Take that, you crazy Randians!

Still want to vote for Bob Barr or sit it out and elect this tool?

end..

Investing and the GOP vs. Dems

A (liberal) co-worker forwarded this analysis from the NY Times to me - ostensibly to show how the Democrats are better for investors.I thought about it and wondered what the Times might be tying to prove.

So, I figured, if you were studying such trends, why would you choose the S&P Index, and not the Dow? The Dow would seem obvious. It's an old, established index and something all people relate to. Why the S&P? Could it be because, for some reason, the S&P doesn't tell the same story as the Dow?

I decided to pull the historical data for the Dow and do the same analysis, using the Dow. Also, for fun, I decided to add the Coolidge administration. I mean, if we're going to lambast Hoover, let's at least give Coolidge his due. In doing so, I wonder if you'll notice a strange correlation between the Coolidge/Hoover numbers and the Clinton/Bush2 years.

It's kind of interesting the crash after a long, big orgy.Anyway, I used yesterday's (Oct 30) close for Bush 2. And, to make the analysis easier, I chose to average the percentage increase or decrease across the president's time in office (imperfect, but good enough for comparison purposes):

Republicans:
Bush 2 = -1.91% per year (what a difference a couple of weeks make in this market, by January, he could be a net positive (though I don't expect that).
Bush 1 = +11.26% per year
Reagan = +16.9% per year
Nixon/Ford = +2.98% per year (figured Ford's admin was too short)
Ike = +15% per year
Hoover = -20.75% per year
Coolidge = +42.6% per year

Democrats
Clinton = +28.39% per year
Carter = -.3% per year
Johnson = +5.15% per year
JFK = +6.1% per year (broke up LBJ and JFK because I wanted to see if there was any early or later effect from the JFK tax cuts)
Truman = +10.2% per year
FDR = +16.2% per year

Without Hoover and Coolidge, the average per year increase for Republican administrations is 8.34% per year. For Democrat administrations, it is 10.94% per year. If we include both Hoover and Coolidge in the GOP numbers, it goes up to 9.08% per year. There's a difference, sure, but, not as much as the S&P analysis indicated, and right around 9-10% which is pretty much
what we're conditioned to expect from stocks, irrespective of who is president. For fun, remove Clinton, and the D average is 7.47%.

Some things jump out at me from this analysis:
1. The Coolidge and Clinton years were the absolute best for stocks. Both these periods were marked by tremendous innovation and speculation, and both were followed by down periods.
2. The New Deal years are interesting. In March 1937, stocks peaked at 194, from their starting point for FDR of 53.84. From July 1937, they tumbled downward, bottoming at 92 in April 1942 - a 50% decline in 5 years! Imagine if W had the same performance (he's down 13% in 8 years). But FDR was a wartime president (oops, same for W). They didn't start a steady climb upward until that summer, after the tide had turned in the Pacific War, and the American war machine kicked in. Without WW2, that FDR 16.2% does not happen. In fact, many consider it was only the threat of War that ensured FDR's 1940 victory and 3rd term. The New Deal programs weren't proving so capable of turning the economy around, but a World War was.
3. Clinton's numbers are amazingly good. However, having just lived through the '90's I think we can agree a lot of the wealth and stock market run up was not entirely real. Plus, Clinton, unlike the current Democrat nominee,was a proponent of free trade and cut the capital gains tax. Those two policies alone probably had more impact on investment than any other factors during his 8 years. I give at least half the credit for Clinton's success to Newt Gingrich. In fact, I wonder what this analysis would show us if we did it based on Congressional control????
4. I'm really surprised by the mediocrity of the other D's numbers. I wonder what JFK's would have been had he remained president. He passed the supply-side tax cut that was Reagan's model, and I wonder if his New Society would have been very much different from LBJ's.
5. The analysis you sent showed Carter as a success, economically. This analysis confirms his ineptitude, as well as that of Nixon and Ford (and of the '70's in general)
6. Most of all, I think these number show the economy to be much more cyclical. They also show that the controls put into place during/after the Depression, are working, and have worked, to ease the business cycle and provide a softer landing. I think better understanding and application of monetary policy has helped, too. Lots of Libertarians like to rail at the Federal Reserve, but I think they're largely wrong.

I did check one other thing I had been led to believe, and that was that you could take any 20 year period and stocks would outperform social security (when you use the historical growth rate of SS as 2%). That's true if you qualify the years as after the depression, or, you forswear investing from about 1927-1931. I don't always get to fact check these kinds of things, but just thought this was interesting. The bottom line, to me, is really that the stock market is immune to presidential meddling, which I had been taught in economics class, but, I think it's pretty much true, and a testimony to the solidity of our system. And, it's also a reason why investing part of our social security money in the market is not a bad thing - as long as we avoid another Depression.

End...

Obamercial - just some of the misrepresentations...

Read some of them here....

More Reading

Over at The Corner (on National Review Online), they are less than impressed with Obama's infomercial.

Rush Limbaugh puts the election in stark relief.

Meanwhile, the LA Times refuses to release the videotape of Obama's appearance at the farewell party for Professor Rashid Khalidi, a former spokesman for the PLO and anti-semite.

end...

Voting and the Obamamercial

Ok, so I got to the advance voting site at 6pm and was out by 7:30. No too shabby and a vast improvement from Monday.

As for the Obamamercial, which is airing now - this is so boring, and Obama's narration so sleep-inducing, that it is unwatchable. His resume is so thin, getting 30 minutes out of this is tough. I think this hurts him more than it helps. But, I expect he wants to spend every penny he's raised, both legal and illegal.

As I was standing in line to vote, the library had an exhibit on Anne Frank, and that also detailed the rise of Nazism. Seeing that, it is interesting the parallel between the cult of personality that is Obama and was Hitler, with the Hitler Youth, the personal flags, the economic populism and blame game. How long til CEO's and their minions (their management teams) are driven off to whatever the modern day equivalent of concentration camps are.....

Anyway, that's designed to scare you. I don't really think that's possible in Amerikkka.

end..

Polls and Advance Voting Thoughts

Polls
Today, according to Drudge, Rassmussen will release a new poll showing a 3 point Obama lead.

Gallup has it at 2.

Despite this being from the Washington Post, it's a good read on why the polls all differ widely.

Remember when you read these "margin of error" numbers in these polls, these do not mean that the national race could be anywhere from x to y, it means, within that sampling of people, the margin of error for when they vote could actually be from x to y. In other words, if a particular poll has it O -52, M- 42 with a 4 pt MOE, that means that when that group of people go to vote, they could end up with a tally of O-48 and M-46, giving the MOE that way, or O-56, M-38 going the other. That MOE is specific to that polling group. That's why we see these wide variations. It's all based on who answers the phone. That's whay another poll can have it O-49, M-47 with a 3pt MOE. This is why pollsters get paid big bucks by campaigns, to choose polling groups that most closely resemble the electorate and to apply their voting models to those samples. It's an art, not a science. Remember that.

Advance Voting
If my experience with advance voting is any indication, people are energized about this election and it will be a record turnout. But, will it also be a record turnout in traditionally Republican quarters? Hard to say, but, again, in my community, the advance voters were out, and these are pretty staunch conservatives. But, hard to say. I tend to think advance/early voters fall into 2 categories - those who follow politics and would vote anyway, and those committing fraud.

So, my guess is the early/advance voting numbers are no indication of new voters, but of the energy of those who are voting. I'd say both sides seem pretty energized.

With Obiden slowly lowering the definition of rich (now, according to Joe, it's $150k, will it be $100k by Monday, and $50k by Wednesday????), and with new revelations each day of some whacky socialist idea Obama holds, we could see swing voters starting to swing back right, as they realize their pocketbooks will be the first thing socialized in an Obamanation. Then, it will be their guns, then their land, and eventually, their thoughts will be captives to the Dear Leader.

I don't really believe that, but, can you trust this guy?

end..

Fred Thompson Speaks. Why couldn't this guy catch fire?

Over at FredPac, Sen. Thompson provides an eloquent and compelling case for McCain and against The One^TM. (h/t Brandon).
Listen to it.

It's too bad Thompson didn't have enough fire to run in the campaign as he should have. It's too bad Romney couldn't get past people's lingering doubts about him as a conservative and Mormon. And, it's too bad Huckabee's populism too closely mirrors the Democrats.

But, we got an honorable man as a nominee, and one who deserves to win, if only because the alternative is so horribly wrong for the country.

So, get out to vote and take a couple dead friends with you.

Obama: Warren Court Not Radical Enough!

So Barack Obama was thinking about redistribution as far back as 2001. Who would've known:




Anyway, the McCain campaign is seizing on this and it elicited this response from McCain senior policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin:


"No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench – as insurance in case a unified Democratic government under his control fails to meet his basic goal: taking money away from people who work for it and giving it to people who Barack Obama believes deserve it. Europeans call it socialism, Americans call it welfare, and Barack Obama calls it change,"

How long til the Obama campaign calls that statement racist?