There isn't much gender gap, just a marriage gap; so let's stop punishing those who work and marry!

    In looking at the recent election returns, one thing is certain: Republicans don’t need to worry about the gender gap. They need to worry about the marriage gap.

    We often hear about Soccer Moms and gender gaps, and there is a difference between voting preferences between married men and married women. But the real  gap is between married people and single people. Exit polls from the Nov. 6 election show that Mitt Romney won a majority of both married men and married women, taking 60 and 53 respectively. Single men only gave Romney 40 percent of the vote and only 31 percent of single women voted for Romney.

    Single people just occupy a different space from the Ward and June Cleaver world experienced by most married couples. And women who insist on becoming single mothers find the job is a difficult one. They invariably want lots and lots of government aid and support financed through taxation.

    There was a time when single parenthood was an accident – a mistake where a young mother misjudged a young man – either through an unwed pregnancy or through an ill-advised and brief marriage – and decided to turn lemons into lemonade.

    What used to happen by accident now happens on purpose. Unwed pregnancy is no longer an accident; it’s become a lifestyle choice. Regardless of income level, children raised by single parents have a higher risk of a host of poor life outcomes.

    We’re now to the point that 40 percent of all children born in this country are born out-of-wedlock. Some economists say nearly half of the economic inequality in the United States is due to the negative consequences of single parenthood. It’s not tax policy causing inequality; it’s a failure of women to marry before having kids. And I suspect this inequality grows over time.

    How did we get here? Obviously welfare got us here, but it was the welfare state combined with our reluctance to provide any benefits to families where there was a man about the house. A good look at our various relief programs illustrates that the only way to qualify for help is to make oneself a failure.

    If we want to turn this ship around, we have to stop punishing people for being married and stop punishing people for working. As much as I hate Obamacare, we need to recognize that the reason many women don’t get married is so they can qualify for Medicaid. We need to find a way to provide free medical care and maternity care to all American women who are pregnant or who have young children, regardless of income level, regardless of whether there is a man in the house.

    We need to provide every American child with a free lunch at school. No more paying people to see if the children qualify. Just serve every child a free lunch regardless of income. It wouldn’t cost that much.

    A study was released recently that said the various branches of government spent $60,000 per year per household caring for the 16.8 million American households in poverty. Obviously the bulk of this money goes to overhead. Instead of means testing for welfare, we need to just adopt some modest, across-the-board payroll taxes and then make each and every welfare program universal.

    If one citizen gets a free lunch, everybody gets a free lunch. If one citizen gets a housing subsidy, every citizen gets one for the same amount. If one citizen gets food stamps, every citizen gets food stamps.

    With universality, there is no more incentive to fail. Low-income women can marry without being punished, and if they get a job, they still keep their benefits. So let’s stop rewarding failure and punishing success, and hopefully put an end to the “marriage gap.”

Dixville Notch down to 10 voters this year; Hart's Location is where the action is

    Every four years the residents of Dixville Notch, N.H., gather to cast their ballots at midnight. Since New Hampshire law allows the closing of the polls after every registered voter has voted, they report the results soon afterwards. Most of us have seen the news stories at either midnight or on the early morning shows.
    According to a new story, this year Dixville Notch has 10 registered voters. In 2008 there were 21, according to Wikipedia. In 2008 the community voted 15-6 in favor of Barack Obama over John McCain; however, since there is such a large decline in the number of voters this year, we won't be able to tell much about which way the election is heading from the Dixville Notch vote.
    Even though we've all heard of Dixville Notch, the original early-voting New Hampshire community is Hart's Location, which started the practice in 1948 and discontinued it in 1964 because -- can you believe this -- it was drawing too much media attention! The community resumed midnight voting in 1996. The original reason for the midnight voting had nothing to do with garnering attention; most residents worked for the railroad and wanted to get the vote over with so they wouldn't have to man the polls on election day.
    We live in a different world today and my guess is that the residents of Hart's Location, N.H., love their 15 minutes of fame. And while the Dixville Notch votes might not tell us much this year the Hart's Location votes will. In 2008 Obama defeated McCain 17-10 in Hart's Location with Ron Paul getting two write-in votes.
    It's a mighty small sample, but the Hart's location voters will give us an idea of Romney's chances around the nation. If Romney wins in Hart's location -- or even comes close -- go ahead and ice down a bottle of champagne.

More Republicans are voting early, but Shelby County, Tenn., has fewer early voters this year

    The Shelby County Daily News reports that the early voting period has ended in Shelby County, Tenn., and I think the numbers show the kind of problem that Barack Obama is having all across the nation with an unenthusiastic Democratic base and a Republican base that is chomping at the bit.
    There is no way to know exactly who the Shelby County voters cast their ballots for -- after all it is a secret ballot -- but the overall numbers are down. In 2008, 254,362 Shelby Countians cast their ballots early. This year 232,690 cast early ballots. And these numbers are down despite the fact that there are a lot more Republican early voters this year.
    In 2008, the early voting was overwhelmingly in favor of Obama. And of course in Shelby County it will continue to be. But nationally a majority of early voters have been Romney voters. One has to assume a higher percentage of this year's early Shelby voters were Republican.
    Based on the 2008 figures, about 60 percent of the people in Shelby County who are going to vote have voted. Roughly another 150,000 will show up on election day. But with lower early voter numbers, and higher Republican participation in in early voting, it can only mean there are a lot fewer votes for Obama out there this year.
    Of course, in Tennessee it won't matter; it was going for Romney no matter what. And there is the possibility that Democrats haven't tried as hard to get out the vote. But don't surprised when Romney achieves a blowout in Tennessee on Tuesday. And if Shelby County is representative of of what is going on around the nation, look for Romney to win the election.

A great South Dakota ad, and both candidates like it!

    In one of the more unusual campaigns ads of the year, this South Dakota ad, presented in Mission Impossible fashion, presents Democrat House challenger Matt Varilek as a sort of globe-trotting Eco-villian while incumbent Kristi Noem was busy running the family farm, being named Farmer of the Year and being elected first to the state legislature and then to Congress.
    The race has now become a contest between a globe-trotting, Green-Party-wannabe, corn-dog-eating, beer- and Jägermeister-swilling Democrat who has spent most of his adult life out of South Dakota and a Republican, Palinesque mom who raised her kids while managing the family farm and then found her way into politics as a state legislator and Congressman.
    What's odd about the ad is that it solidifies support for both candidates. Varilek's campaign took the unusual step of forwarding the video link to its entire email list, and supporters have shared it with numerous blogs. The gossip website Gawker called the video “an excellent ad for her Democratic opponent.”
    Republicans seem happy with the ad, which has gone viral. If I knew neither candidate it would certainly make me almost certain to vote for Noem. Most of my liberal friends would see it and likely become die-hard Varilek supporters.
    Great way to save money on ads. Just create ads that both candidates can agree on.

h/t Jackson Jambalaya

Predicting effect of Hurricane Sandy on election like predicting the weather itself

    Hurricane Sandy is the ultimate wildcard in the final week of the election cycle. Will it help Romney or Obama? I don't know.
    I think it will freeze the race in place a little bit. All eyes will be focused on weather news. Of course, Romney has saved a tremendous amount of his advertising budget for the last 10 days of the campaign, so presumably lots of eyes will see these campaign commercials. Except perhaps for the needed eyes of Virginia, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, where the electricity may be out.
    Romney's last week of advertising is likely to be upbeat in nature. Campaigns beat up their opponents all through the election cycle and then go positive in the last week. This positive message will play well during a time of disaster. Of course, Obama is going to be able to do a better job of providing disaster relief than Bush was during Katrina, since the recipients Hurricane Sandy aid probably won't be shooting at those trying to help them.
    Early voting was shut down Saturday and will be shut down for the next few days on the Eastern Seaboard. Coaxing people to go to the polls who might not have the discipline to go on Election Day was considered an important part of the Obama election strategy.
    Obama is no doubt glad to have everyone's attention turned away from Libya, where the most recent reports are that troops were set ready, willing, and able to rescue our ambassador and other Americans but that he refused to allow it. Will we find out before Election Day why Gen. Carter Ham was relieved of duty? Was it because he was about to rescue our citizens without receiving authorization to do so? Thanks to Hurricane Sandy, this issue may be blown away until after the election.
    There is some evidence that unpleasant events having absolutely nothing to do with the election can affect the outcome; voters tend to vote against the party in power when they are in a disgruntled mood. A Reuters new story suggests the outcome of the Ohio State-Illinois football game this weekend might well have an effect on voting behavior the following Tuesday. One study has found that a victory by a popular home team is worth 1.6 percentage points to the incumbent candidate. So if Ohio State loses, unhappy voters might take their frustrations out on Obama.
    The same article cites a study that shows that voters in coastal New Jersey towns apparently took out their frustrations over a spate of shark attacks on Woodrow Wilson, who was running for re-election, with these findings based on voting patterns on inland towns versus those of the coastal ones.
    Will voters take their frustrations about Hurricane Sandy out on Obama? My guess is that it will be too soon. If anything, the storm may help the president as there tends to be a "let's all pull together" attitude after a major disaster. It's only when hardships continue that people become frustrated and surly, and by that time the election will have come and gone.
    More problematic for Obama may be getting voters to the polls. Republicans tend to be more reliable voters; Democrats require more cajoling. If voting requires additional hardship in Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Hampshipe and Maine's Second Congressional District it could be a real game changer.
    It's sort of like watching a football game in a rainstorm. We all know the odds have been changed, but most of us don't know which team will benefit.

Does Obama care enough about the poor to let someone give them $5 million?

    Does Barack Obama really care about the poor?
    He says he does, but that's just good politics. Donald Trump has offered to give $5 million to the charity of President Obama's choice. All Obama has to do is release his college records and passport applications.
    That seems reasonable enough. Would you release your college records and passport applications in exchange for a $5 million (or even $5,000) charitable donation? I would. I bet Mitt Romney would. He gives millions to charity every year anyway -- on a percentage basis about twice of what Obama gives.
    Let's hold both candidates to the same standard. Certainly it's time for Romney to agree to release his college records and passport applications in exchange for someone giving a $5 million charitable donation to his charities. It's time to see which candidate is really caring.
    So does Obama really care about the poor or not? We'll see.

As usual, nma.tv has best debate coverage

    Nma.tv says Obama won the Oct. 16, 2012 Town Hall debate by a nose. I wish we had this type of news coverage on the major networks!

Presidential debate meets Autotune

What happens when the first presidential debate meets Autotune? See for yourself!

Finally, a 2-minute Romney-Obama debate summary we can all understand

   
     I'm not a fan of long videos, but this 2-minute Chinese news animation of the Romney-Obama debate is great! If you don't feel it's worth your two minutes, tell me next time you see me and I'll give you a dime.
     If these people were to put out a regular product in English, they would put Fox News out of business.

Cock-a-doodle-doo

      For the past couple of weeks liberal bloggers have been basking in the several-point lead that Barack Obama has had over Mitt Romney in national opinion polls. Most of these polls were conducted in homeless shelters and welfare offices, but that doesn't bother anyone as these are assumed to be a good sample of the American public.
     Tonight I saw the debate between Romney and Obama, and while Obama didn't do an absolutely terrible job Romney hit a home run. He needed it.
     One thing that needs to be driven home is the issue of tax rates. Obama keeps saying Romney wants to give the wealthy "tax cuts." Romney repeatedly said that the total share of revenue raised from the wealthy would not change, but that he wanted to cut rates and eliminate loopholes and shelters. Obama would then say again that Romney only wanted to give tax cuts to the wealthy. Romney would again have to correct him. After three or four times Romney all but said "Liar, liar, pants on fire," but in a polite way, comparing Obama to one of his children stretching the truth.
     Romney actually took on a few Shibboleths of the left. When Obama said quack-quack-quack about tax breaks for oil companies, Romney pointed out that these breaks mostly went to small producers and totaled about four billion a year, compared to the $90 billion Obama threw away to his donors on various "green" projects (why isn't Obama in jail for this?). "I have a friend that said you don't pick winners and losers, you just pick losers," Romney said. When Obama  went bleat-bleat-bleat about companies getting tax breaks for shipping tax jobs overseas, Romney told him in no uncertain terms that he had been in business for 40 years and he had absolutely no idea what he was talking about. "Maybe I need to get a new accountant."
     Part of the problem is that Obama, while a great speech reader, is fairly limited intellectually. He's never been able to speak without a teleprompter.
     Fox News Pollster Frank Luntz had a focus group watch the debate that had a large number of undecided voters. Thirteen of 25 had voted for Obama in 2008, so it was split 50-50. Virtually everyone said they believed Romney won the debate, and most left the debate saying they would vote for Romney. They tended to appreciate the fact that Romney pushed back against Obama's attempt to define his views, even over the moderator's objections.
     Several focus group members noticed body language issues, namely that Romney looked at the camera, looked at the moderator and looked at Obama. Obama spent a great deal of time looking down at the podium. This was also noted by Brit Hume after the debate. No one described Obama in positive terms, with "flat" being the terms used most often.
     One can argue, Rambo style, who drew first blood, but Obama hasn't made it a priority to get along with Republicans. As a practical matter he hasn't made it a priority to get along with Democrats, either. He doesn't like people in general. He actually belongs at some foundation, not as president. But the focus group uses a little knob to rate the candidates, and regardless of party Romney was absolutely off the charts on his closing statement when he talked about how he had to work with Democrats as governor of Massachusetts and that it would be his top priority because party aside we were all Americans.
     Of course, George W. Bush got along famously with Democrats in Texas and arrived in Washington thinking he would be able to perform the same magic. They soon informed him there would be none of THAT nonsense.
     It's going to be interesting to see how the next few days play out. The Luntz focus group was impressed with Romney. It was the first time many had seen him defined by anyone other than the Obama campaign. Finally our day in the sun has arrived.

Obama urges daughters to write Mom and ask for $18,000 for birth control. Ever hear of Wal-Mart?

     The Obama campaign is encouraging supporters to send the above "ecard," this one presumably designed for a daughter to send to her mother. They still haven't figured out that there are parents out there who don't want to know that their daughter is going at it so hard at college that she can't afford to buy birth control.
     Of course, the letter might not come from a college students, but that's the first thought since we heard about all the Georgetown Law students who could afford $65,000 per year in tuition and expenses but couldn't spring for their own birth control pill for a night out with their fella.
     There's lots of different types of drugs out there. For acid reflux I suppose I'd rather have Nexium than Prilosec. The two drugs are exactly the same, but Nexium is a "racemic" formulation, which means all the molecules point the same way. Nexium was introduced just as the patent for Prilosec was running out, and by some miracle they found in studies that Nexium actually promoted some esophageal healing. Prilosec probably would do the same thing, but of course nobody was going to run the tests for a drug going off-patent. In any event, if the drug is free or somebody else is paying, I'll take Nexium. If I'm buying, Prilosec is plenty good enough.
     One of the problems with the Obama administration's free-birth-control-for-all policy is that there is now no incentive for people to use cheaper birth control. Wal-Mart and Target sell off-patent products for $9 per month. Obviously no one is touting these products with flashy television advertising, but just as Prilosec prevents acid reflex, these $9 pills prevent pregnancy.
     If a woman stays on these pills for 30 years the cost will total $3,240, not $18,000. But do many women actually stay on birth control for 30 years without a break? I doubt it.
     I don't doubt that one could find a heavily advertised birth control pill that would cost $18,000 over 30 years. Yaz, which just went generic does, although the price is likely to decline. But maybe people who are feeding at the public trough don't have a right to demand Nexium. They don't have a right to demand Yaz. It's not unreasonable to demand that being treated for free use inexpensive drugs.
     In fact, if Mom is stupid enough to send her daughter $18,000, does anyone think the daughter will put the money away in a special account to purchase high-dollar, brand-name birth control for life? Not likely. The daughter might set aside $100 to buy a year's worth of birth control and then use the rest on high living. Once that money is hers, she's not likely to want to just throw it away.
     Savvy folks, these liberals.
   

Now Obama wants pledge of allegiance from supporters; where have we heard that before?

    The Obama for president campaign is enlisting celebrities to encourage supporters to take photos of themselves placing their hands over their hearts and pledging to support Obama, in a campaign led by actress Jessica Alba and others.
    Ironic when you consider the famous video of the group of candidates standing on the stage with hands over heart during the national anthem while Obama stood there with hands firmly at his side. Apparently a man who doesn't see fit to place his hand over his heart for our country's flag is willing to demand that his supporters place their hands over their heart for him.
     As soon as Jinny read this news story her mouth dropped open. She said one of the questions on her World History I.B. exam was to examine translations of original documents containing the oath of allegiance used by German civil servants in the 1930s. Here's the August 2, 1934, oath and its translation:

Diensteid der öffentlichen Beamten

Ich schwöre: Ich werde dem Führer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes Adolf Hitler treu und gehorsam sein, die Gesetze beachten, und meine Amtspflichten gewissenhaft erfüllen, so wahr mir Gott helfe.

Service oath for public servants

I swear: I will be faithful and obedient to the leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, to observe the law, and to conscientiously fulfil my official duties, so help me God!

    Note that the new loyalty oath was not one to the German state nor one to serve the German people. It was an oath to be faithful to Adolf Hitler, designated as the leader of the German people. By urging his supporters to place their hands over their heart and pledge to support him, in the same fashion that citizen's pledge their allegiance to flag and country, Obama comes perilously close to creating the same type of personality cult.
     The people who make these pledges are no longer our fellow Americans until they renounce them. They now serve a non-American power; their pledge to Obama is no different than a pledge made to Kenya, Pakistan or Russia. Certainly they can support whomever they wish as a candidate, but a hand-over-heart pledge to Obama is no different than a palm outward pledge to Hitler. (For what it's worth, the pledge to the American flag was originally made with palm outward; that likely wouldn't be popular today).
     The left-wing press gives Obama a free ride. When he violated the War Powers Act in his illegal attack on Libya, the left ignored it. When he enacted the DREAM Act by executive fiat and announced that he would ignore the law, the left applauded. No action, no matter how outrageous, is deemed worthy of censure.
     Now Obama is urging his supporters to make personal pledges of allegiance to him and not to the country. Will the American public ever realize just how dangerous this man really is?


p.s. And by the way, Jinny made a "7" on her exam, so according to the folks in Switzerland she knows what she is talking about.

Final convention ratings show Republicans, Democrats now have dedicated news channels

    Shown above are the final convention ratings for the prime time hour of the Democratic National Convention. They show that Obama edged Romney in his acceptance speech by about two million viewers.
    Obama clearly has gotten a bounce out of the Democratic convention. In election cycles past the Republicans held the second convention and always got a week or two of bounce out of it. This time the Democrats have benefited. I think they clearly overshot themselves by planning to fill a 75,000-seat stadium and then cancelling at the last minute, and I think the scene of the delegates furiously booing the inclusion of the word "God" in their platform is going to harm them.
    As far as honesty in convention speeches goes, Mitt Romney gets the prize. The speeches of Paul Ryan, Joe Biden and Barack Obama were riddled with inaccuracies and outright falsehoods while everything Romney said was pretty much true, said FactCheck.
    As I said in my earlier posts, I think it's interesting that to a large degree the cable networks have intentionally aligned themselves with political parties as a commercial strategy. Those who watched the Republican convention in its entirety did so on Fox News. For the DNC, ratings for CNN and MSNBC tripled while those of Fox dropped by two-thirds.
    It will be interesting to see what kind of advertising strategies the parties use, if any, in advertising on the opposing party's network.

NBC's football game dampens Day Two DNC ratings, but 'God' vote will be seen again and again

    Shown above are the Democratic National Convention ratings for Day Two in the 10-11 p.m. timeslot when the convention was covered by both broadcast and cable networks.
    Viewership is virtually tied with the GOP second night despite a prime-time speech by former president Bill Clinton. The Republicans can thank the Giants-Coybows game on NBC which drew 20 million viewers, or about as many as watched the Democratic convention.
    I took a pass on most of the night's festivities. Clinton's speech was said to be outstanding. Yet the fact that I'm tuning out says that both conventions are preaching to the choir. I pointed this out in my previous post, by noting that Republicans are getting their cable convention coverage from Fox News while Democrats are clearly turning to MSNBC or CNN. The ratings shift suggests that despite its usually dismal ratings there may yet be market traction in MSNBC's strategy of serving as the news outlet of the extreme left.
    For those who missed night two, I suspect you will get to see a portion of it again, and again, and again. Democratic platform writers decided to remove the word "God" from their platform as well as a provision that Jerusalem be an open, International city and the capitol of Israel. Both provisions have been in Democratic platforms for many election cycles. Realizing they had made a mistake they decided to put it back in by voice vote. DNC convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa took three votes and after each call for a vote the delegates furiously bellowed, "NO!" Finally he declared the motion passed by a two-thirds majority although many observers believe it failed to even carry a simple majority. No matter how high-sounding the various Democratic speeches may be, the enduring images of these delegates screaming out their hatred for the word "God" will be the one that sticks with the public.
    Is the word "God" THAT awful? Here's the first ad, from Florida Congressman Allen West. It will be the first of many.



Oh, and by the way, if you think Allen West has engaged in selective editing, here's a Los Angeles Times story that includes a longer video. If anything it's more damning.

In convention coverage Fox News rates first for RNC, dead last for DNC

    In the "for what it's worth" department, listed above are the television ratings for all three nights of the 2012 Republican National Convention and the first night of the Democratic National Convention.
    Note that viewership of the two conventions is about tied, although the first night of the Republican convention had a large segment of the South without power and unable to watch.
    It certainly shouldn't come as a shock, but it is nevertheless interesting to see the difference in cable viewership or the two conventions. For the Republican convention Fox News blew every competitor, both cable and broadcast, out of the water by a substantial margin. For the first night of the Democratic Convention Fox News was dead last.
    I haven't seen these comparisons anywhere else, so I'll try to update it as the DNC continues. I'm sure there will be some minor corrections as well.

In many ways Julian Castro is another Obama

    San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro is being touted as the "next Obama," and in so many ways he is.
    Castro admits that he only got into Stanford as a result of affirmative action. He had a 1210 on the SAT, which after the 1995 test recentering would be about a 1300 today -- far short of what an Anglo, Asian, or Jew would need for Stanford. Who knows about his Harvard Law application, but history shows that people who benefited from affirmative action once will do so again.
    I don't understand affirmative action for Hispanics. As as group they've suffered very little discrimination. There have always been highly successful Hispanics in America, and only in recent years when we've had lots of poor border-jumpers have there been any poor, needy Hispanics in need of extra points on their college-admission or employment scores. But what about the poor whites living in the "hollers" of West Virginia, Kentucky and East Tennessee? Or for that matter every white person in Mississippi, where the schools set the academic pace at that of a a snail, afraid that if they actually teach anything the children will break? Don't these white people need affirmative action just as badly as Hispanics?
    In so many ways Castro is the next Obama. He made it through elite colleges as a result of affirmative action not available to the rest of us. And now he's given a rousing speech. A speech! All hail our next leader!
    A leader who has done virtually nothing save hold a San Antonio city council post, and who now holds a purely ceremonial mayoral post which pays $4,000 per year. That's right, $4,000. He's like the queen of England without the castle. As to how this man and his brother support themselves, that's another story.
    So we've got a man who's gotten a free ride whose main accomplishment in life is to have given a speech before a national audience. By Obama's standards this qualifies him to be president.
    One problem, though. There is very little "white guilt" insofar as Hispanics are concerned, and white guilt is what put Obama in office. Most of us consider Hispanics who adopt American-style dress, speech, and mannerisms and just whites with a tan. We don't discriminate against them and never have. They're just white people who Democrats want to keep corralled as a separate ethnic group for political purposes.
    As a potential presidential candidate, Julian Castro is an empty suit, just like the one we've got in the White House today. But I doubt this suit will make it out of San Antonio.

If Tampa police can hand out GOP schedule, then here's the Dem schedule

    The Tampa police department is actually handing out guides for protesters at the Republican National Convention that lists the schedule of events. Even worse, the Drudge Report has a developing headline that says Vice-president Biden actually plans to be on hand to help disrupt things. Surely not!
    One of the commentors on the CBSTampa site pointed out that if the Tampa police were going to hand out the GOP schedule it was only fair to post the schedule for the Democratic schedule. So for anyone planning to protest at the Democrat convention, here's their schedule:

4:00 PM – Opening Flag Burning Ceremony
4:05 PM – Singing of "God Damn America" led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright
4:10 PM – Pledge of Allegiance to Obama
4:15 PM – Ceremonial I hate America led by Michelle Obama
4:30 PM – Tips on Dodging Sniper Fire – Hillary Clinton
4:45 PM – Rev Jessie Jackson Leads Castrati Choir in Singing "Great Balls of Fire"
5:00 PM – UFO Abduction Survival – Joe Biden
5:30 PM – Eliot Spitzer Speaks on "Family Values" via Satellite
5:45 PM – Tribute to All 57 States
6:00 PM – Joe Biden Delivers 100,000-Word Speech Featuring 23-Minute Question and 2-Hour Answer
8:30 PM – Airing of Grievances by the Clintons
9:00 PM – Bill Clinton Delivers Rousing Endorsement of Obama Girl
9:15 PM – Tribute Film to Freedom Fighters at Gitmo – Michael Moore
9:45 PM – Personal Finance Seminar - Charlie Rangle
10:00 PM – Denunciation of Bitter Gun Owners
10:30 PM – Ceremonial Waving of White Flag for IRAQ, & Afghanistan
11:00 PM – Obama Energy Plan Symposium/Tire Gauge Demonstration
11:15 PM – Free Gov. Blagojevich rally
11:30 PM – Obama Accepts Tony and Latin Grammy Awards
11:45 PM – Feeding of the Delegates with 5 Loaves and 2 Fish – Obama Presiding
12:00 AM – Official Nomination of Obama by Bill Maher
12:01 AM – Obama Accepts Nomination for Lord and Savior
12:05 AM – Celestial Choirs Sing
3:00 AM – Biden Delivers Acceptance Speech

h/t/ Yahoo commentor BJC of Tennessee

In the chicken sandwich squabble, masses turn out to support Chick-Fil-A

    Some people, at least, agree with me that Chick-Fil-A has been treated unfairly because of the comments of its president to his church newspaper opposing gay marriage.
    Whether or not you agree with the man, he ought to have the right to express his opinion without his company coming under attack. Most of us are used to liberal company owners having a host of opinions we may not agree with, yet we don't go ballistic every time we disagree.
    Part of that fallout of these vitriolic attacks has been the death by heart attack of the company's public relations director, Donald Perry. Now he no doubt had a bad heart anyway, but certainly the unprecedented stress of the past few weeks didn't help matters.
    Following an amazing showing of intolerance against the company, which included its exclusion from expansion into the city of Chicago and other locations, former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee urged his viewers to treat Wednesday, August 1 as "Chick-Fil-A Day," to show support for the company's president and for free speech.
    I decided to check things out, and let's just say that it looks like the local Chick-Fil-A has done a month's worth of business in one day. At 6 p.m. Wednesday, the parking lot was full, cars were parked in the mall parking lot, the restaurant was packed, and the drive-in had cars backed all the way out of the parking lot, down through the mall entrance, with four to six cars in line waiting in line to turn in off University Ave. In the photo above, the Chick-Fil-A is on the right. The line of cars on the left is waiting for their chance to turn into the Chick-Fil-A parking lot for the drive-thru. There are cars on University also waiting. (I decided they didn't need my business and enjoyed a sub from Firehouse).
    I said three months ago that now was a terrible time to have a nasty fight over gay rights. We've gone through a period of pretty massive change, and I think folks need a short period of stasis. For whatever reason there are those who want to drag this issue onto the political front burner and into presidential politics, and I think it's going to do more harm than good for everyone.
    It's absolutely insane that we've managed to make a chicken sandwich into a political issue, but we have. And today is proof that there's plenty of backlash out there for those who want to provoke it.

Electoral map, gut-check, show Romney's chances getting better. My prediction now Romney 295-243

    Perhaps you've seen the public opinion polls that show Obama down by five points to challenger Mitt Romney. In 1980, Ronald Reagan was down by 14 points to Jimmy Carter at the same time, if memory serves. So for the incumbent to be down by five is pretty big news.
    Not much has changed since April 11, 2011, when I blogged that, For Obama, it's Ohio or bust in the next election, save that Obama is weaker than ever. I still think Ohio is key to the election, but Romney could still pull out a win by putting together some other combinations. For Obama, it's take Ohio or he's toast. I used the www.270towin.com website for my predictions; it's a great tool for playing around with electoral college numbers.
    Here's some things to consider when you hear presidential polling numbers.

1. Current polls aren't screening for likely voters. When these screening questions go into effect, the GOP candidate generally jumps by about five points.

2. The last election was an anomaly, with GOP voters totally dispirited while many independent and Democrat voters considered Obama to be a deity. No more. Many liberals and independents are just as disgusted with Obama as conservatives were with George Bush, which will increase GOP voter participation. In fact, recent special elections (Wisconsin, Arizona) show GOP results outperforming public opinion polls by about five or six percent, the traditional pattern. So the general rule is that if you hear the Democrat and Republican are tied in the polls, it means the Republican will likely win.

3. In some states, about two percent of registered voters are non-citizens, based on the percentage of people dismissed from juries for being non-citizens (juries are selected from voter rolls). These non-citizens and illegal immigrants tend to vote Democratic, and Voter ID laws and efforts to remove them from the voter rolls, such as those in Florida, will benefit the GOP.

4. Historically the GOP has had a built-in advantage in having its nominating convention last. The public is more attuned to politics closer to the election, and the pageantry of the convention just boosts the GOP nominee. No reason to believe things will be different this year. In fact, things are a mess for the Democrat convention in North Carolina, while the GOP will likely benefit from having a successful convention in Florida.

    Polls are helpful, but at this point I don't trust them very much. For example, lots of polls are showing North Carolina as a toss-up state. Obama carried it in 2008 but I don't believe he has a chance this time around. Likewise Obama tends to have a poll lead in Virginia, but 2008 was the first time a Democrat had carried that state since 1964. Obama is a lot less popular today than in 2008, and I see no reason for Virginia not to return to form.
    So I use my gut-feeling test in combination with poll results, and my gut feeling is that Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado and Florida are all moving over to the GOP column from 2008, along with Indiana and Missouri.
    This gives Romney 257 votes and seven states from which to pick up the additional 13 electoral votes needed to get to 270. As things are going right now, that's not going to be a difficult task, but the winds of politics blow a different direction every day. It could get harder or it could get easier.
    But the states Romney has to choose from are Nevada, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire. I see these as the real battleground states, although a few more will still require work to remain in the fold. My personal prediction is that Romney has a good chance to take Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio and New Hampshire, giving him 295 electoral votes to 243 for Obama.
    Times change, predictions change, but that's mine as of today. But even though times change, my map doesn't look much different than it did in April, 2011. And Ohio still remains the state that will put Romney over the top and into the White House.

Obama's 'jobs' plan is help we don't need, taxes we don't want, for problems we don't have

    Obama has been repeatedly flacking his "jobs" plan, which involves the federal government providing the states with money to hire 50,000 teachers, policemen and firefighters. This isn't a job plan; it's an economic disaster waiting to happen.
    The hiring of police, firemen and teachers is something we in America do at the state and local level. We determine the need, hire, tax, and pay for these needs locally. While every organization always needs more workers, we, as citizens of cities and states, have already hired the people we need to fill these positions.
    Read the newspapers! Crime rates have been falling. Sure more police would be nice, but we don't need them. I appreciate our firemen, but the fires are getting put out. We don't need to pad the payroll.
    And don't get me started on teachers. Most school districts are so heavily laden with teachers that they are able to adopt a California-inspired, left-wing educational practice known as differentiated instruction. This puts kids working at all achievement levels in the same classroom and essentially recreates the one-room schoolhouse of yesteryear. This model requires small class sizes and still doesn't work very well. If anything we need to reduce the number of teachers and increase class size until schools are forced to group students by achievement level out of absolute necessity. Make no mistake, students are far better off in a class of 36 grouped by achievement than they are in a class of 16 with a six- to 10-grade difference in achievement and ability levels between the students.
    Aside from the fact that we don't need the extra employees is the economic time bomb that awaits states that do take the money and hire unneeded help. For example, suppose Oxford should receive this money and use it to hire someone to teach both Russian and Finnish for three years.
    Now Russian and Finnish are great courses and might well deserve to be taught. But if the need wasn't there before the district was handed free money the need isn't there. What is the district to do in three years when the money runs out? Does the school fire the teacher and anger the one or two dozen parents who hoped to enroll their children in these programs? Or does the school board raise taxes and keep the teacher, thus putting an additional tax burden on the citizenry? Chances are taxes will creep up just a bit. So in the long run Obama's "jobs" plan is just a plan to put a heavier property tax burden on every American citizen.
    We all know that one of the main reasons America's unskilled workers are struggling so hard today is because of illegal immigration. We have 11 million illegal immigrants in this country driving down wages for unskilled workers, stealing their jobs, and voraciously consuming public services. We're told that the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the immigration courts are just too understaffed to do the job of expelling these people.
    I've got an idea. Let's take the money Obama wants to use to hire 50,000 policemen, firemen, and teachers and use it instead to hire border patrol agents, immigration agents, and immigration court judges and staff. Let's work on fencing for both our southern and northern borders. Good fences make good neighbors.
    If we do this we'll not only create 50,000 or so immediate jobs, but millions of additional jobs for Americans; and employers will be forced to pay higher wages as they won't have a peasant labor force to depress wages and help them destroy the lives of America's workers.
    Instead of Obama sending the states money to hire help we don't need -- help that eventually will balloon our tax burden -- the federal government should use the money to hire enough help to enforce our nation's immigration laws. Is that too much to ask?