Thursday, January 31, 2008

Political Football Analysis:

This nation is currently split down the middle ideologically. Both the left and the right have their factions that many consider extreme. The far (radical) left may be 30 to 40 percent of the Democratic Party. While the remaining sixty percent is considered centrist to moderate they tend to allow the radical left to have a strong (controlling) voice in determining democratic policy and agendas. Only in this past election cycle did the rise of blue dog democrats make a difference in party control. But even while the blue dogs were getting elected, their voice was getting drowned out by the radical left. To which direction the party is moving at this point is anyone’s guess. To a conservative's perspective the final two Democratic candidates are considered too far to the left on policy. To the radical left Clinton is too much of a centrist for their liking. Obama is, well, for all of his "dreams of change", Obama has yet to articulate on what his exact policies would be, which so far have gotten him as close to a nomination as he will get. TAKE CLINTON AND THE POINTS

The Republican Party has a "fractured" consensus also. I think the best way to frame the conservative party is to point out that "ultra-conservatives" (to be fair, the "radical right), today consider George W. Bush as a liberal republican on many issues, with spending and immigration on the forefront. The struggle within the party to get back to the conservative principals of a limited government, closed borders, a strong military defense, and a market driven economy is at the heart of the ultra-rights agenda. Any movement to the left of these policies is met with a strong resistance and (I think) a voice that leads to the divisions within the party, justified or not. I've heard over the past few months many conservatives saying "my party has left me out in the cold". The final two choices in the Republican Party aren't all that pleasing to the radical right. Mitt Romney is the party's Obama with many of his issues undefined or recently changed . Romney reminds me of the Clinton's tactic to say what ever the group in front of him needs to hear. Few of Romney's policies seem to be concrete or "ground in stone", even though we want to believe them.

And then we have John McCain. McCain's past history (record) is there for all to see. No one in either party can dispute where McCain stands on national defense or foreign policy. It's in "concrete". His pro-life stance is also unquestionable. While the latest Alito kerfuffle has come to light, McCain will not appoint liberal judges. While McCain has said he will attempt to restrain entitlement spending, his record in the Senate over the years does not show where he has a record of "no's" to confirm this. On immigration McCain got a rude awakening last year when a majority of this nation told their representatives they would run them out of office if the McCain-Kennedy-Bush legislation came to fruition. He now realizes that the first priority is to close the borders and then reconcile with those who are here illegally. Dafydd ab Hugh at Big Lizards argued that this issue would be divisive for the Republican Party and would harm the party during the election cycle. (I still disagree with his assessment). With the economy now at the forefront of issues concerning this nation, (thanks in part to the liberal media-driven agenda), McCain is seen as weaker than Romney on this, but it would serve McCain well to surround himself with a number of staunch fiscal conservatives that understand market driven policies are best at correcting/uprighting the economy. (And I believe the "hedge-funders" should pay dearly for their unchecked greed) A "bail-out" for the idiot home purchasers will have to be in another post. TAKE McCAIN AND THE POINTS


Tuesday, January 29, 2008

McCain Defeats Romney

In the Florida primary last night many conservatives were stunned to see John McCain win convincingly over Mitt Romney. Two of my favorite bloggers, Captain's Quarters and Flopping Aces had over 90% of their commenters almost in tears with the disdain they are showing for McCain.

This was my response:

Let's see here.......two out of sixty-three comments here are facing reality while the rest are stunned and in denial over the events that took place in Florida. What scares me the most are the "conservatives" here that proclaim they will sit out if MAC is the Repub nominee. In the words of the one we are supposed to despise the most, "GIVE ME A BREAK"

Get a grip folks.......John McCain will defeat Hillary Clinton in the general election. John McCain is a conservative. (And he has flaws we can deal with). For those of you that plan to sit out the general election if McCain is the candidate------you we're worthless going in. And you are not focused on the big picture, which is defeating the democratic nominee.

Would I prefer Mitt Romney.? No, I preferred Fred Thompson, but the last man standing is who I will support. Let Hillary, Bill, and Obama continue to fracture their party to the point where they will be so weak that the eventual winner will be defeated. But I will not contribute to the same scenario as a Republican. Get some sleep and get over it.

Saturday, January 26, 2008

It's Saturday

While the world’s economy attempts to document its balance sheets and a U.S. election cycle proceeds, no where in the "headlines" is there a peep about the progress in Iraq. The latest Hamas spanking by Israel is taking some of this news off the grid. This also takes the attention off of Iran, Korea, and Pakistan. But they all seem to wait patiently in line for their turn at the "what about me" ruckus. As the world shrinks with the technology of instant communication, it no longer takes months to hear about seven billion missing in a French bank-----more like three or four days. Any proclamation made by a politician or pundit can be disputed, reputed, disparaged or contradicted by simply googleing up a view that supports the particular argument. Whether the documentation is fact or fiction is irrelevant and immaterial. Knock one down as outright lies and five more pop up in less time than it takes to boil water. Or, as liberals love to do, (when they are losing an argument), just change the parameters or throw in a "but Bush is evil anyway". Topic-hopping is one of their favorite mantras. Meanwhile the economic stimulus package has taken on its own debate:

Economic Stimulus Package: Rebate or Welfare?

Congress and the White House have reached tentative agreement on a $150 billion economic stimulus package, but analysts on the political left and right differ on whether this deal will help boost the U.S. economy or whether it's just another swipe of the federal government's credit card. link

And now for some news:

Has any one noticed that you can't read a daily post at Michelle Malkins site with out at least one post beating up on the poor Mexican immigrants? Take a deep breath Michelle-----we know it's a problem. Try writing more about solutions. I would love to see her and John McCain in the same room attempting to have a conversation.

Same goes for the Hugh Hewitt/Mitt Romney site, except with Hugh it's balls to the wall for Romney or the world will come to an end. Maybe Hewitt's thinking along the lines of a second assistant to the press secretary. I haven't decided yet who despises McCain more, Hugh or Michelle.

One question for both these pundits------if John McCain ends up with the nomination, will you two offer the same modicum of support to defeat the other party? Is there a conservative bone left in your hearts if you have to change your tune? Or is it "toon? Whoops, that was three questions.

Back to the news:

It seems Mitt Romney will be losing one of his “golden eggs” soon on the campaign trail. The cost of his health care plan in Massachusetts is skyrocketing:

“According to recent reports, the cost of Massachusetts' health insurance mandate will rise 85 percent, or $400 million, in 2009. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), meanwhile, has been on the presidential campaign trail praising the program he put into place.” link

Also from CNS News there’s a report that John McCain is on even ground with the Democrats if he wins the Republican nomination: - Though pollsters say that Americans currently have more favorable opinions of the Democratic Party, political analysts noted on Thursday that when it comes to presidential candidates, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is on even ground with the Democratic frontrunners: Sens. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.). link

But in the same article Larry Sabato claims McCain still may have troubles ahead:

“Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, however, noted in a column published Thursday that McCain is not as popular among the Republican base, which could hurt his chances of being nominated.Sabato said while McCain won South Carolina's primary on Saturday, he received far fewer votes than he did eight years ago, when the Palmetto State's primary ended his White House run. "His mere third of the voters in South Carolina last Saturday means that, once again, he failed to carry Republicans or conservatives," he said.”

Just think, by this coming Wednesday we can all take some time out of the political “gamesmanship” and start talking about more important things-----like can the Giants beat the Patriots? Where’s my popcorn?

Update: It wouldn't be fair to post all this with out including Hillary. But, according to Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters, Hillary doesn't care much about fairness:

Rules? The Clintons Don't Need No Stinkin' Rules!

The Democratic National Committee stripped Michigan and Florida of its delegates for violating scheduling rules for their primaries. It took 365 delegates off the table and forced candidates to stop campaigning in the two vital states. Now one of them -- just coincidentally, the one who somehow forgot to have her name removed from the Michigan ballot -- wants the delegates restored: LINK

Thursday, January 24, 2008

United We Stand......Or Fall

Sister Toldjah writes a brilliant piece arguing the alternatives the Republican party has if the discontent over the remaining choices do not end up unified to defeat the Democratic nominee:

Reckless abandonment

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post asking readers of this blog what they would do if Senator John McCain ended up being the nominee for the party in the presidential race. The responses in the comments section were both passionate and divided. John McCain brings that out in conservatives, because so many conservatives despise McCain, while a not-so-insignificant amount of conservatives like the Arizona Senator.

Here is what I wrote in response to those who indicated they would sit out this election in protest, in an effort to teach the Republican party a lesson:

I, for one, am not going to chance Iraq turning into another Vietnam in order to attempt to teach this country any sort of lesson. If this were in peacetime, it’d be different, but it’s not.
Furthermore, the people doing the most "enduring" would be our troops and their families, both of whom have sacrificed so much for a goal that is achievable if only we are able to set aside our differences with whoever the Republican nominee is in order to make sure what we set out in Iraq to do from the get go has a chance at succeeding. If we don’t, our troops and their families won’t be the only ones "enduring" another Vietnam. The Iraqi people will be enduring it, too - and in a way no innocent person should have to suffer, especially not when the US has promised to stick around until they’re reasonably sure that Iraqi law enforcement will be able to prevent that from happening.

Our troops have sacrificed a lot more than most of us have for this war. I don’t think it’s asking too much to sacrifice our pride and vote for the person who will work hard to make sure that those same troops will have a Commander in Chief who will work to make sure that the goal is achieved in Iraq, then allowing our troops to return home from the mission with honor.

Please go read Sis's complete essay. Believe me, she makes more sense than Rush Limbaugh ever dreamed of.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Paul Krugman "Has a Dream"

Op-ed contributor and left wing liberal Paul Krugman (at the New York Times)made a feeble attempt at re-writing a bit of history in this Reagan hit piece:

"Historical narratives matter"

Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. “The Reagan-Bush years,” he declared, “have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect.”

You see Krugman starts his narrative out by quoting Clinton, (the king of fairy tales), and then uses this premise as a factual statement. Then Krugman switch's gears and use Obama to set up his next BIG falsehood:

Maybe Mr. Obama was, as his supporters insist, simply praising Reagan’s political skills. (I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him.) But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?

For it did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.

There's that class envy all liberals throw out there as an exclusive fairy tale. Now this is where Krugman does his best to re-write/fabricate historical facts that I will debunk, but Krugman helps out by claiming all this narrative is an idea that needs to be driven home.

Like Ronald Reagan, President Bush began his term in office with big tax cuts for the rich and promises that the benefits would trickle down to the middle class. Like Reagan, he also began his term with an economic slump, then claimed that the recovery from that slump proved the success of his policies.

And like Reaganomics — but more quickly — Bushonomics has ended in grief. The public mood today is as grim as it was in 1992. Wages are lagging behind inflation. Employment growth in the Bush years has been pathetic compared with job creation in the Clinton era. Even if we don’t have a formal recession — and the odds now are that we will — the optimism of the 1990s has evaporated.

This is, in short, a time when progressives ought to be driving home the idea that the right’s ideas don’t work, and never have.

And Mr. Krugman's socialist big government ideas work to perfection? Got it.

Friday, January 18, 2008

Fox News Does It Again! Shame on YOU--Fox!

Fox News (using their sources other than a direct one) reported that Fred Thompson will be dropping out after the South Carolina Primary.

The story is FALSE!

I wrote to Fox News:

This has happened TWICE now that the day before a state primary Fox News has reported "sources say the Fred Thompson will be dropping out of the race".

Fox News quoted Politico in this story (the morning of the Iowa Caucus) the Thompson would be dropping out WITHOUT asking Thompson's campaign manager or Thompson directly if the story was true.


Did Fox News ask Fred Thompson if he was dropping out after South Carolina? Does Fox News even consider the ramifications of reporting that a candidate would be dropping out of a race on the day before a state primary?

What would happen if someone used UNSOURCED information and reported that Mr. Murdock and NewsCorp was going to sell off their News Division to CNN because Murdock was "dropping out" of the news business. Does Fox News believe that this story would require asking Mr. Murdock if this was true?

Shame on you Fox News for your actions on this day.

Julia Banderas reported this story with Bill Hemmer on Friday morning 01/18/08

Dammit! I'm Pissed!

Note to Fox News: Fred Thompson is going to win the South Carolina Primary and will win the Republican nomination and will be the next President of the United States-----and then he will drop out-----report that you morons.
Fred Thompson Taking On South Carolina

Fred has been taking his "Clear Conservative Choice: Hands Down!" bus tour all over South Carolina talking directly to the people. The response has been amazing. Crowds are packing events with so many showing up the fire marshals have been forced to close them to entry. The excitement is electric. South Carolina knows the clear conservative choice has arrived.

Fred is fighting for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. He knows the Republican Presidential nominee needs to be firm on values, free markets, and a strong national defense. The nominee needs all three parts in order to win in November.

Fred's stand on the issues can be found here: Link

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Thanks for the Memories.....Bill

Well, that was fast. For Bill anyway. Word got out that there was only going to be seating available for only 400 souls on Tuesday, so the "Clinton Faithful" started lining up at 11:30 am for a 7pm one hour speech. The temp outside yesterday hovered around 45 degrees with a 15mph wind chill that made it close to 30. Around 2pm the promoters came around and passed out cards with numbers ranging from 1-400. By 5pm there were over a thousand in line. Clinton spoke for one hour---(no question and answer period)---and was gone.

Of course this was big for north coast residents (especially the liberals) who have not had a President visit here since Lyndon Johnson was here for the dedication of the Lady Bird Johnson Grove, a state park that will be closed this summer by order of the Governor to help with the ailing economy (overspending by democrats) in California.

Clinton's stump was the basic reasons why Hillary should be the next POTUS----universal health care, free pre-school for every child, College for everybody who wants to go. Bill failed to mention who is supposed to pay for all of these expanded entitlements, but I'm sure the middle class taxpayer has no clue either.

I'll get a report from my friends Glenn and Mike who were working the sound systems for the event later today and may post their perspectives at RovinsWorld. Meanwhile, I'll leave ya with this quote from our local Times Standard paper to get the juices flowing:

"Perhaps most importantly, Bill Clinton said the next president will be tasked with restoring America's reputation as a leading force for world peace and prosperity. He condemned the current administration for entering a war in Iraq without letting United Nations' weapons inspectors finish their jobs, for walking away from climate change talks, for turning its back on the efforts to control nuclear weapons and for demanding to be the only country in the world exempted from the international criminal court on war crimes." link

Of course, Bill and Hillary will fix all of these "problems" with your vote. "Give me a break"

Also local reporting: The Eureka Reporter

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Bill Clinton Visits Eureka Today

I'm really not sure what Bill Clinton is doing here in Humboldt County. From the Eureka Reporter:

Evidently the 2008 presidential campaign trail is taking a detour.

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton, husband to 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, will pay a visit to Humboldt County today, thrilling many North Coast residents who haven’t seen so much political action since former President Lyndon Johnson visited Humboldt County for the dedication of Lady Bird Johnson Grove near Orick........... link

While I would love to have a one on one conversation with our former Prez, I'm afraid it would be the same old rhetoric of "it's all about us".

It's Official

No Democratic Candidate Fit To Be POTUS

After last nights democrat debate with the remaining three candidates, it's become apparent that none of these people have the experience or resolve to run this nation.

editors note: I will fill in this post with quotes from last nights democrat debate that will prove these remaining morons are awol when it comes to becoming a leader of the free world.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

George Soro's behind the funding for the Lancet Study-----Who's surprised?

From the Times Online:

"Professor John Tirman of MIT said this weekend that $46,000 (£23,000) of the approximate £50,000 cost of the study had come from Soros’s Open Society Institute."

New figures---- 151,000 Iraqi's killed since invasion instead of 655,000

GatewayPundit is reporting the anit-military anti-Bush billionare funded the now defunct study.

From the National Journal:

Queried in the Rose Garden on October 11, the day the Lancet article came out, Bush dismissed it. "I don't consider it a credible report," he replied. The Pentagon and top British government officials also rejected the study's findings.

Such skepticism would not prove to be the rule.

CBS News called the report a "new and stunning measure of the havoc the American invasion unleashed in Iraq." CNN began its report this way: "War has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis, or more than 500 people a day, since the U.S.-led invasion, a new study reports." Within a week, the study had been featured in 25 news shows and 188 articles in U.S. newspapers and magazines, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times.


How is it that a nation with 21st century technology when it comes to information and verification allowed this garbage to go unchecked and unchallenged by most of the mainstream media, while the skeptics remained silent or silenced by ridicule? Will we see these "institutional" news papers and online news media report that the people were lied to? Where will the admission of fabrication be recorded in historical events of our time? George Soros and his money should be banned from participating in any political function in this hemisphere. Better yet, just put his name on the terrorist watch list and exile the man to the mountains of Pakistan.

Update: Newsbusters has a full report with links.

Others Blogging:

Common Sense Political Thought

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Where RovinsWorld Stands

I received an email from a dear conservative friend (that will remain un-named on this post) yesterday that posed some good arguments for and against some presidential candidates. To respect his anonymity, (which is requested), I will only post portions of his perspectives. I responded to his email this morning and after reading what I wrote, I have decided to post my response here, cause it's my definition of what I see ahead. Please feel free to rebut, argue, or agree to any part of this prospective:

First, from "Mr. Doe":

(my question was to him, "do you ever read RovinsWorld or leave any comments?)

I read it all the time, including this morning. (I frequently skip the matters about college football; but I will note there are four Big 12 teams in the AP top 10.) But I didn't read it during the election results last night; I was watching the coverage. We found it fascinating. Hence, the brevity of my email.

As for comments, that generally doesn't occur to me. At least I haven't seen you saying stupid things, such as the remark by one of the three Romney cheerleaders, Hewitt, did this morning: he said that Romney is the frontrunner. Talk about blinded by your own spin. And I think Sean Hannity is an idiot. (I found myself agreeing more with Bill Clinton on the "fairy tale" instead of Hannity's "Romney is true conservative" nonsense.)

I think my mom was pulling for Obama, since she doesn't want HC to be nominated. We were both for McCain, of course. But I like that the race was so different than all of them told us, including the new media.

I heard a clip this evening on the Mike Gallagher radio show -- Brian Williams swooning over Obama, with his other NBC ersatz journalists oooing and aahhhing at his vapid hyperventilation. And of course Drudge had the story about Williams saying that covering Obama makes it hard to remain objective. Lordamercy, if they can't stay objective about an overrated and overhyped Obama, so much for them being objective about the war or the election or anything else that matters. (By the way, I despise everyone at NBC, except Lester Holt. I won't even mention those communists at MSNBC...despicable. And I think Scarborough has all the integrity of a carp. )

(Oh, the three Romney cheerleaders -- Rush, Hugh and one time I would have included all of, but I see Medved now is supporting McCain.)

And here's my response:

Seeing as how you didn't leave this comment in RovinsWld, I'll attempt to respond here to (maybe) explain where I stand/feel about this election:

First off, on the Dem side, my gut instinct is that Hillary can be defeated in the general election by McCain, Romney, or Rudy more so than an Obama with his "magical orah" that has even some Repubs swooning over this rookie. Matt, my good friend here on the property (who I rent from) has a son that has just turned 18. Clay told Matt the other day he thought Obama was "the man". This scares me. I know the youth vote has (since the 26th amendment in 71) been virtually non-existent in most elections and hopefully this trend will remain consistent thru this cycle. BUT, with the numbers Obama pulled out of the youth vote in Iowa, we can not discount this with out some concern. What scares me is if Obama wins the party there is a "perfect storm" scenario where if we end up with the weakest candidate on the Repub side and the Obama "madness" gathers/maintains it's momentum, AND the MSM continues it's swooning unchecked even by the new media, AND this possible sudden youth vote becomes relevant, this nation could end up with a George Stanley McGovern or worse.

The question is which Republican candidate can not only win the nomination, but which one can best unite the party enough to defeat his foe? At this moment (in the cycle) between Romney, McCain, and Giuliani, Romney is the less divisive among the three. I say this because conservatives have some serious issues with McCain over #1) The Gang of 14. #2) McCain-Fiengold, #3) his immigration fiasco, and #4) his questionable tax policies. Not just one of these individually would be crucial, but ALL four together puts a burden on keeping the party cohesively together. Giuliani's social (pro-abortion) policies, his 2nd amendment stance, and his "personal baggage" that the media will hammer him with, (but not a Clinton), also does little to unite the party enough to gamble losing again to that "perfect storm". Now both of these fellers are unquestionably pro national defense and understand the threat from abroad more than anyone else in the race (both sides) BUT are the rest of their liabilities enough to lose the base while hanging onto the moderates and swing voters?

That leaves Romney and while he also has "issues' that may also not unite the base, he could also surround himself with the right people that could pull off a victory. I'm sure there is plenty more you can add to Romney's liabilities and I will wait fervently to hear them.

As you can see by my website, I have been dedicated to Fred for some months now, but I'm afraid his days are numbered. The media has already framed him as too slow and not enough pizazz for their liking. His money and help (which has dwindled down to zero) was invested in South Carolina long ago with the hopes that he could get there with the competition paired down enough to make a run at a "win" in the state. Unfortunately, there's still too many standing viably, (including the Huck-factor) that Fred did not anticipate. I still thought if Fred and Duncan Hunter could have gotten together earlier and made a run as the true conservatives, they may have had a chance.

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Pollsters Take a Big Hit in New Hampshire

Pollsters are under scrutiny today following the New Hampshire Primary where the information passed on to the mainstream media turned out to be far from the reality of the actual results. While most of the information supplied by the pollsters was close to being correct in most of the races in both party's, the race between Obama and Clinton turned out to be a "egg on the faces of the pollsters". Let's look at some examples:

Poll favors Obama in New Hampshire------UPI

NEW YORK, Jan. 8 (UPI) -- Presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., went into Tuesday's New Hampshire primary with a 7-percentage-point poll lead, CBS News reported.Among 323 Democrat voters in the state, Obama had 35 percent over Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., who was at 28 percent. Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., logged 19 percent.

From the Political Wire (Jan. 6th):

Rasmussen Poll: Obama Expands Lead in New Hampshire

The latest Rasmussen Reports survey in New Hampshire shows Sen. Barack Obama leading with 39% of the vote, followed by Sen. Hillary Clinton at 27% and John Edwards at 18%.The poll shows Obama picking up two points since yesterday.Among Republicans, the poll shows Sen. John McCain edging Mitt Romney, 32% to 30%, with Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul each earning 11% and Rudy Giuliani behind at 9%.

Peter A. Brown wrote on Saturday, January 5, in the Boston Herald:

Real N.H. poll will be Tues.

"then, numbers may not add up".........

"View the New Hampshire polls you see in the final hours before the voting occurs with a large grain of salt. It’s not because the pollsters doing the surveys aren’t good at their jobs.
It doesn’t mean they won’t turn out to be correct. But the very short window between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary makes it almost impossible to do the kind of quality polling that professionals would like, if given their druthers."

The bottom line is..........Pollsters screwed up, BIGTIME. And they will be under their own microscopes for quite a while. The blogosphere is all over the map on why the numbers were so far off on the Obama/Clinton numbers. Screams of "diebold", Clinton bussing the masses into New Hampshire, voter fraud, you name it, it's getting written. My take is the pollsters had little time to do proper polling procedures in the short time they had between Iowa and NH (5 days). What did they do? They simply sampled far too much emotion and very little real data.

Remember, even as late as the day after Obama's victory in Iowa, Clinton (in many polls) still had a 10 to 12 point lead:

"On the Democratic side, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton maintains her front-runner status in the Granite State, with a 12 percent lead over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who is coming off a big win in Iowa last night, according to the latest Suffolk University/7News poll released early this morning." Link

But, when we look at what Rasmussen released on Jan. 6th showing Obama ahead by 12 points, we must ask Mr. Rasmussen how his company was so flawed in these calculations. Rassmussen may very well attempt to explain that their models were flawed because no one predicted the turnout would be almost double the amount of the previous (2004) primary. The youth vote was also completely unpredictable. I think it was the tears.......... :)

Monday, January 07, 2008


Eric Prisbell at the Washington Post writes this story about tonight's BCS Championship Game:

Your Comments On...
Title Game Marks End To All but the Shouting

Rovin2b wrote:

Georgia, West Virginia, USC, Missouri, Kansas


When all is said and done, even with an LSU victory, all of these teams will end up with only two losses except for Kansas (12-1), and even with Kansas "soft schedule" they did beat a solid #3 Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl. Add one more team to the list above and you've got a hell of a setting for an eight team playoff. Most college football fans would love to see these remaining teams play each other for three more weeks. Of course, if OSU stomps LSU into the ground, all that goes out the window, and I guess the season has to end sometime.

1/7/2008 6:03:16 AM

UPDATE! Congrats to LSU! After being down 10-0 the Tigers came roaring back with thirty-one unanswered points. link

Saturday, January 05, 2008

From Dana at CSPT via Gretchen

Politico's Bias Shines Though in Iowa

Curt at Flopping Aces has a post up "congratulating" Mike Allen and Jonathan Martin for joining the world of fabrication:

The Politico Has Become The New AP

"The Politico has become a joke, a farce. The Politico ran a story prior to the Iowa Caucus that implied Fred was going to drop out if he didn't do well, they were wrong." LINK

The fireworks are all from this headline on Politico's frontpage website:

"Thompson may drop out, back McCain"

This was posted the morning of the Iowa Caucus and picked up by some national media.

editors note: this post will be updated and revised through-out the day while my emotions get in check------I'm still pissed!