Senator Evan Bayh is retiring…

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh will not seek re-election this year, a decision that hands Republicans a prime pickup opportunity in the middle of the country.

“After all these years, my passion for service to my fellow citizens is undiminished, but my desire to do so by serving in Congress has waned,” Bayh will say, according to prepared remarks obtained by the Fix. He will make the decision formal at a press conference later today.

Bayh was first elected to the Senate in 1998 and was re-elected easily in 2004. National Republicans had recruited former Sen. Dan Coats to challenge Bayh in 2010 although polling suggested Bayh began the race with a 20-point edge. He also had $13 million in the bank at the end of the year.

Oh, and there’s this.

The Cook Political Report, one of the nation’s leading handicappers of congressional elections, now carries 10 Democratic-held seats in its most competitive categories — meaning that if Republicans sweep those race (and lose none of their own vulnerable seats), they will have a 51-seat majority. Cook, incidentally, moved Indiana from a lean Democratic seat to a lean Republican seat in the wake of the Bayh news.

2010 is going to be a good year indeed.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: And better and better and better…

Signs of real vulnerability for California’s Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer

UPDATE II, by Mark Noonan:

Now Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) to bow out?

Just as Democrats bribed their way to get the 60 votes needed to bring Obamacare to a vote in the Senate, a new poll by Quinnipiac finds Americans overwhelming disapprove of the plan, and more than 70% oppose using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions.

As the Senate prepares to vote on health care reform, American voters “mostly disapprove” of the plan 53 – 36 percent and disapprove 56 – 38 percent of President Barack Obama’s handling of the health care issue, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Voters also oppose 72 – 23 percent using any public money in the health care overhaul to pay for abortions, the independent Quinnipiac University poll finds.

And how about Independent voters? They ain’t buying the plan either.

Looking at the health care plan, independent voters “mostly disapprove” 58 – 30 percent, as do Republicans 83 – 10 percent. Democrats “mostly approve” 64 – 22 percent.

The situation only gets worse for Obama. Obama’s handling of the economy gets bad marks as well, even as Obama claims that this health care bill will reduce the deficit.

American voters also disapprove 51 – 44 percent of President Obama’s handling of the economy and disapprove 56 – 37 percent of the way he is creating jobs. But voters favor 52 – 42 percent his plan to use $200 billion left over from the bank bailout for a new stimulus package to create jobs rather than to reduce the budget deficit.

Only 31 percent of voters say Obama’s policies will help their personal financial situation, while 37 percent say his policies will hurt and 30 percent say his policies will make no difference. Among voters in households where someone has lost a job in the last year, 37 percent say Obama policies will help them personally, while 37 percent say they will hurt.

I guess the people aren’t buying Obama’s b.s. about the bill deficit-reducing nature. Of course, no thinking person would.

Which means that that 43% aren’t paying attention to what a disaster he is.

In what may be the ultimate job rating, 43 percent of voters say that they would vote to re-elect President Obama if the 2012 election were held today, down from 52 percent six months ago, from April 22-23, 2009.

Obama’s job approval rating comes in at 49 percent this week. That’s down just one percentage point from late September, but it marks a new low approval for the president — and the first time the Fox News poll has measured his approval below 50 percent.

Moreover, the number of Americans saying they would vote to re-elect President Obama has dropped. If the election were held today the poll finds more voters say they would back someone else in the 2012 election than would back the president.

Have at it… It’s nice to see people realizing the guy is incompetent and in way over his head.

But in all seriousness, can we have the election again in November so we can fix the Great Mistake of ‘08?

Michael Totten keeps up the excellent run down on the Iranian situation – including the encouraging report that the regular Army is staying out of it…but the Mullahs have forces (Revolutionary Guards, foreign thugs, etc) to keep the people down. Bottom line, unless at least some of the Army goes over to the people, the Iranian regime will gain control of the situation. Here is a heart-rending quote:

One comment from a reader claiming to be in Tehran struck us all today. A translation follows:

“I am in Tehran. Its 3:40 in the morning. I’ve connected with you [by hacking past the government filter]. It’s a big mess here. People are yelling from their houses – ‘death to the dictator.’ They are setting up a military government. No one dares to go out. No one has seen Mousavi today. Rumor has it that they have arrested him. I don’t have an email but I will contact you again.

Help us.”

The comment begs a critical question: How do we help the Iranian people during this tumultuous time?

How, indeed? By promising the Army that we’ll provide whatever is needed if they’ll overthrow the current Iranian regime and allow a genuine poll of the Iranian people to select a new government. Will Obama do it? I doubt it – he’ll still be wondering just when he should start “engaging” again…and a supreme opportunity in the War on Terror will pass us by.

And I’ll bet that Obamunism just accelerates this trend:

My friend Eric Ostermeier at the University of Minnesota has been parsing 160 polls taken recently in Minnesota and the Upper Midwest, and found a surprising result. Despite having elected Barack Obama by wide margins in most of the states, voters in the region have become more conservative over the past two years. Self-identifying conservatives have reached their highest levels in at least four years:

In 2006, the percentage of Minnesotans identifying as conservatives plunged 5.3 points (15.9 percent) to just 28.1 percent of Gopher State residents. Self-identified conservatives in Iowa also declined by 5.1 points (13.9 percent) to 31.5 percent that year, with the largest drop occurring in Wisconsin, with a 6.1-point decline (16.9 percent) to 29.9 percent. In that November’s election cycle, Republicans lost control of the Minnesota House, the Iowa House, the Wisconsin Senate, as well as three U.S. House seats (MN-01, IA-01, WI-08).

The percentage of residents identifying as conservatives declined again in 2007, by 1.6 points in Minnesota (to 26.5 percent), by 3.0 points in Iowa (to 28.5 percent), and by 2.2 points in Wisconsin (to 27.7 percent).

However, during the last two years, conservatism seems to be mounting a comeback in the Upper Midwest, even though the 2008 election cycle saw Republicans lose control of the Wisconsin Assembly, and lose additional seats in the Minnesota House, Minnesota Senate, Iowa House, and Iowa Senate.

In Minnesota, those Gopher State residents identifying as conservative increased by 1.3 points in 2008 (to 27.8 percent) and by another 1.2 points to 29.0 percent in an aggregation of polling data through the first five months of 2009. This marks the largest percentage of Minnesotans viewing themselves as conservative since 2005.

In Iowa and Wisconsin, the conservative resurgence has been even more pronounced.

Obviously, that didn’t help much in 2008, but part of the answer for that may be in the candidates fielded by the Republicans.

We’re being fed a siren song by the left and by weak kneed GOPers that we have to mute our conservatism…to be less confrontational, to be more nicey-nice and, of course, be more willing to “accept” moderates (which means, of course, “pour out your sweat and treasure for nominal GOPers who will cut you off at the knees when it really matters”). This bit of advice from liberals is what liberals want very much for us to do – because anything which tends to allow them to appear moderate by blending in with the GOP helps them get elected by a center/right electorate. This bit of advice from weak kneed GOPers is what the weak kneed want because they prefer to be invited to the cool parties and have soft-ball interviews on MSM talk shows…makes ‘em look smart and important, ya know? Combined, this advice will allow the left to have a kept GOP minority and allow the left to rule the roost. This advice thus doesn’t commend itself to me.

We need to be more stark in our differentiation with the left – with Obama and his Democrats we must be clearly and absolutely different from them. When the wheels finish coming off the Obama Express, we have to be in a position where we warned it would happen, and have a clear alternate plan already in the public mind. Its like this – we screwed up and we lost; the liberals won…allow the liberals to run things and thus allow them to take full responsibility for how bad it gets. Enunciate a clear, conservative message and the people will swing back to us.

From Rasmussen:

Just 18% of Americans think the United Auto Workers union and the federal government will do a good job running Chrysler and General Motors, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Forty-seven percent (47%) believe the union and the government will do a bad job, while 35% are not sure.

That 18% must be the number of Americans who also think the people who brought us the DMV are the people to organize our health care, too. Just where did we get the people in this country who actually think something as corrupt as the UAW and as clueless as the US government can run a for-profit enterprise? Think about this – if the poll is correct (and we’ve no particular reason to think its out of the question), then there are literal tens of millions of Americans (ie, enough to sustain a movement which appears to have broad support) who think that the Euro-socialist model is a good one…this in spite of the clear failure of such a system.

The Founders would be shocked at so many of their progeny having the mentality of serfs…

Last week, Politico highlighted ”seven things the White House wants reporters to write” about Obama’s first 100 days in office…

Here’s each point, and my rebuttal.

Obama is a promise-keeper.

Now, a few bloggers, including myself, have regularly blogged about Obama’s broken promises for American Issues Project for a couple months now. There has been no lack of material for this. His broken promises range from such things as failing to recognize the Armenian genocide, despite saying he would during the campaign. Other broken promises include not taxing the poor, getting a rescue dog for his daughters, leading by principle rather than polls, cutting spending, not negotiating with Hamas, just to name a few.

And his promise for more transparency was clearly bogus as well.

This NRSC ad pretty much sums it up…

Obama is a game-changer.

Obama may be changing things, but not for the better. And clearly, his belief that reaching out to our enemies would strengthen us is beyond absurd and shows no sign of producing results. Despite original reports that Obama made significant progress with Raul Castro regarding human rights, freedom of the press, political prisoners, etc., it was revealed a few days later that Obama “misintepreted” Castro’s comments. Obama, in seeking the approval of foreign leaders, resorts to blaming and apologizing for the United States for various things, undermining our moral authority.

Obama is the decider.

If Obama is the decider, then how come he claims he was unaware of the AIG bonuses shifting blame away from himself and towards Chris Dodd. If Obama is the decider, what does that say about his poor decisions in choosing his cabinet? What does that say about his lack of immediate, decisive action with the Somali pirate hostage mess? Obama has shown zero accountability in his 100 days and probably won’t ever. 

Obama’s not in the bubble.

Obama claimed to be unaware of the tax day tea parties. Obama claimed to be unaware of the AIG bonuses, which he signed into law. He has actually claimed to unaware of a lot of things recently. So, it certainly looks like he is in a bubble.

Obama is not FDR. / Obama is FDR.

Obama’s administration is desperately trying to lower expectations, while simultaneously elevating Obama to a historical greatness he cannot possibly achieve. Obama certainly won’t be as effective as FDR. but he certainly has similiar socialist ideals as the president whose policies kept our country in the Great Depression far longer than it had to. Sadly the passage of time has given the negative impacts of FDR’s policies ample opportunity to be distorted by those who want to rewrite history. But, if greatness is what Obama is going after, his incompetence, and the incompetence of those around him are making sure he will never achieve it.

Obama is one cool cucumber.

Obama’s hesistance over the Somali pirate hostage situation stands in contrast to the notion that Obama is cool under pressure.  This swine flu deal. The government’s response to the situation has been inadequate and half-assed compared to the how they’ve characterized the problem. And of course, there have been ample stories questioning whether Obama has too much on his plate, which is pathetic because he doesn’t have a greater set of problems and issues to face as any of his predecessors. The issue isn’t whether he has too much, it is whether he is handling what he has well. And he isn’t. Not at all.

Scott Ramussen has some trenchant comments about the DC GOP and the political scene in general:

To be relevant in politics, you need either formal power or a lot of people willing to follow your lead. The governing Republicans in the nation’s capital have lost both on their continuing path to irrelevance.

The disconnect between D.C. Republicans and Republicans throughout the country has been growing for nearly 20 years, but it became more intense and noticeable during the waning years of the Bush administration.

Perhaps the final straw was the $700 billion bank bailout plan pushed through Congress last fall despite strong voter opposition. For all the furor unleashed this spring by congressional Republicans about President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus plan, the Bush-era bailouts last fall were approved with virtually no advance notice and no guidelines as to how the money would be spent. Looking back, most voters and nearly eight-out-of-10 Republicans now believe the bailouts were a bad idea.

The April 15 “tea party” protests, viewed favorably by 51% of Americans, were fueled as much by anger at the bailouts as anything else. Many Inside-the-Beltway Republicans chose to distance themselves from the events, and many tea party participants were happy to express their anger at both Beltway Republicans and Democrats…

…The gap between Beltway Republicans and the Republican base is part of a wider gap between the Mainstream and the Political Class. On many issues, the gap between Mainstream Americans and the Political Class is bigger than the gap between Mainstream Republicans and Mainstream Democrats.

But Political Class Democrats control Congress and the White House while their GOP counterparts have little in the way of power and influence to overcome the disconnect with their base. One immediate result of this is that senior senators like Arlen Specter and John McCain now are facing primary challenges. Other challenges may follow. It used to be possible for Republicans in Washington to argue that they needed someone like Specter or McCain to hang on to the majority but no longer.

Look for the Republican Party to sink further into irrelevancy as long as its key players insist on hanging around Congress or K Street for their ideas. The future for the GOP is beyond the Beltway.

It is, as the great Ronald Reagan once pointed out, a time for choosing. In that year of 1964, Reagan pointed out the stark differences between the conservative, Republican worldview and the position of the liberal Democrats and their “less-of-the-same, go-along-to-get-along” Republican fellow travelers. The net result of that election was, of course, a complete wipe-out of conservative, Republican ideals at the polls. I mean, our defeat that year was positively embarrassing. But it was ok – we eventually carried those exact principles into the White House and by them saved America, preserved liberty and destroyed the USSR. We conservatives are now faced with a the same opponents Reagan faced – those liberal Democrats and their “can-I-be-your-friend-Barack” RINO fellow travelers. We can only beat them by reaffirming the core principles of conservative Republicanism and then fighting like mad – as the Gipper did – to enact them into law.

There are some good men and women in the Congressional GOP – but they seem too cowed by those members of the caucus who want to get along with our opponents. As I noted earlier, it seems that Orrin Hatch (R?-UT) wants to scratch Toomey from the GOP lists in Pennsylvania and find a “Beltway-Approved” candidate to take on Arlen Specter. Toomey is the man who would have rid us of Specter in 2004 except Specter prevailed upon the GOP – including President Bush – to back him to the hilt. Toomey is the instrument by which we exposed Specter for what he really is and got him out of the party. Toomey is the clear favorite of the Pennsylvania GOP…and Hatch is at least implying that if Toomey is the GOP nominee, the Beltway GOP won’t back him. What kind of nonsense is that?

The kind of nonsense the powerful are used to imposing on us. They are instructing us not to get too above ourselves and, also, that if we want to win we need to find people who will stab us in the back after the election is over. This is Beltway logic – but it is betrayal of the people of the conservative, Republican movement who pour out their sweat and treasure in the hopes that the leftist tide will be turned back for good. There is no point in winning if “winning” means enacting Democrat-lite policies. Democrats like Democrat policies, and that is fine – let them run on them and, if they win, enact them into law…more power to them and God bless them all…but we’re conservative Republicans and we want to not only run on conservative, Republican principles, we want to govern on them, when we win. Anyone who can’t be part of this had better hit the road, as far as I’m concerned. We don’t need people who don’t have the heart to fight.

Do keep in mind that conservative, Republican principles cover a lot of ground – there is, indeed, the Big Tent of Ronald Reagan…but this Big Tent does have some rules, among them are that taxes shall be low, budgets shall be balanced, gun ownership shall be an individual right, worship shall be free, national defense shall remain strong, the people shall rule themselves in their local communities, the judges shall be strict constructionists…you can be pro-choice and be part of the movement. Heck, you can be in favor of abortion, gay marriage and environmentalist whackoism and still be part of the movement…as long as you don’t want to force the States and the people to keep abortion legal, enact gay marriage and be green if they don’t have a mind to do so in their States and local communities. What you can’t be is someone allegedly pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-environmentalist who then goes and cuts us off at the knees by voting for some ridiculous tax and spend liberalism, or who votes to approve a judge who wants to impose liberalism via judicial fiat, or who allows himself to be stampeded by MSM shouting into some unwise, but fashionable, course of action. Better ten Giulianis in the Senate than one Specter.

The Beltway GOP had better sit up and take notice – Specter is just the first RINO we’re forcing out. The rest will go, too, unless they mend their ways right quick. We’re not asking anyone to abandon what they consider core principle – heck, we’d be insulted if anyone asked us to do that – but if you claim to subscribe to a principle then you’d better darn well do so, whatever the immediate, personal, political consequences. And if your core principles don’t extend to limited government, individual liberty, local control and the rest then there is a party for you – it is called the Democrat party. Get on board, or get out; that is the stark choice for all RINOs.

Obama

(with apologies to Roger Waters)

Obama, do you think they’ll drop the bomb?
Obama, do you think they’ll like this song?

Obama, do you think they’ll try to break my balls?
Ooooowaa Obama, should you build a wall?

Obama, glad you ran for president.
Obama now, I trust the government.

Obama, will you put them on the firing line?
Ooooowaa is it just a waste of time?

Hush, my baby. baby, dont you cry.
Obama’s gonna make all of your nightmares come true.
Obama’s gonna put all of his fears into you.
Obama’s gonna keep you right here under his wing.
He wont let you fly, but he might let you sing.
Obama’s gonna keep baby cozy and warm.
Oooo babe.Oooo babe.Ooo babe, Obama’s gonna build a wall.

Obama, is the economy good enough,For me?
Obama, do you think that loan’s dangerous,To me?
Obama will it tear your little boy apart?
Ooooowaa Obama, will it break my heart?

Hush, my baby. baby, dont you cry.
Obama’s gonna pay all of your loans off for you.
Obama won’t let anything dirty get through.
Obama’s gonna wait up until you get in.
Obama will always find out where you’ve been.
Obama’s gonna keep baby healthy and clean.

And Obama’s gonna make all of your cars now for you
He’ll make all the payments and fix them all, too!
Obama will tell you how far you can drive
Obama will make sure that you get there alive
Oooo babe.Oooo babe.Ooo babe,
youll always be baby to me.

Obama, did it need to be so high?

Geesh:

When it comes to important national issues, 73% of adults nationwide trust the judgment of the American people more than that of America’s political leaders.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 13% place more trust in the judgment of the politician.

Now we know how large the real, rock solid and irreducible base of the Democratic party is.

Then you’d better have faith. Tomorrow is the Feast Day of St. Thomas Aquinas, the author of the Summa Theologica – given this happy coincidence of St. Thomas and our new President Hope-N-Change, I think it worthwhile to see what one of the great minds of human history had to say on the subject of hope:

…just as it is not lawful to hope for any good save happiness, as one’s last end, but only as something referred to final happiness, so too, it is unlawful to hope in any man, or any creature, as though it were the first cause of movement towards happiness. It is, however, lawful to hope in a man or a creature as being the secondary and instrumental agent through whom one is helped to obtain any goods that are ordained to happiness. It is in this way that we turn to the saints, and that we ask men also for certain things; and for this reason some are blamed in that they cannot be trusted to give help…

…Absolutely speaking, faith precedes hope. For the object of hope is a future good, arduous but possible to obtain. In order, therefore, that we may hope, it is necessary for the object of hope to be proposed to us as possible. Now the object of hope is, in one way, eternal happiness, and in another way, the Divine assistance… and both of these are proposed to us by faith, whereby we come to know that we are able to obtain eternal life, and that for this purpose the Divine assistance is ready for us, according to Hebrews 11:6: “He that cometh to God, must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him.” Therefore it is evident that faith precedes hope.

Unless you have faith – and that, dear friends, would be faith in God – then you can’t have hope. I mean, think about: what are you hoping for if not for eternal happiness? A higher standard of living? Better health care? What for? What good does wealth and health do for you if there is no hope beyond this world?

If we really are to hope for a better tomorrow, then we’d better get believing in God, today. It is belief in God – and only belief in God – which can motivate us to work hard and sacrifice ourselves in order that those who come after may have a better life. If we have not faith and what we’re hoping for is that our own lot will be made easier, then we’re just spinning our wheels quite uselessly.

Now that President Obama has semi-freed himself from Wright’s un-Christian hate-mongering, I hope (because I have faith in God and his ability to move hearts) that Obama will take some time to carefully consider the “hope” part of his hope and change mantra. What it really means, and what it really requires of us. As for me, I’m ready for some stern testing – to pay the piper, as it were, for our national irresponsibility of the past 70 years or so. I hope for a better future, but not necessarily for myself but for, in a real sense, the young people just rising and those who are soon to be born. I want them to grow up in a world freed not just from the fears we have, but from the overbearing temptations to self destruction with which we have avidly supplied ourselves.

Time will tell if hope means something to Obama – and his supporters – or whether it was just a nifty, poll-tested word for a political campaign.

Sherman Frederick at the Las Vegas Review-Journal hopes that adulthood comes to some on the left, even if it comes late:

In case you missed it, when President George W. Bush was announced to the crowd, some booed loudly, shocking even the commentators on the official Obama network, MSNBC. One section of onlookers sang, “Nah nah nah nah, hey hey hey, goodbye.” And, finally, as Bush left the White House, one deep thinker took the opportunity to give the “one-finger salute,” thus saying more about himself than anything else.

This from a movement that fancies itself all about peace, love and global karma.

Now look, it would be a mistake to paint all Democrats and Obama supporters with the actions of these few on Inauguration Day. And, according to news reports, some in the crowd tried hard to shush the boo-birds. That is a hopeful sign.

But let’s also not ignore the obvious. There is a growing faction of the American left that seeks revenge more than righteousness.

Intolerant of dissenting views, this faction thinks as comedian Janeane Garofalo does that some members of the opposing political party should be “jailed.” Terrorist acts (such as mailing envelopes of white power to Mormon temples because the gay marriage vote in California went the church’s way) are seen by this faction as understandable and acts of legitimate political expression.

There is also an ugly racial component to it. We first saw it with Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who said, among other things, that white America had deliberately inflicted black Africa with AIDS.

When the Rev. Wright first hit the national stage, we hardly knew what to make of his irrational and separatist statements. Consequently, we pretty much ignored the substance of Wright’s racially divisive rhetoric and focused on it as a day-to-day political story. It made us more comfortable, I think.

But in light of the things we saw at the inauguration, it may be time to revisit the dangers of intolerance and hate — no matter the color of the person who makes them — and nip this ugly mean streak in the bud.

As our president said, it is time to grow up.

The word “tolerance” to the left means “agree with the left”, but real tolerance means “you may do your business without let or hindrance from me”. One doesn’t have to like President Bush and his supporters, but in a pluralist, democratically governed republic, one does have to tolerate them…and part of tolerance is not doing hateful things to them, such as booing their presence at a solemn moment, or demanding they be arrested for imagined crimes. We here on the right were soundly beaten at the polls last November, and that should be satisfaction enough for liberals – but its not, as we see in so many comments and actions by liberals since the election.

The ugliness of the left stems, I believe, from the fact that their worldview isn’t true – defending a false front, they are forced ultimately to rely upon intimidation and the politics of personal destruction to maintain their position. What this means is that as things go forward towards ultimate disaster for liberalism, our liberals will become more rather than less nasty – only those who admit their error completely will be able to free themselves from an all-consuming hatred and bitterness.

If you think that in 2008 we saw the most nasty, hate-filled and dishonest campaign possible from the liberals, then you just haven’t seen 2012, yet.

One hopes that one day a majority figures out just what a scam “higher education” has become:

Government figures show that of students who entered four-year colleges in 1997, just 54% had earned a degree six years later. A professor wrote about this issue in The Atlantic earlier this year, arguing that it’s immoral to tell all students they can go to college, then crush their dreams by failing half of them. But the problem has deeper effects than hurt feelings: the 54% graduation rate means that around 46% of all money used to finance college tuition results in no degree.

Which means that financially speaking, the spectacularly high dropout rate boils down to a spectacularly bad investment. Though there’s no specific data, one can imagine the countless millions that are wasted financing educations that never come to fruition. We could try to predict which students would be part of the 46% who don’t finish, then encourage those students not to go to college. But to do this would mean a lot of students who might graduate never get to give it a shot. That wouldn’t be fair. So what we can do instead is identify the 5% or 10% of students who are the least likely to graduate, and not send them to college.

The problem is, the current system provides no way, and no incentive, for doing that. In fact, the Free Application For Student Aid (FAFSA) doesn’t take into account an applicant’s academic record at all. The rationale behind this is reasonable and admirable: we don’t want federal student aid to be restricted only to the best and the brightest, many of whom come from backgrounds that made it easy for them to excel. But doesn’t it make sense, on some level, to withhold aid from the students who have shown during high school that they’re clearly not equipped to make it through four years of college? Doing so would be a big step toward recouping some of that wasted 46% of lost financing.

Our liberals, from Obama on down, are pledged to making college more “affordable” – which isn’t the same as “less expensive” and has zero to do with “more effective”. What it means is “making it easier for ever more kids to enter the schools, thus providing an ever increasing pool of money for those bastions of liberal/left orthodoxy, the colleges and universities of the United States”. One only has to consider that people affiliated with the University of California gave $2 million in political donations in 2008, with 93% of that going to the Democrats, to understand that Democrats have a vested interest in making college more “affordable”. The more “affordable” it is, the more election swag they’ll get. Overall, $51 million was donated by people in education in 2008, with 82% of the total going to Democrats. This is a sweet deal, and whether or not kids are getting educated doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference. We’re talking money and power here, understand?

Now, don’t get me wrong – college has its purpose. We certainly want our doctors and engineers well educated in their trade before they take a knife to us or design the new bridge – and, on the whole, we get good results from our engineering and medical courses. But outside of those areas where results are very concrete and easily measurable, we’re not really getting all that much.

To be sure, having a degree can help, especially if its a degree from a prestige university – but mostly its a help in getting someone ensconced in government or corporate bureaucracy. This is because of a combination of “old boy” networks and hiring manager laziness – given a choice between a guy with a degree from Podunk U and Harvard, the hiring manager will take the Harvard applicant simply because Harvard has a good reputation and so even if the new hire turns out to be a bonehead, the man who hired him can credibly say, “hey, how was I to know? The kid has a degree from Harvard!”. So, too, with the choice between the Podunk U graduate and the kid with the high school diploma or GED – the hiring manager will make it easy on himself, rather than actually try to determine who has the better skill set.

But suppose you are one who doesn’t have a hankering for climbing the bureaucratic ladder? Maybe a person likes constructing things, and so would like to start up a construction business. Perhaps another likes the hustle and bustle of a sales job and so looks into opening up an appliance store. And then there’s the person who has a bit of artistic talent and thus wants make sculptures for people’s gardens. On and on it goes – a whole bunch of things, mostly very useful, for which a college degree would be mostly useless. And therein lies the rub – we’ve got this education system which is a one-size-fits-all-everyone-goes-to-college bit of nonsense. And even in that nonsense it fails miserably given the number of kids who wind up illiterate after spending years in the education system.

In my view, public education in America is a racket – and higher education the most corrupt part of it. We’re pouring huge sums of money into institutions which give a new definition to “getting richer by degrees”. Kids are burdened with absurd student loans, taxpayers are burdened with grants for un-needed education programs (can anyone think of one reason the US taxpayer should in any way, shape or form provide assistance to law schools?), tenured radicals pollute our political system, bloated education bureaucracies provide sinecures for liberals who then lobby for more funding, ad infinitum. Time to cut out the cancer – time, that is, for conservatism to take a hand at education reform.

The best thing we can do is to terminate the idiotic student loan program and opt instead for a series of grants based on income level and academic achievement. And the grants will be “X” dollars and no more – the schools will still want the money, and so they’ll be forced to cut their prices to match the grants, and this will make college more genuinely affordable to those middle and upper class kids who would not be eligible for the grants given to poor kids. After that, we can come up with a host of other reforms (free medical school – if you commit to serving 6 years in a poor area of the country, eg), but we can gut this education scam right out the gate by getting rid of the student loans and other government programs which have only inflated the cost of education and provided funding for Democrats and their supporters.

The news story:

A majority of both Republican and Democratic voters oppose The Employee Free Choice Act, according to a new poll by Public Opinion Strategies of 800 general election voters.

Better known as the “card check bill,” the proposed act would give workers the right to unionize if a majority of employees publicly sign cards in favor of forming a union. Because it does away with the secret ballot, employers fear that such a law would allow unions to identify and coerce workers who otherwise would not vote to unionize.

“Across the ideological spectrum and across battleground states, significant majorities of Americans from every walk of life oppose this legislation,” said Katie Packer of the Workforce Fairness Institute.

When presented with neutral language describing the key provisions of the bill, voters surveyed opposed both facets. They strongly oppose a card check system and instead support the secret ballot process and they oppose changing the bargaining process. The poll found that 59 percent of all voters oppose the elimination of the secret ballot in union organizing elections and 53 percent oppose binding arbitration in contract negotiations.

In fact, when asked their preference if a union tried to organize in their workplace: 81 percent preferred a secret ballot, with only 14 percent preferring the card-check process.

The problem for Obama and his Democrats is that they promised this in return for the Union bosses donating massive amounts of money to their election efforts. But with 41 or 42 GOP Senators and a high level of unpopularity, it will be hard to get this un-American proposal through Congress.

I expect Obama and his Democrats will still try to push it – the Union bosses won’t let them off the hook, and that will work out to an excellent campaign issue for the GOP.

The National Black Republican Association has called on Barack Obama to apologize for years of systemic racism–in the Democratic Party:

We, black American citizens of the United States and the National Black Republican Association, declare and assert:

WHEREAS, the healing of wounds begins with an apology, and the Democratic Party has never apologized for their horrific atrocities and racist practices against black Americans during the past 150 years, nor held accountable for the residual impact that those atrocities and practices are having on us today,

WHEREAS, as a result of the 1898 Wilmington Race Riot Commission Report of May 31, 2006, the North Carolina Democratic Party issued a unanimous apology on January 20, 2007 for the Democratic Party’s 1898 murderous rampage against blacks,

WHEREAS, inner-city minister Rev. Wayne Perryman wrote a book, "Unfounded Loyalty: An In-depth Look Into The Love Affair Between Blacks and Democrats", and filed a lawsuit against the Democratic Party on December 10, 2004, but, after admitting their history of racism under oath in court, the Democrats refused to apologize,

Read the rest of this entry »

Comrade Obama is planning on turning the White House into a taxpayer-funded campaign operation:

Obama aides and allies are preparing a major expansion of the White House communications operation, enabling them to reach out directly to the supporters they have collected over 21 months without having to go through the mainstream media.

[...]

The nucleus of that effort is an e-mail database of more than 10 million supporters. The list is considered so valuable that the Obama camp briefly offered it as collateral during a cash-flow crunch late in the campaign, though it wound up never needing the loan, senior aides said. At least 3.1 million people on the list donated money to Obama.

Millions more made up the volunteer corps that organized his enormous rallies, registered millions of voters and held countless gatherings to plug the senator to friends and neighbors. On Election Day, they served as the backbone of Obama’s get-out-the-vote operation, reaching voters by phone and at the front door, serving coffee at polling stations and babysitting so parents could stand in line at voting precincts.

This is scary stuff… Piece by piece, our Republic will crumble, our freedoms will be taken away.

PREVIOUS: Big Brother Is Coming, Part 1

We were told it was just stupendous how many people were turning out to vote…

A new report from American University’s Center for the Study of the American Electorate concludes that voter turnout in Tuesday’s election was the same in percentage terms as it was four years ago — or at most has risen by less than 1 percent.

The report released Thursday estimates that between 126.5 and 128.5 million Americans cast ballots in the presidential election earlier this week. Those figures represent 60.7 percent or, at most, 61.7 percent of those eligible to vote in the country.

“A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower than predicted turnout,” the report said. (emphasis added)

An unpopular President, an unpopular war, a skidding economy and a moderate GOP standard-bearer…there was only so much Palin could do for the ticket, and we will find a way to get those GOPers back to the polls, my dear Democrats…

UPDATE: We’re having some trouble keeping the blog up – please be patient.

Well, I went and voted – and that included voting for a black man…for a district court judgeship, but it shows that any attempts to say my Presidential vote was racist is a crock of you know what.

What I’ve seen ’round the web so far:

Gay Patriot hits a common GOP theme – don’t let anyone discourage you from voting!

Heard Jonah Goldberg on the radio – “cheer up, the worst is yet to come!” Funny but also brings to mind this from St Catherine:

…I want you to think about the shortness of life, for you are not certain even of tomorrow. We can indeed say that we do not have our past troubles, nor those which are in the future; all we have is the moment of time in which we are now. Surely then we ought we ought to endure patiently since time is short.

Black Panther intimidation at the polls. A stray thought came to me about an hour ago – just why, as a nation, are we supposed to keep up this angst over what some of our ancestors did to some of our other ancestors? Why do we even have such a thing called “Black Panthers” and just who the F do they think they are? Give it a rest, already.

We will be judged by how we vote.

Democrats working up voter fraud in Philly to try and save the State for Obama. It worked in 2004. I don’t think it will in 2008.

Marston predicting 310 electoral votes for McCain. Gotta admire the man’s guts, and I pray he’s right.

Colorado is very close – and might not have a result until tomorrow morning.

Just got a “knock and drag” call from Team McCain – advised them we’ve already provided 5 votes form this household for the next President of the United States, John McCain…but shows McCain GOTV is on the spot.

Excellent analysis on the election. Serious, must-read.

Obama votes in the same location as racist, anti-Semite Farrakhan and anti-American terrorist Ayers. Must be some interesting block parties in that neighborhood…

Gawker says first exits show tight races in battleground States.

McCain wins a round in protecting the rights of our servicemember’s to vote:

“We are pleased that the judge has ruled to preserve the ballots cast by our men and women in uniform currently serving overseas. This will help to ensure that local election officials do not destroy or dispose of these ballots before the court has had an opportunity to rule on our complaint. The McCain-Palin campaign strongly believes that no military ballot should be discarded as a result of a failure on the part of several counties and independent cities to mail ballots to service members in a timely manner. We believe without exception that the servicemen and women on the front lines protecting our freedoms deserve every opportunity to make sure their vote counts.” –Gail Gitcho, McCain-Palin spokesman

Team McCain confident about FL – as for me, I said a Rosary, read a bit of the Bible and am now just waiting for the votes to be counted…plus getting ready to have some dinner (beef stew….mmmmm…stew).

Anchoress reminds – Stop Freaking Out

Fox calls the IN governorship for the GOP but says its too close to call on the Presidential level? I mean, think about it – how many Indianans are going to go, “I love my conservative GOP governor, but what I really want is an ultra-liberal President”? Methinks the media is just keeping it interesting as long as possible….

Anyone know why Maine is only showing 3 votes or something like that in its returns?

McConnell wins, Dole loses – net of two for the Donks in the Senate.

Looking pretty grim out there boys and girls…but I have a light heart and am at peace.

Well… Here it is…In spite the polls, I think McCain will win, and a few surprises await us.

I should make a few points to explain certain selections:

• Nevada: I originally did not have Nevada to go for McCain, but my Mark, is confident it will. I will trust his opinion on that
• Colorado: I think there is a chance McCain could take it, but I expect it to go for Obama.
• New Mexico: Same as Colorado. McCain could win it, but soures tell me that Bush won New Mexico mostly because he had a superior ground game, an advantage I am not convinced McCain has this year.
• Iowa: I was curious about Obama’s recent stop there, but still think he takes it.
• Minnesota: I hear it is close again in Minnesota.. But McCain pulled out of there and and I wrote it off then too.
• New Hampshire: Another state I believe McCain has a good shot at taking, but still giving no Obama.
• Pennsylvania: This state, I believe, is going to be the prize of 2008. And based on various sources I have (and recent events) I think McCain is going to pull off an upset there.

I am sure the lefty trolls will write this off as over confidence, But I believe one way or another, McCain will be elected President. I sit here tonight, confident of victory. I was more nervous four years ago than I am now. McCain will be our next president.

Some polls show Obama up, but a raft of polls from Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, etc, etc, etc show a clear swing towards McCain. Will it be enough? Will Democrats resort to their tried-and-true method of ballot box stuffing? When Obama loses, will he become the first Democrat in 20 years to concede defeat on the night of the election? When McCain wins, will the left put it all down as a spasm of racism?

Discuss these and any other issues which come to mind.