Will Lady Liberty Stand?

Voting By The Numbers

I've been having an ongoing verbal argument with a friend for several years about voting. He thinks that not voting or voting for a third party candidate (i.e. NOT a Republican) is the same as voting for the Democrat. I realize it's not election season but we were talking about this again the other day and I finally had to put it all down in writing. Thanks to Vox for providing the math lesson on this one, I've adapted his examples.

Submitted for your amusement, here is the email I sent to my friend:

I just wanted to clear this up, we've talked about it off and on for a long time but I wanted this in print so you can see it.

Candidate A is a Democrat
Candidate B is a Republican
Candidate C is a third party candidate.

Candidate A has 99 votes
Candidate B has 99 votes.

The next voter votes for Candidate C.

How many votes does Candidate A have?

1) 100
2) 99
3) 5

Let's put it this another way:

I live in a small town with 101 people.
50 people vote for the Democrat
50 people vote for the Republican
I decline to vote. Who wins? Did I vote for the Democrat by not voting as you contend? Please explain.

Same small town scenario with 100 people.
50 people vote Democrat
49 people vote Republican
I decline to vote or write in some other candidate. The Dem wins but did I vote for the Democrat by not voting? Please explain.

Not voting for one party is not a vote for another party. The math doesn't work that way. If I find the Candidate A and Candidate B both so abhorrent that I cannot ENDORSE, VOTE, SUPPORT, GET BEHIND, CHOOSE, SUGGEST, or RECOMMEND how is not voting for either of those choices a vote for the person who is furthest from my views? It does not give them an extra vote as the examples above demonstrate. Not voting for someone means not voting for someone. Why is this so hard to understand? You're supposed to be much better at math than me, remember?

When you VOTE for someone, you are making a pronouncement that you want that person representing you. I didn't want McCain or Obama representing me. I didn't want Schwarzenegger or Bustamante representing me either. I knew one of them was going to win but it's absolutely impossible that by NOT voting for McCain and Schwarzenegger that I voted for Obama and Bustamante. They received NO extra votes because they didn't get mine. 1+1= 2. By your logic, 1+0 =2 because if the Republican didn't get that extra vote, then my non-vote goes to the Democrat which would be 1+0=2.

I got so tired of hearing... "But a third party person won't win!" Ron Paul is a Republican. Tom McClintock is a Republican. They aren't third party candidates. What bothers me most is the people saying that people like McClintock and Paul are spoilers when really, they are the ones upholding the ideals of liberty and conservative government. You voted for McCain and you voted for Schwarzenegger TWICE! You voted for that NON Republican TWICE! That means you gave your consent to be governed by a non-Republican, gay marriage, pro abortion, anti-gun, big government supporter who just so happens to have aligned himself with the Republican party just because he's a member of the Republican party. It can almost be excused that you voted for him the first time, but the state was already in chaos when you voted for him the second time yet you SUPPORTED him again knowing he was doing further damage to this state. Why would you do that?

Why would you vote for McCain who admitted he doesn't even really understand economics to represent you as the leader of the country in a time of economic trouble? Sure, he could surround himself with advisors who know economics, but how would he choose them if he doesn't understand it enough to begin with. He voted for the bailout. I don't care if he regretted it later, he voted for it as a United States Senator. SHAME ON HIM. Had I been supporting him up to that point, I would have withdrawn my support right there because it's clear he doesn't understand economics OR the Constitution of the United States of America which he is already sworn to uphold. Clearly he's a failure at his sworn duty, why would you vote for him for president? Because Obama is worse? How much worse and in what way? No doubt Obama is out to destroy this country but he didn't get my vote. I didn't support him. I didn't walk in to a voting booth and cast a ballot in favor of him. In the California and Federal elections, I voted for the person who I could actually support the policies of. I voted my principles. I voted my conscience. I voted for what I believed was right. Furthermore, both Ron Paul and Tom McClintock are committed, demonstrable Christians. Schwarzenegger clearly is no such thing and McCain seems to take a stab at it but I haven't seen much evidence of a deep, abiding faith.

You continually tell me I'm STUPID for voting the way I do yet I was right about Schwarzeneggar and I know I would have been right about McCain. The things Ron Paul was saying in the primaries are now coming to pass but no one wanted to listen to him because they didn't want to believe him. They wanted to (as you always say) BELIEVE THE BIGGER LIE. That's what you did by voting for McCain and Schwarzenegger (twice). You believed the bigger lie that somehow they could turn things around. Our governor has certainly made things worse.

I haven't even talked about you voting for George Bush twice. He was never a conservative. He hardly ever did one thing in office that is in line with conservative values. He could have done a lot more against abortion than he did. He could have used the bull pulpit. He could have done more for gun rights (he supported a continuation of the "assault weapons ban") and he approved budgets that were the largest non-military domestic expenditures this country has ever seen! Other than his initial reaction to 9/11, I can't say there are too many things that Bush did that I ever agreed with. I voted for him the first time; that was my mistake. I did not vote for him the second time. I saw my error.

In short, I cannot and will not give my support through voting to people who are bent on destroying this country through bad economic policy and stripping away our liberties by interfering more and more in our lives every day, growing government to outrageous levels and making us and future generations pay for it by continually loading us with more and more debt. If you want to continue to think that my lack of support for Republican candidates who do those things is a vote for the Democrats who do it more then there is nothing I can do to prevent that, but whatever you decide to think, it would be dishonest of you to continue to say that I really haven't thought it through and I don't know what I'm talking about. You can continue to disagree with me on this subject but you aren't going to change my mind, you can't change the rules of math and you can't change the fact that both parties are running us down the road to destruction.

Now That It's Over

Well, it might not be over; there are still concerns about Obama's citizenship. That could be a real Constitutional crisis. Barring that though, it's pretty much a done deal.

Now what? Well, for one thing, I think this is a repudiation of Bush and his false conservatism which McCain goes along with except that McCain is even more liberal. Maybe now, the GOP will start putting more Reagan like candidates up there. More conservative. Obviously when the GOP runs a liberal, the country moves to the left.

Really though, we're getting the President we deserve. We're getting more liberalism, lots of scandals, more government interference in our lives, more government interference in the markets and in general, a lot less freedom. Make no mistake, we'd have these things with McCain too (except maybe the scandals) but lots more government and a lot less liberty.

We can look for things like an attempt at The Fairness Doctrine being restored, possibly slavery reparations, a civilian national security force (i.e. neighborhood spies) national health care, more money poured down the black hole of education, etc. The list goes on and on and on.

We did it ourselves.

Dow Heading UP?

Given the fact that our supposedly FREE market really isn't that free at all, I expect the DOW to soar before the election for a McCain boost.

I'm not basing this on any evidence I have of market trends, etc., it's just just a baseless political prediction.

What A Wonderful Bailout!

Wow, the Feds were RIGHT! This bailout is solving all of our problems with market stability! Hey, just because the DOW is down over 400 points TODAY and London is having a really bad day too doesn't mean ANYTHING at all. The Feds did the right thing. They are smarter than us you know.

The American people were just dead wrong about the bailout. We have achieved the "market stability" that Bush and Pelosi pushed through and that McCain and Obama both agreed with.

Aren't you glad that American is safe in the hands of these people?

On the bright side, there are a lot of politicians right now cowering in fear in dark corners of their offices shaking at the prospect of getting booted out of office as their phones are ringing off the hooks as angry Americans call them screaming, "What the hell have you done to my country? I told you this was a bad idea!"

Down If They Do! Down If They Don't!

The DOW took a hit of almost 350 points today over fears that the proposed bailout plan won't be enough to stop a recession.

To why try to pass another socialist bailout plan then? Anyone who voted yes for this will be targeted for elimination in the next election. They defied their constituency. It will be a lightening rod issue for years to come.

Live Blogging - The Debates

Starting off.... Obama is an idiot

McCain answers... he's an idiot too.

Forget it. They're both idiots.

Write in Ron Paul.

An Unintended Compliment

Gloria Steinem pays Sarah Palin an unintended compliment.

Steinem said: Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton.

Seriously, could she have given Palin a better compliment? I think not.

She goes on to say: She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

Wow! What a way to make a woman proud! I think Gloria Steinem is on Palins payroll.

SARAH PALIN FOR PRESIDENT!!

Sarah Palin

If John McCain wasn't otherwise such an absolutely horrible choice for America, I might actually consider voting for him because he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate.

What a stunningly brilliant thing to do! She's got excellent conservative credentials (though never up to my standards) but I really like her. I'd honestly rather see her as President than John McCain. Oh, and she's cute too but that hardly figures in to a voting decision.

Election Thoughts

I was talking with a friend of mine over the weekend and we were discussing the possibilities for McCain's VP choice. We really couldn't think of anyone that could run with him that wouldn't hurt his campaign. Then a name popped in to my head and it seems to make sense. Joe Lieberman.

In the interest of full disclosure, the previous prediction for VP didn't exactly turn out the way it should have. In all fairness though, I never expected that McCain would end up with the GOP nomination. Giuliani was the presumptive nominee back at that time and even Romney seemed more viable.

Back to Lieberman. A cross party ticket with a very moderate Democrat could be a great step for McCain who is basically a liberal. It would make sense from a strategic standpoint. He'd siphon a lot of votes away from Hillary/Obama (But I still think Hillary will pull out a victory). As my friend pointed out though, you can't exactly rely on people like McCain to do what makes sense. He's just another Bob Dole and unlikely to end up actually being the President so it may not matter who is VP is. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if he chooses a VP specifically to torpedo his campaign so Hillary wins.

In other news, former Republican Bob Barr is now running running for President on the Libertarian ticket. So, I will dare to make another prediction! I expect that after the Rethuglican nomination officially goes to the aforementioned liberal Republican, Ron Paul will publicly endorse Bob Barr.

I think the best thing to do is just to forget about all of this nonsense and make me dictator for 4 years. Give me the power to make a new Constitution and wipe out all existing laws and legal precedents and we'll be in good shape after that! Kelo? Gone! Roe v. Wade? A bad memory. Dept. of Education? Well, it never served its purpose anyway. You get the drift.

Maybe you should all just contact Bob Barr, I'll settle for being his VP.

What's Up With Obama?

I get most of my news and information from the Internet. I very rarely watch TV. So today, I just heard Barak Obamasama for the first time while listening to the radio.

I heard him denouncing his pastor for his divisive racial remarks.

The thing I noticed most was that his voice sounds like a bad imitation of Eddie Murphy doing his imitation of a nerdy white guy.

It's not that I think black people should "talk black" but it sounds like he's trained himself to try to sound as white as possible or what he thinks "white" should sound like. The net effect is, he sounds like Eddie Murphy's version of a white guy.

A Loss Of Respect

My respect for Ann Coulter has taken a bit of hit. In her column today, she endored Mitt Romney for President.

Ugh. I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. Despite her rantings against the Bush administration, she is, in essence an establishment Republican.

Oh well.

Mexican President Makes Demands

Mexican President, Felipe Calderon is making demands of US Presidential candidates.

From this article:

En días pasados, el presidente de la República instruyó a su embajador y cónsules en la Unión Americana buscar contrarrestar ese clima antimexicano. Incluso, Calderón ha demandado de los aspirantes a la presidencia de Estados Unidos dejar de utilizar el tema de la migración como moneda política.

Translation: Lately, the President (of Mexico) has instructed his ambasadors and cabinet in the US to find a way to stop this anti-Mexican environment. Also, Calderon, has demanded that Presidential candidates in the United States stop using immigration as a campaign issue.

That is HILLARIOUS! The President of Mexico is placing demands on OUR presidential candidates? No, of course they shouldn't be using immigration as a debate topic!! How DARE they! Why bring attention to that? It's really an insignificant problem that no one is talking about.

The assumption here is that any attempt by Americans to cast aspersions on illegal immigrants means they are anti-Mexican or at the very least, anti-immigrant. Yes, there are some racists out there; xenophobes too. The majority of Americans however simply want our existing immigration laws enforced. There are supposed to be fines for employers who hire illegals. Sure, every once in a while, some company will be raided and it will make big news but compared to the vast numbers of illegal aliens employed by American businesses, it's statistically insignificant. It's good press, that's it.

Illegal aliens are a net drain on our economy. They (and their children, whether born here or not) consume more in tax dollars than they produce. This is especially true given the amount of money they send out of the country. That is money that does not get circulated back in to our economy and invested or taxed repeatedly.

Any legal immigrant should be furious about the illegal immigration debacle. The cheap labor provided by illegal immigrants reduces the wages of other workers purely on the supply and demand principle. All this nonsense that illegal immigrants are just doing the jobs that Americans won't do is completely illogical. It's true that we're generally not willing to do it for the same cost as illegal immigrants, it's not the same thing. Wages will rise to fill a gap in labor supply. Cheap labor also retards the use of more expensive technology that can replace the labor done by people.

Much of the cost of illegal immigration is hidden from the public. By way of example, let's consider public transportation. Here in Orange County, CA it costs $1.25 for any given trip or $3 for a day pass. I have been riding the bus quite a bit lately (my car is broken) and I have noticed that most of the people riding the bus are Hispanics who appear to speak little or no English and appear to be poor. We, the tax payers of Orange County subsidize the bus system and by extension, the transportation costs of illegal aliens.

I want to be very clear about something. I can understand why poor Mexicans want to leave Mexico and come and work here. I blame our own government for the policies that we have allowed them to create that not only allow this problem to grow, but actually encourage it. if I was poor and living in Mexico I'd be moving here too. It's not an excuse to break the law but our policies are actively harming both countries. By continuing to make illegal immigration attractive, it's prolonging what will amount to painful but necessary reforms in Mexico. If the poor in Mexico had no other alternative, they would demand more of their own government including an end to corruption and a other reforms that encouraged entrepreneurship, private property ownership, creation of capital, etc. As it stands, the Mexican government is getting off easy by continuing to drive more of their citizens north who will then send money back home. Politically speaking, it's a winning situation. For the governed, it's not so good. They continue to be mired in a socialist, corrupt system that all but the most ambitious can rise out of.

An Unlikely Scenario

Barak Osama Obama is in a statistical dead heat with Hillary Clinton in a recent Iowa poll.

For the sake of clarity, I don't believe the poll numbers for Obama right now anymore than I do the number for Ron Paul polling at very low numbers. I believe the media is overstating the Obama threat for the sake of excitement and so it doesn't look like Hillary has already been crowned the nominee.

That being said, I want to explore the idea of a contest between Barak Obama and Ron Paul if both should win their respective nominations.

This would be a landslide election for Ron Paul for a number of reasons:

1. America is barely ready for a female President, a black President is highly unlikely at this point. You'd have a lot of Southern Democrats in particular voting for Ron Paul. A lot of white moderates would also turn on the DNC in favor Ron Paul. The Hispanic vote for a black President would be nearly non-existent insofar as the Hispanic voting block is fairly weak anyway.
2. There are trust issues. Barak Obama is an unknown quantity. He has no record to back him up, no notable achievements, no great political legacy. Ron Paul on the other hand has a consistent track record of espousing the same views for 30 years.
3. Low voter turnout would be another issue. Let's face it, the Democrat base isn't going to get really excited about Obama and the typical die hard Republican who thought Giuliani was just fine isn't going to get real excited about a contest with a loser Democrat. Ron Paul supporters will be the heaviest turnout there is. They'll be knocking on doors and working the phones, etc.

A Ron Paul/Barak Obama contest is unlikely. Hillary has already been crowned by her party and Obama is just along for the ride. Don't forget to Register Republican and vote for Ron Paul in the Primary.

Ron Paul In The Polls

It appears that Ron Paul is gaining some significant momentum in the early primary states.

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA—Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is gaining momentum in New Hampshire and Iowa, according to a poll released Tuesday by CBS News and the New York Times. The Texas congressman has garnered an estimated 8 percent in New Hampshire, surpassing former GOP front-runner Fred Thompson, and is now tied with John McCain in Iowa.

Polls released over the weekend by the Boston Globe in association with the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, and the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, both confirmed Congressman Paul’s support to be higher than Thompson’s as well.

“The polls confirm what we already know: Congressman Paul is catching on in the early primary states,” said Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. “His unifying message of freedom, peace, and prosperity is resonating strongly with voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, and we’re rapidly gaining support nationwide.”

The CBS-New York Times poll was conducted November 2-12. On November 5, the Ron Paul campaign brought in a record-breaking $4.2 million online, and an additional $1 million to end the week.

And these were probably, as most of them are, phone polls to land lines which don't include the growing segment of people like me who only have a cell phone. The undercurrent of support out there not being reached by the pollsters is much bigger than anyone in the media want to let on. A good showing in any of the early primary states will propel him on the the national stage in a media sense. What happens from there is anyone's guess but if the media is forced to acknowledge him, things can only get better.

Hillary Helped Ron Paul

This is 2nd hand information but I was told that Rusty Humphries said on his show today that Ron Paul's record setting fund raising day had help from Hillary Clinton's campaign. The person who told me agreed that it's probably true because he thinks that if Ron Paul can raise enough money and then doesn't get the Republican nomination that he'll run as 3rd party candidate.

If I've erred in my misrepresentation of what Humphries said, I'm open to correction but I want to quash this notion before it catches any traction. This has to be an absolutely false notion for several reasons:

• Ron Paul raised $4.2 million by 37,000 donors. That's an average of $113.51 per donor. I'm sure that some donated more and some donated less. It would take a "vast conspiracy" to get Hillary supporters to donate that much to the Ron Paul campaign. Word would get out. The person who told me about this said, "Well, maybe a lot of people only gave a little but someone with a lot of money like George Soros came in with a big check for the rest." BZZZZZ try again. There are contribution limits and in order for someone to write a big check, it would have had to be to the Republican party not directly to the campaign. Those funds surely wouldn't go to Ron Paul.
• Hillary is too arrogant to think she can lose. She would never resort to helping the one man that she knows could defeat her if he got the nomination. Of course the Republicans that blindly follow the non-conservative candidates think Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance but there's no convincing them. If he gets the nomination, they'll have a lot of back-peddling to do.
• I can't speak for the good doctor, but I don't think that he'd turn around and run as an independent. He'd never make it on the ballot in time in most states. He's more realistic than that and wouldn't run just to be vindictive.
  

Incredible!

Ron Paul, you know that guy who doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hades of getting the Republican Presidential nomination? Yeah, that's the one.

He just set a new Republican record for fund-raising in one day. More than $4,200,000!!!

The record is still held by John Kerry who raised $5.7 million on the day he accepted the nomination from the Democratic party.

Who is this money coming from? Corporate lobbyists who think Ron Paul will do their bidding? Haliburton maybe? Islamic fundamentalist groups? No, it's coming from individual Americans who are fed up with our abuse of the Constitution and the stripping away of our civil liberties.

***REMEMBER*** If you haven't switched your party affiliation to Republican in order to vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary, do so quickly before it's too late!

The Poll You Didn't Hear About

You're not likely to see the results of this poll on a Fox News Special Report.

It looks like the polling data shows that Ron Paul could beat Hillary Clinton in an election.

The data provided is still very much open to interpretation and more research needs to be done but go take a look for yourself.

There is hope my friends, there is hope.

POLLING DATA HERE

An Acceptable Compromise

I made a deal with my boss this morning.

I've been hammering on him about Ron Paul. He's the "anyone but Hillary" type of person. He doesn't think Ron Paul has a glimmer of hope. I told him that there is no way I could ever support Giulliani if he get the Republican nomination. He's been hammering on me saying that if I don't vote for whatever Republican gets the nomination, that I'm voting for Hillary. The math just doesn't work out that way but whatever, we're not going to agree on that.

So I told him to at least vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary. He agreed. But he made a deal with me. He said that he and his wife would vote for Ron Paul in the Primary if voted for who ever got the GOP nomination in the general election.

I agreed to that without a moments hesitation. Why? Because no one but Ron Paul will be able to beat Shillary anyway so it won't matter who I actually cast my vote for. That is especially true here in California. Traditionally, all of the electoral votes for California go to the Democrats, it's just a given. I think Ron Paul could take California if he gets the nomination but who can say. There are a lot of Democrats who support him simply because of his stance on the war.

All in all, I think it's an acceptable compromise to get two votes for Ron Paul in the Primary.

Because Winning Is Most Important

Governor Schwarzenegger apparently thinks that winning is more important than actual principals. He is urging Republican candidates for President to move towards the center and capture centrist votes on things like health care and education.

Schwarzenegger won a 2nd term here California (a liberal state) by essentially becoming a liberal. He seems to have abandoned any pretense of conservative principals which should have been obvious to even the most loyal party hack when he signed SB 777 which forces the promotion of homosexuality on our public school children.

What's the point in winning if it's not so you can implement the things you say that you believe? Why even bother to beat Hillary if whoever gets elected will govern like her except he will have that 'R' label? Why debate, why campaign?

Personally, I hope the "star" GOP candidates take his advice; it can only help Ron Paul who will stick to his message of smaller government and more liberty.