If you’ve been following the fiasco where a judge decided to rule from the bench that homeschooling is illegal, you’ll be happy to find out that, after months of lobbying from the HSDLA, the state legislature, and the Governator himself, homeschooling is legal again in California:

For the hundreds of home school families in San Lorenzo Valley and Scotts Valley, a recent reversal by a Los Angeles appellate court offered relief from an earlier decision that could have made it largely illegal to teach their children at home.

The cause for homeschooling garnered over 250,000 signatures on the HSDLA website, as well as support from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and “early every major home-school group in California”. As one commenter put it,

Freedom 1 Facism 0

Andrew and I have another busy day in Sin City. Today, we have two conferences we are attending because b5 Media is holding some classes. This is in addition to the Conservative Leadership Conference.

Here’s a look at our agenda for today:

9:00 – Conservative Leadership Summit (CLC) – Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform
11:15 – b5 Media Summit – Darren Rowse – How to Find Readers for Your Blog
12:30 – Back to the CLC – Lunch – Conservative Blogger of the Year Award
3:15 – Back to the b5 Media Summit – Kevin Palmer – Social Media Tools & Tips

Following that, the seminars are over, but 6:30 there is a cocktail reception for the CLC and there is a cocktail party at the Mirage at 9:00 pm, hosted by Techset. Andrew and I will finish the night poolside at the Bare Lounge.

Andrew and I are done with the first day of the Conservative Leadership Conference, and we are both satisfied with the time we spent today.

It started with a discussion by Joni Eastley, Nye County, Nevada commissioner and Paul Seidler with the Nuclear Energy Institute. They talked about the future of nuclear energy, and gave me some ideas for future articles on this topic. Then, Michael Tanner with The Cato Institute gave a great presentation on American’s health care problems and socialized health care. One of the better talks of the day.

Sandra Fabry from the Americans for Tax Reform talked about government accountability and later, we had a talk with Seton Motley with the Media Research Center about the importance of this election in regards to freedom of speech, the press and the “Fairness Doctrine.” This was a great presentation. More than once Seton had Andrew and me laughing out loud.

A great part of this conference is meeting with the speakers following the presentations. There were some very intelligent and informed people here today.

The day ended with a cocktail reception where Andrew and I met Eric Odom, Elizabeth Crum of E! The True Conservative Story, and some other great people.

I am really looking forward to the rest of the conference, coupled with the Blog World Expo.

Josh Howard, of the Dallas Mavericks, hates America. He doesn’t respect the national anthem because ” ‘I don’t celebrate this [expletive]. I’m black.’”

Could someone please explain to me how being black equates to hating America? I don’t know a single black person who hates America and wouldn’t stand for the national anthem. Where are the exceptions, like Josh, getting the idea that if you’re black, you have to disrespect your country? Could it be from places like Obama’s church, with Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his “God DAMN America”?

The video is from July, at Allen Iverson’s charity flag football game, but is just now making the news. The Dallas Morning News states that after explaining why he doesn’t respect the national anthem, Howard “goes on to make a difficult-to-discern comment that includes a reference to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.” I’ve listened to the video several times, and it doesn’t seem all that difficult to discern to me. It sure sounds like “Obama ’08, and all that [expletive].”

Add him to the list of Obama supporters who believe it’s ok to be racist and anti-American, as long as you aren’t a conservative.

Owner Mark Cuban says “I have explained to him that cellphone cameras are not your friend and that what you think you said on camera is never what people will hear when it shows up on YouTube or TV.”

I understand that stunts like this are publicity nightmares for people like Mark, but how could he possibly think that Howard thought he said something different than what showed up on YouTube? His message was pretty clear. Not spoken eloquently, but clear and concise nonetheless.

He hates America and loves Barack.

Image via WikipediaBarack Obama, the man who believes in positive change, encouraged his supporters to get out there and “talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican.” Because lowering yourself to talk to someone who isn’t a Democrat is something you must be told to do. Barack doesn’t understand the Democrats I know- he seems in touch with the liberal left elites, but not the “old-school” Democrats. But I digress.

Barack doesn’t want them just “talking.” No, he wants his supporters starting neighborhood wars.

I want you to argue with them and get in their face,” he said.

That’s not enough for the man of change either. Despite his record of anti-gun votes, he wants his supporters to claim he’s a staunch defender of the Second Amendment. Despite his plans to raise taxes, his socialist programs that will require additional tax dollars to implement, his VP candidate telling people that it’s their “patriotic duty” to pay more taxes, Barack wants his supporters to claim that he’s going to lower our taxes.

“And if they tell you that, ‘Well, we’re not sure where he stands on guns.’ I want you to say, ‘He believes in the Second Amendment.’ If they tell you, ‘Well, he’s going to raise your taxes,’ you say, ‘No, he’s not, he’s going lower them.’ You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case.”

Sounds to me like Obama wants his supporters to take the heat- he’s been called on lying to the masses, so now he needs someone to do it in his stead. Now that’s change we can believe in.

Yesterday, Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr announced that he was filing a lawsuit against the Texas Secretary of State, proclaiming that since John McCain and Barack Obama had both missed the candidacy filing deadline under Texas law 192.031, both were ineligible and both should be knocked off of the ballot. Obviously, in a state with 34 electoral votes (and a state where John McCain leads by 21 points), this is big news. However, there are some inconsistencies in Barr’s case that should be hammered out.

Update: Several folks have pointed out that law 181 doesn’t pertain to the ballot. I’m still scratching my head on that one. What was much more informative was Steve Meier’s email:

What you are missing is that within the Texas law their is a specific
section for Presidential Elections. That is where section 192 resides.
Here it is very clear what the requirements are for a party to have its
Presidential Candidate and Vice Presidential Candidate on the ballot.

Section 181 has more to do with Texas Office holders, members of
congress. Elections that only take place within Texas.

Now for those elections which take place only in Texas the major parties
(required to select candidates by primaries and conventions) The parties
know who these will be long before the ballots need to be printed. The
only candidates not known are for the presidential election.

In 2005 the Texas legislature changed the deadline to the 70 days before
the election. But this year due to the Olympics so it seems both parties
held their national conventions latter then ever before. Now it was the
Democrats and Republicans in Texas who wrote the law you would think
they would have realized this was an issue and ether revised the law or
warned the National Parties and candidates that there is going to be a
problem.

The Texas supreme court was very clear in a decision they handed down in
2006 they warned the parties and candidates. re Francis 186 S.W.3d 534
(2006)

Finally, we emphasize several limitations on today’s holding. First, it
concerns only facial defects that are apparent from the four corners of
a candidate’s filings; it does not reach forgery, fraud, or other non
accidental defects discoverable only by independent investigation. …
Third, it does not allow political parties or candidates to ignore
statutory deadlines;….

The law according to Barr

The first thing to do is to look at the Texas law. Here’s the actual law:

A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if:
(1) the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law;
(2) before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential election day, the party’s state chair signs and delivers to the
secretary of state a written certification of:
(A) the names of the party’s nominees for
president and vice-president; and
(B) the names and residence addresses of presidential elector candidates nominated by the party, in a number
equal to the number of presidential electors that federal law allocates to this state; and
(3) the party is:
(A) required or authorized by Subchapter A of Chapter 172 to make its nominations by primary election; or
(B) entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the general election ballot under Chapter 181.

But wait, there’s more

Now, this isn’t the full story. Mike D and Catch22 both pointed out that law 192.031 may not be the only way to get on the ballot. Both cite Texas election code 181.005, which reads:

(a) To be entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the general election ballot, a
political party required to make nominations by convention must file with the secretary of state, not later than the 75th day after the date of the precinct conventions held under this chapter, lists of precinct convention participants indicating that the number of participants equals at least one percent of the total number of votes received by all candidates for governor in the most recent gubernatorial general election. The lists must include each participant’s residence address and voter registration number.
(b) A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the ballot, without qualifying under Subsection (a), in each subsequent general election following a general election in which the party had a nominee for a statewide office who received a number of votes equal to at least five percent of the total number of votes received by all candidates for that office.

(emphasis mine)

As Catch22 points out,

If you review 192.031. PARTY CANDIDATE’S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT you find that there is nothing in this section indicating that this is the ONLY way to get on the ballot, rather it is one way. Nothing in this section says you cant get on the ballot unless you file by the deadline.

IF 192.031 is the ONLY means to get on the ballot then Barr would be correct, but it appears that 192.031 is just one of at least two methods to be listed on the ballot.

§ 181.005. QUALIFYING FOR PLACEMENT ON BALLOT BY PARTY REQUIRED TO NOMINATE BY CONVENTION. http://law.onecle.com/texas/election/181.005.00.html
Provides a differet way for parties that nominate by convention.

That’s not all…

Now, my journalistic nose kicks in. I wrote to Bob Barr’s press team, asking them the following:

Dear sir,
I’m a citizen journalist who was quite puzzled at your recent lawsuit against the state of Texas. After all, do you realize that this does NOT apply to the Republican or Democrat parties, as per Texas Election Code Section 181.005:

“A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the ballot, without qualifying under Subsection (a), in each subsequent general election following a general election in which the party had a nominee for a statewide office who received a number of votes equal to at least five percent of the total number of votes received by all candidates for that office.”

Mr. Barr, several of my readers wonder why, if you can overlook this simple fact, why you should become president. Therefore, I am writing you this email. I challenge you to PERSONALLY respond. In return, I will, on my honor as a citizen of the United States of America, publish the full email on the website. I really don’t have a lot of respect for you right now, since it sounds like you’re trying to win by taking a non-existent low road. Please give me a chance to repair my trust in you.

To my surprise, I received an almost instant response from Andrew Davis, Deputy Press Secretary:

That law applies to qualifying for ballot status, not certifying your candidacy. For example, third parties must qualify through petition signatures to actually earn a spot on the ballot, unless they meet the standards specified in the election code you have cited. However, each political party that qualifies for a spot on the ballot must certify their candidates as required by Texas Election Code 192.031. The Republican and Democratic Parties failed to do so for John McCain and Barack Obama.

I responded with the following:

Andrew, thank you very much for writing back. However, I still believe you’re wrong. Again,

“A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the ballot, without qualifying under Subsection (a), in each subsequent general election following a general election in which the party had a nominee for a statewide office who received a number of votes equal to at least five percent of the total votes…”

So if they’re entitled, they don’t have to put their name. 192.031 is the other way to be entitled. In fact, the other law specifically states:

“A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if: [etc]”

Therefore, it seems to me that there are two ways. 192.031 and 181.005. After all, they use the exact same wording.

Davis responded with the following:

Andrew, again, they address two different processes.

The section you quoted addresses QUALIFYING for ballot status, which is achieved by retaining a certain percentage of the vote in the prior election.

The section we are referring to addresses the process AFTER qualifying. Just because a political party qualifies for ballot access still means they must complete the process for certifying their candidates. They are two separate processes.

Who is interpreting it correctly?

What is important to note is that Davis doesn’t actually prove that 192.031 is the only way to qualify for placement on a ballot. The law I cite, 181.005, specifically states that if a party received more than 5% in a previous election, they automatically are “entitled” to be on the ballot. 192.031 is a way to get on the ballot. Nowhere in the law does it say it is the only way. You are entitled to have your name on the ballot via 192.031. You are also entitled to have you name on the ballot if your party has more than 5% of hte vote in a previous election. The word entitlement is the key word in both laws. I may be a layman, but my understanding is that a word generally means the same thing.

Does it matter?

spiffie points out that:

For one thing, it’s never been read that way in the past. For another (more pragmatic reason), judges in Texas courts are partisan and elected.

While we can debate all day about his second point, his first point is certainly clear: it’s never been interpreted this way before. Because of that, Barr has a uncertain grounds. Therefore, most people (myself included) are guessing that this is mostly a political scheme to get attention, with a longshot chance of actually happening. Also, regardless, it seems to most a fairly underhanded way to go about business. If Barr is truly acting as a representative of change from the old corrupt regimes of the Democrats and Republicans, why is he using this dirty tactic?

Additionally, there is the point that the campaign may have filed anyway. FoxNews.com reports that:

Neither Obama nor McCain’s campaign would comment on the suit, but the office of Texas Secretary of State Esperanza “Hope” Andrade said it certified the Nov. 4 general election ballot on Sept. 3.

“We are confident that the ballot was certified properly and that Texans will have the opportunity to select the qualified candidate of their choice,” Andrade spokeswoman Ashley Burton said in a written statement to FOXNews.com.

If this is true, Barr’s last chance is gone. Completely gone. Because even if he could prove that 192.031 is the exclusive way to get on the ballot (highly suspect), it sounds like Obama and McCain already filed anyway. Again, if this is true, Barr sounds like he’s just trying for a publicity stunt so that he can get on Fox.

"Eight years of policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEO’s while ignoring middle-class Americans have brought us to the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression." said Obama. "I certainly don’t fault Sen. McCain for these problems," Obama said, "but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to."

-Barack Obama

In December 2001, Enron filed for bankruptcy after toppling from $90/share to under $1/share in the wake of a scandal that rocked the financial world.  The company’s executives made millions while engaging in insider trading and deceiving investors with unscrupulous accounting practices.  As these details became known the public became outraged.

It is in times like this – when the public is outraged – that Congress manages to come together and pass bipartisan legislation.  The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was signed into law by President Bush on July 30, 2002, after passing both chambers by overwhelming margins.  The Senate version passed by a 97 – 0 vote and the House version passed by a 334 – 90 vote.  The final version of the Bill, when it emerged from conference, passed 423 – 3 in the House and 99 – 0 in the Senate.  This was in every way a bipartisan bill which also enjoyed the support of the President and the SEC.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (also known as SARBOX or SOX for short) is arguably the most sweeping financial reform since the Great Depression.  It includes strict rules regarding insider trading and extremely tight accounting controls which affect nearly every aspect of how a publicly traded company handles and reports its finances.  Every one of the currently troubled large finance companies is a publicly traded company and therefore falls under not only Sarbanes-Oxley but also a slew of other regulatory bills passed since 2002.  This includes not only Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but also Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, AIG, Washington Mutual, and Merrill Lynch.

So what does all of this have to do with Barack Obama?  Senator Obama would have Americans believe that somehow, whatever financial policies have emerged in the last 8 years have “loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEO’s while ignoring middle-class Americans…” (emphasis mine).  Barack is using the recent bad financial news from Wall St. as a tactic to deceive Americans unaware of the actual facts behind our financial woes.  He makes it sound as if President Bush has completely negated the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and indeed caused American corporations to be less regulated than they were 8 years ago.  Senator Obama should produce the policies to which he’s referring in order to reinforce his statements.  Sarbanes-Oxley is very much The Regulator of Regulators in the publicly traded world – despite Senator Obama’s claims that point to the contrary.

There are two primary reasons why our country is currently enduring economic hardship.  Gas prices have risen significantly, which has had an impact on the price of goods and services and on consumer discretionary spending. People have less money because they’re spending more on gasoline, groceries and other goods due to higher costs of getting those goods to market.  Secondly, many financial companies decided to give loans to people who couldn’t pay for them and are now reaping the consequences.  As mentioned before, many of these companies are publicly traded and therefore are under the watchful eye of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  They didn’t lie or engage in unethical accounting practices, they were simply stupid with their money.  There are plenty of laws regarding fraud and deceptive financial management but there are none that guarantee a company is free from stupidity.

Obama would have you ignore this information and instead try and take the common road of pinning the problem on the “failed economic policies” of President Bush – whatever those are.  He was slim on specifics.

The Senator’s words are even more insidious when you consider that over-regulation likely contributed to our recent problems on Wall St.

While Sarbanes-Oxley made it much harder for public companies to report false earnings or engage in fraudulent accounting, it also introduced a substantial regulatory burden on publicly traded companies.  This burden simply cannot be taken out of consideration with regard to negative impacts on our economy as a whole.  Critics have been vocal for years about the long-term consequences of Sarbanes-Oxley.  Many have charged that Sarbanes-Oxley was rifled through Congress as a knee-jerk reaction to scandal with more emphasis on short-term public approval than on long-term economic effects.

Consider a few statistics taken from this article:

Markets and Exchanges. Between 1996 and 2001, the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) averaged fifty new non-U.S. listings annually; in 2005, it gained nineteen. In the same year, the London Stock Exchange, including its small-company affiliate, the Alternative Investment Market (AIM), gained 139 new listings;  Nasdaq gained nineteen. Since the end of 2004, thirty foreign companies have left the NYSE and Nasdaq.  London’s AIM had 335 initial offerings of securities in 2005–twice the total in 2000–while Nasdaq had 126, down 65 percent.

…

Financing. Capital has no natural home and moves to places where transactions can be completed most efficiently–at the least cost, in the most expeditious manner, and with a minimum of government regulation. This tells us why many financial transactions that could be executed anywhere have moved in recent years from U.S. markets to markets elsewhere in the world. In 2000, for example, nine of every ten dollars raised by foreign companies were raised in the United States; in 2005, nine of the ten largest offerings were not registered in the United States, and of the largest twenty-five global offerings, only one took place here. The largest Chinese offering was registered in Hong Kong, and the largest offering in Korean history was listed in London and Korea. The large Russian oil company Rosneft listed its $10 billion offering in London.

…

Going-Private Transactions. In recent years, U.S. companies have encountered rising costs for remaining public and have turned to private equity investors for the funds to buy out their public shareholders and “go private.” Private equity, unregulated in the United States, is booming. For many companies, especially smaller and entrepreneurial ventures, the once-significant advantages of public ownership have now fallen behind the reporting costs, regulations, and litigation risks associated with having public shareholders. In a 2005 report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the  number of public companies going private increased from 143 in 2001 to 245 in 2004, and projected that the number would reach approximately 267 by the end of 2005. “The costs associated with public company status were most often cited as a reason for going private,” said t
he GAO.

And more from this article:

“…a survey of some 217 companies showed they’ll pay an average of $4.36 million to comply with the new accounting standards, far more than the $3.14 million they’d expected to pay, according to Financial Executives International. And the bill will only get bigger.
An e-mail security company estimates businesses will shell out more than $4 billion to archive e-mail (as required under Sarbanes-Oxley) in 2009. This cost will be passed on to shareholders and customers, so we’ll all pay for the “protection” the new law is supposed to provide.”

If Obama believes that the last 8 years have represented “loosened oversight” and “shredded consumer protections”, how much more government regulation should our financial markets expect to burden should he become President?

Obama’s own economic strategy seems to be centered around tax cuts for those who make under $161,000/year.  He’s pushing for significant increases for anyone making above this figure which would include small businesses like S-Corporations and Sole Proprietorships.  On the surface this sounds like a great idea to most people.

Let’s consider a few facts though.  As it stands now the top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of the nation’s tax burden.  This means that Senator Obama’s overall plan is to increase taxes.  Significant increases on those who pay most of the tax burden is going to more than negate whatever cuts he’s making for the other 40%.  A tax increase makes sense as he also includes plans for significantly increasing spending to support his other initiatives.

The question becomes, what impact is adding more taxes to those that already shoulder most of the tax burden going to have on our economy?  Will that lead to more American money going off-shore?

But officials at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have used their own figures and data from the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements to estimate that $5 trillion to $7 trillion in assets are held in offshore havens around the world, though not all are undeclared.

-MarketWatch March 7, 2008

The left continues to target the wealthy as if they’re all guilty of some crime (success).  Their rhetoric suggests that those in the top 5% of income earners don’t already pay enough in taxes, yet they paid an estimated $1.8 trillion in taxes last year.  The left doesn’t mention why the $3 trillion the government currently makes every year isn’t enough.  They never mention how much these top 5% should pay in taxes – just that it should be more.  They never mention that increasing taxes on the upper 5% might create a cooling effect on our economy because these are the people with the capital to actually invest and move our market.  The left, which certainly includes Senator Obama, sells class warfare. This is because class warfare gets votes from the other 95% who are never told the real facts. 

Our economy cannot be separated into this group and that group and somehow things that we do to this group won’t affect that group.   Everything is connected.  When money stops moving around in our economy, companies scale back.  People lose their jobs.  People’s retirements get ruined.  Money goes overseas.  We all lose.

Barack Obama is a lot of things but he’s certainly no economist.  He should consider tuning his own economic policies before criticizing those of others.

For the longest time, I couldn’t understand why so many people were falling for Barack Obama’s socialist rhetoric, his arrogant belief that he’s better than everyone else, his empty promises and lack of realistic policy. Thanks to Obama and Biden, I finally know how people in our Midwestern small towns are choosing their candidates.

Some of us are bitter, Bible-thumping, gun-hugging racists. We’re against Obama, because we’re against change. We’re against cooperation (read: socialist rule). We’re against anyone who looks, acts, thinks, or speaks differently than we do.

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Thanks for clearing that up, Barack.

The rest of us are just too stupid to realize that Barack is a socialist nitwit who hobnobs with terrorists and looks down his nose at us. We believe him when he says he will add billions of dollars worth of new programs without ever raising taxes on us, because he’s for the working man, and against the rich. We believe him, because he’s different- he’s educated, and smart, and we’ve never met anyone like that before. See, we don’t have ed-u-cayshun here in our small towns, and smart people? Don’t make me laugh.

“All this stuff about how different Barack Obama is, they’re not just used to somebody really smart. They’re just not used to somebody who’s really well educated. They just don’t know quite how to handle it. Cause if he’s as smart as Barack is he must not be from my neighborhood.”

Joe Biden, I appreciate you letting me in on the state of education in our backwoods, backwards towns.

I know Biden was actually talking about why people don’t like Barry- they’re just too stupid to understand his lofty ideas. However, it occurred to me that he could have been saying the opposite just as easily. Those who believe the “Obama as Messiah” message are fooled by those fancy words we don’t really understand, and the rest of us would be, if only we could see something beyond our gun sights besides our Bibles.

Either way, Joe and Barack have both shown an absolute disdain for the very people they claim to understand and support- the common man.

According to the latest polls, McCain leads Obama by 2% in the Centennial State. That’s not extremely significant, until you look at who grabs 3% of the vote. Yeah, that’s right. Ralph Nader.

Why Colorado is so important

If you look at RealClearPolitics’ electoral map, you’ll see there are a lot of big states up for grabs. Colorado is one of them. It may only have 9 electoral votes, but in this election, it’s a crucial battleground (the Democrats even nominated Barack Obama in Denver). Right now, Ohio and Nevada are trending ever so slightly to the right, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Hampshire is trending ever so slightly to the left, and New Mexico (which has only been polled once after the conventions), Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Colorado are too close to call. If we also gave Obama Pennsylvania (which he would need to win in this scenario and which gives him a 1.6% lead) and McCain Virginia (which he would then need to win this scenario and which gives him a 1.4% lead), whoever wins Colorado wins the election.

Colorado demographics

Colorado has several factors that make it, well, different from the rest of the country. It’s got a huge number of Christians. 44% of the state is Protestant, 19% Catholic, 2% Jewish, 2% Mormon, 1% Muslim, 1% other religion, and 27% “unaffiliated”. By comparison, Tennessee, home of the Southern Baptist Convention, is “only” 82% Christian. It’s also a very libertarian state, being one of the few states that has a flat income tax (and the state that gave Ron Paul 10% in the caucuses).This ends up making for a very untraditional Republican Party, made up of Focus on the Family activists and Tom Tancredo conservatives. The party has started to lose its strong grip, however. The 2004 Senate election was won by a Democrat (in part, because of a very negative Republican primary and in part because the New York Times mistakenly ran a story identifying the Republican, Coors, with the KKK, right before the election). 2006 also showed the Democrats take the governorship with moderate Bill Ritter. But Colorado is still most definitely a toss-up, with Obama’s lead at a statistically irrelevant 0.6%.

The candidates

Obama won Colorado easily in his caucus, gaining 66.53% of the vote. On the other hand, John McCain lost the state with only 18.39%, losing to Mitt Romney (60.11%, and social conservative Mike Huckabee took 12.76%). Sarah Palin’s been giving McCain a comeback, although perhaps not as much as in other states.

One thing is definite: no matter how libertarian, Bob Barr is starting to lose favor in the Centennial State, only garnering 1%. On the other hand, Ralph Nader gets 3%. Now, McCain is certainly not going to pick up any Ralph Nader votes. On the other hand, Nader’s constituents are certainly the young, anti-establishment crowd that Obama would ordinarily win. 3% is a fairly big number, considering that McCain’s lead is only 2%. Imagine this scenario. The election plays out as detailed above (MI, MN, NH, and PA go left, OH, NV, and VA go right), making Colorado the deciding state. Colorado then plumps for McCain by a tiny margin, while Nader gets a small percentage that may have tipped the state blue. Feasible? Definitely. Likely? Getting much more so, unless Obama gets a sudden surge (in which case Virginia might tip blue, giving Obama the win anyway) or McCain starts pulling away (in which case Pennsylvania might tip red, giving McCain the win anyway). No matter what happens, however, Colorado is the place to watch.

Right before the 1796 presidential election, Charlie Gibson of ABC interviewed Thomas Jefferson. However, the version that aired and the actual transcript were quite different. Mark Levine got a hold of the original text and released it on his website, where it is faithfully reproduced here. Deleted parts are marked as such. Inserted parts (by ABC) are marked as such.

Gibson: Governor, can you look the country in the eye and say “I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?”

Jefferson: I do not believe there is any question that I am ready, Charlie.

Gibson: You did say to yourself, “Am I ready?”

Jefferson: I didn’t hesitate, no.

Gibson: You did?

Jefferson: I – I think yes that I have little confidence in folks who can’t make up their own minds and I know that you can‘t even blink.

So I didn’t blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.

Gibson: This is about also running a young government in a very unstable world. When I asked Republican leaders about your security credentials, they cited the fact that Virginia is across the Ocean from Britain. Are those sufficient credentials?

Jefferson: I also was ambassador to France, also lived in France which I believe should be taken into consideration

Gibson: I’m just saying that national security is a whole lot more than French chateaus.

Jefferson: It is, but I want you to not lose sight of the fact that ambassador to France is more than just living in a house. It’s that important. It’s that significant.

Gibson: Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to France?

Jefferson: No, of course not. I’m a stupid American. Sorry, my sarcasm got the better of me. No duh, I traveled other places!

Gibson: Have you ever met a foreign leader?

Jefferson: Yes, including King Louis XVI, Loménie de Brienne, and Jacques Necker.

Gibson: Who is Jacques Necker?

Jefferson: Finance minister, a very unimportant job.

Gibson: Oh. I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

Jefferson: I have not. Didn’t you just hear me?

Gibson: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.

Jefferson: Sure.

Gibson: Let’s start with England and France.

The administration has said we’ve got to ignore the French Republican rebels. Do you believe the United States should try to restore French sovereignty over the revolution?

I believe that the French monarchy were tyrannical and that Louis deserved his beheading.

Gibson: All the French beheaded? Really? OK, I know you want to respond to that point, but we’ll break here and move on to the Washington doctrine. Do you agree with the Washington doctrine?

Jefferson: In what respect, Charlie?

Gibson: The Washington – well, what do you – what do you interpret it to be?

Jefferson: His world view.

Gibson: No, the Washington doctrine, enunciated before the Revolutionary war.

Jefferson: I believe that what President Washington has attempted to do is rid give this country of dealing with the British the chance to deal with the British favorably. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

Gibson: The Washington doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Also, the Federalists believe that France is a deadly threat. Do you agree with that?

Jefferson: I do not agree with the French threat idea.

I know that Aaron Burr will do that and I, as his vice president, if we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will not be our top priority and well will not defend the American people.

Gibson: So, do you belived your are experienced enough?

Jefferson: I…

Gibson: Oh darn, out of time. For the completely Federalist-leaning non-partisan ABC News, I’m Charlie Gibson. Thank you for watching the most non-biased news station in the country.

I want to introduce you to a guy named Chris Deaton. He writes a blog called “A Firebrand Something”, which is just getting started, but is really quite good. After reading his work, I am impressed with his writing and I have asked Chris to become an occasional contributor to All American Blogger. I think our regular readers will enjoy reading his articles, and I believe his writing will be a great addition. So look for something from Chris every week or so on this site, and if you like what you see, be sure and click over to his site for more.

Obama Plays As If He’s In The Minor Leagues

by Chris Deaton

You have to hand it to Obama. For months and months and months, he spoke in high tongues and warded the typical politics. His was a message of inspiration. Of hope. Of change.

Was.

You’ll have to forgive his naivety in thinking that he could be “different”. This is politics and no one is different. To be certain, any candidate is to be lauded for setting a tone that is uncharacteristic of the venom and vehemence that has always characterized the presidential election process, from the days of Adams vs. Jefferson to now. But trying to win the White House without playing politics is akin to a boxer trying to win a fight without throwing punches. This is hardball, and the Republicans have understood the game better than the Democrats for the last eight years. To this point, at least, it’s “more of the same”.

The McCain campaign has been swinging for the fences. It took a cut when Sarah Palin was tapped for VP. It took a cut when its mantra shifted from experience to reform. It took a cut when it went on the offensive, challenging Obama to town-hall debates at every turn and slamming him when he declined, prompting McCain to explain: “If we had done what I asked Senator Obama to do … I don’t think you’d see the tenor of this campaign.” The Republicans will continue to take as many cuts as are needed to hit a homerun, because they get the proverbial “it” — the end goal of a campaign is victory, not popularity.

That’s something Barack Obama has been reluctant to admit.

Some say he has focused too much on platitudes, but others — myself included — argue otherwise. There is no such thing as a candidate who stands before a raucous audience reciting statistics that could be retrieved from Excel spreadsheets linked on government websites. Any good speech must be accessible in its content; it must captivate people, not bore them. And whether or not his words are vapid, he has not shied away from talking shop on things ranging from energy to the economy to health care. He has held numerous town hall Q & As throughout the summer. As he has said of many issues on many occasions: “I welcome [the] debate.” The problem is that few else do.

Whether or not the American electorate admits it, we hunger for political bloodletting. The hackneyed liberal tenants of “fighting for the middle class”, preserving Social Security, and providing universal health care don’t satisfy the appetite, no more than does McCain’s country-first selflessness of “I’d rather lose an election than lose a war.” Such talk is all Charlie Brown-teacher speak: “wah wah, wah wah wah wah.” We’ve had our fill of meat and potatoes, because we’ve known Barack Obama for the duration of an über-publicized primary fight and we’ve known John McCain ten times longer. Any stump speeches and talking points provide the American public an excuse not to listen: the timeless adage, “Tell me something I don’t already know.”

As such, this notion of “substance” for which we clamor — this idea that our candidates should engage in thoughtful and civil discussion about everything policy and nothing personal — takes a backseat to the identity politics, the attack ads, the accusations, the negativity; the real “substance”. That is not an indictment of our political process, but an admission of reality. McCain has his troops, as does Obama; McCain has his tax cutters and values voters, whereas Obama has his big government advocates and bleeding-heart leftist youths. More discussion of war, peace, and economics changes none of that. Projection of image and relation to the “common man” changes everything.

That was Obama’s calling card for the bulk portion of his young political career. His soaring and sympathetic oratory made people like him, even if such people either knew little or cared little of what he stood for. He no longer has the luxury of using that as a strategy. He has to hit back at McCain hard, lest his empty liberalism become central to his campaign. And in a nation as conservative as ours, that’s a recipe for certain defeat.

The complaints of the Obama campaign that McCain is taking some sort of “low road” toward victory are woefully misguided. There is no low or high road in an election as close as this — only a winning road. McCain’s Straight Talk Express, no matter how crooked Democrats find the vehicle to be, is on it.

And that’s because the Republicans are winners.

—

Chris Deaton is owner of the blog A Firebrand Something. Check out his blog, subscribe to his RSS feed, and watch for more columns from Chris here on All American Blogger very soon.

The site has a new advertiser this morning. It’s a website called “Why Buy Made In U.S.A.” The site is run by Matthew Metzger, a guy who believes as we do that buying products made in the U.S.A. whenever possible is the right thing to do.

His site is all about finding and talking about high quality products made in the U.S.A. I hope you’ll click on the banner in the right column of this site and go check them out. If you leave a comment on their site, you’re entered in a weekly drawing to win a great U.S. made product. This week it’s a nice pair of Channellock pliers. It’s a great site, Matthew is a good guy, and you should go check his site out!

Obama has built his campaign on promises and hope. Promises to change politics, to change America, to change the world. Hope that he actually knows what he’s talking about and is telling the truth. Research has shown that he’s offering false hope through lies and deception, and his promises don’t hold water.

One of his favorite talking points is change in politics; he claims that he is bipartisan, that he thinks about what is best for the country rather than what is best for his career or his party. Unfortunately, this is not supported by his record.

If this is what the Democratic party truly wanted, they would be voting for John McCain, a man who has bucked his party on major issues, such as immigration. John McCain is not popular with many conservatives because of his willingness to bend over for the liberals on these issues. His bipartisan work has included bills that are controversial, and brought heat from his own party. One of the few times Obama has crossed the aisle was to work with Tom Coburn on an ethics reform bill. According to Tom, the work was “the nature of the ethics reform bill that he and Obama sponsored was easy and popular. After all, it passed the Senate 98-2.” Tom had good things to say about Barack, but he also said the following.

“It’s easy to work across the aisle on consensus items. It’s when you demonstrate that you’ll stand in between — in no man’s land between the two trenches of the Democratic and Republican base, and you’ll take the heat,” he said. “We haven’t seen that from Barack. As much as I like him, he’s not ever rejected anything of his party to be able to stand in the middle.”

The Washington Times recently examined both McCain’s and Obama’s records regarding bipartisanship, and Obama comes up lacking.

Whether looking at bills they have led on or bills they have signed onto, Mr. McCain has reached across the aisle far more frequently and with more members than Mr. Obama since the latter came to the Senate in 2005.

Next comes the part that has put McCain under scrutiny from his own party:

In fact, by several measures, Mr. McCain has been more likely to team up with Democrats than with members of his own party. Democrats made up 55 percent of his political partners over the last two Congresses, including on the tough issues of campaign finance and global warming.

Obama’s bipartisan efforts? Not only were they significantly fewer, but they were on easy issues, things that no one would oppose, and wouldn’t upset his party.

For Mr. Obama, Republicans were only 13 percent of his co-sponsors during his time in the Senate, and he had his biggest bipartisan successes on noncontroversial measures, such as issuing a postage stamp in honor of civil rights icon Rosa Parks.

When we consider voting, who is reaching out and crossing party lines? Surely Obama’s fancy talk of cooperation and “one America” must be backed up by his voting, since his work on bills certainly doesn’t support it? Nope, his voting history can’t help him here either.

The Times study didn’t look at voting, but Congressional Quarterly conducts annual studies of senators’ voting records.

Over his Senate career, Mr. McCain has voted with the majority of Senate Republicans about 85 percent of the time, while in his three years in the Senate Mr. Obama has voted with his party 97 percent of the time.

Seems like what Barack and the liberals really mean is that they want the conservatives to bend over backwards, vote against their ethics and beliefs, and turn liberal, because the liberals have no intention of giving an inch.

If a baby survives an abortion, should we as a civilized society do everything in our power to help it, or should we put it in a room and just let it die? I’m pro-choice, but once a baby is born and is living outside the womb, isn’t it murder to abandon it and let it die? If you were in the position to advocate for the rights of an unwanted child that has been born as the result of a failed abortion, what would you do? Barack Obama would (and did) vote to let babies die.

This isn’t a partisan issue, this is an issue of a man being so callous that he won’t even cast a yes vote to save a baby that has been born. I don’t care what party you’re affiliated with, or who you are, if you can’t vote to save the life of a baby, I don’t want you to be the leader of my country.

Update: More Video

Obama Gets Angry! :(

Put some meat in your diet, folks, lest you end up voting liberal:

Vegans and vegetarians are the most likely to be deficient because the best sources of the vitamin are meat, particularly liver, milk and fish. Vitamin B12 deficiency can also cause anaemia and inflammation of the nervous system. Yeast extracts are one of the few vegetarian foods which provide good levels of the vitamin.

The link was discovered by Oxford University scientists who used memory tests, physical checks and brain scans to examine 107 people between the ages of 61 and 87.

When the volunteers were retested five years later the medics found those with the lowest levels of vitamin B12 were also the most likely to have brain shrinkage. It confirms earlier research showing a link between brain atrophy and low levels of B12.

There are other hazards to a strict vegan diet. I am guessing the parents of this Scotland child have already suffered from a shrunken brain:

A 12-YEAR-OLD girl in Scotland brought up by her parents on a strict vegan diet has been admitted to hospital with a degenerative bone condition said to have left her with the spine of an 80-year-old woman.

Doctors are under pressure to report the couple to police and social workers amid concerns that her health and welfare may have been neglected in pursuit of their dietary beliefs.

The girl, who has been fed on a strict meat and dairy-free diet from birth, is said to have a severe form of rickets and to have suffered a number of fractured bones.

That does it for me. Time for a bacon sandwich.