Happy Thanksgiving weekend

sorry this is a day late but I hosted Thanksgiving and did a mojority of the cooking so I haven't really touched a computer in a few days. Anyway, hope everyone had a great day and are having a great weekend. I thought it very proper to submit this link and recommend you all read it and realize why we celebrate this day.

Click here.

My pic of the day

Potentially great political move

I thought this to be a very keen insight and agree it could be a great political move:

http://redstate.org/print/2004/11/15/12911/733

I would say however that I am still wary of Sen. Lieberman in ligh of the critical juncture being reached in the Middle East and whether he could bring credibility to each side of the issue as an Orthodox Jew. I have always stood by that as the issue that keeps him from being President, but the more I think about it, maybe as we near (not necesarily soon, but I think it is heading that way) a compromise of some sort with Arafat gone, he could provide good guidance and an interesting perspective. Though what Arab states will honor his religion?

Damn, what do you guys think?

National Review Cover

Another nail...

in the coffin of CNN. Not only were they incredibly swayed by the Kerry campaign in the wee hours of Nov. 3rd into believing that there were 250,000 uncounted votes instead of the reported 135,000 (as said by the secretary of the state on FoxNews THAT night), but while channel surfing last night I stopped on CNN to see what this "Anderson Cooper 360" was all about. He was interviewing some crack pot about how it was a commuter plane and not a 757 that hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11, as evidenced by eyewitness accounts. The government is obviously in full cover up mode for this one (eyes rolling). I mean is that a serious news topic?

Oh, and on Fox News at the same time? A picture tribute to our soldiers in Fallujah (sp?) to honor them on Veterans Day. Fair and balanced or not, at least they are patriotic and real.

A thought on Liberalism

I first want to say that I am sorry that I have allowed myself to get too busy to post even if only once a week. I think this is a great forum and even if it is a little preaching to the choir, makes for engaging dialogue. So, come on everybody, offer your two cents.

Anyway, I have a thought. I know, I know. But seriously, have the Democrats, and actually more to the point the Liberals/Progressives, actually become the status quo?

Over the course of the past 15 years we have seen an amazing ground swell of political correctness by the media, educational institutions, and other elite bodies in this country, to a point that it is genuinely accepted in the work place and mocked by late night comedians. I offer the theory that the Left have backed themselves into the status quo corner, where the Right spent decades trying to fight their way out of until the Reagan years. And even at that point could not find the majority voice they find now. It's as if the Left has begun to buy into its own propaganda and marketing without any regard for overall people's beliefs. Now, the Left is so caught up in these agendas, ranging from the welfare state to the PC movement, that they can't get out of their own way to think "outside the box." If you don't adapt and change, you will die.

Additionally, the Republicans, representing many conservatives in this country though not to be confused as one in the same, have adopted a philosophy of change and aggressive policy. Thus they become the provocateurs of change, not the "Progressives".

Yet another thought and observation on what has occurred politically in this country.

LIBERALISM IS DEAD

Today is a great day for America. Today is a great day for global security. Today is a great day for freedom.

George W. Bush just received more votes than any other politician in history.

George W. Bush just received a higher percentage of the popular vote than any democrat since 1964.

George W. Bush just received the first popular vote majority in 16 years.

George W. Bush just overcame an attempted coup d’ etat from the democratic-media complex that refused to report on Kerry’s abysmally weak senate record, forged documents in an attempt to sway the election, did everything in their power to reduce the democratic choices voters could make regarding the president by keeping Nader of the ballot, gave crack cocaine to people for registering voters, registered Mary Poppins and Michael Jordan in swing states, scared voters by saying Bush would reinstitute the draft and take old people’s social security away, refused to report on kerry’s treasonous meetings with the viet cong while being an officer in the military, refused to report on the evidence showing that kerry initially received an other than honorable discharge from the navy, refused to report on the current economic boom, attempted to sway the election by “leaking” exit polls that were almost certainly fraudulent, painted Bush as a bible-thumper even though he only discusses his religious beliefs when asked, smeared hundreds of decorated veterans that served with kerry and gave eye-witness accounts of kerry’s less than honorable service, analogized Bush to Hitler, reported on a single night shift of reservists that embarrassed some Iraqis that tried to kill us as if Bush were Saddam, second guessed tactical military decisions during a time of war, refused to report on Afghanistan’s first democratic election in 5,000 years, refused to report on the barbaric actions of Saddam, refused to report on the biggest scandal in world history (the u.n. oil-for-food scandal), reported on leaks from the anti-american al-baredei without questioning his motives, suggested that the al qaqaa weapons indicated gross negligence on behalf of the administration despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, repeating the mantra that America is divided until it became true, and gave America’s biggest enemy his talking points.

George W. Bush not only overcame everything the left could possibly do to defeat him, his coattails were so long as to defeat the most powerful senator in the senate, increase his majorities in both houses (the first time an incumbent has done since FDR), completely shut out the democrats in the south and Midwest, and give him a mandate stronger than any since the New Deal.

Tom Daschle’s defeat is a statement to all Democratic senators in red states that are considering a strategy of obstructionism. The Conservative stranglehold on red states (31 in total) will serve as a launching pad for finally undoing the New Deal. America’s global economic and military advantage will certainly increase as it is clear we have rejected the passivist, secular, morally relativistic multilateralmania of Europe; but instead have accepted the conservative free-trade principles that have made us into the greatest civilization in world history.

Liberals did everything they could to unseat Bush because they had to in order to survive as a viable ideology. Liberals require a significant portion of the population to be dependant on the federal government and minorities to remain in the underclass of society to survive. With Bush’s decisive victory and the Republican stranglehold on the both houses, state legislatures and governorships, Bush will continue to decimate the very foundations of government that perpetuate liberalism. Conservative ideas such as welfare reform, strict educational standards, tax reform, lower taxes, health savings accounts, social security reform and the like have and will continue to replace the New Deal’s dependency with a true ownership society. Minority ownership is at an all-time high, the GDP is growing at nearly 4% despite an economic recession, a technology bubble burst, corporate scandals, two wars and the most massive terrorist attack in history. In the next four years, Americans will be further weaned off the governmental programs that take away individual choice and freedom alike.

The Left understood the stakes. That’s why they could not lose this election. They understood that American’s cannot trust them on matters of national security. They understood that their agenda cannot pass in the heartland. That is why they force their agenda through judicial fiat instead of the democratic process. That is why they ran a war-hero, which they thought would be enough to ensure the public that they could protect us. That is why they ran a politician who was skilled enough to say the right things on values issues while having the credibility with the left to wink and nod. That is why although kerry received the highest marks from pro-choice groups, he still “believes that life begins at conception.” That is why although kerry voted against the ban on partial-birth abortion, he kept repeating that he was an altar boy. That is why although kerry received the lowest possible marks from the NRA, he went goose-hunting a week before the election. That is why kerry claims to be a red sox fan while saying his favorite current player is Manny Ortez (cross between Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz) and his favorite player all-time is Ed Yost (never played for the Red Sox).

But when all was said and done, they could not avoid running a liberal billionaire senator from Massachusetts. They are so out of touch with mainstream America that they have ceased to be a true national party. What’s more, the next government will pick apart their very foundations as to make the current democratic platform unwinnable in future national elections.

The liberal spin that Bush won based on his personality and the genius of Karl Rove indicates their complete misunderstanding of 21st century America. If anything, Rove blundered by avoiding the cultural issues that proved to be decisive. By downplaying the cultural issues, Bush did not maximize his natural advantage on the most decisive issues of the day.

The democratic party is in absolute disarray. Resistance to the Conservative revolution is futile if they ever hope to compete nationally. From Goldwater to Reagan to Newt to Dubya, conservativism has emerged as the dominant ideology in America. The fissures in their platform runs deeper than personality. They are the party of tactics, instead of strategy. They are the party of reaction, not reform. They are the party of style over substance. They failed to understand that you can’t just say you’re an altar boy, go hunting and wear a red sox hat, you have share the values of average Americans if you want to lead them.

You know, the more I think of it the more I think that Clinton did more damage to their party than he did good. In an economic boom with no perceived national security threat, with the most skilled politician in our lifetime, the dems only managed 49% of the vote. In order to be successful, Clinton had to give in to conservative ideas such as welfare reform and balanced budgets. This continued the systematic destruction of the liberal establishment. Further, the democratic acceptance of Clinton’s morality (or lack thereof), only reinforced their adherence to moral relatavism, and further clouded their ability to define right from wrong. Clinton’s famous ability to parse words and make legal instead of moral arguments (depends on what the definition of what the word “is” is), further skewed an increasingly savvy populace’s trust of them to do what was right.

What a dramatic sea change over the course of the last 40 years. While America has shifted to the right, Europe has skirted to the left, and our economic, technological and military advantage over them has grown.
The day the democratic party ceased being the party of the working man, and instead became the party of special interests and minorities, is the day the Conservative Revolution was born. I leave you with this picture, which is the electoral map of the 1948 election between Truman and Dewey. The Red states are DEMOCRATIC states, the blues are republican , and the greens were Strom Thurmond’s state’s rights party. There has been a nearly complete reversal. We are the party of the working man. They are the party of elitism.

Today's Pic

Kerry - who is "just one of the guys" - tossed a football around in Green Bay, Wisconsin today. You'd think calling Lambeau field "Lambert" field was enough....

NY Times-Gate (a.k.a. Jayson Blair, the sequel)

Here we go backlash, here we go.....here we go backlash, here we go.....

Good morning gents. Today is a good day. As you may know, yesterday produced that latest liberal hyperventilation about an (supposed) American military setback. The IAEA (The "nuclear watchdog" U.N. organization headed by an Arab), the NY Times and the Democratic Party joined hands and declared that 380 tons of munitions had been looted from a site the US was supposed to secure. Here is some of the reaction:

Senator John Kerry seized on the missing cache as "one of the great blunders of Iraq" and said President Bush's "incredible incompetence" had put American troops at risk.

"It's an outrageous mistake, and one I'm afraid we will pay for for a long period of time," Dr. Madeline Albright said on CNN.

**ABCNEWS Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 4 Times
**CBSNEWS Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 7 Times
**MSNBC Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 37 Times
**CNN Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 50 Times

BUT WAIT!! It couldn't be, could it, that this entire story was a fabrication? That these weapons were looted before we even arrived? That the IAEA knew about this for 18 months but instead chose to release it 8 days before the presidential election? Nahh....it's the New York Times.

Here's the real story:

NBC News reported that on April 10, 2003, its crew was embedded with the
U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division when troops arrived at the Al Qaqaa storage
facility south of Baghdad. While the troops found large stockpiles of
conventional explosives, they did not find HMX or RDX, the types of powerful
explosives that reportedly went missing, according to NBC.

Once again, this administration outsmarted the libs. This is exactly why we embedded journalists with the troops mother fuckers!!

Besides the fact that yet another story the kerry camp pounced on was a complete fabrication (and yet another msm source has been completely tarnished), what exactly was this forgery - er story - supposed to prove? That saddam did indeed have very bad weapons? That it's possible that large caches of weapons that we knew about before the war can disappear? That Saddam did indeed store weapons that are used to detonate nuclear weapons? Seriously - I want to know the calculus. I mean, what was kerry expecting from his use of this latest forgery? To bring the iraqi war (which bush leads on in every poll) to the forefront?

I mean, I know this latest exuberation from a (supposed) american military setback indicates that the libs are indeed waiting to pounce on bad news. But of course, they nonetheless "support the troops", right? Just like abu ghraib indicated "widespread" abuse and criminal "policies." The libs thought it wasn't possible that those were isolated incidents, just like they think it's not possible that these weapons disappeared before we had a chance to secure them (like the other 240,000 tons we've either destroyed or secured thus far - 1000 times the amount in question).

I love how people that "support the troops" never seem give them the benefit of the doubt (when the president has an (R) next to his name anyway). What should we expect from a guy who started his political career by testifying that american soldiers in vietnam systematically cut off ears, raped, pillaged the country side in a manner reminiscent of Genghas Khan? but he supports the troops? Is there any question why the military supports Bush by more than a 3 to 1 margin?

"Hey - all you baby killers and incompetents, follow me in this great distraction that is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time? Trust me - I support you - you raping, murdering criminals. Follow me and you won't make any more catastrophic mistakes. "

Oh well, come Nov. 3rd, there'll still be some claims of voter intimidation or such that the libs can trot out to undermine public confidence in our system of democracy. Maybe that'll work when the electorate rejects this nonsense .... I mean, when bush 'steals' the election.
Btw, if there really is an october surprise, do you think anyone will still buy it?

8 Days Until the Official Extinction of the Liberal Movement

Well folks, I still don't have internet access at home - long, pathetic story. So I apologize for the light blogging. Okay...where were we?

Oh yeah - after Taft organized the Conservative movement and become one of the most effective Senate majority leaders in history, Goldwater - through defeat - continued the conservative tradition by appealing to a new generation of conservative thinkers though grassroots efforts. Among those who Goldwater inspired was one Ronald Reagan, who, through conservative and libertarian policies, rescued our country from Jimmy Carter and the Soviet Union, set us on a course for nearly inconceivable economic expansion that lasts to this day, and basically saved all of humanity as we know it.

Reagan was the nemesis of the post-Vietnam democrat. Reagan started his career as a Democrat, and campaigned heavily for the likes of Truman and even Stevenson. But, as he described, he didn't leave the party, the party left him.

Reagan stepped into the oval office and drastically changed our foreign policy. Instead of detente and containment, he brazenly declared that we would beat the "evil empire." Of course, the sent the left into hysterics. What a stubborn, ignorant, stupid, uncultured cowboy. How could he say that they were the "evil empire"? We are losing respect around the world for christ's sake! The French are not letting us use their airspace to go to Libya. Most Europeans are protesting our movement of Pershing missiles. We are now less safe than we were before because we are in fact escalating the tensions! We should just learn to peacefully coexist with the communists. Who are we to impose democracy on other countries? We need to rejoin the world community and unilaterally disarm. Our Central American policies are arrogant, unilateral and illegal.

A New York city professor once famously said, "I don't know how Reagan won, everybody I know voted for Mondale." Sigh...

After conservative policies won the cold war without firing a shot, the dems now say that "foreign policy was easy during the cold war - we had a common enemy." Sigh...

Anyhoot, after Newt conducted one of the most decisive and important elections in our history, where conservatives threw liberals on the street by running on the contract with america, conservatives were able to accomplish many objectives (inlcuding welfare reform and balancing the budget - both of which Clinton initially objected to, and both of which he now takes credit for). Conservative ideas have resulted in what Clinton referred to as "the end of big government" including Supreme Court decisions that finally put a limit on congressional authority by reducing the scope of the commerce clause.

Now, after the vacation from world history we now know as "the 90's" has come and gone, we face a new enemy. We face a new, totalitarian, dictatorial enemy that seeks our annihilation. We cannot peacefully coexist with those that want to kill us - we can't render them a nuisance. This war is not about one man or even one organization. It is about Islamic terrorism.

Bush is going to win folks. All I know about America tells me he will. Recent polls indicate that momentum is swinging in his direction. The last break of the undecideds will not go to someone that has no coherent position on the war that he will be leading. They will not change horses to one that they don't know. We are at war. Thanfully, the American public understands the stakes much better than the libs or their European brethren.

Recent polls show Bush ahead in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and New Mexico - all Blue states. Also, recent polls indicate that such states as Michigan and even Hawaii (both blues) are not sure bets for Kerry and may still be in play. Also, rumors on the internet say that in the next day or so, Bush will be up in more Blue states - including Connecticut.

For Bush to lose, everything has to break Kerry's way. That is why he is trading at 62 cents and 64 cents in the Iowa markets and Tradesports, respectively.

His average head-to-head lead is just under 4 points nationally. Movement is definitely in his direction - and it will continue to do so in my opinion. This is because the great liberal myth that undecideds break in the challenger's favor is just that, a myth.

In 2000, Gore surged in the final week - dramatically as a matter of fact. Buyoed by Bush's flawed strategy of playing the nice guy and the DUI "October surprise" (which played a significant role in the terrible christian turnout), Gore - the "incumbant" if there was one - surged 6-8 points in the last week. In 1996, Clinton surged in the final weeks in an economy that was worse than this one. In 1992, Bush Sr. surged in the final weeks dramatically by labeling Clinton a liberal - only it was too little to late. In 1988, Dukakis was in the game until the final weeks, where Bush's attacks on Dukakis being liberal were successful. In 1984, same thing. Indeed, the only time when the undecideds broke significantly for the challenger was in 1980 - when people realized that Reagan was up to the task, and was sick of the Carter debacle.

So, we know that Bush is up by about 4 point nationally. We also know that if he just holds on to the Red states, he will win 278 EV's. We also know that because there are so few undecideds, that even if most of them break for the wavering challenger in the middle of a war, Bush will still win the popular vote.

Thus, Kerry needs everything to go his way next Tuesdsay. He needs to take Ohio for starters. Speaking of Ohio, the real clear politics average still shows Bush ahead there. And this is of course after Kerry has practically lived there, while Bush just this weekend broke his streak of 20 straight days without an Ohio visit. He's been picking away at the Blue states while Kerry has, at best, gotten into a statistical tie with the Prez in Ohio. The Bush machine will now hit Ohio hard this last week - capped off by heavy stumping by the most popular politician - the Governator - during the final weekend. Oh and by the way, even if our much bally-hooed get out the vote campaign still falls short of the dems, it will nonetheless greatly outperform the 2000 effort - where Bush won Ohio. Additionally, the gay marriage amendment is on the Ohio ballot - which is good news for Dubya. We own Ohio folks.

Even if Bush loses Ohio and New Hampshire (24 Ev's combined), the Prez can still win (Kerry of course has to - has to - win Ohio). With these losses, Bush would stand at 254 EVs. All he needs to do is pick up 15 more. He is currently winning Wisonsin (10), Iowa (7), Minnesota (10) and New Mexico (5) (all Blue states). He also has a real shot at picking up one of Maine's EV's. Indeed, the recent Hawaii polls indicate that its 4 EV's are up for grabs.

Another must-win Kerry state, that everybody thought would be locked up, is Michigan. Read this article for a good analyis of why Bush can win there. VLWC mocks the emphasis Bush made on Kerry's neglection of Poland. Silly VLWC. There are many Polish-Catholics in Michigan. Indeed, these Polish-Catholics are where the term "Reagan democrat" originated. They are socially conservative, and have rejected Massachussets liberals in the past. They don't take kindly to the arrogant dismissal of Poland's importance. Also, they are regular Americans. They are regular Americans that love their Wolverines, and don't take kindly to Kerry singing the Buckeyes' praises on their turf. That is why the Detroit News poll and the Mason Dixon poll show that Bush has a chance to steal this state.

Additionally, the next couple of days will reveal more erosions of Kerry's support in blue states. Further, Bush's job approval rating is now over 50% - a good sign for an incumbant, especially during a time of war.

The way I see it is this - Bush is going to win the popular vote by around 4 pts. It is very unlikely that he can win by this margin and still lose the electoral college. There are going to be some surprises in states that everybody thought Kerry would win.

Kerry now must win Ohio and New Hampshire, and he must hold at least two of Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico and Minnesota. Additionally, he has to protect Michigan and Hawaii, and any other Blue state that I think will become a "toss-up" in the next few days.

If Bush wins Florida (Nader on ballot) and Ohio - we can all go to sleep early on the 2nd. Even if he only wins one of the two, he can still win.

I think the electorate is thoroughly exhausted from this election. That's why I don't think there will be much movement the rest of the way. It's going to come down to voter turnout - which will certainly be better for the reps than it was in 2000. Bush has the structural advantage - both electorally, and popularly.

UPDATE: The Moderate has informed me that the story about the NYC professor saying that she didn't know anybody that voted for Mondale was incorrect. The real story is that an NYC writer in 1972 said that she didn't know anybody that voted for McGovern.

Go Cards!

Go Cards!

The Shiznit

Well folks, the democrats have officially slid into a state of pure insanity. Recent events include: giving somebody crack to "register" voters (such as Mary Poppins); telling seniors that Bushhas a "secret plan" to take away their checks; telling young people that Bush has a "secret plan" to re-institute the draft (notwithstanding that this measure - which would require congressional approval of course - was introduced by the democrats earlier this month and was voted down 401-2 or something); telling mothers that being a mom is not a "real job" (not to mention being a teacher or a librarian); telling americans that the war on terror isn't really a war, but that they'd win it anyway; out of the blue pointing out than an opponents daughter is gay (thus was the first leg of their one-two punch bashing children and spouses of opponents); telling people in Nevada that Kerry would keep nuclear waste from being stored in Nevada (although he has cast several votes making it easier to store waste there); officially boiling down their case for the presidency to one word - Haliburton (notwitstanding the fact that even the New York Times admitted the day after the vice presidential debate, "[T]here is no evidence Mr. Cheney has pulled strings on Halliburton's behalf" and "The independent General Accountability Office concluded that Halliburton was the only company that could have provided the services the Army needed at the outset of the war."); and calling the commander in chief "brain dead" (Joe Biden).

I guess it makes sense because it is becoming more and more obvious that they are losing. There is no question that Bush is leading now.

The Mason-Dixon state polls for the last two days (yesterday they released Red Battleground States, today they released blue battleground states) are good news for the Prez. The Mason-Dixon polls were by far the most accurate polls in 2002 - getting 23 of 24 winners right and being off by an average of 1.8% (as opposed to Zogby's abysmal results). Here they are:

Red States:
OH: Bush +1
NH: Bush +3
WV: Bush +5
NV: Bush +10
CO: Bush +6
MO: Bush + 5
NC: Bush +8

Blue States:
PA: K46-B45
OR: K46-B45
WI: K45-B45
IA: B49-K43
NM: B49-K44
MI: K47-B46
MN: B47-K45

Also, I am a premium member to Rasmussen's polling service, which gives daily tracking numbers for selected battleground states. Bush is up 2 in Florida, up 3 in Ohio, and tied in Minnesota. Other state polls today include Quinnipiac's florida poll - Bush up 1 - and the Detroit News Michigan poll which - get this - shows a 4 pt Bush lead. Also, the most recent polls in Wisconsin and Iowa (both blues) show Bush ahead and trending upward.

Great piece today by Michael Barone - THE political guru today - that breaks down the state of the nat'l polls. He estimates that if the election were held today, Bush would win 51-47. He explains this by showing what he believes to be the ceiling for the two parties (53-54% for reps and 51-52% for the dems) and the polls when taken as a whole.

Another great piece by Coulter today. She's my personal favorite of course.

Among his other pointless carping about the war in Iraq, Kerry keeps
claiming the military is overextended. His supporters claim Bush has a secret
plan to bring back the draft. Whatever happened to all those gays who wanted to
join the military? We haven't heard a peep out of them lately. How about
rounding up a "Coalition of the Fabulous," Sen. Kerry? And what does his good
pal Mary Cheney tell him about that?

With the election a few weeks away, the two main reasons Kerry has
settled on for why you should vote for him are: (1) Dick Cheney has a lesbian
daughter, and (2) Halliburton!

.......

Most amazingly, the Democrats have the chutzpah to complain that Bush
claimed he was a "uniter" and yet(!), "have you ever seen America more divided?"
– as the Democrats' Demosthenes Edwards put it.

This from a candidate (I almost said a "man") whose campaign falsely
accused the president of stealing an election, barring a million black voters
from the polls, and sending a thousand American soldiers to their deaths just
for oil.

Coincidentally, the very day of the vice presidential debate, a gun was
fired into a Bush-Cheney campaign office in Bearden, Tenn. – one of a series of
violent attacks on Republican offices around the country. (You can tell it was
Democrats firing those guns because none of the shots ever hit anything.)

Also that day, a group of liberal loonies stormed a Bush-Cheney office
in Orlando, Fla., and ransacked the place. A few weeks earlier, a 62-year-old
woman in Manhattan was beaten with a cane by an 86-year-old woman for carrying a Bush-Cheney sign.

On the basis of their own insane, violent behavior toward Republicans,
Democrats demand to be put in the White House – so the violence will stop. At
this rate, it's only a matter of time before the Kerry campaign announces that
anti-Bush insurgents control most of the Bush-Cheney 2004 headquarters, and that
the sooner the U.S. pulls out of those quagmires the better.

If only we could get Democrats to show a little of that manly anger toward the terrorists, maybe Americans would be able to trust them with national security.

She rules. Btw, has anyone else noted the recent increase in usage of the term "chutzpah"? I guess it's one of those words without a good english translation. Pretty cool.

Finally, a must read piece (subscription required) by the 2004 Nobel Prize winner in economics. In what seems to me to be perfectly obvious, he concludes that labor supply is not fixed, and indeed it is inversely related to the marginal tax rates. His paper is available here and should be required reading for every Kerry supporter. To wit:

Let's begin by considering a commonly held view which says that labor
supply is not affected by tax rates. This idea holds that labor participation
would remain steady when tax rates are either raised or lowered. If you are a
policy maker and you subscribe to this, then you can confidently increase
marginal tax rates as high as you like to attain the revenues you desire. Not
only that, but you can move those tax rates up and down whenever you like and
blithely assume that this will have no effect on output.

But economic theory and data have come together to prove this notion
wrong, and we have many different laboratories -- or countries -- in which we
can view live experiments. The most useful comparison is between the U.S. and
the countries of Europe, because these economies share traits; but the data also
hold when we consider other countries (more on those later).
This issue is
encapsulated in one question that is currently puzzling policy makers: Why do
Americans work so much more than Europeans? The answer is important because it
suggests policy proposals that will improve European standards of living (which
should give a boost to its gross national happiness, by the way). However, an
incorrect answer to that question will result in policies that will only
exacerbate Europe's problems and could have implications for other countries
that are looking for best practices.

Here's a startling fact: Based on labor market statistics from the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Americans aged 15-64, on
a per-person basis, work 50% more than the French. Comparisons between Americans
and Germans or Italians are similar. What's going on here? What can possibly
account for these large differences in labor supply? It turns out that the
answer is not related to cultural differences or institutional factors like
unemployment benefits, but that marginal tax rates explain virtually all of this
difference. I admit that when I first conducted this analysis I was surprised by
this finding, because I fully expected that institutional constraints are
playing a bigger role. But this is not the case. (Citations and more complete
data can be found in my paper, at http://www.minneapolisfed.org/.)

Let's take another look at the data. According to the OECD, from
1970-74 France's labor supply exceeded that of the U.S. Also, a review of other
industrialized countries shows that their labor supplies either exceeded or were
comparable to the U.S. during this period. Jump ahead two decades and you will
find that France's labor supply dropped significantly (as did others), and that
some countries improved and stayed in line with the U.S. Controlling for other
factors, what stands out in these cross-country comparisons is that when
European countries and U.S. tax rates are comparable, labor supplies are
comparable.

And this insight doesn't just apply to Western industrialized
economies. A review of Japanese and Chilean data reveals the same result. This
is an important point because some critics of this analysis have suggested that
cultural differences explain the difference between European and American labor
supplies. The French, for example, prefer leisure more than do Americans or, on
the other side of the coin, that Americans like to work more. This is
silliness.

.....

This analysis has important implications for policy -- and not just for
Europeans, but for the U.S. as well. For example, much has been made during this
election season about whether the current administration's tax cuts were good or
bad for the economy, but that is more a political question than a policy
consideration and it misses the point. The real issue is about whether it is
better to tweak the economy with short-lived stimulus plans or to establish an
efficient tax system with low tax rates that do not change with the political
climate.

What does this mean for U.S. tax policy? It means that we should stop
focusing our attention on the recent tax cuts and, instead, start thinking about
tax rates. And that means that we should roll back the 1993 tax rate increases
and re-establish those from the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Just as they did in the
late 1980s, and just as they would in Europe, these lower rates would increase
the labor supply, output would grow and tax revenues would increase.

I just cannot get over how stupid liberals are. I cannot. If they had their way, we'd be just like Europe - a once great civilization that became impotent in its slide into moral relativity and multilateralmania.

Did I mention that Mary Cheney was gay?

Note: The title of this post has nothing to do with its content but I felt like it was appropriate given the circumstances.

Anyhoot, the election is beginning to become clearer by the day. The Kerry camp (and the main stream media - oh forget it - what's the difference?) is spinning the latest polls to say that the race is "tied." (For example, check out Newsweek's spin of its latest poll that puts Bush up by 6. The headline is "Too Close to Call" and the link to the story is ""Locked in a draw." They go immediately into the registered voters stats, as opposed to likely voters, and then take nader out of the equation to come up with a tie. In any event, this poll is of no value whatsoever. They have Bush up by 6 among women and Kerry up by 3 among men. Who did they poll, an ivy league school?) When they are trying to say its tied, you know that they know that they're losing. Meanwhile, Dubya is in New Jersey ALL DAY today. This means that they really think that NJ is in play. Wow, what a coup that would be!

I encourage all of you to sign up for the 72-hour project. This is Karl Rove's successful get out the vote campaign. I signed up to help, but being in NY, it worthless unless they give me numbers to call in Pennsylvania for instance. FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT LIVE IN BATTLEGROUND STATES, (ahem..The Newt, Don Juan, SQ, MC - at least tangentially), I strongly encourage you to help out if at all possible. You can sign up for as little as a day - any little help may be the difference. Also, I signed up to be a legal volunteer, and I recommend that my fellow attorneys do the same.

Okay, back to the race. The daily tracking polls are, expectedly, a bit down this morning with Bush up 4 head to head in TIPP, 3 with Nader, but tied in Rasmussen and Zogby. Rasmussen and Zogby are to be expected because they are 3-day tracking polls, so today's poll includes Friday-Sunday, three days when (especially during football season), republicans are undersampled. This is especially evident from Friday's numbers, which resulted in a 1.4 pt swing in Rasmussen. If the pattern continues, expect these polls to swing back into Bush's favor, with a 3-4 pt lead likely in the next couple of days.

The polls as a whole indicate a 3.4 pt Bush head-to-head lead, and a 3.8 pt lead with Nader. Also, the most recent polls indicate Bush gains among independent voters, as well as women voters (notwithstanding the obviously flawed Newsweek poll).

After months of pounding Kerry as a flip-flopper and too indecisive to be the commander in chief, the Bush campaign has moved in for the kill with their ace - portraying Kerry as too liberal. I have been wondering why Kerry's record has not gotten more attention - yes, the flip-flopper charge was very effective but voters will forgive a certain amount of change in one's positions. After all, things change, facts change, the analysis changes. But the most telling evidence of how someone would govern as president is their own record. And Kerry's record is astonishing.

To wit:
"I'm a liberal and proud of it."
Sen. John Kerry to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, 1991

"Labels don't mean anything."
Sen. John Kerry in the second debate with President Bush, 2004

We all know that the nonpartisan "National Journal" ranked Kerry as the most liberal senator in 2003. But was this an abberation? Hardly. Read this article by Robert Caldwell:

Americans for Democratic Action has been rating every member of Congress on
liberalism's key quotients since the 1940s. Its lifetime rating for the
fervently liberal Ted Kennedy is 90 percent. Kerry's lifetime ADA rating is 92
percent.

The ADA's ideological opposite is the American Conservative Union.
The ACU rates the votes of members of Congress on their fealty to such
politically conservative principles as restraining government, resisting higher
taxes and maintaining a strong national defense. Kerry's lifetime ACU rating: 5
percent.

Congressional Quarterly, the encyclopedic and non-partisan
chronicler of what Congress does and how its members vote, found that Kerry
voted 100 percent of the time with Ted Kennedy on major legislation in 1985,
1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1992, 1993, 1998 and 1999.

On taxes and spending, Kerry has a lifetime rating of only 18.7 percent from the National Taxpayers Union. Kerry's average rating from Americans for Tax Reform from 1999-2003 is 12.5 percent. Citizens Against Government Waste gave Kerry a paltry 5 percent rating in 2001 and a 1990-2001 average of just 26 percent.

On abortion, Kerry earned a 100 percent rating from the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League for every year from 1995 through 2002. This tally includes six votes against legislation banning partial-birth abortions, a gruesome procedure denounced by the Vatican as "an incredibly brutal act of aggression
against innocent human life." NARAL's opposite, the National Right to Life
Committee, gives Kerry a rating of 0.

The AFL-CIO puts Kerry's big labor voting record at 100 percent for five of the last 19 years and an average of 89 percent from 1985 through 2001.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, defender of the nation's free enterprise, free market economy, records Kerry's lifetime record of support as a weak 35 percent.
Kerry poses today as a hunter, gun owner and defender of the Second Amendment's constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. The National Rifle Association, with its 4 million members, isn't fooled. The NRA gives Kerry a failing F on gun-rights legislation and last week endorsed Bush for president.

Now, you can't get much more out of the mainstream than that. (Btw, can you believe that this guy is running on the fact that the "rich" don't pay their "fair share" when Teresa Heinz (that's her legal name - she added the "Kerry" merely for the campaign) had an effective federal tax rate of 12.4%?!!! This is beyond hypocritical. This is downright evil. While they can afford armies of tax lawyers and accountants to find every nook and cranny in the tax code, "rich" people like us will fork over even more of our hard earned money (not that Teresa or John know anything about earning). In any event, this is further proof that the tax code needs simplification, which Bush supports.)

Now, are we really going to, in the middle of a war, with 5.4% unemployment, with 4+% gdp growth, with record home ownership, elect a liberal from Massachussets? It defies logic. Are we really going to vote for a famous war protestor? Are we really going to give the incumbant the boot, when his ratings on his handling of the war on terror are through the roof? In the first election since 9/11? To a guy who has no major accomplishments, who calls terrorism a "nuisance", who insists that any preemptive action pass a global test (notwithstanding the FACT that saddam BRIBED members of the U.N.), and who is a documented Liberal?

It just doesn't make any sense. Bush is going to win this election folks. I cannot see the American public sounding retreat in the face of the terrorist attacks. Speaking of that, check out Putin's latest remarks:

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin says terrorist
attacks in Iraq are aimed at preventing the re-election of U.S. President George
W. Bush and that a Bush defeat "could lead to the spread of terrorism to other
parts of the world."
...

"Any unbiased observer understands that attacks of international terrorist
organizations in Iraq, especially nowadays, are targeted not only and not so
much against the international coalition as against President Bush," Putin
said.

"International terrorists have set as their goal inflicting the maximum
damage to Bush, to prevent his election to a second term.

"If they succeed in doing that, they will celebrate a victory over
America and over the entire anti-terror coalition," Putin said.

This really is a monumental election. I just don't think the American public has gotten that squeamish so quickly after 9/11. If it has, and Kerry is elected, that would send a message to the terrorists that the beheadings and car bombs work. That we are too soft as a country to seek their elimination. That we will pass on our obligation as the world's only superpower to ensure global security, and that we consider ourselves to merely be another country. It would send a message that the U.N., which can be bribed, which puts countries like Syria, Iran, Cuba and the Sudan in human-rights positions, and which is dominated by third-world non-democratic countries, is the final arbiter of world affairs.

I don't think the American public will be an accomplice. I don't think the American public wants to see Hillarycare and wants their taxes raised. I don't think the American public wants a global test.

Bush will pound Kerry in 15 days.

Stick a Fork in 'Em!!

Well folks, let me be the first to announce that - Mr. Kerry is done. I know you're thinking it ain't over but it is. Now wait a minute - hear me out. As an initial matter, it would be wise to briefly recap the overall state of the race. Bush entered the debate season with a sizable, outside the margin of error, lead. There was the possibility of a knockout in the first debate, with Bush having the potential to run away with an easy win. Now, after the debates, which were seen by gazillions of people, the things we remember are a) Kerry outing Cheney's daughter in despicable and much criticized way - this coming from a guy who still hasn't solidified the women vote, a necessity for any dem, and who has a major likeability problem (not to mention the obvious problem of not understanding ordinary Americans, who are pretty tolerant but still don't want to extend the institution of marriage to gays - Kerry thinks that they are just plain bigots, and if they know that Cheney has a gay daughter they just won't vote because both parties are the same); b) Kerry's "global test"; and c) Bush being hunched over and smirking a few weeks ago.

Now, early signs are indicating not just a halt to Kerry's momentum, but in fact a reversal of momentum (in my opinion, Bush bottomed out and was still ahead, and now the race will settle back into its normal state of the universe - a 3-7 pt Bush lead).

So, how could things possibly be substantially different than they were before the debates (with a 5-8 pt lead for Dubya)? They can't, and they're not.

Bush's stock in the Iowa markets and Tradesports has been on the rise all day, with Bush back in the 60 cent range. Why? Because three weeks before the election, the challenger should not have to convince the public that he wouldn't allow a foreign veto over our national security (which Kerry did more than once during the last debate) during a time of war, he shouldn't have to play defense for committing the lowest political trick I've ever seen at this level, and his veep shouldn't have to stump in New Jersey! (Kerry's recent schedule was as follows: Nevada, Arizona (for the debate), New Mexico, Missouri (for the debate), Iowa, New Hampshire, and Iowa again. Edwards recent schedule was: Oregon, Iowa, California (for the "Tonight Show") and New Jersey. -- The only red states are Nevada and New Hampshire, neither of which is enough to put Kerry over the top.)

Let's look at todays polls gents:
Nationwide polls:
1) Bush is up 4 in Zogby, his biggest lead all year in this poll from a pollster that has taken a clearly partisan (Kerry) stance ("This race is Kerry's to lose" in August).
2)Bush is up 3.5 in Rasmussen, which was 1.4 two days ago.
3) Bush is 4 head-to-head in TIPP, 3 with Nader.
4) Race is Tied in Wash Post, but this includes Tuesday's results, which resulted in a 4-pt overnight swing in Kerry's direction - in tomorrow's poll, these results won't be counted - so expect at least a 2-4 pt Bush lead tomorrow.
State polls:
1) Bush is TIED in New Jersey!!
2) Bush is up 2 in Ohio (yesterday's poll), reversing a trend of a few straight polls giving Kerry a 1 pt lead. Don't forget the gay marriage amendment is on the Ohio ballot.
3) Bush is up by 3 and 4 in the latest Florida polls, the one where he's up by 3 was mostly taken before Kerry's outrageous comment, in the other one, 1/3 was taken before the debate/comment.
4) BUSH IS UP 5(!) IN OREGON!! (Blue state with 7 EV's)
5) Bush is only down 2 in Minnesota (blue state with 10 EV's) and gaining.

Now, just from the evidence presented, along with the fact that there will now be 17 more straight days of stumping, where Bush has been beating Kerry all year (i.e., no more "chances" for Kerry), one would have to be very pleased. But the best part is still to come! Unfortunately, I have to leave now but my next post will explain the following information (which I'm cutting and pasting from an email I sent earlier to VLWC):

Bush's base is stronger than kerry's - i have yet to see a poll where the percentage of republicans that are "definitely" voting for Bush does not exceed, outside the margin of error, the percentage of democrates that are "definitely" voting for kerry. further, i point you to the polls in 2002, which were weighted using the 2000 numbers - as are the current polls. 9/11 and the war on terror, which has tilted the country to the right, plus karl rove's extensive republican voter turnout campaign (which had been traditionally dwarfed by the dems) that has been going on for 4 yrs explains why everybody was "shocked" with the republican mid-term vicories. here are the results of the most nationally observed senate races of 2002:

Minnesota
In Minnesota, Zogby had Walter Mondale over Coleman by 6 points. The Minneapolis Star had Coleman down 5 in its last poll.
Final: Coleman 50, Mondale 47. Coleman by 3.

Colorado
In Colorado, Zogby had Strickland over Allard by 5 points, but at the end of October he had Strickland by 9. The Rocky Mountain News had Strickland by 4. The Denver Post had Strickland by 1.
Final Allard 51, Strickland 46. Allard by 5.

New Hampshire
In New Hampshire, the Concord Monitor had Democrat Shaheen over Republican Sununu by one, FPC/WNDS-TV had Shaheen by 5, University of New Hampshire had Shaheen by 4, then had Sununu by 1.
Final: Sununu 51, Shaheen 47. Sununu by 4.

Texas
In the Texas Senate race (not that Texas is a swing state) Zogby's final poll had Republican Cornyn over Democrat Kirk by 4 points, and a day earlier had Cornyn up one. The Dallas Morning News had Cornyn up 9, Survey USA had Cornyn up 8.
Final result: Cornyn 55, Kirk 43. Cornyn by 12.

Georgia
In the Georgia Senate race the final four polls were Zogby showing Democrat Cleland up by 2, Zogby showing a tie, Atlanta Journal-Constitution showing Cleland up 3, and Mason-Dixon showing Cleland up 6.
Final result: Not even close. Republican Chambliss 53, Democrat Cleland 46, Chambliss by 7.

North Carolina
In the North Carolina Senate race the final five polls were Zogby showing Republican Dole up by 10; Zogby showing Dole up 6, Carolina Poll showing Dole up 7, Survey USA showing Dole up 4, and Mason-Dixon showing Dole up 6.
Final result: Dole 54, Bowles 45. Dole by 9. Only Zogby's last-second "correction" poll was close.

Iowa
In Iowa, the Des Moines Register had Democrat Harkin with a moderate 9-point lead, but SurveyUSA had Harkin beating Republican Ganske by an overwhelming 22 points.
Final result: Harkin 54, Ganske 44. Harkin by 10.

There are few exceptions to this rule. In Missouri, the late polls had Talent up by 8, and up by 4. He won 50 percent to 49 percent.

Bush's Position Going Into Tonight's Final Debate

Alright folks, we're headed into the home stretch. Tonight's debate has become more important than originally thought. The President is retaining a slight lead in the most recent national polls, and still has the structural advantage in the electoral college. If Bush retains all the states that he won in 2000, he will, due to the electoral adjustments of 2002, win 278 votes (a net gain of 8). The biggest two question marks throughout the campaign have been Florida and Ohio, but the evidence has begun to mount that he has, in fact, solidified Florida. Also, it appears that Bush has a comfortable lead in Wisconsin, a Blue state with 10 electoral votes.

Although Bush built a formidable lead in Ohio before the first debate, recent polls show a statistical dead heat. I feel confident that he will win Ohio though, for a couple of reasons. First, there is a referendum on the ballot in Ohio that prohibits gay marriage. This issue plays significantly in Bush's favor, and the referendum will most likely produce a large turnout of conservative voters. If we look at Missouri as an example, there was a large turnout with 71% voting for an amendment prohibiting gay marriage. Second, the Bush campaign is beginning an all-out blitz on Ohio immediately following tonight's debate.

If Kerry does not win Ohio, he cannot win the election. However, even if Bush loses Ohio, he still has a decent chance to win the election. If he swaps Wisconsin for Ohio, his total stands at 268 EV. A 269-269 tie results in a tie-breaking vote in the House, which will result in a Bush win. He will likely pick up this additional vote by taking Maine's second congressional district (Maine's votes are split) - where Bush is slightly ahead, Iowa (7 EV's - race is tied) or New Mexico (5 EV's - race is tied).

If Bush also loses New Hampshire (a red state - 4 EV's - race is tied), he can still win the election. Dropping Ohio and New Hampshire but picking up Wisconsin is a net loss of 14 EV's. This would leave Bush at 264. He can either take New Mexico or Iowa (or even Minnesota or Oregon - but if he wins these states, he probably would've won NM or IA already).

In the worst case scenario, Bush would lose Ohio, lose New Hampshire AND lose 4 of Colorado's EV's if they vote to water down their own votes. With Bush taking Wisconsin, that would mean a net loss of 18 EV's, leaving Bush at 260. If this were the case, he would likely have to take Iowa and New Mexico (which is definitely possible). This is all assuming that Kerry holds onto Pennsylvania, Michigan, Oregon, Minnesota and even New Jersey. A loss of any of these states means Kerry loses the election.

So, as the election nears, the battleground states have shrunk - with Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico probably deciding the race.

PLEASE BEAR WITH ME

Folks, I still don't have internet access at home. It's a long, pitiful story. Let's just say Time Warner Cable (I think Jane Fonda is asserting her influence) bent me over and kept me waiting the last couple of weeks. The problem is still unresolved and to boot, I've been too busy at work to blog. There'll be a lot to discuss the next few weeks, so bear with me and keep blogging!

My pic of the day

Hey everybody, sorry been moving offices and not had time nor computers for almost a week. Short contri today but we needed a pic of the day:



UPDATE: Everybody has GOT to check out the new movie from Jib Jab titled "Good to be in DC". And if you don't know who they are then check out "This Land" but I suspect anyone reading this regularly has seen it and thinks I'm a moron for even saying that (enter Guindiblog with smart ass remark, stage left).

And You Thought I Was Crazy?!

You may still not agree with my assessment of the first Prez debate, but I was not alone in my analysis. Kerry won the battle but will lose the war because of some fundamental weaknesses that were exposed. It will just take a little time for them to be played out. Anyway, here is Hugh Hewitt's column today from the Weekly Standard, in its entirety.

IF A GAFFE falls in a forest, and nobody hears it, is it still a gaffe?

John Kerry's widely praised debate performance a week ago was in fact blunder-filled. Already we have seen the Bush-Cheney team seize of Kerry's call for global testing of American foreign policy, and there were other disastrous peeks at Kerrythink embedded in his silky delivery, about which more will follow.

Kerry came out against modernizing America's nuclear arsenal, for selling nuclear fuel to Iran, for appeasement of North Korea, and with an analogy comparing the Iraq war to invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor. The senator from Massachusetts also answered a Jim Lehrer question as to whether the war in Iraq was a mistake with a resounding "No!" only to later brand the war in Iraq a colossal error. And he overplayed his Tora Bora hand by insisting that the terrorists who "walked away" from Tora Bora were now at work in 60 countries around the globe, displaying an eighth grader's grasp of the shared ideology but operational independence of the Islamist threat that links Bali to Madrid to Beslan to other outrages of the past three years.

John Kerry just doesn't get it. Because he just didn't get it eloquently, however, most though not all of the nation's media swooned. That collective response should be branded "Selective Gaffe Hearing Syndrome." If Kerry had declared himself of Martian descent, but had done so with a fine delivery, would Chris Matthews or Tim Russert have noticed?Not that it matters. What matters is the substance because there is now developed an alternative message delivery system which does not depend on the agreement of the dinosaurs. An ad underlining "global test" appeared on Friday, courtesy of the Bush campaign, and Rush and other talkers were all over it. By Wednesday the groundwork had been laid, and Fox News and other cable shows carried the president's speech in its entirety that fully exploited Kerry's debate performance. Slowly but surely the blogosphere also turned its attention to the Kerry blunders, and Kerry's "momentum" faded and then reversed.

A week ago after the debate the Kerry campaign was experiencing the same sort of relief that swept through the passengers on the Titanic after the iceberg was passed and before they knew of the damage below the waterline.

What remains to be asked is why the "professionals" on the networks missed the "global test" remark that has proven so devastating? Rarely have so many commentators been so wrong about so obvious a pratfall as Kerry's global test, and given that pundits on both sides of the aisle missed it, the answer can't be bias. Of all the talkers I watched, only Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke put a verbal circle around "global test." The rest were rushing to comment on Bush's facial expressions. Fighting the last war, again, I think. Collectively recalling Al Gore's histrionics from 2000, the commentariat focused on demeanor to the exclusion of substance. If the substance is at least okay, that makes sense. But the president could wear a 24/7 smirk if John Kerry continues to insist to the American electorate that American sovereignty is subject to Security Council critiques, and that the mullahs should get what they need to fire up their reactors. It is one thing to mispronounce "moolahs." It is far worse to misunderstand them. The first debate went to Bush because the memorable exchange is one that continues to rightfully dog Kerry. Bush supporters can hope for better delivery from their candidate, but should be praying for more of the same from John Kerry. A suicide note that impresses with its flourishes is poignant, but it's still a suicide note.

Case Dismissed!

The definition of "lightweight," John Edwards, tried to play the smooth-talking lawyer last night, but Dick Cheney was the wiley judge who, upon cursory examination of the brief, dismissed the case with prejudice.

I know the veep debates are supposed to be irrelevant, and maybe they are, but if it's at all possible that any veep debate could be even remotely relevant, then this one certainly was. Even if this debate was irrelevant as to this race (which, as I'll explain below, is probably not true), it is surely relvant with regards to the dem primaries in 2008. Hillary was a big winner after last night, as Edwards was fileted, diced and fried by Cheney, and was shown to be not only inadequately qualified or credible to be the commander-in-chief, but was shown to be inadequate to even fill the role as veep. Hillary has more gravitas, knowledge and let's face it - balls - in her little pinkie than Edwards could ever hope to achieve. He was pathetic last night - absolutely pathetic when you consider that we are at war and are facing off with the enemy of this millennia.

This debate illustrated one of the fatal flaws of the democratic party today. They haven't adjusted their tactics over the last 40+ years. I watched part of the first JFK-Nixon debate the other day and what JFK was saying could've been said today - they're trying to take your social security, we need health care, better education, blah blah blah. The same holds true for their view of the women electorate. Kerry chose Edwards for the women vote, plain and simple. He is good-looking, young-looking, has a southern drawl and a trial lawyer's pursuasion. They STILL think that this is how to get the women's vote. When TV's were new and women were still mostly housewives, Kennedy blew people away with his warmth, good-looks and charm. That's why they picked Edwards. There cannot be any other explanation - he brings absolutely nothing - NOTHING - to the table. He can't even deliver his home state (which they already knew).

The dems don't understand that women are as involved in the issues as are men. Bush is splitting (or maybe even leading) the women vote because he is better at keeping them safe. Women are more risk averse than men are - that's why they normally vote based on domestic policy - education, healthcare, etc... Not because the candidate is hot. But now, when we're at war and we are fighting terrorism on a global scale, their risk aversion benefits the candidate that is better at keeping them safe.

I think that this debate will impact the election to some extent. Here's why: Kerry's biggest hurdle is getting voters to trust him on the war on terror and his role as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Edwards doesn't help him here at all (clearly). But this debate was so lop-sided regarding Iraqi policy and the war on terror, that it reflects poorly on Kerry that he chose Edwards. Nobody votes for the veeps - we know that - but this debate wasn't about the veeps, it was about the judgment of the candidates.

Cheney articulated the Kerry record over and over again, thereby placing his record back into the picture as a campaign issue (where it should have been the whole time). He challenged the "global test" which baffled Edwards. (Quick test: what was Edwards explanation of the global test? I don't know either). He kept picking away at the $87 billion vote, the first gulf war vote, the votes against the major weapons systems...he even mentioned the Sandinistas, a sophisticated jab regarding Kerry's visit with Ortega (the picture of which I posted a while back).

This also will dominate at least one news cycle, next comes Bush's national security speech today, the debate on Friday (expect to see an invigorated Bush performance) and the Afghani elections on Saturday (this is all in the midst of the joint Iraqi/US victory in Samarra, and the successful offensive in Baghdad). All the while, Kerry and Edwards continue to paint a picture of gloom and doom (don't they know that Americans vote for optimists?). Speaking of this, Cheney had a good zinger when he quoted Edwards as being critical of the Afghani operation a couple of years ago, just like he's being critical today.

In sum, this debate sets up the remainder of the week - Bush speech, debate, Afghani election - to be a good one for team Bush, it placed Kerry's record back in the spotlight, and it illustrated that Kerry's first decision since being nominee - choosing Edwards - was a weak one, which showed a lack of regard for the importance of the war on terror.

Latest Poll Follies

Check out tradesports.com - just as I predicted, Bush is now trading at 62 cents (although he's still around 59 cents in the iowa markets).

Also, this is from powerline, regarding the CBS poll (note that all the polls showing major shifts to Kerry were taken entirely over the weekend, when the polling experts KNOW that republicans are undersampled):

The latest New York Times/CBS News poll came out this morning, and, like several others, it shows President Bush and John Kerry locked in a 47% to 47% tie, compared to an eight point lead for President Bush after the Republican convention in September.

The poll's internals are easily accessible--which is
praiseworthy--so it takes only a moment to determine that the October poll
sampled 34% Democrats and 29% Republicans, while the September poll sampled 33% Republicans and 31% Democrats. So it's hardly a surprise that Kerry did better
in the October survey. If the pollsters sampled only Democrats, they could show
that Kerry was sweeping toward an unprecedented victory.

We aren't going to be able to untangle the pros and cons of "correcting" samples between now and November; suffice it to say, however, that 4% of the population didn't abandon the Republican party for the Democrats over the last 30 days.

I also note that the proportion of liberals sampled in today's Times/CBS poll is the highest they have recorded in any Presidential poll since 1995. Maybe Kerry should be worried that the best he could manage was a tie.

It's noteworthy that all of the polls that over-sampled Republicans in September are now over-sampling Democrats in October. Is this a coincidence, or a deliberate effort to manufacture a Kerry "comeback" to generate momentum for the Democrats? One possible explanation, as least as to the Times/CBS poll, is that their September
poll was taken on a Monday through Wednesday, while the poll released today was
entirely done on the weekend, when pollsters know they will tend to find more
Democrats at home. So was the choice of polling dates deliberate, or coincidental?

For what it's worth, those polls that weight samples to
produce a consistent blend of Republicans, Democrats and independents have found
little or no change since the first Presidential debate.

KERRY'S CHEAT SHEET REVEALED!!!

More Trends

More trends in the horserace:

Two new Florida polls came out - Bush is up by 4 and 5, respectively.

Bush is up 4 in the latest Nevada poll - which is unchanged.

Bush is up 5 in the latest New Hampshire poll, which reflects a modest gain.

Also, Kerry pulled his staff from Virginia, which was once considered a swing state, and is sending them to either Minnesota or Wisconsin. This is not the sign of a winning campaign folks. Gore won Wisconsin and Minnesota and Kerry is pulling troops from a potential pickup and using them as a tourniquet in either Wisconsin, where he has been down big ever since his "Lambert field" gaffe, or Minnesota, where he is tied but may still be fighting the Paul Wellstone memorial backlash. You can learn a lot about the race by watching where they spend their money. Their strategies are based on internal polls that they believe to be accurate. So, with all this "wave of momentum," why is Kerry pulling troops from a potential pickup and placing them into states to defend?

Why the Talking Heads are Still Wrong

Alright folks. I know some have you have gotten a little nervous at the latest polls - specifically the Newsweek and Gallup polls. No fear my fellow Guindibloggers - the results tend to show a Kerry bounce of at most, about 1-2 points. This short-term gain by the senator will, I'm confident, be erased soon enough and will pose more hurdles for the senator in the next month. While all the buzz is that the President seemed tired or annoyed, there were no real gaffes by the discplined Republican. On the other hand, Kerry made a few key mistakes that the Bush team will be pouncing on in the coming weeks. Kerry is the one that made the type of gaffes that result in new questions about his candidacy. In no particular order, here are the four things that we'll be hearing a lot about in the next couple of weeks:

1) the "global test" - this is going to become as famous as "flip-flop" and "voted before it before i voted against it." Plain and simple - this is a huge error.
2) getting allies to join in the great distraction that is the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place.
3) giving nuclear fuel to iran (apeasement I).
4) reentering bilateral talks with north korea (appeasement II).

Now, as far as the polls go, the devil is in the details - or in this case, the internals. Let's start with the flash polls that the dems were hyperventilating about after the debate. First, the ABC poll. This poll showed that viewers thought Kerry won the debate by 45-36. However, voter preferences before the debate were 50-46 for Bush, and after the debate wer 51-47 for Bush. So, although people thought Kerry won the debate, it didn't sway any voters. Second, the CBS poll. Again, although Kerry won the debate according to "uncommited" voters, it was actually Bush who gained 12 points as opposed to Kerry's 7 point gain among uncommited voters. Finally, the USA Today poll, which was the most detailed of the three. Kerry won the debate by 53-37, but Bush still maintained an 11-pt edge (down from 14) on who would best handle Iraq, a 10-pt edge on who would best handle the responsibilities of commander-in-chief (down from 13), a 3-pt edge on who agrees with you most on the issues that you care about, was tied in having a good understanding of the issues, was 5-pts more believable, 7-pts more likeable and had 17-pt (!) edge on who is tough enough for the job.

In other words, the average voter was like, "yeah, kerry won. but i'm still voting for bush."

Next, let's take a look at Tradesports.com and the Iowa Markets. Both of these markets had Bush trading at around 65 cents before the debate. Because there was the very real chance that Bush could've put Kerry out of his misery during the debate, one would expect that a tie or even a mild Bush win would result in a slight decrease in Bush's value. In other words, the markets reflected the possibility of a Bush knockout, and thus were probably a bit inflated to begin with. After the debate, Bush's value remained relatively stable until well into Friday morning, when the spin was reaching its peak and the pundits had gone from "yeah, I think Kerry maybe won" from right after to the debate to "Kerry definitely won" 30 minutes after the debate to "Kerry domintated" Friday morning, a classic example of the "pack effect" in the media. Bush's value went down to around 60 cents and settled for a couple of days, which I think reflects a tie or maybe a 1-pt Kerry bounce, to about 59-60 cents now, which illustrates about a 1-2-pt bounce in my estimation. Pay attention to these markets, as my guess is they will be back up over 61-62 cents within the next few days.

Third, the Rasmussen poll. The Rasmussen poll is a 3-day rolling poll whose results are released daily. Its methodical nature is very good in getting a feel for the effect of certain events. In today's poll, the first one that was taken entirely after the debate, Bush maintained the same lead that he had before the debate - 3 pts. This tends to show that there was little, if any, movement due to the debate.

Fourth, the Democracy Corps poll (Carville and Shrum's company) indicates a 2-pt bump for Kerry (Bush still up 2). This is the most detailed poll I've seen.

Next, the Newsweek poll. Remember, this is the poll that showed a 13-pt Bush lead after the convention. Newsweek's volatility can be explained by a few facts. First, Newsweek does not weight the poll for party affiliation. Although party affiliation is not a static demographic, we do know that massive changes in party affiliation over short periods of time are unlikely. In this poll, there were 5% fewer reps polled and 6% more dems polled than the last Newsweek poll. This may be explained by the fact that this poll was taken almost entirely on Friday night and on Saturday in the Pacific and Mountain time zones. Republicans are usually underrepresented in polls taken on Friday nights and Saturdays because Republican men go to high school and college football games at a much greater rate then do dems. Also, these time zones exclude some very red states. Thus, if one weights the poll for party affiliation, this 11% differential explains the difference between the two polls, in and of itself, for all but about 1-pt. Again, this tends to show a Kerry bounce of around a point, if it was weighted like most polls are. This is further evidenced by the fact that this poll gave Bush a 46% approval rating, which is significantly less than the other polls, which further indicates a skewed sample. (Also, Bush's 5-pt lead on the economy turned into a 5-pt deficit although the economy was not mentioned in the last few news cylces). VLWC just showed me the Gallup internals briefly, and it is a similar situation as far as I can tell.

Finally, the polls released today, all taken completely after the debate, suggest that little has changed due to the debate. The ABC/Wash Post poll shows Bush up by 5, last week's was 6. the Pew research poll shows Bush up 5 among likely voters (down from 8), 7 among registered voters (down from 8). The Zogby poll shows no change in the 3-way race (3-pt lead), and a 2-pt bounce for Kerry in the head-to-head (1-pt lead). The CBS poll shows a dead heat, but also shows only a 47% job approval rate (3-6 pts lower than the other polls) and a Bush lead among men of only 3 points (that is Bob Dole territory - usually republicans, as has Bush this year, have double digit leads among men), which indicates a sample similar to the Newsweek and Gallup polls.

To recap, it appears that most polls show about a 1-2 pt bounce, some indicate no change, and others indicate wild changes which upon mere cursory review, are easily discounted and in fact their internals show a 1-2pt bounce. Track the Iowa markets and Tradesports.com. I think Bush has been trading up a little bit over the day as the new polls have come out and the weekend polls have been dissected.

So, there you have it. The talking heads were wrong. There was a slight short-term bounce, that I think will turn into a net loss. Kerry gave Bush at least 4 gifts that he will use over and over and over. Mark my words - Kerry is going to have to explain "global test," leading allies into a great diversion, no nuclear bunker-busters, giving Iran nuclear fuel and appeasing North Korea. (wait, that's 5!)

UPDATE: I totally forgot to mention the LA Times poll. I can't find the link now but this poll was taken for the sole purpose of measuring the impact of the election. Emotional dems have been touting this poll, which shows Kerry up by 1, but this poll was not meant to represent the electorate. It showed Kerry up 1 before the debate and up 1 after the debate, while both candidates picked up 1pt from the undecides. It concluded that the debate had no effect.

Also, I forgot to mention that the Rasmussen poll found that 6% of the voters changed their minds because of the debate, net gain of 3 to Kerry and 2 to Bush, which shows about a 1-pt bounce.

Also, VLWC is talking about "trends." The spin has already worn off with the latest polls today, and tomorrow's bitchslapping by Cheney will help to stop any momentum, even though there really is very little to begin with. Indeed, Bush's expectations are so low for this Friday's debate, that Bush will surely gain from it.

Stay Tuned...

Guindibloggers - sorry for the lack of blogging this weekend. My wife and I moved to our new apartment over the weekend which made blogging impossible. I just wanted you all to know that I will be putting up a new post later today. You will not want to miss this post.

Today's post will analyze the latest poll results as well as the flash polls immediately after the debate. Hopefully by then, the Gallup poll will have released its internals but in any event, I will explain how these polls - even the Newsweek poll (now termed "NewsWeak" by some polling experts because of its highly volatile sample of voters) - tend to show a bounce for Kerry of about 1-2 points. The Dem Corps analysis (Carville's and Shrum's company), the LA Times poll (which was taken solely to show the effect of the debate, and does not claim to accurately reflect the electorate), Rasmussen's daily tracking poll and the markets (tradesports and the iowa markets) all show a bounce of 1-2 points. The Gallup poll has been as volatile as the Newsweek poll, and thus my hunch is its results can be explained by an unweighted voting sample.

The net effect of the debate was for Kerry to stop the bleeding of a campaign with a fatal injury. As the spin begins to wear off and the term "global test" becomes part of the vocabulary, expect the race to settle into its natural state of the universe, which is a Bush lead of about 3-7 points.

Until then, enjoy this pic:

Why the Talking Heads Are Wrong

I don't know about you guys, but I was very pleased with last night. Despite the pundits' consensus that Kerry beat Bush, or as Dick Morris said - Bush won on substance, Kerry won on style - there is no way that last night is going to swing the electorate into his favor. Here's why:

Bush accomplished the most important objectives of the night. A brief recap from the top of my head:
- Kerry had no answer for how he would lead troops and gain an international consensus when he calls the war the "wrong war at the wrong place and the wrong time." He framed the issue perfectly, and I thought it was very effective.
- Kerry indicated that any preemptive action would have to satisfy a "global test." Americans will reject this kind of thinking every time, and Bush seized on it and highlighted the differences between the two.
- Kerry indicated that he would give Iran nuclear fuel and try and sanction them. Again, his dovishness was revealed dramatically and Bush capitalized.
- Kerry indicated that it was absurd to develop bunker-busting nukes. Why? Because of his fundamental mistrust of American power. Tactically, these weapons are necessary. If Iran has nukes buried under a 1/4 mile of concrete, shouldn't we at least have the option? Again, the American public will never choose a candidate that is so unsure of America's fundamental goodness.
- This debate has taken the campaign to a new level. But the new level merely crystallized their differences on foreign policy in a national security election where Bush enjoys a commanding edge.

The pundits are saying that Bush was tired and he slouched or smirked or whatever. Fine. However, the importance of this election is well known and really cannot be overstated. Initial reports indicate that 55 million viewers tuned in last night (like 15% more than 2000). The positions are now more clear and Bush's positions are more accepted. I am very pleased.

Also, the North Korea issue will definitely get some play in the next couple of weeks. Again, Bush's position is the winner. Chinese leverage is absolutely crucial, and once this gets played out, it's another Bush strength.

Look, did Kerry do a good job of making his case? Sure, but he merely shored up the 45% that he was already going to get. Bush will win on his idea of American power and the necessity of the war.

Kerry's Exchange with Diane Sawyer Yesterday

DIANE SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?

JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.

DS: So it was not worth it.

JK: We should not — it depends on the outcome ultimately — and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully, but I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat — there were no weapons of mass destruction — there was no connection of Al Qaeda — to Saddam Hussein! The president misled the American people — plain and simple. Bottom line.

DS: So if it turns out okay, it was worth it?

JK: No.

DS: But right now it wasn’t [ … ? … ]–

JK: It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we’ve done what he’s — I mean look — we have to succeed. But was it worth — as you asked the question — $200 billion and taking the focus off of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? That’s the question. The test of the presidency was whether or not you should have gone to war to get rid of him. I think, had the inspectors continued, had we done other things — there were plenty of ways to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein.

DS: But no way to get rid of him.

JK: Oh, sure there were. Oh, yes there were. Absolutely.

DS: So you’re saying that today, even if Saddam Hussein were in power today it would be a better thing — you would prefer that ...
JK: No, I would not prefer that. And Diane — don’t twist here.

I'm speechless.

Food for Thought

Because dems usually beat reps by large margins in the women's vote, and reps always beat the dems in the male vote, doesn't that necessarily make the democratic party more womanly?

The most recent polls have Bush up by a larger margin in Florida (around 5%) than in Ohio (now less than 3%!). Overall that is good news though as Florida commands 27 EV votes to Ohio's 20. C'mon MC I thought you had Ohio under control! More good news is coming from Pennsylvania, where the two polls released today had Bush up 3 and Kerry up 1. On average though, Kerry probably still retains the slightest of leads (1%). If Bush takes Pennsylvania, it'll be lights out. (Ed. Note: especially to The Moderate, it's stories like this that give me so much faith in Bush taking Pennsylvania. This has been his #1 target for the last four years!) More good news out of Michigan. The latest poll gave Bush a 2 pt lead, although on average Kerry maintains about a half point lead there. Like Pa, if Bush takes Mich, see ya! (Btw, is it a coincidence that as soon as Kerry cheered for the Buckeyes in Michigan his numbers started to drop, and as soon as he called Lambeau field "Lambert field" his lead in Wisconsin turned into an 11 pt deficit?) (Ed. note: MC is a huge OSU fan. VLWC is a big Mich fan. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.) Also, Bush remains tied in Minnesota, which may be the tightest race in the country. Kerry would have a tough time if he can't hold Minnesota. Finally, Bush seems to be solidifying Colorado, and remains within a point and a half in New Jersey!!

Btw, for those of you that don't already do so, I suggest that a daily visit to realclearpolitics.com becomes part of your routines.

One more note, does anybody really, and I mean honestly, think that John Edwards is qualified to be the president?

Several Points

First, let me say i thought the President performed magnificently in his interview with Bill O'Reilly. I also thought that was one of the best interviews I have ever seen O'Reilly give. While keeping to a certain parameters of political rhetoric that are necessary (despite my ideaology wanting just straight answers). Anyway, he was very.......well Bush. That's why I like him, don't necessarily agree with EVERYTHING he does, but I like him. So maybe that is the ultimate test of a candidate, likeability sprinkled with a few tax cuts and toughness!

Second, this is just absolutely ridiculous. Excuses, excuses, excuses.........

And finally two posts from the Talkmaster, Neal Boortz:

ANOTHER WHOPPER FROM THE POODLE

The Poodle has really taken a beating in the polls over his flip-flopping. One of his most often-cited gems is that when it came to funding the war in Iraq, he "actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." This has become and absolute bonanza for the Bush campaign, who has used it to great effect. So what is The Soufflé to do?

Well, he figures it's time to respond. Time to address the issue. It's really too late...people already perceive him as a flip-flopper. So in an interview yesterday on 'Good Morning America,' Kerry was asked about his classic remark. "No, it wasn't classic at all. It just was a very inarticulate way of saying something, and I had one of those inarticulate moments late in the evening when I was dead tired in the primaries and I didn't say something very clearly." We've all had those "inarticulate moments," haven't we? Maybe people really are being too hard on The Poodle.

The only problem with his explanation is that it's not true. Kerry didn't make his stupid remark in the late evening. The lie was exposed almost immediately. As has been pointed out by the Republican National Committee and others, the now-famous remark was made at a noon appearance before a group of veterans at Marshall University. In other words, Kerry lied. Do I sense a pattern here?

When John Kerry is up against the wall, or when he is caught in a lie by the media, he just makes something up to cover his tracks. This is the second time he has done it on ABC, the first being when he said he did actually throw away his medals. This lie was exposed when those medals showed up on a wall in his Senate office. It was then that we learn that Kerry actually threw away someone else's medals.

Or, maybe it was because (as the RNC said) Kerry's watch was on Paris time (six hours ahead.) Why do you think I call him The Poodle?

• He's French
• He has a Poodle haircut
• He's a rich woman's pet
• He operates on France time (also known as Weasel Standard Time)

CBS DOES IT AGAIN

You would think that with all of the heat CBS is getting over their bogus forged-documents story, they would have the sense to not do it again. You would be wrong. Unbelievably, CBS News is once again serving their masters at the Democratic Party in a very obvious way. Here's the latest.

CBS ran a story about the possibility of the draft returning. The only problem? There is zero chance of the draft returning. The only people that have brought it up are Democrats who are trying to invent a mythical issue to bash President Bush with. Anyone who says the draft might return is lying. There will be no return of the draft. The administration, the Pentagon...all have said it clearly: no draft.

So, since they sensed and opportunity to spread a lie in order to defeat the president, CBS and Dan Rather decided to report on "draft fears," and profiled an ignorant woman (no doubt educated at a government school) who said she was worried about the draft.

In their report, CBS reporter Richard Schlesinger used discredited hoax e-mails that are circulating around the Internet. Also, the supposedly concerned mother is actually the head of an interest group called People Against the Draft. It turns out this group has leftist Democratic ties. Surprised? Me neither.

No matter what happens, CBS will never waver from its sole mission: defeat George Bush and elect John Kerry.

Some Thoughts

Nice posts by Garence. Those are good pics. I especially like the pyramids, of course.

As an initial matter, I'm begining to think that having three debates maybe isn't a concession at all. On a previous post, I referenced a graph that demonstrated the inverse relationship between Kerry's share value at Tradesports.com and the major stock indexes. I also observe that Kerry, who criticized Bush for not having enough press conferences and who promised to have monthly press confereces if president despite going 42 days between press conferences during a critical portion of the campaign, is like kryptonite when the American public gets to take a good hard look. Further evidence of this is the fact that the daily tracking polls showed that Kerry actually lost ground when he spoke at the dem convention.

In other words, maybe the Bush team used the third debate as a bargaining chip but really wanted the third debate anyway. Maybe they think that the more people see Kerry, the more they don't like him. I'm interested to read about the strategy after the election.

I should also note that today we received our first comment from a complete visitor! Look at the comments under the post "This is from SQ - the source is unkown." I don't know about ya'll but I think that's pretty cool. If you're out there 10573, kudos to you and keep coming back.

Also, I would love to get some feedback on yall's thoughts about the Bush interview on O'Reilly. Maybe one point that each of you took from it. I thought that the personal part was very moving. It is clear that he is a religious man and that he uses prayer to help him make the best decisions for this country.

This is From SQ - Source is Unknown

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists- good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad...

Ahh, it's so confusing!

Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government.

This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has been since 1991. It's latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice anything special about those dates?

Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim.

Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men. Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame).

Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.