But Stewart Stevens, in his WaPo apologia (http://wapo.st/Wveof5) for the Romney campaign says the following:
“On Nov. 6, Mitt Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income.”

Is that right? if so, doesn’t that reinforce the 47% argument? After all, that income level strongly suggests that the 47% (low-earners) voted Obama. That, plus the percentage of morons above $50k was plenty enough to win the day.

Are conservatives dismissing Romney’s argument too much? Is Romney’s observation accurate, or being dismissed because it’s, at it’s core, fatalistic and hopeless?

Mitt wasn’t my choice.  He was my Safety School.  We really need REAL change, which means perhaps a Herman Cain or a Ron Paul.  (I’m not a Paulbot, please don’t boot me.  I just think spending needs a dramatic fix and few proposed it.)

But I wanted to publicly state that Mitt has my full support.  I will crawl a mile on broken glass to get him elected.  I am his servant.  Put me in the game coach, I’m ready.

We must defeat Obama.  It is imperative.  Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.  He must be stopped.  I will be stocking up on guns and ammo if it looks like he will get reelected.

What Demint proposes here has HUGE potential.  The experience of the GOP in the 1970s, so I’m told, is one of a division between social and fiscal conservatism.  Demint argues very well that there is no such division, and that fiscal conservatism and really libertarianism (or at least limited government) is highly spiritual.  So if this is how the social conservatives feel, we have a great opportunity to see our tent not only become a big one, but a unified one.  If social conservatives can feel in their heart of hearts that reducing government, even a government that could allow them the mechanism to employ their values on others, is the right way to go, we’ll see an explosion of a spiritual libertarianism that will give us significant majorities among voters.

Think about it: most liberals who aren’t Maoist/Stalinist simply want freedoms: freedom to same-sex marry, freedom of expression without censorship, freedom to do drugs, freedom to be dirty, dirty hippies.  If social conservatives can reconcile themselves to those views within the context that minimizing government is the bigger goal, then there are few votes left to chase for the Leftists.

I happen to agree more so with this approach then before, because the government that can institute laws to dictate your views can just as easily dictate the opposite views.  The only answer is a limited government rendered powerless to dictate ANY views, and then let the folks persuade on the issues and let the states make those laws.  Drug use is bad?  Fine, permit it, then target drug users with your message.  Same sex marriage is bad?  Fine, permit it and convince gays not to marry.  Let freedom ring for all issues, for all sides, and renounce imposition of any views through federal government.  Let the states decide these questions, or the local governments, or individuals.

When you see what awful churn we’re in, and see how the Constitution in its near-divinity, the masterpiece of all governments, if followed, would have avoided these problems, you really have to have a deep and lasting amazement at our Founding Fathers.  I wish I named my kid Madison.

1.  Why does it take the President of the United States to grant gay couples the right to visit each other in the hospital?  What part of the Constitution comes close to regulating this?  How did we get to a place in government where this order could be issued without scorn and mockery?  Why is the Federal Chief Executive getting involved in local hospitals?

2.  Why would federal policy govern visitation?  Why don’t hospitals have the right to dictate who gets to visit?  What dog does the Feds have in the debate whether I want my dogs to visit me on my deathbed?  Shouldn’t the hospital and the hospital alone make these decisions?  Good grief!  What would work in San Francisco may or may not work in Peoria or Tallahassee or Montpelier.  Let them sort it out!

In the end, this imperial pronouncement from Dear Leader makes me sick.  We need politicians elected for the sole purpose of taking away their powers and sending them back where they belong: to the states, or the people themselves.

Given that Stephen Colbert says that Redstate.com is extremely influential and given that I haven’t seen mention of Avatar in my casual reading of Redstate, I would conclude that conservatives don’t give a crap.  Probably for three reasons:

1.  Hollywood is Leftist and generates Leftist material.  This is not new.  At all.

2.  We’re too busy winning to care.  Conservatives have had their Moscow defense and are now advancing on a wide front westward.  We’re too busy to care about tantrum-boy Cameron and a *gasp* anti-military, anti-God, pro-insurgency, and pro-environmentalist message.  if we want that message we turn on any non-Fox news source.  We’re looking at taking the House and Senate in 2010.  We’re going to have the biggest comeback since Rocky 3.

3.  We enjoy free markets.  I think conservatives increasingly are past steam rollers over DVDs and CDs.  Live and let live.  We’re seeing what our country looks like when freedom loses and we don’t like it.  We’re willing to take the good with the bad, and let the folks choose for themselves.  I’ll watch Avatar because it looks novel and cutting edge, and I saw “Titanic” twice.

If there were not $45trillion of Western citizens’ money at stake, this would be the funniest moment in world history. What a bunch of buffoons. Not since Neville Chamberlain tugged a Claridge’s luncheon bill from his pocket and flourished it on the steps of the aircraft that brought him back from Munich has a worthless scrap of paper been so audaciously hyped. There was one good moment at Copenhagen, though: some seriously professional truncheon work by Danish Plod on the smellies. Otherwise, this event is strictly for Hans Christian Andersen.

My favorite word of the day: “smellies.”  What a charm.

Why should I be gleeful?  One of the chief reasons why the very rich and very young are liberal is because they don’t have skin in the game like the rest of us in the middle.  Any move to tax college students, however misguided, is a good thing for us.  Perhaps students will rethink their approach to taxes.  Perhaps they’ll think twice about using taxes as a solution.  Perhaps their activism will be blunted a little and even reversed.  Many of us fear the taxation tipping point where a majority of voters no longer pay taxes.  This reverses that trend a little.

Unfortunately I’m not hopeful.  Tuition taxes, like many other expenses, will get rolled into loans and aid packages.  Costs that aren’t palpable don’t have the same impact as those that are.  When I worked for a small company the CEO had a rule to sign every check personally so they could maintain a pulse on cash flow.  We know that college and healthcare costs have inflated like crazy in recent years.  I suspect this is due to the lack of clarity and the absent pain of reaching into one’s pocket and pulling out greenbacks.

“I’m starting to think that conservatives are the biggest p$%^@s on the planet, because their thoughts are guided by fear. It was the post 9-11 fear that kept George W. Bush in office to screw up our country to levels that we may never recover from.  Now the conservatives are fear-mongering on the health care, making people afraid of change that is clearly designed to improve the current state of affairs.

I’m not saying the new system will solve everything, but our current state is lousy, and stands to be improved.  Its a shame that so many people are afraid to make improvements because they fear change.

I’m done discussing health care with those who are moral cowards.  Waste of my time.”

When you get a response like this does it mean you won the argument?  If so, is it a knockout or TKO?  Do all arguments with a liberal have to end with an ad hominem argument?  Is this the Saul Alinsky effect?

I was also surprised to read that the owner of the group, Mel Simon, is a big Democratic fundraiser and Obama supporter.  Indeed, a quick Google of “Mel Simon Obama” linked to HuffPo that shows his contributions to Dick Lugar, Al Franken, Hillary Clinton, and the DNC.

This is key because the matter was brought up by one clueless UNCC graduate who wrote a letter and complained.  Surely her patronage wasn’t an issue so much as Mel Simon catching wind of something afoot in his mall.

This foolish UNCC graduate, Jennifer Ibanez, apparently thinks that criticizing Obama and the liberal agenda amounts to “support [of] ideas such as racisms, sexism, and even slavery.”  Of course the mainstream media report makes verbatim mentions of slogans found at the kiosk, none of which amount to the charges listed above.  Jennifer Ibanez needs to ask UNCC for a refund because she’s clearly not educated.  Apparently, just saying “Impeach Obama” harkens back to the days of plantations and Jim Crow.

Unfortunately the news story did not leverage the photos that the kiosk owner provided demonstrating how Concord Mills mall sells materials that are critical of conservatives.   In their words “Spivack sent Newschannel 36 pictures of several t-shirts and banners from novelty stores at the mall that were so crude we’ve chosen not to share them.”  I think we can imagine what these materials are about since we’ve had to endure “Buck Fush” type t-shirts and bumper stickers for many years now.

I would recommend that unless Mel Simon changes directions and supports fair and balanced speech by either reversing his decision or banning anti-conservative speech, that we do the following:

1. Spread the word far and wide of Simon’s action

2. Sell stock in Simon Property Group (stock ticker SPG)

3. Do not patronize the Simon Property Group owned stores and properties.  Good news is that there is likely a SPG property near you since they own hundreds of malls.  Bad news is you probably don’t know it.  Check out this handy tool to see where they are.  Type in a a zip code and you get a listing of any property within 100 miles.  You will be surprised.

Now I understand why I am relieved a priest got caught with a woman.  Heck, let them get married.  If the church can’t watch these guys, maybe their wives can.  Or at least kicka$$ nuns like the one in the movie “Doubt.”

Look, a 90% tax is a 90% tax.  We don’t know the terms and conditions of the bonuses.  We don’t know the purpose of the contracts, or what AIG receives in return for such largess.  Frankly, we shouldn’t be concerning ourselves with what a private firm and its employees consent to, no more than we interfere with what consenting adults do.  Populism and petty outrage are no excuses to throw principles out of the boat, especially when the anger is largely directed at the wrong things and the wrong people.

This situation has been clearly created by the government, not private institutions.  The government chose to tinker with the free market in the form of easy money for sub-prime borrowers, which added the gasoline to the fire.  Government chose to not let these idiot firms fail.  And now government leaders gets riled up over the consequences their actions generated because they chose – say it with me – to ABANDON THEIR PRINCIPLES IN THE FIRST PLACE!  Government should have no role in bailing out firms that fail or in driving social goals through financial games.

And the other aspect that simply a$$es me up is the sense that somehow a bailout dollar flows from the government into the cost center that funds the outrage <i>du jour.</i>  This is simply getting ridiculous.  These costs existed before the outlay of cash.  Why aren’t we outraged at the outlay of cash for government spending?  We KNOW those dollars come from us, whereas the AIG dollars consist of their operating cash, the money they raise from capital markets, assets, and lots of other things.  Frankly, AIG could sell a unit or some assets and say THOSE dollars went to bonuses.  However, Nancy Pelosi STILL have Air Force jets, 100% taxpayer funded (and probably more expensive than the private equivalent), standing by awaiting her beck and call to fly her to whatever planet she came from.

But the conversation itself is ridiculous.

The Republican Party is abandoning its principles.  Worse yet, I don’t think elected Republicans on the whole even KNOW what their principles are!  I really don’t!  I think they <i>think</i> they know their principles, but I suspect most of them are on Ronald Reagan autopilot.  Instead of asking “What Would Reagan Do” they should be asking “What is the Right Thing to Do?”

A little less outrage, and a little more thought, please.

In a Perfect World….

The punditry/interviews are handled by Bobby Jindal,

The speeches are done by Sarah Palin,

The principles are championed by Newt Gingrich,

and it’s all financed by Mitt Romney.

In the Worst Case:

The punditry/interviews are handled by Sarah Palin,

The speeches are done by Bobby Jindal,

The principles are championed by Mitt Romney,

and it’s all financed by Newt Gingrich.

(I don’t know if that last one works)

Isn’t this the perfect metaphor for the Obama Presidency.  Obama was sold to us by celebrities.  When you finally get it you immediately realize that it’s not what you expected; you were deceived into buying a cheap fake.

Add your own metaphors here.

I had to chuckle when reading this story about Disney Nerd outrage after hearing that Disney is updating the “It’s a Small World Ride” at Disney World.

I chuckle because I took a vacation to Disney World in December and I still want the hour of my life I spent at that ride back from the Grim Reaper.

To emulate Roger Ebert’s greatest review ever, I hated this ride.  Hated hated hated hated it.  As a Disney shareholder, I think it is in Disney’s fiduciary duty to destroy this ride and put up something more worthwhile.  Elderly transport device (ETD) parking or a pretzel stand are some examples.  I am shocked that these Dis-Nerds would complain that Disney is attempting to make the ride relevant to today’s world since it is simply irrelevant in its current form.

I’ve seen better animatronics on “Mythbusters.”  The style is the worst of the 60′s.  Beehive hairdos are less dated than this ride.  The over-optimism obscures the current world today.  I had to wonder how many of the cultures featured in the ride would be happy to throw tomatoes at the Americans gliding by their displays if given the chance.  And I was trying to recall what element of Disney magic was present when I looked up at the ceiling and saw ordinary officespace tiling.  Very odd.

And the song!  The song the song the song!  Give me an hour of William Hung first.

This ride is so bad I fully expect there to be a provision in the porkulus package to fund studies on how to build more shining examples of this nauseating tripe.  At least under President McCain we would spend the money to learn how we could turn this into a psychological weapon.  The thought of developing a portable version of this ride at Gitmo makes me pine for days before we elected Obama.  I’m sure the ride doesn’t fall under the new definition of torture (although I still don’t know what that is.)

“If times are tight for you, do you address the problem by spending more or less money?”

Judging from the state of the economy, I’d safely say people are spending less money, hence all these layoffs.  Fewer people are buying goods and services, so excess capacity gets cut out.  Fewer calls, fewer call agents.

The only exception to this rule is if the money is going to be spent with the expectation that it will help you solve your money tightness problem.  Things like going back to school or investing in new capital are examples.  Spending must be justified.  And we know in the household that the bar is high.  You really GOT to make your case.

So why don’t these rules apply to Congress?

-Democrats are now 100% accountable and we get to hold them accountable. Iran. Iraq. Bin Laden. North Korea. The Economy. All Democrat problems to solve.

-Four years of “I told you so” privileges with friends and neighbors.

-Sniping from the backbench isn’t exactly leadership but it’s fun.

-Before you marry the good girl you got to date the slutty one and get that out of the way. Obama is our equivalent.

-The conservative agenda would have gone nowhere under McCain. Liberalism’s pendulum was in full ascendancy. Liberalism is the nation’s itch requiring a scratch. After 28 years of center-right politics it was due to happen.

• The media gets to relearn how to eat its own. This is important if conservatism is to have a chance in the next election. The Press clearly won this for Obama.

• Conservatism needs to learn how to educate the American people. Letting the Bush Admin get bashed, resorting to anti-rich arguments, and not retorting to attacks on “trickle-down” was indicative that our side’s narrative on economics sucks really, really bad.

• Obama’s election wipes out the argument for affirmative action. If we can elect a black president I think racism has been effectively mitigated.

• We still will likely hold filibuster power in the Senate.

• Sarah Palin gets a chance to bolster her record in Alaska before running in 2012. As Thatcher saved Great Britain from socialism, so too will Palin save us from socialism.

The race isn’t over. We know the polls are wrong. We know Obama represents such a large departure from American politics that his election would be akin to electing an ultra-conservative fire and brimstone preacher. How she can think this is over is beyond me. Perhaps she’s trying to get in some compliments before the election is over so she can point to them when the Thought Police start checking up on folks.

I’m glad Peggy Noonan isn’t an elected official. She certainly doesn’t have the mettle of a Teddy Roosevelt, an FDR, or a Ronald Reagan. She writes fairly well, though. I wouldn’t expect her to help defend our Republic though. Sad. We need more people willing to put it all on the line and take to the hills if necessary.

I would think that if you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that someday we would someday become communists. – Jane Fonda, 1970, Address to Michigan State University

If the liberals weren’t so enthralled at eliminating conservative voices through a “fairness doctrine” I would not be so worried. What is the difference between Vladimir Putin putting newspapers out of business and the Democrats forcing Rush Limbaugh off the air. None.

If Americans weren’t so ignorant about the horrors of communism, I would not be worried. Communism killed more than Fascism but how many Joseph Stalin movies have you seen? Bet you’ve seen plenty on Hitler though. If Americans weren’t so modest about ending the Cold War and defeating communism, I would not be worried. We couldn’t move on from that one fast enough.

Communism is on the rise. Our Constitution could be in jeopardy. Let’s end it now before it gets ugly. And let’s speak out and educate Americans while they still have a free press and free vote.

Just got this via email from a buddie:

So, Sarah Palin’s advisors decide that it is time for her to meet a bunch of serious world leaders. They head to Europe, where, first up, she has an appointment with the Pope. The Pope and some of his Cardinals invite her for a boat ride on the Tiber. As they are sitting in the gondola talking, a wind starts up and blows the Pope’s hat into the water. Palin looks around and realizes that no one is going to do anything about it, so she calmy rises, takes off her her high heels, and steps off the side of the boat. Instead of diving into the water, however, she walks across it, to the hat, picks it up and walks back across the water to the boat. She climbs in, hands the Pope his hat and continues discussing whatever it was they had been talking about. The Cardinals are open mouthed in astonishment at what they have just seen. The news media, in nearby boats are busy discussing among themselves how to report it. Headlines the next day at the New York Times, The Washington Post and the networks all blare: New Revelation: Sarah Palin Can’t Swim.

• Chips Ahoy cookie; – Peanut Butter; – M&Ms

Flip over the cookie. Spread the peanut butter. Place M&Ms in the peanut butter. Enjoy.

I like to use 7 M&Ms, to represent the average number of signatures ACORN gathers from one person in a voter registration drive. Or alternatively the number of felonies the typical ACORN worker has on their record.