It is hard to determine who is the most incompetent, or stupid:   President Barack Obama, The United States Senate, or the U.S. House of Representatives.  None of them have a clue with regard to the impact of their latest political game.

Obama ordered congress to stay in town over the Christmas Holiday, while he planned on surfing in Hawaii.  (Okay…body surfing.  There is no evidence Obama can actually surf).  He was finally shamed into staying in town, so he sent Michelle and the kids ahead, at taxpayers’ expense.  He stayed behind to light the Washington Christmas tree, which apparently has nothing to do with celebrating Christmas, or Jesus Christ, but does have a large ornament adorning it saying, “I Love President Obama.”  The House responded by passing an idiotic one-year extension in the Social Security Tax cut.  Social Security is already broke, so this already cost the Social Security Trust Fund $120 billion last year, while providing zero stimulus to the economy.  If they repeat this dumb decision, it will cost another $250 billion, while still providing zero stimulus to the economy.  But both political parties are doing the irresponsible because they know they will be crucified by the main stream media if they dare act like adults.

The Senate managed to take an incredibly dumb idea and double down on the stupidity.  They want to extend this tax cut for only two months.  That is, by far, the most irresponsible position possible.  Unbelievably six RINOs are giving vocal support to this unbelievable naïve and irrational proposal. 

They are obviously just kicking the can down the road so we can have the same argument in February.  Why on earth would anyone expect a different result in February?  If congress cannot find the ability to reach an agreement when they are threatened with missing Christmas, delaying Ground Hog day is unlikely to change hearts and minds.  But the real problem is that this is likely to have a devastating impact on the economy, particularly with regard to creating any jobs.

What the geniuses in Washington failed to consider is that this legislation affects every business in the United States that issues a paycheck.  As of right now, no one knows how much Social Security tax to withhold on January 1.  Since it looks like there will be no tax extension passed, all the systems need to be immediately reprogrammed from 4.2% to 6.2%, assuming they haven’t been programmed already.  Probably not, since a few days ago everyone was predicting an extension.  Since no one could predict what congress and President Obama would do, odds are nothing was done.   There is no way this can be done by the end of the year.  In some cases that won’t be done by the end of January.  That means employers are probably going to do hand calculations to issue payroll checks, if they can issue them at all.  This is a massive undertaking.  Unbelievably, the only thing certain is change.  So if congress changes its mind and extends the payroll tax after all, the computers will need to be re-programmed again.  In the meantime don’t be surprised if a lot of people end up not getting paid at all.  It is an expensive nightmare that never should have happened.

Democrats are practically foaming at the mouth in the rush to blame Republicans for a massive tax increase.  The main stream media will almost certainly blame everything on Republicans for trying to protect the filthy rich from a miniscule increase in taxes while heaping an enormous tax increase on the poor.  In the meantime there doesn’t seem to be a single Republican capable to explaining the reality of the situation to the American people.  I don’t know which is more infuriating:  a liberal left wing Democratic Party willing to drive our economy into a complete meltdown, while cheered on by the liberal main stream media,  or a Republican Party that seems incapable of pointing out the obvious.  I am so tired of Republicans getting all defensive and saying things like “I don’t think it’s a good idea to raise taxes on anyone during a recession.”  ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  IS THAT THE BEST WE GOT?

I wish just one Republican leader, any Republican leader, would have the courage to stand up and say the obvious: 

You’re darn right Republicans are unwilling to compromise with Democrats.  It is no virtue to compromise with the Captain of the Ship of State when he is steering us toward disaster.  Refusal to compromise, when things are headed in the wrong direction is the only responsible course of action.  Compromising with President Obama and the Democratic Party will only make things worse.  We don’t need to compromise with a disastrous economic policy, we need to reverse course before it is too late. 

In the meantime Democrats and Republican have gathered around in a circular firing squad guaranteed to damage everyone inside the circle and a lot of innocent bystanders.

TDM

In 1996, the Republican nominee was Bob Dole.  Most Republicans cringe at the memory of how Bill Clinton, who was extremely vulnerable, coasted to re-election over the lifeless Dole.  Of course the third party candidacy of Ross Perot sealed the deal for Clinton.  I wonder how many Americans realize that Bill Clinton never came close to winning a majority of the votes in any national election.

Bob Dole won the Iowa Caucus in 1996, but Republicans were not very impressed.  They desperately looked around for some other candidate.  But when they did they found Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes.  (I am ignoring the rest of the field which included Arlen Specter and Phil Gramm – ouch!)  Ultimately, Republicans reluctantly united behind Dole because he was the only thing resembling a horse in the field.  We are close to a repeat of 1996 with Mitt Romney.  Most Republicans are less than thrilled with Mitt Romney as our candidate and are desperately seeking a viable alternative.  But so far the alternatives have rapidly self-destructed.  First it was Rick Perry, who stepped in it more than once and even had a brain freeze on national TV.  Then it was Herman Cain who somehow thought no one would notice his “women” problems and his obvious lack of knowledge with regard to foreign affairs.  Now it is Newt Gingrich whose campaign is imploding as we speak. 

That leaves Mitt Romney.  Ron Paul has zero chance because of his naïve and irresponsible view of foreign policy, particularly with regard to Iran.  Michelle Bachmann continues to have no chance.  Even those who agree with what she has to say often find her annoying.  Santorum lost his last election in Pennsylvania by 18 points.  It would be insane to think he could be a winning candidate on a national scale.  Jon Huntsman doesn’t appear to even want the job and he often sounds more like a Democrat than a Republican.  

So, Mitt Romney will ultimately win the nomination, unless Rick Perry rises from the ashes.  That seems unlikely, but who knows?  There have been recent hints of a small Perry surge.  Actually it wouldn’t take much.  He is currently in fourth place in Iowa.  If Perry even came in third it would change everything.  He doesn’t need to win, he just needs to convince people that he is still a factor. 

The following brief video from Politico actually does a pretty good job of analyzing things in Iowa:

 http://www.politico.com/driving-the-day/

 This is hard to call, but it is pretty obvious that Gingrich has gone down in flames and unless Perry emerges as a dark horse contender, we are on the same path as 1996, where a candidate no one wants gets the nomination because there is no real option.

 The good news is that Mitt Romney is not Bob Dole and I think he would win the election.  It is still a little disappointing to see the Republicans once again settle on a candidate primarily because of the weakness of the competition.

 One final comment, Rick Perry has NEVER lost an election.  His off the cuff comments at a church in Iowa yesterday were stunning:

 “Here is what I want you to leave with, somebody’s values are going to decide the issues of the day … somebody’s values are going to be installed. The question is going to be whose values? Is it going to be those of us of faith or somebody else’s values?”

 The true test of eloquence comes during those unscripted moments when a candidate just speaks from the heart.  This reminded me of when George W. Bush said:

 I can hear you, the rest of the world can hear you and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear from all of us soon.

 It would be foolish to underestimate Rick Perry.

 TDM

Most people do not know much about the Japanese assault on Dutch Harbor.  The Japanese did little real damage to Dutch Harbor, but they made a mistake that would cost them dearly.  In 1942 the U.S. has no fighter capable of outmaneuvering a Zero.  One Japanese fighter pilot was so determined to kill Americans that he stayed behind to finish off an American PBY.  His name was Flight Petty Officer Tadoyoshi Koga.  He even stayed around after the PBY had splashed into the ocean to be sure.  One survivor of that crash, Aviation Machinist’s Mate W. H. Rawls crawled out of the burning wreckage and paddled away in a life raft.  Koga circled the life raft and machine-gunned Rawls to death.  But, Rawls who had been the blister gunner on the PBY had put one machine gun bullet into Koga’s plane.  Koga did not realize he had been hit, but that one bullet had severed the oil return line resulting in Koga’s oil pressure gage reading zero.  (The engine was actually unharmed).  Koga decided to radio for help and make a forced landing on nearby Akutan Island.  His landing gear caught in the muskeg and flipped the plane over breaking Koga’s neck.  One month later another PBY spotted the wreckage.  The plane was virtually intact.  As a result, the U.S. was able to obtain an intact Japanese Zero (ABFM-2 Zeke).  It was quickly dismantled and shipped back to the U.S.  American engineers learned a great deal from this aircraft and there was a myth that the Zero was used to develop the Navy F6F Hellcat.  That, like most myths, is not true.  The Hellcat was already being test flown before the U.S. got their hands on the Japanese Zero.  But it is certainly true that the loss of this aircraft made it much easier for American engineers to design planes that were very effective against the Japanese Zero.

 (This information is well documented in a great book:  “The Thousand Mile War”)

 In August of 1944, three B29’s were forced to land in Russia.  Stalin immediately seized the opportunity to steal our design.  They tried to replicate the B29 down to the last bolt.  It was only marginally successful, since Russia apparently could not replication the superb manufacturing tolerances required to produce a B29.  They did built about 850 TU-4s and they definitely learned a lot from these “captured” B29s.

 now the United States has lost a state of the art stealth drone.  Incredibly, if this article is accurate, Obama refused to authorize a mission to either retrieve the drone or at least destroy it.  If that is true, that Obama may have made a mistake far more serious than the loss of the Japanese Zero or the B29.  The United States is the only country on earth that can fly a bomber into a heavily defended area and destroy the air defense system.  This is priceless technology.  I am sure that this drone will be studied extensively by Iran, China and Russia and the knowledge they gain has the potential to be devastating.   It will not only help them develop air defense systems that can detect stealth aircraft, it will help them develop their own stealth technology to use against us.  I sure hope the mission was worth the risk of such an important aircraft. 

 http://floppingaces.net/2011/12/08/obama-rejected-plans-to-retrieve-fallen-drone-in-iran/

 I sometimes wonder how we will ever be able to repair the damage done by this naïve, incompetent; radical we foolishly elected to be our Commander in Chief.  It is embarrassing to see the President of the United States naively ask Iran to give us back our drone as if he honestly expects this to happen.  Please! 

 TDM

I worked for a company where Bill Walsh was on the Board of Directors.  As a result, I got to meet him on several occasions.  I love to talk about sports, but I was always more than a little intimidated talking about football with Bill Walsh.  I figured the only possible outcome was for me to say something incredibly stupid.  But in 2000 I was talking with Mr. Walsh just before the 2000 draft.  I am a fan of The University of Michigan, so I asked him what he thought of Tom Brady.  I had been very impressed by Tom Brady’s performance in the 1999 Citrus Bowl.  Walsh told me that he thought Brady had potential, but he was really excited about Giovanni Carmazzi.  Bill Walsh was one of the smartest football coaches in history, but he was wrong about Tom Brady.  Remember Giovanni Carmazzi?  Exactly!

During the 2000 draft every NFL teams passed on the chance to get Tom Brady.  He was finally chosen by the New England Patriots as the 199^th pick in the sixth round.  Chad Pennington, Giovanni Carmazzi, Chris Redman, Tee Martin, Marc Bulger, and Spergon Wynn were all chosen before Brady.  The Patriots weren’t exactly thrilled even then.  They had a hard time choosing between Tom Brady and Tim Rattay.  Brady started his NFL career as the 4^th string quarterback.  The Patriots weren’t the only ones to underestimate Brady.  When he enrolled at Michigan he was seventh on the depth chart.  He was so discouraged he hired a sports psychologist to help him cope and even considered transferring to Cal.

Brady eventually got to play when Drew Bledsoe was hurt.  The rest is history.  Tom Brady led the New England Patriots to four Super Bowls and won three of them.  Most people would rank him as one of the best Quarterbacks in the history of the NFL.

The point is that sometimes experts make huge mistakes in trying to predict winners.  In the case of Tom Brady the experts were obviously wrong.  But they should have known better.  Brady didn’t necessarily have the strongest arm or the fastest feet, but he was a winning quarterback for a big time football program.  Performance on the job should always be a major factor in choosing future winners.  I suspect Tim Tebow is going to be another important reminder of this principle.

We need to avoid making the same mistake in choosing the Republican nominee for President.  The dumbest possible way to judge a candidate for President is by his or her performance in those silly “Presidential” debates.  They only measure the ability of a candidate to shine in a bizarre, irrelevant beauty contest.  What relevance does that have to being President of the United States?  When is the last time a President of the United States had to participant in this type of debate?  We should not confuse reality TV with reality.

Republicans seem to fear a brilliant Obama dominating during a Presidential debate.  That is utter nonsense.  First, Obama is not brilliant.  If there was any evidence of brilliance we would have all his college transcripts.  Second, he is not a great debater.  He barely beat John McCain, who was pathetic.  Third, Presidential debates don’t really matter.  They are high theater, but that is all.  Obama didn’t beat McCain because of the debates; he won because of the financial meltdown.  Prior to collapse of the financial markets McCain was leading in the polls and may have won.

I greatly fear that we are overlooking our potential Super Stars while salivating over the next Giovanni Carmazzi or Tee Martin.  What should matter is performance in a position that demonstrates executive ability.  There is a reason why so many former Governors have become President.  Proven success as Governor is the best training ground for a President of the United States.  Knowledge of foreign affairs or economic policy doesn’t matter if you don’t know how to govern.

When choosing a winner it is also a good idea to start with people who have actually won.  Mitt Romney already tried to win the nomination and lost to “John McCain.”  Ouch!  Newt Gingrich has been running for President, and losing, since the mid 90s.  Rick Santorum lost his bid for re-election to the Senate by 18 points.  Michelle Bachmann won two elections for one congressional district.  Ron Paul has been running for President, and coming up short, since 1988. 

We should also consider which candidate has a consistent record of actually governing as a conservative.   The best measure of how someone will govern as President is how they performed as Governor.

Only two remaining candidates actually have a history of winning elections; Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry.  Only two candidates have been re-elected Governor by large margins.  Only two candidates have actually governed as a conservative.  Yet they currently rank at the bottom of the public opinion polls.

Are we really this stupid?  Mitt Romney might win if he gets the nomination, but Newt Gingrich is capable of going down in flames.  He has self-destructed at every prior opportunity.  He has never won a national or statewide election.  Neither Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum have the experience or the track record to suggest they can win a Presidential campaign.  Ron Paul will continue to play the role of Harold Stassen:  “always running, never winning.” 

Obama can be defeated.  Obama will be defeated.  His only chance at re-election is if the Republicans play a prevent defense and make an incredibly stupid choice for their nominee.  Sadly a lot of experts are trying to convince us to bet everything on the next Chris Redman or Spergon Wynn.  If we take their advice, we are likely to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

 TDM

In a recent debate Newt Gingrich made reference to the use of Six Sigma as part of his governing philosophy.  It brought back a lot of memories.  Six Sigma was developed by Motorola in the 1986 and according to supporters it saved billions of dollars. I observed the results when Six Sigma was implemented at some major insurance carriers. The process includes “Champions” “MasterBlackBelts” “BlackBelts” and “Greenbelts”.  These are people specially trained in Six Sigma who create kind of a separate infrastructure within the company.  I have sat through several briefings where the Six Sigma process was explained in detail.  The closest thing I have seen to this is “Money Ball” where Billy Beane used data and statistics to build the Oakland A team that competed successfully with very little money.  In theory, the Six Sigma approach uses data and analysis to make everything better. 

But that is not the whole story.  In every case were I saw Six Sigma implemented a clear pattern evolved.  At first people were mostly bewildered.  They were cautiously optimistic that Six Sigma will help their company grow and prosper.  Then lucky people were chosen for “Six Sigma” training.  Most of them appear to be younger people more willing to fully embrace the concept.  These people then come out of their training on a mission to change the world.  They descended dramatically on the remaining workforce with a mandate to change things.  As you can imagine, this is not necessarily welcome.  In one particular case the company was actually doing really well, before Six Sigma. But after Six Sigma, that changed.  Suddenly the people I counted on were unable to get their jobs done because they were constantly providing reports and data to be discussed at Six Sigma meetings.  One person told me he was so exhausted by the Six Sigma process that he had trouble doing his normal job.  I asked him if thought Six Sigma was worth the effort.  He gave me a very interesting response.  He said if you don’t believe in Six Sigma, you don’t have much of a future at this company.  He thought the process sounded good in theory, but in reality they sometimes wasted a lot of time and energy trying to find the perfect solution to something that could be resolved in about five minutes by a competent manager blessed with ordinary common sense.  He also said at least some of the Six Sigma “Champions” were brilliantly stupid, too blinded by data and statistics to see what was obvious to people with many years of experience. 

I also remember meeting having lunch with the new CEO of a major insurance company.  That company had fully embraced Six Sigma about 18 months earlier, before he was CEO.  He had been on the job about 3 months when I met him.  I asked him what he thought about Six Sigma.  Now CEO’s of major companies tend to be very reserved people, but he lit up like a Christmas Tree.  He said”  “I am proud to consider myself the Darth Vader that killed Six Sigma.”  Obviously, he wasn’t impressed.

The point is that if Newt Gingrich really wants to use Six Sigma to find efficiencies in Government that is a major concern for me.  I would prefer a less brilliant candidate who cuts costs by restricting government agencies to doing what really matters and stop trying to micro-manage the universe.

The following article by George Will shows that he has noticed the same thing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/romney-and-gingrich-from-bad-to-worse/2011/12/02/gIQArsM3LO_story.html

Newt Gingrich believes he is the smartest guy in the room, which may be true.  But the one of the most intelligent people ever elected Presidnet was Jimmy Carter.  He was, after all, an officer on a nuclear submarine.  He was chosen as the officer in charge of the U.S. Team assisting in the shutdown of the Chalk River Nuclear Reactor.  The point is that Jimmy Carter was very intelligent and he was a skilled manager.  But when he tried to micro-manage the government he was a miserable failure.  I guarantee you Jimmy Carter was the kind of guy who would embrace Six Sigma.  Jimmy Carter was also the classic example of someone who was brilliantly stupid.

TDM

Republican candidates for President missed a huge opportunity to really sting Obama. Obama ordered the assassination of a U.S. citizen without even the pretense of due process.  One of the moderators at the last debate asked about this.  In their haste to appear strong on national defense, Republicans missed a major opportunity:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TARGETED_KILLING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-01-10-42-54

Newt Gingrich was particularly strong in justifying this action because we are at war.  But, he missed the point.  Obama never uses the term war on terror.  Gingrich should have pointed out that Obama can’t have it both ways.  He can’t pretend it is not a war and then ignore due process.  There is no question that killing Anwar al-Alwaki was justified.  There is little dispute with regard to the threat from this individual.  But the problem is that Obama has now set a precedent to kill any U.S. citizen, anywhere in the world, solely because he thinks it is a good idea.  Doesn’t that frighten you more than a little?

It is not a stretch to imagine Obama ordering the assassination of someone on the “far right” using the same justification.  Just think of all those times Democrats have referred to the Tea Party as a “terrorist” organization.  In the deluded world of the liberal left, they have often directly compared the political rhetoric of people like Sarah Palin with militant jihadists.  The Department of Homeland security has specifically addressed the “threat” from far right organizations.  We really need to wake up on this issue.

If this was an emergency situation, then it would be easier to justify.  But it wasn’t an emergency.  The decision to order the assassination of this man was made long before the actual event.  There was plenty of time to set up some reasonable mechanism for due process.  Granted, the traditional court system is too cumbersome, but here are alternatives.  A special bi-partisan congressional panel would be an option.  So would be a special court, similar to the FISA court.  If we set up the FISA court to allow due process before we wiretap someone, shouldn’t be allow due process before we order their execution?  How, exactly, does Obama explain the logic that requires the trying of non-citizen enemy combatants in federal court but has no problem in just assassinating U.S. citizens because “he” considers them to be a threat?  How, exactly, does Obama explain why waterboarding is so bad, but just assassinating people is ok?

The liberal left had their panties in a wad for 8 years claiming George Bush violated civil liberties.  They were wrong, because Bush was very careful to follow the rule of law.  Now we have a Democratic President who is not even pretending to follow the rule of law.  Isn’t it about time some Republican candidate for President, other than Ron Paul, calls him on it?

TDM

Herman Cain appears to have been running for President with the illusion that he would be given the same treatment given Democratic candidates.  For years the main stream media ignored the private sex life of top Democrats.  Barney Frank’s roommate was literally running a gay prostitution ring out of his apartment.  Kennedy probably set the national standard, at least with regard to the frequency of episodes but LBJ was not exactly a choir boy.  Carter probably didn’t do much, in or out of the bedroom, but Clinton picked up the slack.  The press knew this, of course, but they simply did not care.  When Gennifer Flowers claimed she had a long-term sexual relationship with Bill Clinton, the main stream media just yawned.  The press ignored the inconvenient fact that Gennifer Flowers had taped phone conversations with Bill Clinton.  They accepted silly fairy tales from people like James Carville and George Stephanopoulos claiming that somehow the tapes were doctored. (Later, during Clinton’s Presidential deposition regarding the Kathleen Willey cases, Clinton admitted under oath that he had sex with Gennifer Flowers after all.)  I doubt that the Monica Lewinsky affair would even have been reported if Clinton hadn’t lied about it under oath.  Even then the media decided that perjury didn’t matter either, since it was just about sex.

But, this is only for DEMOCRATS!  Republicans are held to a very different standard.  If a Republican shows any hint of this kind of stuff the main stream media goes nuts.  If it’s a female Republican or a black Republican they go postal.  They don’t just report on stories, they dig through trash cans and library records in a desperate search for any hint of evidence.  If they can’t find something, they just make it up.

Herman Cain failed to learn the lesson of the Clarence Thomas hearings.  Clarence Thomas was accused of sexually harassing Anita Hill.  But technically he wasn’t accused of sexual harassment.  He was accused of making unwelcomed sexual comments.  Even Anita Hill admits she never filed a complaint and continued to socialize with Thomas.  She became a Democratic celebrity and has made a fortune giving speeches ripping Clarence Thomas.  But at worse, Thomas was guilty of only being crude.  If these kinds of accusations were made about a Democrat, no media outlet in the country would bother to report it.

Now Herman Cain surfaces and, once again, the main stream media is foaming at the mouth.  The sad truth is that the main stream media is totally biased.  They expect Democrats to be cads, so they don’t care.  They think all Republicans attend the church of “I’m better than you,” so they are on a mission to bring them down.  They justify this by calling Republicans hypocrites.  It is disgusting and shameful, and it is indefensible.  But the solution is not to stop investigating Republicans; it is to start telling the truth about Democrats.  One could write an entire book about the Barack Obama scandals, which have been completely ignored by the main stream media. 

In the meantime, Herman Cain’s campaign is going down in self-inflicted flames, as it should.  Regardless of how unfairly he has been treated by the media, that does not justify this pattern of behavior.  Republican candidates are held to a higher standard than Democrats.  Thank God!  I hope that never changes.  If we lose the ability to tell the difference between right and wrong, what else matters?

 TDM

Someone is clearly messing with Iran’s nuclear program.  A couple of weeks ago another nuclear site “accidentally” exploded.  Now this one reported today:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/report-explosion-rocks-iran-city-of-isfahan-home-to-key-nuclear-facility-1.398312

There have already been rumors that the U.S. and Israel were responsible for the Stuxnet computer worm that did significant damage to Iran’s nuclear program:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Please note, this was started under George W. Bush’s watch.  When the full truth emerges about all the things that George Bush did to protect this country, I think a lot of people will be shocked.  If these “explosions” are part of that program, he just may have figured out a way to head off a nuclear holocaust.  It should also be pointed out that Obama apparently gave strong support to this program, for which he deserves credit.  This is further proof that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.

What makes this so beautiful is that Iran will never admit what happened.  There won’t be any wild charges against the U.S. or Israel, because then it would be obvious that Iran got snookered.  Regardless of who did this, it’s a beautiful thing!

TDM

Almost every day we learn about a new and exciting scientific study that finally proves global warming is for real.  Within days, if not hours, we learn that the opposite is true.  Virtually all of the recent studies have shown that the earth is colder, if it is changing at all.  Of course global warm alarmists believe that the global cooling is actually proof of global warming.  If you understand that reasoning, stop reading now because you are beyond hope.

The following link is from the unofficialnetworks.com.  Unfortunately, this is far more likely to be accurate than the nonsense in the main stream media:

http://unofficialnetworks.com/winter-weather-forecast-20112012-extreme-winter-parts-31096/

In case you haven’t noticed, it is getting colder not warmer.  Last year was a bitch and this year looks even worse.  The following link is from Fairbanks Alaska:

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/weird-news/fairbanks-hit-with-record-breaking-cold-below/article_77406c72-1305-11e1-a3b5-001cc4c03286.html

The temperature was -41 F below zero.  This broke a record set back in 1969.  Now I grew up in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and I can remember mornings when it was 40 F below zero, but that was in January or February, not November.  To those of you, who have never experienced this type of weather, let me enlighten you.  The radio stations give walk warnings.  If you walk outside in this weather you have a good chance of getting frostbite in your lungs.  It is a decidedly unpleasant experience.  I can remember days when I walked backward to school because it was impossible to walk anywhere while facing the wind.  At -40 Fahrenheit the ground literally creaks.  If you are fortunate enough to get your car to start, it groans and you can hear the ground creak as you drive over the snow.  Ok, I must admit that I never actually walked to school when it was -40 F.  That is because school was closed.  We would bundle up and use the day off to go sledding.  -40F was never enough to keep us indoors.

But, I digress.  The point is that -40F is darn cold and to have this weather as early as November is not encouraging.  Here in Northern California; this is not a big problem.  In fact, the summer just ended was marvelous.  There were very few days where the temperature got over 100 degrees and it was GREAT!  I wish it was like this every year.  Now we are getting slightly cooler weather, which means it rains and the temperature drops into the high 40’s at night.  In upper Michigan we referred to this weather pattern as summer.

If this forecast is accurate, and it sure looks accurate, then it is going to be difficult to convince anyone that global warming is going to kill humanity.  Of course that will not slow down the New York Times.

Now there is more evidence that the main stream media has conspired, for years with  the so-called scientific community to hide the truth about the inconvenient lack of global warming:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066706/BBC-sought-advice-global-warming-scientists-economy-drama-music–game-shows.html

I always have one simple suggest to liberals who still believe in global warming.  “Don’t sell your coat.”  

 TDM

If you listen to the pundits on ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN et al, then you probably think Rick Perry is on the fast track to oblivion.  They have clearly written him off.  In most years they would be right.  His brain freeze during a national debate was painful to watch.  But, this is not a normal year and Perry is not a normal candidate.  He has never lost an election and the road to perdition is paved with people who underestimated him.  He has the added advantage of watching his opponents self-destruct.  Herman Cain is an intriguing guy, but he has made far too many mistakes to survive as a Presidential candidate.  Newt Gingrich has a long history of self-annihilation.  His bizarre decision to start talking about amnesty for illegal aliens bordered on suicidal.  It is almost as if Gingrich thinks he is so brilliant that he no longer cares what people think.  I like Gingrich, but will be surprised if he does not go down in self-inflicted flames.  Since no one in their right mind thinks Santorum, or Bachmann stand a snowball’s chance in Hell of winning against Obama, and since Ron Paul has the surrender monkey on his back that leaves Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.  (I am ignoring Huntsman because he is probably the only candidate more unacceptable to conservatives than Romney.  In addition, like it or not, he has the same Mormon problem that never quite goes away.)

It is hard to make a case for someone running in the single digits in the polls actually winning the nomination, but at this point the poll that counts the most is the money poll.  The votes that matter right now are from those people who are ready willing and able to fund a Presidential campaign.  If the following story is accurate, Rick Perry remains the only candidate, other than Romney, who appears capable of raising enough money:

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/23/3282231/rick-perrys-pouring-it-on-in-iowa.html

I watched the debate and Rick Perry more than held his own.  He didn’t score any knock out punches and he didn’t deliver any brilliant lines, but he looked competent.  He also showed a lot more personal knowledge about foreign affairs than expected.  Newt Gingrich always looks like the smartest guy in the room and this debate was no exception.  But he also looks like the most arrogant and snarkiest guy in the room. Perry wasn’t brilliant, but he was smart enough and he was far more impressive than Herman Cain.

Perry is pouring a lot of time and money into Iowa and he has the type of organization that can really work there.  If he comes in first, second or even third in Iowa it will change everything.

I really can’t possibly predict anything.  The whole process has been beyond bizarre.  But, as it was in the beginning, it always seems to end up with Mitt Romney and anybody but Romney (“ABR”).  If Gingrich self-destructs, as he has done so often in the past, people in the ABR crowd are going to be looking around for a horse to ride.  Unless someone else enters the race, with a lot of money and a competent organization, the only horse they are likely to see looks a lot like Perry.  Donald Trump is making noise about running again, but while he has the cash, he does not have the organization.  I really don’t see how anyone else, with the possible exception of Huckabee, could pull it off this late in the game.  Huckabee, for better or worse, appears to have hooked his wagon up to Romney.  So, if you follow the money, that leaves:  Rick Perry.  If he looks up to the task, this could get very interesting.  If he doesn’t measure up, say hello to President Romney

 Happy Thanksgiving.

TDM