President George W. Bush was interviewed by Matt Lauer last night and the result was stunning.  He reminds me of the first time I played golf with a true PGA professional.  I had played golf with a lot of very good players, but I never understood how really good those tour professionals are until I played along side one on the same course.  The contrast between those who think they are great and those who really are great is unforgettable.

The same thing happened in this interview.  George Bush showed that contrary to the myth that he is naïve, dumb and intellectually incurious; he was smooth, sophisticated, informed, eloquent and incredibly convincing.  He oozed competence and sincerity.  Tony Blair wrote that Bush was brilliant at understanding other people and that he was a man of unequalled integrity.  For the first time, watching this interview, I saw that George Bush.

This is going to cause huge problems for Democrats and particularly for President Obama.  After Democrats spent most of the last two years blaming everything on the incompetent Mr. Bush, people finally got to meet President Bush in a way that had never happened before.  I believe that even his critics are shocked at how well he performed.  The problem for Matt Lauer is that he was unprepared for the power of Bush’s personality in a one on one setting.  It is clear that while Bush was President, he could never be that candid with the public.  Now that he is out of office, that problem has been solved and we saw a very different Bush than we expected.  I once heard a Democrat say that it is very difficult to say no to George Bush in a one on one meeting.  Even Nancy Pelosi once said that it was impossible to meet personally with President Bush and not understand that he was sincere about what he said.  That is the George Bush who showed up for this interview and this is drastically going to change the way people think about him.

But what is really damaging is the stark contrast between Bush and Obama.  It was so different to hear a man who understood the issues, and was ready, willing and able to make the tough decisions.   While Obama always lectures everyone, trying to appear professorial and arrogant, Bush never adopts that tone.  He doesn’t need to put other people down to elevate himself.  He zeros in on a question, demonstrates a thorough knowledge of the situation and gives a clear, very believable answer as to how he arrived at his decision.  One may totally disagree with every decision he made, but it is hard to ignore ability of the man himself.  No one, objectively watching this interview, can have any illusions as to how Bush became President of the United States.  There is no doubt whatsoever who was in charge in the White House during the Bush administration.  This is one serious man with a lot of talent.  Bush is very self confident, but he is not arrogant.  He is also not intimidated. 

I think when Bush is done with the round of interviews and his book is released, it will fundamentally change the public’s perception of him and his Presidency.  Bush said that only history will decide if his Presidency was a success or a failure, but I think he got that wrong.  I think the verdict on the Bush Presidency will be very positive and that this will happen faster than anyone can imagine.

In 1865, Abraham Lincoln was scorned by the intellectual elite and he was not a popular President.  He was very popular with the troops, but the Washington Establishment despised him.  When he ran for re-election in 1864, not a single Republican Senator endorsed him for re-election.  His own chief of staff told him in August of 1864 that he had no chance of getting re-elected.  Lincoln was so sure he would be defeated that he wrote a letter to the “next President of the United States” explaining why it was so necessary to win that war.

What changed was not winning the war, but rather the assassination.  When Lincoln was assassinated, for the first time people started to honestly reflect upon the real Abraham Lincoln and they began to pay more attention to his words.  They didn’t realize what they had until he was gone.  In a short period of time he went from being one of our most despised Presidents to being one of our most worshiped.  Lincoln did not change and his job performance did not change.  What changed was that when he was assassinated, people finally saw him for what he really was.

There is a parallel between Bush and Lincoln.  Both were despised while they were in office and both were considered crude and uneducated.  In hindsight, we were fortunate as a nation to have such men in charge during a time of national crisis.  Both were considered incompetent by the cultured establishment.  Bush was obviously not assassinated, but he was vilified by nearly everyone.  Even Republicans were afraid to even pretend that he had done a good job.  In his case, it was his character that was assassinated.  Now, people are going to look at Bush in a whole new way and a lot of them are going to like what they see.  We were lied to, but not by President Bush.  Instead we were lied to by people too hungry for political power to care about the damage they were doing to the office of the President of the United States.  None of the public perceptions of Bush can be reconciled to the man himself.

 There are two kinds of people in this world.  One walks into a room and says “Here I Am.”  Barack Obama and Bill Clinton are those kinds of people.  The other walks into a room and says “There you are.”  George Bush is that kind of person.

 I always admired Bush, but I never really understood the power of his personal presence until I saw this interview.  One thing that changed was the famous Bush sneer that used to show up in his speeches and his press conferences.  That, changes everything.

 TDM

California used to lead the nation in a lot of areas.  We had the best schools, the best roads and the strongest economy.  We also had the best weather.  If there was a new trend that caught on in California, you could count on seeing it replicated throughout the rest of the country.  California was the undisputed leader of the country.  It was the place to be.

Sadly, we are about to lead the country once again, but in the worst possible way.  California is literally self destructing before our very eyes.  For a long time other states looked at the economic disaaster that is California and wondered if we could possibly be serious.  About every three months there is a new financial crisis and California faces another multi-billion dollar deficit.  Some people now estimate that in addition to the current deficit, California may have $100 billion in unfunded pension liabilities.   The rest of the country used to envy us.  Now they laugh at us.  How do you justify the thought process of political leaders who want to legalize marijuana and ban happy meals? 

On November 2, 2010, the entire country arose and demanded change with a loud clear voice.  They voted to reduce the size of government, stop taxing and stop spending.  But in California voters gave an overwhelming vote of confidence to the same clowns that have pushed our economy to the brink of collapse.  Then, in an act of pure insanity, voters gave the California legislature the authority to pass a budget with a simple majority vote.    The reason budgets weren’t passed on time is that a handful of Republicans refused to vote for increased taxes and increased spending.  Now the last remaining guardrail protecting the California economy from going over the cliff has been removed.  We have a union loving Democratic State Assembly, a union adoring Democrat State Senate, and a union worshiping Democratic Governor.   To finish the job, we elected pro-union liberal Democrats to every statewide office.

Following is the list of those elected to statewide office this Tuesday:   

Governor:  Jerry Brown, Democrat.   He was Governor for 8 years decades ago.  He became famous across the country as Governor Moonbeam.  During his tenure he fought against Proposition 13, which reduced property taxes, then tried to take credit for it.  By his own admission, during his previous tenure taxes went up, spending went up, roads deteriorated and education got worse.  But he was not Meg Whitman and he is a Democrat so he got elected.

Lt. Governor:  Gavin Newsom, Democrat.  He is the hard-core core left wing wacko Mayor of San Francisco.  He arbitrarily decided that Gay Marriage should be legal in California so he just started marrying gay couples in San Francisco.  He is so liberal and so far left that he was trounced by Jerry Brown in the Democratic primary.  So, he decided to run for Lt. Governor hoping no one would notice.  It worked.

State Controller:  John Chang, Democrat.   He claimed credit for saving the state millions of dollars because of actions taken by other people.  (This included the City of Bell scandal ignored by Debra Bowen).   But, no one cared, because he is a Democrat.

State Treasurer:  Bill Lockyer, Democrat.    He is famous for filing a Global Warming Lawsuit against automobile manufacturers when he was attorney general.  Then he even tried to sue the Board of Hewitt Packard with regard to a change in the board of directors.   However, the Republican candidate must have been really special, because even the Republican Party refused to endorse her.

Secretary of State:  Debra Bowen, Democrat.   She has been accused of ignoring massive voter fraud by ACORN.  She was notified of the problems in Bell, California, where the city manager and others were paying themselves outrageous salaries, but she ignored it.  The story eventually broke in the LA Times and became a major scandal.  There are also other allegations of preferential treatment of the Democratic Party.   This is the person who make sure our elections are fair and balanced.  Perfect.. 

Attorney General:  Kamala Harris, Democrat.  She set an all time record for poor performance as District Attorney for San Francisco.  Under her leadership, San Francisco has the lowest conviction record in the state.  No police organization in the state was willing to endorse her because too many obviously guilty people were set free because of her incompetence.  She also refused to turn over illegal aliens to ICE, even when one was a dangerous  convicted felon.  He ended up killing several people.   But, she is a Democrat, and in California that is all that matters.

Insurance Commissioner:  Dave Jones, Democrat.   He is an anti-insurance company activist who thinks all problems with regard to health insurance can be solved by personally ordering insurance carriers to lower premium, without regard to actual costs.  He loves Obamacare.  This tactic was tried before with Proposition 103, which was passed in 1988.  It is how we ended up with an elected Insurance Commissioner.  Proposition 103 required auto insurance companies to reduce rates by 20%.  It was litigated for 17 years.  Somehow rates never actually went down.  So far every person elected to Insurance Commissioner in California has tried to use the position as a political platform to run for Governor.  Perfect!

Superintendent of Schools:  Tom Torlarkson, Democrat.  (He switched from Democrat, to decline to state, to run for this non-partisan office).  He is a former teacher strongly endorsed by the California teachers union which spent more money on his campaign than he spent himself.  This is exactly the kind of balance we need in a Superintendent of Schools.  He will be more than willing to make the hard decisions and challenge the teachers union…right!

California has officially replaced Michigan as the dumbest state in the union.  For years we watched pro-union Democrats run the Michigan economy into the ground.   But this year the voters finally had enough and voted the Democrats out of power.  My prediction is that the Michigan economy will take off.   It is hard to imagine California improving under the leadership of this group.

Democrats are banking on turning the economy around by building the bullet train to run from Fresno to Bakersfield.  All of the trains and equipment will be manufactured in California. That actually is a good idea, because no sane business owner would continue to operate in California if there was a viable option.   This is progressive utopia; lots of government spending creating those delicious union jobs.  Of course California has no money and the federal government is broke.    So, they will probably try to finance this with bonds, backed by a project that has no chance of ever turning a profit.  This is similar to how the French financed the Panama Canal.  That worked really well too!

Even though voters miraculously voted down Proposition 19, which would legalize marijuana, this state legislature is likely to just do that anyway.  Democrats view marijuana primarly as a great cash crop that they can tax with wild abandon.  In addition, this will attract a whole new business to California, pot farms.  No sane business owner, who does not smoke pot, is likely to be interested in setting up shop in this economic disaster zone.  In addition, the more people in California who smoke pot, the more likely we will continue to elect Democrats.

I am suddenly feeling warm all over.  Oops, I may have peed by pants.

TDM

Republicans scored a major victory last night and that is very good news.  Although Democrats managed to keep the Senate, it was only by the skin of their teeth.  There are 21 Democrats up for re-election in 2012 and only 10 Republicans.  I expect a lot of conservative Democratic Senators from red states to start to quickly distance themselves from Obama and the left wing of the Democratic party.  The only Democratic Senators who survived were hard core left wing liberals from states with major Democratic machines. 

This election literally tilted both parties.  The Democrats tilted significantly to the left and the Republicans tilted to the right.  Because all of them were on the ballot last night, conservative Democrats in the House tended to slide right out of office.  Those 21 Democratic Senators, particularly the ones from red states, up for re-election in 2012 can see the handwriting on the wall.  The only reason Democrats did not lose control of the Senate last night is because only 18 of them were up for re-election. 

Obviously, my analysis of Delaware was way off.  I should have known better, because Christine O’Donnell was a train wreck of a candidate.  But, I was basing this on a single poll and it is now obvious that the poll was nonsense.  She lost by 17 and that was with better than expected Republican turnout.  This is one case where the Tea Party did us no favors, because they simply did not vet her as a candidate.  The only recent major candidate with a worse resume was Barack Obama and he at least did graduate from Harvard.  We also weren’t well served by running a WWE Diva on a family values platform in Connecticut.  There were similar problems with Joe Miller in Alaska.  Fortunately, Lisa Murkowski appears to have saved that seat for the Republicans.

But, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul are major victories for the tea party and more importantly, for the conservative wing of the Republican Party.  They proved that major elections can be won by people who run on solid conservative values.

Contrast that with California where neither Carly Fiorina nor Meg Whitman did that.  Meg Whitman spent over $140 million trying to get elected by repeating over and over again that she is not Jerry Brown.  She never mentioned cutting taxes or cutting spending or a return to core conservative values.  Ultimately, a lot of people saw very little difference between the two.  Carly Fiorina ran a similar race, where once again her main argument was that she wasn’t Barbara Boxer.  Then she had absolutely no response to the attack ads saying she had shipped 30,000 jobs overseas as CEO of HP.  She also did not talk very much about cutting taxes and reducing spending.  She never mentioned that she would stop Obama, she just wanted to replace Boxer.

Frankly, Republicans should have won both races, but until the Republican Party learns to unite behind a Candidate with something resembling a personality and the ability to explain the conservative agenda, we are going to continue losing every election.

Did anyone notice that Democrats dominated a 30 mile strip along the entire length of the California coast.  The rest of California has turned deep red.

The election for the country was great, for California it was a disaster.  Republicans only won one statewide office, Attorney General, and that was only because it was patently obvious that Pamela Harris was embarrassingly incompetent.  To make it worse, voters passed Prop 25, which now allows Democrats to pass a budget with only a simple majority vote.  The only thing that has kept California from taxing and spending itself into oblivion has been the ability of the Republican minority to block irresponsible budgets.  There is no longer any guardrail protecting California from going over the cliff.

Since no California Democrat currently in office, other than Bill Lockyear, has demonstrated a shred of common sense, it is always difficult to predict what they will do.  It is clear that they desperately need new tax revenue, because the unions who bought the election for them are not going to let them cut many more public sector jobs.  So the real question is what Democrats will do to raise money.

They will try to raise taxes, but taxes are so high now and the economy is so bad that this may not be possible.  So, they will still raise taxes, but they will call it something else.  I fully expect them to legalize marijuana, because then they can tax it.  Democrats view marijuana solely as a very attractive source of desperately needed new revenue so they can continue spending.  The fact that Proposition 19 was voted down is just an inconvenience, kind of like Proposition 8 and gay marriage. 

They will raise energy taxes, inspired by the California Green energy goals.  In some cases they will be disguised as fees, but they will really be a tax.  They will also increase car license fees, because they don’t like cars anyway.  They probably will come up with other new and exciting ways to raise taxes, but they will definitely raise taxes and small business owners will be hit the hardest.

Barbara Boxer said that her solution to California’s financial problems was to tax all the money made by California based companies from foreign operations.  In other words any company currently domiciled in California that makes profits anywhere else in the world, is going to be taxed by California.  Any CEO of a California based company who heard this brilliant idea or who learned about it later is probably developing plans to leave the state.  This is utter nonsense.

But perhaps the most dangerous result was the election of Dave Jones as Insurance Commissioner.  He is a hard core left wing political activist who thinks all problems can be solved by increased regulation of the insurance industry.  He has already proposed legislation allowing him as Insurance Commissioner to require prior approval of health insurance rates.  If you think the health insurance industry in California is bad now, just wait six months.  Many insurance carriers are already skittish about California in general because of the long history of the Democratic controlled legislature passing ridiculous regulations that make it impossible for insurance companies to make a profit.  At one point nearly all workers’ compensation insurance in California was underwritten by the State Compensation Insurance Fund, because private companies had withdrawn completely from the state.  I can remember many conversations I had personally with top executives who told me flat out that they would never again write business in California because they did not trust the California State Legislature.  That changed when Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected, but my hunch is that many of them are already developing an early exit strategy.  I can’t blame them because California just turned over the insane asylum to the inmates.

So, one must ask, how do you create jobs in an environment that is so hostile to business owners?  One answer, already proposed by Democrats, is to create great new jobs with government money.  For example, California could build that coveted high speed rail line between San Francisco and Bakerfield.  In addition, they will require all engines and passengers cars to be built in….California.  This is progressive utopia.  High speed mass transit, massive spending and all those delicious union jobs.  Of course the fact that we have no money to fund this, that this has no chance of ever turning a profit and that the coveted federal funds are non-existent will not slow them down.  I predict they will issue bonds so that lots of people can help fund this marvelous idea.  This is very similar to how the French financed the Panama Canal.  That worked out really well.

Hurray, for the U.S.A., but for California, too bad, so sad!

TDM

Every single Democratic consultant is now predicting that Republicans will regain control of the House.  The low estimate is that Republicans will gain a minimum of 50 seats and even some Democrats are expecting up to 70 seats.

That is the bad news.  The good news is that these outcomes assume high Democratic turnout.  If Democrats have a bad evening, say a repeat of the Scott Brown election, then it could be much worse.  Almost every consultant admits that if they are wrong, it is because Republican gains will be even larger. 

If the Republicans have a very good night, but not a GREAT night, they could end up with 268 seats.  That would be a 90 seat swing.  But, if they have a great night, it could be even worse.  Here are the numbers that really count.

Safe Democratic seats:   121                 Safe Republican seats:  163

Everything else could possibly change, but right now Republicans are ahead in 51 other races.  That would result in the Republicans having 224 seats, or a majority, without winning ANY tossup seats.

There are currently 44 tossup seats and with the obvious Republican surge, the Republicans could pick up a high percentage of them.  Obviously if they got all the tossups, that would be a gain of 95 seats.  In addition, there are another 22 Democrat seats where the Democrat is only slightly ahead and another 24 where the Democrat is ahead by a slightly higher margin, but not enough to make the seat safe.  That means another 46 Democratic seats have at least some risk.  Incredibly while the Republicans are already expected to easily pick up 46 seats, another 90 Democratic seats are at least somewhat competitive and 44 of them are extremely competitive.   Wow!

In the last two weeks, virtually every close race has swung to the Republicans.  There are only two congressional seats where Democrats have improved.   There are 40 where Republicans have improved. 

If you combine this with the 15 point Gallup lead by Republicans on the generic ballot, this may soon be called Ruby Tuesday.

The Senate is far from a sure thing, but as of now if the Republicans win West Virginia, Washington or California, they probably win the Senate. 

The only real question is not whether the political storm will hit, but rather the extent of the Damage to the Democratic Party.

Here are safe predictions:

1.  Nancy Pelosi is finished as Speaker of the House and she will probably resign from congress before the start of the next congress rather than continue in the minority.
2. Republicans will definitely win enough seats in the Senate to effectively block any legislation that does not receive broad Republican support.  Republicans will control all legislation in the House.
3. There will be investigations of key Democrats that have been ignored for over 4 years.  Some of those investigations will be devastating.
4. There will be significant investigations regarding Obama.  If early investigations turn up any smoking guns, these could escalate rapidly.  Never under estimate the power of the subpoena.

There will be an immediate fight regarding the extension of the Bush Tax cuts.  Obama will try to force Republicans to pass legislation excluding the top brackets and only for a limited period of time.  He is likely to veto any attempt to extend tax credits for the top tax brackets.

Republicans will push to pass tax cuts for everyone and for a longer period of time.  Whoever is viewed as obstructionist will pay a huge political price.  If Obama can convince people that he is willing to compromise, but Republicans insist on giving tax cuts to the rich, he may literally save his Presidency.  On the other hand it is precisely those tax brackets that are likely to drive any recovery.   In addition, there are more and more Democrats who honestly believe that extending the tax cuts for everyone is necessary.  Even the biased main stream media is moving in that direction.

This will be an immediate battle shortly after the election.  That is the dilemma for Obama and Democrats.   If they don’t extend the tax cuts during a lame duck session, every American is going to get hit with a huge tax increase on January 1.  That is going to make just about everyone angry.   Republicans will probably be able to prevent Democrats from even voting on legislation that extends the tax cuts without including the top brackets.  Democrats couldn’t get that done before the election, which is why Pelosi didn’t allow a vote.   My guess is that one of two things will happen.  Either the lame duck congress will adjourn without extending the Bush tax cuts, which will create even more problems for Democrats, or they will vote to extend all the Bush tax cuts.  If Obama vetoes that, and he is unsuccessful in blaming it on Republicans, he will be making a major mistake. 

Remember that Pelosi will have been humiliated by a crushing defeat and Harry Reid is likely to have been voted out of office.  I doubt that the Democrats who just got voted out of office because of the Obama, Pelosi, Reid incompetence will be very enthusiastic about following them further over the cliff.  Regardless of final outcome on Tuesday, the American people have already sent a loud and clear message. 

If Obama is smart, he will “reluctantly” sign the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts and then tries to claim credit for the recovery.  However, at this point, he shows no signs of doing the smart thing.  Instead he is promising to fight harder.  It is going to be a very interesting November and December.    

TDM

 Barack Obama made a major stop in Delaware yesterday. So did Joe Biden.  According to the main stream media Coons has an insurmountable lead over O’Donnell.  The polls are so bad that Karl Rove couldn’t even bring himself to say he thought she had a chance to win when pressed by O’Reilly.  Yet, Democrats are obviously worried.  There may be good reason for them to be concerned.  I looked at the internals of the latest poll showing that Coons up by 10 points.  That result, like most other polls, depends on voter turnout being similar to 2008.  That assumes that 43% of voters will be Democrats, 31% will be Republicans and 26% will be Independents.  If you use that turnout model then the poll which has 85% of Democrats voting for Coons and 79% of Republicans voting for O’Donnell produces a 10% win.  But, that turnout is very unlikely in this election cycle.  At a minimum, Republican turnout is probably going to be much higher than it was in 2008 and Democratic turnout much lower.  In addition this poll showed Independents supporting O’Donnell by a significant margin.  If more  Republicans and Independents vote than Democrats, this could be a very close race.     

It is hard for anyone, including me, to predict O’Donnell winning in a red state like Delaware.  That is doubly true because she has been crucified in the main stream media and has become a nationwide laughingstock.  But a couple of recent developments give me pause.  It is clear from all the polls that O’Donnell is surging.  It also seems like Coons made a huge mistake.  His campaign paid to have someone make up a clearly false sex scandal about O’Donnell.  That made a lot of women, including liberal women, absolutely furious.  It was beyond despicable.  It was also really stupid.  Democrats have always enjoyed a huge advantage with Women voters.  Coon’s has risked losing that advantage with this bizarre stunt.  I still wouldn’t bet on O’Donnell pulling this off, but I also wouldn’t be shocked if she won. 

The latest news is that even Nat Silver from the NYT is admitting that Republicans are going to do a lot better than he expected.  He not only expects people like Harry Reid to lose, he wouldn’t be surprised to seem them lose by big margins.  His article appears to be more of a post mortem than a prediction.  This is astonishing, because Silver has historically over estimated Democratic results, particularly during this election cycle:

 http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/5-reasons-republicans-could-do-even-better-than-expected/

What’s interesting is that Silver, like all liberals, is incapable of understanding that this election is a rejection of liberal policies.  He has five reasons why Democrats are “likely to lose.”

 1.   Downballot races.  Republican candidates at the local level are doing very well and that will impact the top of the ticket races.  This is sort of the reverse shirt tails argument.

2.   Unlikely Voters.  People voted who weren’t expected to vote turned out for this election. 

3.  The Incumbent Rule.  When things are going badly, incumbents lose.

4.   The Scott Brown effect.   Republicans are energized because for the first time in a long time they think their vote may actually count.

5.   Bad Voter Turnout Models.  The Democratic turnouts in 2006 and 2008 were unusually high and are unlikely to be repeated.

Some of these arguments have merit, but like most liberals, Silver just doesn’t get it.  This election is mostly about people who are furious at both parties for their tax, tax, tax and spend, spend, and spend agendas.  Democrats are in trouble because they are in control and they are getting the lion’s share of the blame.  But, Republicans have also been much quicker to adopt to the tea party movement.  They are far more likely to understand why people are peeved and they are at least pretending to listen.  In addition, thanks to the tea party, there are some very conservative candidates running as Republicans who appear ready, willing and able to stand up to the Republican establishment.  These are not your grandfather’s Republicans. 

There is one other factor that may prove to be very significant.  In previous elections Democrats won because of overwhelming union support.  That is not working as well this year.  The Supreme Court rejected parts of McCain Feingold and business organizations, like the Chamber of Commerce, have taken advantage of this.  This has leveled the playing field significantly compared to previous elections where unions often spent millions buying elections.  

In addition, in this economy, public sector employees are no longer viewed as favorably.   It has become more and more obvious that a lot of public sector employee are enjoying a much better lifestyle than the rest of us and they are doing it with our tax dollars.  In other words there is a significant public sector union backlash building.  

So what did Dela Wear Boys.  She wore a New Jersey and with a little luck it could even turn out to be red. 

TDM

For years I listened to Michael Savage every evening while driving home from San Francisco to Novato.  It wasn’t that I am a big fan of his, but rather that he was basically the only option.  Mr. Savage is an interesting character and sometimes he is very good at making his point.  One of his favorite lines was that he believed Liberalism was a mental disorder.  His theory was based on the incredible ability of liberals to completely ignore facts and common sense to arrive at their conclusions.   Ronald Reagan said that liberals are not bad people; they just believe a lot of things that are not true.  Now we learn that Harvard has discovered a gene that explains liberalism.  Ironically they describe it as follows:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8093089/Liberal-gene-discovered-by-scientists.html

dopamine receptor gene called DRD4

Dopamine seems like a really good description of the liberal thought process.

But there is good news in the study.  It turns out that even people with this defect don’t necessarily turn out to be liberal, unless they hang out with the wrong friends.  In other words liberalism can be cured, either by early association with non-liberals or by the simple aging process, although some liberals obviously never figure it out. 

A reforming liberal friend of mine said he used to think a conservative was a liberal who had been mugged.  He now says that a conservative is a liberal who got a 25% increase in his health care premium because of Obamacare.

I have to admit I am frequently astonished at the thought process of liberals.  If I am having a discussion with someone and they say I have my facts wrong, I always pay attention.  I might not admit it to them, but I will usually do some research and at least evaluate their facts.  To me the truth is very important.  What sense does it make to believe in something that is based on things that are not true?  But often I have discovered that liberals are not interested in facts.  They “feel” they are right, so to them facts are irrelevant.

Perhaps the best example of this is the liberal view of Dick Cheney.  The facts are that Dick Cheney was well liked and respected by people in both parties before he became Vice President.  He didn’t become “Darth Vader” until after the 2000 election.  With help from the mass media, Dick Cheney is widely considered to be a mean and vicious person with little regard to anyone else.  Yet the records show that Dick Cheney is one of the most giving politicians ever.  In 2005 he made $8,819,006.  He and his wife donated 75% of that, or $6,869,655 to charity.  In the same year, Joe Biden donated $395.  In 1997 when Al Gore was Vice President he reported income of $197,729 and paid a whopping $353 to charity.  Yet if you ask a liberal today who is more generous, Al Gore, Joe Biden or Dick Cheney, they will laugh derisively that the evil Dick Cheney would even be mentioned in the same breath as these two saintly individuals. 

Ultimately, this is why liberalism is destined to failure.  When you are making decisions based on assumptions that are not true, your chances of making the correct decision is very low. 

But, now I am more understanding of liberals.  Harvard has shown that these people are not deliberately wrong, they are just mentally ill as the result of a defective gene.   I will try to be more understanding by recognizing they probably can’t help themselves.  Of course, as with any other mental illness, we should avoid putting such people into positions which require decision making.  That would be cruel.

TDM

The last Gallup survey is in and it is devastating for Democrats.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/144053/2010-Electorate-Looking-Republican-Past.aspx

  The following chart says it all:

If this is even close to accurate, Democrats are in world class thumping.  Keep in mind that in 1994 Republicans took back the House and the Senate, something that no one predicted prior to the election.  Republicans were expected to do well, but most people expected Democrats to retain control of both the House and the Senate.  They were wrong.  The margin in this poll is three times what it was in 1994 and conservatives drastically out number moderates. 

Today Rasmussen reports that 65% of voters would like to completely replace congress.  We really don’t know what will happen Tuesday, but the following is certainly true:

No incumbent is truly safe.  Republican incumbents are in much less trouble Democrats but an anti-incumbent surge may affect both parties.  In the House, that will be devastating to Democrats.   In the Senate any incumbent without a very solid lead should be worried.  The only Democrats with that kind of lead are Schumer, Leahy and Mikulski.  All other Democratic Senators have at least a chance of losing.  So far no Republican Senator appears to be at risk, but in this climate they should be nervous as well.

We are certain to see the following on Tuesday night.   It will become quickly clear that Republicans have retaken the House.  The real question will be by what margin.  Political pundits will be shocked at some of the people removed from office.   There will be surprises with regard to the Senate, in some cases shocking results.

We get an early indication of how things are going by watching the returns on Chuck Schumers race in New York.   He appears to be up by 30 points.  If he wins by say 15 points then the fight is on.

We are in the back stretch.

TDM

According to the LA Times, Jerry Brown is now up by 13 points.  Yet Republicans are at least pretending that this race is competitive.  So the question is, 1:  how accurate is that poll and 2:  how competitive is this race?

I went through and looked at the assumptions and the questions in this poll.  This quickly showed that the poll is deeply flawed for several reasons.  The most important is that this is based on an assumption that turnout by party will be the same as it was in 2008, except they are expecting a 5% larger Democratic turnout.  The entire poll is nonsense because of this assumption.  Most people believe that right now about voter registration in California is about 44% Democrat and 36% Republican.  Yet the people is this poll self identified themselves as  43% Democrat and 28% Republican with 28% independent.   Again, nonsense.  Obviously if you ask more Democrats than Republicans who is going to vote for the Democrat in any election, the Democrat will almost always win.  The poll was also very lengthy and it over sampled latinos, which is standard fare for the LA Times.    In other words, the poll results are virtually meaningless, other than to pump up Democratic enthusiasm. 

You might recall that these were the same clowns who thought Gray Davis would defeat the recall and if he did lose it would be a cliff hanger between Cruz Bustamonte and Arnold Schwartzenegger.  Nailed that one!

So what is the truth?  The Brown  vs Whitman race is too close to call, but Brown is slightly ahead and this is a Democratic state.  She could win this, but she needs a big Republican turnout.  With regard to Boxer vs Fiorina, the margin is only about 3 points and Boxer is less than 50.  Odds are that Boxer loses.

Sadly we could see another 4 year term for Governor Moonbeam, but it is a bit early to Jerry to start measuring drapes.  Whitman is going to hammer him hard over the next five days and she has a lot of ammunition.  In addition the Republican wave is proving to be enormous and it may carry a lot of people over the top.

TDM

The biggest loser in this election is likely to be the the unions, particularly the public sector unions.   

There have definitely been times in our nation’s history when Unions helped bring attention to serious problems.  Perhaps the best example is the United Mine Workers and their efforts to require mine owners to pay more attention to workplace safety.  In other cases the unions were effective in requiring business owners to increase wages for blue collar employees.  There were certainly employers, like George Pullman, who were unwilling to treat their employees fairly. 

 But unions, by their very nature, also have the potential to abuse their power.  The close relationship between unions and organized crime is well documented.  Unions were used to extort business owners into cooperating with or at least tolerating organized crime. 

Politicians in both parties realized that there was a potential for enormous problems if unions were allowed to organize public workers, particularly public safety workers.  The following article, by Daniel DeSalvo published in National Affairs does an excellent job in providing a historical perspective on public sector unions:

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trouble-with-public-sector-unions

Democrats originally were just as opposed to public sector unions as Republicans.  For example this article includes the following quote from Franklin Roosevelt, who was definitely a pro-union guy:

Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government….The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.”   He went on to say that “[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.”

The New York Supreme Court issued an opinion in 1943 warning about the danger from public service unions:

To tolerate or recognize any combination of civil service employees of the government as a labor organization or union is not only incompatible with the spirit of democracy, but inconsistent with every principle upon which our government is founded. Nothing is more dangerous to public welfare than to admit that hired servants of the State can dictate to the government the hours, the wages and conditions under which they will carry on essential services vital to the welfare, safety, and security of the citizen. To admit as true that government employees have power to halt or check the functions of government unless their demands are satisfied, is to transfer to them all legislative, executive and judicial power. Nothing would be more ridiculous.

The Democratic Party has been closely allied with unions from the start, beginning with the Wagner Act in 1935.  Republicans, on the other hand, were opposed to unions, as represented by Taft-Hartly in 1947.  The result is that unions are closely connected with the Democratic Party, particularly in big cities.  This is why nearly every major city in the United States is dominated by Democrats.  Unions have incredible power and they almost always support Democratic candidates.   It is nearly impossible to get elected to public office in a major city without union support.  The end result is a country where big cities are dominated by liberal democrats while the rest of the country is largely republican.

The following red-state/blue-state maps tell the story.  The first is from 2004, when Bush defeated John Kerry.  This shows results by county.  It is a stark reminder of how the lethal combination of the Democratic party and public sector unions in high density population centers can dominate national politics even when most of the country disagrees.

The second map is from 2008.  The pattern is the same, but Obama obviously attracted a much broader base than John Kerry:

But I have learned that there is a quick way to find out who or what to support.  I just look for the Union Label.  If the add is being funded by a public sector union, I vote no.  It’s a beautiful thing.

TDM

This is going to be a very interesting week.  I have been viewing several recent polls and a couple of patterns are clear.  No legitimate pollster, Republican or Democrat, is now predicting that Democrats keep control of the House.  Even the most die hard Democratic pundits are admitting that Republicans are going to win a lot of seats currently held by Democrats.  Some estimates are north of 90 seats changing hands.   In addition, those Democrats from Republican districts who do survive will have done so by running against Obama and against Pelosi.  Here is California virtually no one is running as a Democrat.  Even Barbara Boxer has avoided mentioning the stimulus, Obamacare or any other of his other great accomplishments.  Instead she is pretending to be a friend of veterans and she is slamming Carly Fiorina.

The real question is how bad will it be?  No one knows for sure, because recent polls have shown Republicans to be competitive in districts where no one thought that was remotely possible.  For example, even Dennis Kucinich is in trouble, with his Republican opponent now within 4 percentage points.  Unbelievable!

We already know some things because of reports from states that allow early voting.  No one is measuring actual votes, but they are measuring whether it is a registered Republican or a registered Democrat who is voting.  The following shows some of the results.   I have verified these results from several sources:

Following are the states where Republicans are doing very well. 

Arizona           Republicans 44%  Democrats 34%

Colorado         Republicans 42%  Democrats 37%

Florida             Republicans 53%  Democrats 34%

Georgia           Republicans 58%  Democrats 26%

Nevada            Republicans 42%  Democrats 42%

New Mexico   Republicans 47%  Democrats 44%

Pennsylvania   Republicans 56%  Democrats 37%

Democrats appear to be doing well in West Virginia, Maryland, Wisconsin and Iowa, but even Democratic pollsters expect the Republican candidate to win in all of those states, with the exception of Maryland.  It appears that this year Democratic registered voters, particularly in blue collar states, are not necessarily voting for the Democrat.

 West Virginia is very interesting, because the Democrat is the current Governor, Manchin, who is very popular.  He was way behind until he ran an ad where he came out carrying a rife, promised to repeal “the bad parts” of Obamacare and then literally shot at the proposed Cap & Trade legislation.  This is not exactly an endorsement of Democratic Party accomplishments.  If he wins, it will only because of his promise to break with the Democratic Party. 

 No current Republican Senator is considered to be at risk, and even Democratic strategists are predicting they will all be easily re-elected.  Remarkably only 4 Democratic Senate seats are considered solid Democrat as of right now.

 Here is what to expect and what to watch.  Barbara Mikulski in Maryland and Patrick Leahy in Vermont will probably coast to re-election.  Unless something changes, we should expect Schumer and Gillebrand in New York.  If either New York race is even close that would be significant.  For example Schumer is up by about 30 points and Gillebrand is up by about 19 points.  If either race is close, that is very bad news for Democrats. 

The early races to watch are the Senate races in Connecticut and Delaware.  The conventional wisdom is that Democrats are ahead in both states, but Obama recently campaigned in both states.  There must be some concern by the Democratic Party.  Even if the Democrat wins, but the margin is in the low single digits, the Senate is definitely in play.  If the Republican pulls off a win in either state, it is going to be a bloodbath for Democrats in the Senate.  Republicans have a better chance in Connecticut than in Delaware, but this year anything could happen.  In both states the Democrat is up by about 15% at the moment.  Normally that would be considered a safe margin, but a lot of tea party candidates surged more than just before the election.

I know a lot of people are really wondering about California.  It is too close to call.  The key factor is that in no poll has Barbara Boxer got more than 48% of the vote.  Usually, if an incumbent is not over 50% the week before the election, they lose.  If someone has not decided to vote for Barbara Boxer by now they are unlikely to change their mind.  There are a lot more Democrats than Republicans in California, and Boxer is up by about 3 points, but she has not put this away. As of 2008, 44% of voters were Democrats and 31% were Republicans with 25% independents.  So far, in early voting, 43% of voters have been Democrats and 39% have been Republicans.  That is a significant Republican trend.  If Independents move away from Barbara Boxer she will probably lose.

Bad news for Republicans would be a Feingold victory in Wisconsin.  If that happens, Democrats probably keep the Senate.  A Manchin victory in West Virginia would not necessarily mean much with regard to other Senate races because of his personal popularity and his strategy to run against the Democratic agenda.   Obviously if Rubio loses in Florida, that would also be bad, as would be a win by Sestak in Pennsylvania.

Final note:  There are a ton of Republican/Conservative groups out there that are determined to seize this opportunity.  The Chamber of Commerce has been very active and has been effective.  Other groups are targeting high profile states.  That has already been effective in Alaska and Nevada.  They are pouring money into Connecticut, Delaware, Nevada and Washington.  Right now it appears that the RNC thinks they have a chance at 82 seats and they are spending a lot of money there.  Previously they were focused on about 50 seats, so this is an indication they are going for the kill.

Democrats are screaming bloody murder and Rep Fazio has called for the impeachment of John Roberts for the Supreme Court decision to overturn McCain-Feingold.  That decision had a major impact on leveling the field, because in prior elections unions would always pour in tons of last minute cash and push Democrats over the top.  At the same time the business community was restricted from spending money during the last 30 days.  A lot of our problems are directly related to the takeover of local, state and federal governments by public sector unions.  I did another post over the weekend titled:  LOOK FOR THE UNION LABEL. 

TDM