from Powerline

When the American left was out of power, it faced the same kind of electoral decisions that now confront conservatives — how to a weigh Democratic candidates’ ideological purity against their electability. Activists on the left resolved the decision wisely, along the lines suggested years ago by William Buckley. They supported leftists in states where they were electable, and backed or tolerated centrists and center-left candidates in red states.

Thus, the left attempted to oust Joe LIeberman — a liberal on domestic issues but not key foreign policy and national security matters — on the understanding that lefty Ned Lamont’s nomination would not cause the seat to fall into Republican hands. On the other hand, the left was quite supportive of James Webb in Virginia notwithstanding his Republican background and substantial questions about his willingness automatically to support leftist positions.

And the left gave Ben Nelson a pass in Nebraska. Left-wing activists could have labeled him a “DINO” (or something equally clever) and tried to prevent his re-nomination. But the Daily Kos crowd recognized that Nelson was the only Dem who could win in Nebraska, so it held its fire.

The left was rewarded for the soundness of these judgments when Webb and Nelson became the 59th and 60th votes for Obamacare.

Its judgment on Lieberman was sound too. He blocked the public option, but supported the final bill. Lamont would have been better for the left and nominating him didn’t cost the left his seat. Lieberman remained in place and gave the left more than half a loaf on health care.

Let’s compare this pattern of behavior with that of conservative activists this season. Early on, conservative activists showed the same good judgment the left exhibited in 2006. Far from balking at Scott Brown’s centrist tendencies, many conservative activists worked hard for him.

Later, In certain high profile races, conservative activists helped take down center-right candidates (candidates more conservative than Brown). But this generally occurred in red states like Kentucky, Utah, and Alaska.

Tea Party activists also helped defeat candidates deemed insufficiently conservative in Colorado and Nevada — states that are neither red nor blue. But in Colorado, the candidate they pushed — Ken Buck — is fairly attractive and was doing as well as his Republican opponent in head-to-head polls against the Democratic incumbent.

Nevada was a different story. Sharron Angle has not proved to be an attractive candidate so far, and her nomination seems to have given Harry Reid at least a 50 percent chance of surviving in year when he should be toast. But Angle cannot be deemed unelectable. Thus, the Buckley maxim arguably has not been violated.

Finally, though, we get to Delaware. There, in one of America’s bluest states, the Tea Party Express and other activists are backing arch-conservative Christine O’Donnell. But there’s no good case to made that O’Donnell is electable. She was trounced by Joe Biden, 65-35, last time out and she trails the Democrat running this time by about 10 percentage points.

Moreover, questions surround O’Donnell’s finances. As I wrote here, I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt until I see concrete evidence of wrongdoing. But that won’t stop O’Donnell from being hammered and ridiculed if she is nominated.

In addition, O’Donnell lately has displayed poor judgment and a lack of regard for the truth. She claimed in a radio interview that she had carried two of three Delaware counties in her race against Biden. Actually, she carried none. And, when asked about the Rasmussen poll showing her well behind the Democrat, she suggested that Rasmussen was fudging his results to favor the Republican establishment.

It’s one thing to be strongly conservative; it’s another to be paranoid.

Meanwhile, Rep. Mike Castle, O’Donnell’s opponent in the Republican primary, is a heavy favorite to win the seat if nominated (and assuming O’Donnell doesn’t run as a third-party candidate). Castle has a double-digit lead over the Democrat. And Delaware voters have repeatedly elected him to state-wide office by hefty margins, even in not-so-good Republican years.

Castle is what I call a RIHHVO — Republican in half his votes only. As a Senator, his votes will upset me about half of the time. But it isn’t rocket science to understand that half a loaf is better than none; even the left figured that out in 2006.

And this truism is especially salient in the Delaware race this year because Castle, as the successor to an appointed Senator, will take office upon his election, rather than in January. The lame duck session will probably be the Senate’s last big chance to cause great mischief for a while. Accordingly, conservatives should be focused on preventing a rubber-stamping liberal from serving in that session, not on nominating an ideological pure candidate with virtually no chance of carrying blue Delaware.

Unfortunately, some leading conservative activists don’t see it this way. It’s disconcerting to realize that many of our activists aren’t even as astute as the likes of Markos Moulitsas.

also:

Selective Enforcement at Obama’s Justice Department

In Washington, there are probably 10 or 20 faux “scandals” for every real scandal. One of the real scandals these days is the way in which Barack Obama and Eric Holder have politicized the Department of Justice. The Democrats criticized the Bush administration for politicizing DOJ, but that was sheer fabrication. It didn’t happen. Immediately upon taking office, however, Obama and Holder embarked on a program of partisan law enforcement the likes of which this country may never have seen before.

The latest manifestation of the Obama administration’s perversion of justice is noted by former DOJ lawyer Chris Adams–a deliberate decision, for political reasons, not to enforce Section 8 of the “Motor Voter” law:
(more…)

from Powerline

Larry Sabato, described here as “typically cautious,” is, I think, a Democrat, but his “shock projection” for November is that the Republicans will capture the House and may well take the Senate, too:

Typically cautious Larry Sabato, head of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, is rocking the political world with a new “Crystal Ball” prediction: The GOP will win the House, making Ohio’s John Boehner speaker, might get a 50-50 split in the Senate, and will pick up some eight new governors.

“2010 was always going to be a Republican year, in the midterm tradition,” Sabato said in his latest prediction, issued Thursday. “But conditions have deteriorated badly for Democrats over the summer. The economy appears rotten, with little chance of a substantial comeback by November 2nd. Unemployment is very high, income growth sluggish, and public confidence quite low. The Democrats’ self-proclaimed ‘Recovery Summer’ has become a term of derision, and to most voters–fair or not–it seems that President Obama has over-promised and under-delivered.”

Sabato on House elections: “Given what we can see at this moment, Republicans have a good chance to win the House by picking up as many as 47 seats, net. … If anything, we have been conservative in estimating the probable GOP House gains, if the election were being held today.”

Sabato on the Senate: “In the Senate, we now believe the GOP will do a bit better than our long-time prediction of +7 seats. Republicans have an outside shot at winning full control (+10), but are more likely to end up with +8 (or maybe +9, at which point it will be interesting to see how senators such as Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and others react).

This, too, is an interesting point that I had forgotten: the House has changed hands six times since World War II, and every time the Senate has switched, too, whether that result was expected or not. That’s hardly a rule of nature, but it is an interesting precedent as we look forward to November 2.

PAUL adds: I’ve been using Sabato’s analysis of the House from July to keep tabs of the battle for the House. I picked Sabato’s analysis not because he’s necessarily better than the other folks who do this stuff, but because in July he had 13 Democratic-held seats leaning Republican and 26 Democratic-held seats as toss-ups, for a total of 39 Democratic seats in very serious jeopardy. 39 is, of course, the number of seats the Republicans need to gain, net, to take control (note, though, that a few Republican seats are likely to fall to Democrats).

Since July, I’ve been pointing out that Republicans hold good-size leads in a number of Sabato’s toss-up districts and even in some districts Sabato said were leaning Dem.

Sabato’s new analysis reflects this reality to some extent, but perhaps not fully. He now has 17 Democratic-held seats leaning Republican and 25 of them rated as toss-ups.

From now on, I’ll be focusing on the 23 additional Democratic-held seats that Sabato claims lean Democratic. It is on this list, I suspect, that most of the true battleground seats can be found.

Sabato probably suspects the same thing. He has 65 Democratic-held seats in serious play, along with a few Republican-held seats, yet predicts that the Republicans will have a net pick-up of 47 seats.

also:

A page not quite turned

In the email reprinted below, Reader Daniel Mayes cuts to the heart of President Obama’s refusal to credit President Bush for the Iraq surge. But it is the well-justified outrage Mr. Mayes expresses in the remainder of his email that really caught our attention:

President Obama is unwilling to grant any credit to President Bush because opposition to the war was the wave he rode to office, and, in fact, the wave the left rode to its current governing majorities. The financial collapse greased the skids, but President Bush’s approval rating had collapsed long before, during times of low unemployment, solid growth, and low inflation. Support for Bush collapsed mainly because of the growing unhappiness about the war. Giving him credit now would put the lie to the whole left/liberal/democratic antiwar campaign.

As an aside, I will never forget or forgive the way the left behaved during this episode. For those who voted against the war (the majority of Democratic representatives and a minority of Democratic senators), I can at least credit them with consistency. But for those whose opposition came only after public opinion had shifted, I have nothing but contempt.

The antiwar wave did not arise spontaneously, but was the conscious effort of the left, including the Democrats, and for most, was opportunistic. They sacrificed the national interest in order to gain political advantage. Nothing is easier than building opposition to a war. Wars are appalling, whether necessary or morally justifiable. They create death and mayhem, last longer than most people anticipate, and are usually plagued by unanticipated difficulties and setbacks.

The left/liberal/Democrats took full advantage of all of these inherent difficulties in prosecuting a war. They cynically, opportunistically, and dishonestly carried out a campaign to undermine support for the war, attacking President Bush’s honesty and motives in pursuing the war, and vilifying anyone, in fact, who continued to support the war.

The full page ad taken out by MoveOn.org during General Petraeus’ appearance before Congress captures the spirit of this campaign perfectly. It is a miracle that President Bush, General Petraeus, and the US military perservered in the face of this vicious campaign of vilification and brought us to the point at which we now find ourselves. How can the left behave this way? Well, it helps to remember that many Democrats are internationalists anyway, and don’t really care much about US national interests. For a “citizen of the world,” patriotism is an anachronism, something we need to overcome.

The economy is dismal, but one man is enjoying a recovery.

By JAMES TARANTO

Reader Daniel Loomis sends along his capsule summary of “The Summer of George,” the eighth-season finale of “Seinfeld,” which aired May 15, 1997: “George uses his severance from the Yankees to stimulate the perfect summer–the ‘Summer of George’–but spends it playing frolf (frisbee golf), watching ‘The White Shadow,’ ‘investing’ in a recliner with a built-in refrigerator, taking midmorning naps, banging his head on tables, and having insignificant telephone conversations. Eventually, he ends up in the hospital having to relearn to walk.”

And here is Loomis’s capsule summary of “The Summer of Recovery,” the finale of the first full season of “Obama,” a midseason replacement that premiered to hype and high ratings but is now struggling and may face cancellation: “Barack uses his trillion dollar stimulus to create the best summer ever–the ‘Recovery Summer’–but wastes hundreds of billions on things like studies on how cocaine affects monkeys, investigating the link between yoga and hot flashes, bus-stop art, international ant research, and an upgrade to the statehouse and political offices in Topeka, Kan. Eventually, the economy ends up barely ambulatory.”

There are other parallels. Like “Seinfeld,” “Obama” is a show about nothing. Like George Costanza, Barack Obama is ending his summer with a fall, albeit a figurative plunge rather than a literal one. Oh, and Obama’s “Summer of Recovery” has actually turned out to be a summer of George, though we don’t mean Costanza.

“As Obama Struggles, Bush’s Legacy Recovers” reads the CBSNews.com headline on a picked-up Slate piece. Obama “is not consciously trying to improve the public’s view of the Bush years,” writes Slate’s John Dickerson. “Indeed, he is actively reminding people of the mess he inherited from his predecessor.”

The problem is that Obama’s leadership has been so ideologically extreme, and so politically and administratively incompetent, that every time he reminds us of his predecessor it makes Bush look good by comparison. Little wonder that a new survey of Ohio voters by Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm, finds that “by a 50-42 margin voters there say they’d rather have George W. Bush in the White House right now than Barack Obama.”

Last night, in an Oval Office speech, Obama said something nice about Bush for the very first time: “No one can doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security.” At one time, such an uncharacteristically gracious statement might have made Obama look good. But our hunch is that among those who bothered to watch the speech, a common reaction was: I miss having a president whose support for our troops, love of country and commitment to our security no one could doubt.

The show must go on. The network is committed to another 2½ seasons of “Obama.” If the star is hoping for renewal after that, he could do worse than to study another “Seinfeld” episode about George Costanza: “The Opposite.”

Not Quite Getting the Concept (more…)

By Dick Morris

It gets tiresome hearing the conventional wisdom say that the Democrats will likely keep control of the Senate. Far from it.

To gain control, Republicans must win ten new seats. An analysis of the latest polling data suggests that Republicans currently hold the lead in eight pick-up states: Pennsylvania, Colorado, Wisconsin, Washington State, Arkansas, Delaware, North Dakota, and Indiana. In a ninth, Illinois, the candidates are tied and, in the tenth – Nevada – Reid is ahead by only one point. And, for insurance, Boxer in California and Gillibrand in New York are both below 50% of the vote. In Connecticut, Blumenthal is only at 50%. That’s a potential pickup of thirteen seats and a likely gain of at least ten (enough for a majority).

Any incumbent who is running at less than 50% of the vote is in serious trouble. It means that a majority of the voters have decided not to vote for him or her. (Asked if you are likely to be married to the same person next year, a vote of “undecided” does not bode well for your marriage).

So here are the numbers:

August 27th Polls

Nevada:

Reid (D) 45 / Angle (R) 44 (Mason Dixon)

With Reid this far under 50%, Angle is likely to win.

August 26th Polls

Florida:

(Currently Republican) Rubio (R) / 40 Crist (I) 30 / Meek (D) 21 (Rasmussen)
(more…)

also:

Senator Murkowski Concedes Race in Alaska

Republicans also maintain wide gap in enthusiasm about voting

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ — Republicans lead by 51% to 41% among registered voters in Gallup weekly tracking of 2010 congressional voting preferences. The 10-percentage-point lead is the GOP’s largest so far this year and is its largest in Gallup’s history of tracking the midterm generic ballot for Congress.

2010 Trend: Candidate Preferences in 2010 Congressional Elections, Based on Registered Voters

These results are based on aggregated data from registered voters surveyed Aug. 23-29 as part of Gallup Daily tracking. This marks the fifth week in a row in which Republicans have held an advantage over Democrats — one that has ranged between 3 and 10 points.

The Republican leads of 6, 7, and 10 points this month are all higher than any previous midterm Republican advantage in Gallup’s history of tracking the generic ballot, which dates to 1942. Prior to this year, the highest such gap was five points, measured in June 2002 and July 1994. Elections in both of these years resulted in significant Republican gains in House seats.

Largest Republican Advantages in Gallup’s Generic Ballot for Congress, Midterm Elections, Among Registered Voters

Large leads on the generic ballot are not unprecedented for Democrats. The widest generic ballot lead in Gallup’s history was 32 points in the Democrats’ favor, measured in July 1974, just prior to Republican President Richard Nixon’s resignation over the Watergate scandal. This large margin illustrates Democrats’ historic dominance over Republicans in registered voters’ party identification in the decades since World War II. Democrats controlled the House of Representatives continually between 1955 and 1995, and routinely held generic ballot leads in the double digits during that period. (more…)

By-Regina Sztajer

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is positive they have all gone mad in the Obama Administration. In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Brewer said, it is “downright offensive” that a state law would be included in a report drafted as part of a United Nations review on human rights.(http://news.yahoo.com 8/28/2010.)
Brewer was referring to the State’s controversial immigration law, which she wanted removed from a State Department report to the UN’s human rights commissioner.

It’s hard to imagine an American government submitting a duly enacted state law of the United States to be reviewed by the UN! Brewer felt it was internationalism run amok and unconstitutional! The Arizona law requires police officers enforcing other laws to investigate status of people they suspect are illegal immigration. Critics felt it would target Hispanics but the law prohibits racial profiling and other human rights abuses.

The U.S. Justice Department sued to block the law, arguing federal law trumps state authority to enforce immigration laws. In July, a federal judge sided with the Dept.of Justice blocking enforcement of the law’s controversial provisions a day before it was scheduled to take affect. Indeed, S.B. 1070, the Arizona immigration law, according to a State Department report doesn’t specifically allege that the Arizona law would lead to racial profiling. Brewer a Republican is running for election in November and her popularity has increased since the immigration measure was signed in April.

Countries in the UN, who are guilty of countless human rights violation have no right to judge any one of the 50 states in the U.S. on the subject. The UN is a ineffective, corrupt and completely political organization funded in part by the U.S. What country in the world will say illegal immigration is a human right? These Washington people have gone mad and after November they will wake up and decide that they have committed political suicide. (more…)

by Redstate

An untrained observer, looking at the RCP Average of polling conducted in the Florida Senate race, might conclude that Marco Rubio and Charlie Crist are in a virtual tie. A fool might look at these numbers and conclude Charlie Crist is more likely to win. However, a person with an even casual understanding of how polls are conducted will understand that this polling shows Marco Rubio to be a solid favorite in this race, with a lead roughly as comfortable as that of Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire and Rand Paul in Kentucky.

The explanation for this, of course, lies in sample of persons polled by the respective organizations polling this race. From the beginning of this race, Quinnipiac University and the St. Petersburg Times have polled registered voters, a set which purports to winnow out at least those adults not eligible to vote. Rasmussen and Mason-Dixon, on the other hand, have consistently polled “likely voters,” which purports to be a subset of registered voters who are judged to be more representative of the people who can be counted on to actually cast a vote on Election Day.

Now, screening for likely voters is a tetchy business, and polling companies have varied methods for accomplishing this screening function. Some ask respondents to self-report likelihood of voting. Some judge likelihood of voting by objective factors such as knowledge of their polling location, etc. Others do some mix, checking self-reporting with objective facts. Rasmussen is known to have a very stringent screening process for likely voters. People who are knowledgeable about polling debate about such things as whether Rasmussen’s screening process is perhaps too stringent; those who are ignorant of polls (or disinterested in the truth) argue that Rasmussen deliberately cooks the books in order to influence the election narrative. Nevertheless, it is clear that screening for likely voters, through whatever method, to some degree eliminates marginal voters and seeks to poll those more “tuned in” and “motivated” to do what the poll is attempting to measure: actually go to the polls and vote.

Over the last six weeks, a clear picture has emerged among the nationally-known and reputable polling organizations that have polled the expected Rubio-Crist-Meek race (Rasmussen, Q-Poll, PPP, Mason-Dixon, and Reuters-Ipsos): organizations polling likely voters showed Rubio faring better, by an increasingly widening margin. Reuters/Ipsos polled RVs in early July and found Crist ahead by 7. Rasmussen polled LVs July 21st, and found Rubio ahead 2. Q-Poll polled RVs in late July and found Crist ahead 6. Rasmussen polled LVs August 9 and found Rubio ahead 5. Mason-Dixon polled LVs August 9-11 and also found Rubio up 5. Q-Poll polled RVs August 11-16 and found Crist ahead 7.

A seasoned poll-watcher seeing this trend would conclude that the overall polling numbers were masking a troubling trend for Orange Charlie: the marginal voters prefer Charlie Crist. The people likely to get out and vote (particularly in a non-Presidential year) increasingly preferred Marco Rubio. No polling company has illustrated this trend more precisely than Democratic pollster Public Policy Polling, which has by all accounts acquitted itself well thus far this cycle. In mid-July, PPP polled RVs and found Crist ahead in a 3-way matcup with Meek by 6. Over the weekend, PPP polled LVs and… found Rubio ahead by 8 in the same matchup. In the absence of a universal trend towards Rubio in all polling, this dramatic 15-point shift in a poll conducted by the same organization can only mean one thing: at present, Rubio voters are more tuned in, more motivated, and by far more likely to vote. This spells DOOM for Charlie Crist; DOOM which will be more manifest as election day nears and all polling organizatoins switch to likely voter models.

At this point, Crist’s main hope is that Obama and the DNC fundraising apparatus go all-in, in an attempt to convince Democrats to bail on CBC member-in-good-standing Kendrick Meek. At this point, that seems doubtful to happen, especially in the absence of an explicit promise from Crist to caucus with the Dems; a promise Crist cannot give without alienating a significant portion of his current voting base. In the final analysis, then, Marco Rubio should be considered a heavy favorite to win this race, a fact which will become clearer as election day approaches.

also:

Thoughts on Afghanistan

From Powerline

We started out as warbloggers, largely, and over the years we’ve no doubt written more about the war against Islamic terrorism than anything else. So it’s a little disorienting to see the war in Iraq winding down, and the war in Afghanistan ramping up, without having a great deal to say about either conflict.

Will the war in Iraq be judged a success? Ask me in 20 years. While Doug Feith tells us the Department of Defense was never focused on bringing democracy to the Arab world, I’m pretty sure that was a big part of President Bush’s motivation, as it was of mine. I base this on the fact that Bush said so, repeatedly, in his speeches. Liberals either paid attention or didn’t, depending on how they evaluated their tactical interests at the moment.

As for Afghanistan, this is the kind of story that makes us want to take to the battlements: “Taliban take comfort in US withdrawal plans: general.”

Taliban insurgents have been given hope they can prevail in the war as a result of President Barack Obama’s July 2011 deadline to start withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan , the top US Marine said. …

“In some ways, we think right now it’s probably giving our enemy sustenance,” Conway said of the July 2011 target date.

“We think that he may be saying to himself — in fact we’ve intercepted communications that say, ‘Hey, you know, we only have to hold out for so long.’”

That’s red meat for us conservatives. Still, we have been in Afghanistan since, what–the end of 2001? It is understandable that most Americans want some sort of a resolution. I fully support our current “surge” efforts in Afghanistan, and I think it is a good thing whenever a Taliban fighter is killed. At the same time, it seems obvious that the primitiveness of Afghan society and the Afghan economy limit, rather severely, the results we can achieve there. On no account do we want the success of our policy to be held hostage to the sheer perversity of Afghan culture. Our soldiers are great at shooting bad people and blowing up their infrastructure, but bringing Islamic fundamentalists into the 10th century is beyond their ken. Or anyone’s.
(more…)

-By Warner Todd Huston

Computer software giant Adobe, computer game monster EA Games, and Internet auction king ebay are abandoning California to set up shop in Utah. Why? California’s horrid business climate and high taxes.
Recently, Fox Business Channel also discussed this issue:

Adobe Systems, maker of a suite of graphics programs such as Adobe PDF, Illustrator, Photoshop, and InDesign, have announced that they are building a $100 million facility in either Salt Lake City or in nearby Utah County, Utah. The facility will bring thousands of jobs to Utah over the next few decades.

In May the Internet auction company ebay also announced a major new facility to be built in Salt Lake City. The $287 million data center will also bring hundreds of new jobs to the Bee Hive State.

Not to be forgotten, games maker Electronic Arts opened its new facility in July in Salt Lake City where around 100 employees are already at work.

These companies fleeing California’s horrid business climate are not alone. There has been a steady flow of businesses out of California for the better part of a decade. As California’s political morass worsens, as its budget woes increase, and as her politicians are proven incapable of making the hard budgetary decisions to take power from unions and chop unnecessarily lavish social programs, the state’s jobs are bleeding out. California is an a freefall the end of which is still unseen.

Here is a partial list of the large and medium-sized companies that have either moved parts of their business or have left the “land of milk and honey” for brighter prospects altogether:

Abraxis Health, Adobr Systems, Inc. Alza Corp., American AVK
American Racing, Apple Computer Audix Corporation, Apria Healthcare Group
Assurant Inc., Barefoot Motors Bazz Houston Co., Beckman Coulter
Bild Industries Inc., Bill Miller Engineering, Ltd. BMC Select , BPI Labs
Buck Knives, CalPortland Cement California Casualty Group, CalStar Products Inc.
Checks To-Go, Chivaroli & Associates CoreSite, A Carlyle Company
Creel Printing , Dassault Falcon DaVita Inc. , Denny’s Corp.
Digital Domain, Ditech DuPont Fabros Technology
ebay, Inc., EDMO Distributors, Inc. Edwards Lifesciences, Electronic Arts, Inc.
EMRISE Corp., Facebook FallLine Corporation, Fidelity National Financial
First American Corp., Fluor Corp. Foxconn Electronics, Fuel System Solutions
Gregg Industries, Hewlett-Packard Hilton Hotels Corp., Hino Motor Manufacturing USA
Intel Corporation, Intuit of Mountain View J.C. Penney , Kimmie Candy Co.
Klaussner Home Furnishings, Knight Protective Industries Kulicke & Soffa Industries Inc., LCF Enterprises
Lennox Hearth Products Inc., Lyn-Tron, Inc. Mariah Power, Maxwell America
Miasolé, MotorVac Technologies Nissan North America, Northrop Grumman
One2Believe, Patmont Motor Werks, Inc. Paragon Relocation Resources
Pixel Magic, Plastic Model Engineering, Inc. Precor, Premier Inc., Pro Cal of South Gate
Race Track Chaplaincy of Amer., Red Truck Fire & Safety Co. SAIC, Scale Computing
Schott Solar Inc., SimpleTech Smiley Industries, Solaicx
SolarWorld, Special Devices Inc. StarKist , Stasis Engineering
Stata Corp., Tapmatic Teledesic, Telmar Network Technology Inc.
Terremark, Terumo Cardiovascular Systems Toyota, True Games Interactive Inc.
TTM Technologies, Understand.com US Press shifted, USAA Insurance
Yahoo And many more

It should be noted that Utah is a right-to-work state.

also:

Illusion vs. Vision

by: David Aughenbaugh

I recently read the following article, entitled: Toxic Leadership: When Grand Illusions Masquerade as Noble Visions* – by Jean Lipman-Blumen, in the article the author attempts “to consider the plight of followers caught in the thrall of toxic leaders, who first charm, then manipulate, and ultimately leave their followers worse off than they found them…”

If you read the article / essay you will see the author may have a totally different philosophy as to whom is a toxic leader, but you will get the point.

I could take up way too much of your time pontificating the point of ‘toxic leadership’ so I will save this for another time. However, the other point, a byproduct of toxic leadership is the subject of this week’s email. Illusion vs. Vision.

In Maryland, it’s difficult for some to discern between illusion and vision. Many have succumbed to the illusion that the government has the answer to everything that ails us, and will provide certain protection and comfort. To the contrary, our leadership and representation has lacked the vision necessary to position the harsh realities and in turn will leave each of us ill prepared for the consequences of their actions. The areas of most concern in this election year is pretty much the same regardless of your geographic location. It’s all about the Jobs, Spending and potential 2011 ‘ambush tax’ a phrase correctly described by Del Pat McDonough and your individual liberties. Although we can discuss this at length I will provide a few words on the subject in hopes to get my point across.
A large majority of our Elected officials have captured the emotions of electorate promising relief from anxiety and fears. “The crisis will be averted” through the actions of the government. Unfortunately, Many times it is the ‘elected’ that actually extend the anxiety and fear whether directly or indirectly, making promises they surely cannot keep and or deliver. This folks is ”Illusion“, our government through these proxies will give you a false sense of security and all too often we offer ‘our’ blind faith to these “Saviors” and their promise of a Utopia, one that is unattainable.

The feelings one may experience, through ‘Vision‘ is much more a ‘real’ and sometimes a harsh look at real problems. Candidates and elected officials alike that can create a reality based solely on the attainable goals while disclosing there are painful consequences are people of “Vision”. They will engage and and include lots of people with differing talents, points of view, talents and strengths, they are able to orchestrate all of these people and motivate them toward a common goal.

The “Vision”, we have for our state is to explain that the “Illusions” we’ve had to bear witness for better than 60 years, are in fact unattainable, the [private citizens and businesses] of this “Utopia” cannot sustain it’s existence, rather we will be a state of responsible, accountable contributors, Responsible to each other. We will support a fiscally sound, caring government interested in creating “Opportunity” not “Illusions”

In Liberty,

also:

How Bad?

How bad is the Ground Zero mosque story for the White House? Bad enough that Obama advisers are pointing fingers at the president and trying to absolve themselves of the fiasco. Politico reports:

Prior to the decision, [Rahm] Emanuel and Obama’s communications staff vividly — and presciently — predicted that Obama would be handing Republicans a weapon to batter Democrats as weak-kneed on terrorism three months before the midterms, according to several people familiar with the situation.
(more…)

By-Regina Sztajer

Among the various pollsters these of fading election days of summer Scott Rasmussen is on the top of my list. He always looks so sure of himself because he never losses his cool and tells you the facts.

“American’s don’t want to be governed by the left or the right,” said Rasmussen to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conference for 1,500 conservative and moderate legislators. “They want, like the Founding Father’s, to largely govern themselves with Washington in a supporting – but not dominate -role., The tea party movement is today’s updated expression of that sentiment.”(The Wall Street Journal
8/21-22/2010.)

Media and political elites have misread the tea party and a new book, “Mad as Hell,” will be out early next month explaining this phenomenon. He has teamed up with Doug Scheon pollster for Bill Clinton and Mayor MIke Bloomberg to write this book. Polls have come to dominate our politics and Rasmussen is the leading pollster. He feels, “understanding the tea party is essential to predicting what the country’s political scene will look like.”

Rasmussen’s firm has replaced live questions with automated dialers so that they can survey a large sample of Americans every night about confidence in the economy and their approval of President Barack Obama. Every two weeks key governor’s and Senate races are polled. His polling has become very accurate compared to polls using conventional operators.

It was Rasmussen that alerted everyone to the change in American politics when he accurately predicted a surge in the polls for Scott Brown in Massachusetts early this year. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was shocked. What happened? It was the division among the American public that Rasmussen had tracked for the past few years which he called Mainstream Public and the Political class. How does he come to this conclusion? Ask this question, do you trust the American people or do you trust political leaders? Has the federal government become it’s own special interest group? Does government and the big business world together work in ways to hurt investors and the public? If you agree on two or more questions your the political class. (more…)

from the Jerusalem Post

WASHINGTON – Israel has only mere days to launch an attack on Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor if Russia makes good on its plan to deliver fuel there this weekend, former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton warned Tuesday.

He said that once Russia has loaded the fuel into the reactor — slated for Saturday – Israel would no longer be willing to strike for fear of triggering widespread radiation in an attack.

“This is a very, very big victory for Iran,” Bolton told The Jerusalem Post. “This is a huge threshold.”

Bolton, who also once oversaw US non-proliferation policy, said that when Russia announced the plans to load the fuel last Friday, “the element of surprise was essentially taken away” from Israeli calculations.

Bolton noted that he doesn’t “have a clue” as to whether Israel would actually attack, but he said, “If Israel was right to destroy the Osiraq reactor, is it right to allow this one to continue? You can’t have it both ways.”

Israel took out Iraq’s Osiraq reactor during a stealth mission in 1981. It is also believed to have conducted a similar strike on an alleged Syria nuclear site in 2007.

Russia signed a contract with Iran to construct the Bushehr reactor in 1995, but has several times delayed completion. In announcing the long-overdue fuel installation, which should make Bushehr operational in September, Russia did not indicate why it was going ahead with the final stages now.

In addition to Bushehr — for which Russia says it has guarantees it will receive back the spent fuel, the material needed to make a nuclear bomb — Iran has its own uranium enrichment facilities.

Iran expert Ilan Berman of the American Foreign Policy Council said that the uranium enrichment plants are the real backbone of Iranian efforts and expenditures to get a nuclear weapons capability, and he suspected that they, rather than Bushehr, would be Israel’s primary targets in any attack.

He suggested that Bolton was setting up a “straw man” by focusing on the fuel delivery to the Bushehr reactor.

“It’s not at all clear that Bushehr would be a high value target because it’s only tangentially related to any conceivable Iranian nuclear weapons program,” he said. “My suspicion is this isn’t a game changer. This isn’t going to give Iran enough fissile material for a bomb overnight.”

Berman added that since Bushehr is the most public Iranian nuclear facility, and therefore well monitored by international inspectors, it was also a less likely candidate for use by Iran to construct a bomb, though he nevertheless said if it became operational it would be “an enormous PR coup for the Iranians.”

Bolton dismissed the idea that international inspectors would contain the threat from the Bushehr reactor, pointing to instances inspectors had been kicked out.

He also said it was unlikely that Israel would attack Bushehr now and make another sortie against the enrichment facilities in later months because that would be a much more challenging task. For one thing, he point out that an attack on Bushehr would likely spur the Russians to transfer to Iran advanced missile defense systems it has agreed to sell Tehran but refrained from actually delivering.

and:

Radical Pelosi Calls For Investigation of Ground Zero Victory Mosque Opposition (Audio)

also;

Hugh Hewitt: Clip and save until November 2

By: Hugh Hewitt

November’s elections are undeniably party elections, as the two major parties clearly have split in profound, undeniable ways.

If you favor all or most of Obamacare, you should vote for every Democrat in every election, as Obamacare represents a victory for the entire Democratic Party organization, one it has been seeking since 1993.

If, on the other hand, you oppose all or most of Obamacare, or even just the unconstitutional individual mandate that requires every American to buy health insurance, then vote for every Republican at every level of government, so as to fully repudiate the Democratic Party that has foisted this job-killing and economy-chilling disaster on us all.

Many Democrats will try to flee their party’s legacy in this area, just as they will want to distance themselves from the failed $850 billion “stimulus” and the seizure of General Motors by the government.

Many Democrats will also want to try to avoid the president’s endorsement of the mosque at ground zero, the left’s war against marriage, and the Democrat-applauded actions of an activist, manipulative federal judge’s bizarre show trial and tortured opinion in the Proposition 8 case, as well as his post-decision effort to deny an appeal to defenders of California’s state constitution.

Democrats want to avoid their party leadership’s absolute commitment to ruinous and massive tax increases at the start of 2011, just as many Democrats want to shed responsibility for the president’s decision to sue Arizona over that state’s rather modest attempt to help plug the porous border.

But the president’s Department of Justice can only be overseen by congressional committees, which are all governed by Democratic congressmen who hold their jobs by the favor of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. So a vote for any Democrat at any level is an endorsement of a party that refuses to act with resolve on the border fence that is the outward and effective manifestation of an inner resolve to secure the border against the growing chaos of the evolving Somalia to our south.

The Democratic Party as a whole is also responsible for the fanaticism of the global warming cultists who are now operating through the unelected and unsupervised bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency to impose a massive federal regulatory scheme on businesses across the land, a naked power grab necessitated because 41 Republicans refused to be bullied into any version of cap and tax in the Senate. That’s the Democratic way — seize by administrative diktat or court order what you cannot gain via legitimate legislative victory.

If you favor keeping what remains of the free-enterprise system and you embrace the belief that Congress, not bureaucrats, ought to decide when that system is to be burdened with regulatory controls, then vote for every Republican at every level.

The same chasm separates Democrats from Republicans on a host of other issues, from defense spending Iran policy, the support of Israel and the so-called “card check” law that would end secret balloting in union elections.
(more…)

by Laryn

For a guy who’ll hold a press conference every day of the week to blather on about anything, it’s curious how the very opinionated senior senator of New York can’t manage to take a stand on the abomination that is the Ground Zero mosque. I noticed this in a story laughably claiming Obama’s politically-calculated stance on the mosque isn’t motivated by politics.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who so far has not taken a position on the mosque, dismissed the endorsement.

The endorsement referred to was the one by a Hamas leader.

To their credit, the NRSC wonders why Chuckie is silent.

Schumer’s silence is particularly notable considering the range of issues he has addressed during his famous Sunday press conferences. For example, in April 2010, the camera-friendly Senator held a press conference attacking Facebook and other social networking websites. And just last month, caffeinated malt liquor was in the Senator’s crosshairs as he held a press conference to announce he was asking the Federal Trade Commission to review the marketing practices of these beverage makers. In fact, Dow Jones Newswire recently reported “On recent Schumer Sundays, the senator has discussed legislation to prohibit sex offenders from working as dance instructors, carnival workers, clowns, and magicians, and announced his agreement with five major airlines to not be like Spirit Airlines and charge passengers for carry-on bags.”
(more…)

By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann

The Democratic strategy for the 2010 elections is becoming apparent: Make each Congressional and Senatorial election a contest between two people and avoid a contest over the issues. Knowing that they lose over Obamacare, the economy, the stimulus, the secret ballot in union elections, and cap and trade, the Democrats are determined to convert the legislative contests into person vs. person comparisons of the candidates. Rather than focus on issues, they want to look at their biographies, tax returns, business histories, campaign contributions, and errant misstatements.

Film crews follow Republican candidates to catch them in the odd moment or film their off the record comments. The Democrats are relying on a massive game of “gotcha” to win the elections.

Every Republican candidate needs to answer every Democratic attack ad that is run. EVERY AD, EVERY TIME. Voters need to be told the truth about the distorted charges Democrats are using to win the election.

But Republicans need to counter this Democratic strategy by waging an issue-focused campaign. We need to make the election about health care, the stimulus, the economy and our issues, rather than a clash of biographies.
(more…)

By-Regina Sztajer

Have you heard people complaining about the 2010, election sign’s everywhere? This year politicians seem to be trying to out- size and out- do each other with signs. September 14, is the Primary Day Elections which nation wide is rather late. America’s are under siege thanks to the most radical president ever from within and abroad. President Barack Obama promised change and we sure got it, but “it ain’t over till the fat lady sings.” It’s up to every single American to get out and vote to take America back by regaining the Senate and House of Representatives. That will shut down Obama’s bid for Socialism in America.

Whenever I hear Obama has appointed another Tzar and he wants to share the wealth my blood boils. You don’t see him living poorly or sharing the wealth! His wife never has a problem of ordering out an Air force plane to take her and her kids to Europe for a shopping spree. Exactly what is so terrible about Socialism or even Communism?

They are oppressive regimes to which American’s have fought and died for and we don’t want to subjugate ourselves or our families to have to live under life styles that are suffocating. Go anywhere in Europe and you will see buildings that are gray in color and dilapidated because Moscow refused to spend a dime to repair them while under their domination. In East Germany I saw buildings with bullet holes in them 50 some years after World War II.

In St Petersburg, Russia I saw lawns full of overgrown weeds not green and lush which we are accustomed to. Washed cloths hang between buildings to dry because they don’t have mechanical dryers. (more…)

also;

Reporters Take On Black Conservatives At Press Conference

from the Jawa Report

Black Conservatives – 1
Liberal Reporters – 0

also:

The Death of the Dollar??
By Vasko Kohlmayer

Nothing can save our financial system in the long run. It is doomed to collapse. This is inevitable, because our government controls and manages its very foundation — the dollar.

The federal government began its takeover of the dollar in 1913 when it established the Federal Reserve Banking System. Prior to that the dollar was a real store of value. In the period from 1783 to 1913 there was a long period of currency stability with virtually no inflation. If you saved one dollar in 1800, your great grandchild could buy roughly the same amount of goods with the same dollar one century later.
(more…)

By Charles Krauthammer

Barack Obama’s considerable political capital, earned on Election Day 2008, is spent. Well spent, mind you, on the enactment of a highly ideological agenda of Obamacare, financial reform and a near-trillion-dollar stimulus that will significantly transform the country. But spent nonetheless. There’s nothing left with which to complete his social-democratic ambitions. This would have to await the renewed mandate that would come with a second inaugural.

That’s why, as I suggested last week, nothing of major legislative consequence is likely to occur for the next 2 1/2 years. Except, as columnist Irwin Stelzer points out, for one constitutional loophole: a lame-duck Congress called back into session between the elections this November and the swearing-in of the 112th Congress next January.

Leading Democrats are already considering this as a way to achieve even more liberal measures that many of their members dare not even talk about, let alone enact, on the eve of an election in which they face a widespread popular backlash to the already enacted elements of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda.

That backlash will express itself on Election Day and result, as most Democrats and Republicans currently expect, in major Democratic losses. It is still possible for the gaffe-happy Republicans to blow it. When the ranking GOP member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee publicly apologizes to the corporation that unleashed the worst oil spill in American history, you know the Republicans are capable of just about anything.

But assuming the elections go as currently projected, Obama’s follow-on reforms are dead. Except for the fact that a lame-duck session, freezing in place the lopsided Democratic majorities of November 2008, would be populated by dozens of Democratic members who had lost reelection (in addition to those retiring). They could then vote for anything — including measures they today shun as the midterms approach and their seats are threatened — because they would have nothing to lose. They would be unemployed. And playing along with Obama might even brighten the prospects for, say, an ambassadorship to a sunny Caribbean isle.

As John Fund reports in the Wall Street Journal, Sens. Jay Rockefeller, Kent Conrad and Tom Harkin are already looking forward to what they might get passed in a lame-duck session. Among the major items being considered are card check, budget-balancing through major tax hikes, and climate-change legislation involving heavy carbon taxes and regulation.

Card check, which effectively abolishes the secret ballot in the workplace, is the fondest wish of a union movement to which Obama is highly beholden. Major tax hikes, possibly including a value-added tax, will undoubtedly be included in the recommendations of the president’s debt commission, which conveniently reports by Dec. 1. And carbon taxes would be the newest version of the cap-and-trade legislation that has repeatedly failed to pass the current Congress — but enough dead men walking in a lame-duck session might switch and vote to put it over the top.
(more…)

By Angelo M. Codevilla

As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors’ “toxic assets” was the only alternative to the U.S. economy’s “systemic collapse.” In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets’ nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.

When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term “political class” came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public’s understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the “ruling class.” And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.

Although after the election of 2008 most Republican office holders argued against the Troubled Asset Relief Program, against the subsequent bailouts of the auto industry, against the several “stimulus” bills and further summary expansions of government power to benefit clients of government at the expense of ordinary citizens, the American people had every reason to believe that many Republican politicians were doing so simply by the logic of partisan opposition. After all, Republicans had been happy enough to approve of similar things under Republican administrations. Differences between Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas are of degree, not kind. Moreover, 2009-10 establishment Republicans sought only to modify the government’s agenda while showing eagerness to join the Democrats in new grand schemes, if only they were allowed to. Sen. Orrin Hatch continued dreaming of being Ted Kennedy, while Lindsey Graham set aside what is true or false about “global warming” for the sake of getting on the right side of history. No prominent Republican challenged the ruling class’s continued claim of superior insight, nor its denigration of the American people as irritable children who must learn their place. The Republican Party did not disparage the ruling class, because most of its officials are or would like to be part of it.
(more…)