The Conservative Wahoo

How Are Those Google Ad Proceeds Coming, CW?

2012-01-30T10:31:00.001-05:00

Googleftism

2012-01-30T10:03:00.006-05:00

I remember when he did this with Twitter several months ago and Iowahawk had a fun-filled afternoon of tweeting POTUS. Nevertheless, smart move by the Obama campaign to have his name pop up on every Google search in the US.

The You Tube site says neither POTUS nor his staff will know which questions (in the form of You Tube videos) will be selected for him to answer. It also says the winning You Tubers will be invited to sit in with the President as he answers the questions. I'm guessing, since they are viewable in rank order for all the world to see and since the Secret Service already knows who is coming over today, that the White House staff will once again be exercising their model integrity by not peeking before tonight. I can't wait to watch the absolute surprise on Barak's (he said I can call him that) face as each new video is unveiled. Darn, I'll be on the road then. Oh well, maybe Sally or Hammer can catch it for me instead.

Mitt Continues to Rack up Endorsements

2012-01-28T18:04:00.006-05:00

Big day for the Mittster: the highly coveted Gene Simmons endorsement!

Politics is a Contact Sport

2012-01-28T10:27:00.000-05:00

I occasionally listen to Conservative talk-radio; Mark Levin's ability to whip himself into a frenzy is something to behold; Sean Hannity sometimes helps me pass some afternoon drive time. Both of these guys lately though have begun to act in a manner I find a bit quizzical. Both I believe, remain "neutral" in the GOP Primary race, though Levin's vitriol toward Governor Romney is manifest (I believe Levin supported him as the "conservative" alternative to John McCain in 2008). What I find these guys doing---and now Sarah Palin has joined the fight--is that they are getting their collective underpants all up in a wad worrying about the "tactics" of the Republican Primary. This is nonsense, and the tone and tenor of this primary is NOTHING compared to the billion dollar juggernaut coming our way from the President's re-election campaign.

What we are seeing is THE PROCESS of picking a candidate. Mitt Romney's campaign has successfully beaten back EVERY challenger who has come forward in this cycle. Do they land punches? Yep. Do they win primaries? Yep (let's remember--three candidates have each won one primary). But each time, Romney gets up off the mat and comes back stronger. Each time, the challenger's 1) inexperience 2) temperament 3) record or 4) electability undercut their rise, and Romney's 1) organization 2) preparation and 3) electability sustains his. We are watching the eventual Republican nominee grow before our eyes into the kind of candidate with which most of us will be comfortable. Politics is a contact sport, and the fires of this campaign will forge a candidate worthy of the great challenges ahead of us in November--whether that is my guy or one of the others.

Of course I want it to be Romney--but if you were a Newt fan, were his tactics prior to SC not exciting? Did they not make him rise in your eyes? The man questioned Romney's approach to capitalism STRAIGHT UP, and he made a lot of hay doing it--eventually winning the state. I reject those who took Gingrich to task for his tactics--my complaint was that Romney wasn't answering them effectively. Lo and behold, he's gotten his act together and he is answering those charges more effectively. This is what makes a winner.

I think it is time for those who take great pride in considering themselves "Conservatives" first and "Republicans" second to take stock of the fact that this is a REPUBLICAN primary, not a CONSERVATIVE Party Primary. The candidate we nominate must appeal to a broad base of voters, and the sturm und drang of the campaign trail is necessary to getting to that candidate. There's a reason we only have TEN Commandmants, and Saint Ronald of California's 11th--while a nice concept--only works when your candidate is Ronald Reagan.

Fight on Newt, Rick, Ron. You're only making my guy better.

Last Night's Debate

2012-01-27T06:26:00.000-05:00

Newt needed a knockout punch, and he just couldn't get it in. Mitt stayed close and attacked and counterattacked. When Newt tried to be grand and curry favor with the panel, Mitt wouldn't let him off the mat. Anyone looking for fight and spirit out of Romney last night will not have been disappointed. I was happy to see both Romney and Santorum not pander to the Space Coast, and also to see no one rise to the bait of the "Palestinian Republican".

Rick Santorum really is the "conservative" option to Romney, but his views on social issues lack broad appeal, dooming his candidacy.

Mitt's gonna have some 'splainin' to do today with respect to an ad that he has running in FL that was the subject of discussion last night--but which he didn't appear to be aware of (although he "approved this message").

Mitt takes FL by 4.

Have You Contributed to Romney for President Yet?

2012-01-27T06:21:00.000-05:00

Looks like Mitt's shaken his South Carolina blues and is going to do very well in FL--I'm predicting a 4 point victory. Newt is a great American folks, but he just isn't going to unhorse President Obama. Heard the old Washington joke again this week--Newt saying to Bob Dole, "Why do people take such an instant dislike to me?" and Dole saying, "so they don't have to waste any time."

Let's start to show the campaign what an influential blog looks like. Donate to Mitt Romney for President here, don't forget to check the box indicating that you know your referrer.

Big Fat Friday Free For All

2012-01-27T06:17:00.000-05:00

Here we go again, folks! The day when you get to share what's on your mind. Feeling a little blue about your Vice President's ethnic jokes? Tired of being made fun of about your moon colony? Get it off your chests, folks. Live a little!

Uncle Miltie Answers the President

2012-01-25T08:48:00.003-05:00

When I became interested in politics I was a muddle headed quasi-liberal, as I suspect were most of you. It's not that I was a raging leftist, I wasn't, but I did care about the direction of the country and I did (and still do) care about the plight of the less fortunate. I thought most people were basically good and I also thought giving people a leg up was good for them and good for society. I had no idea what motivated people, what incentives they responded to, or the pitfalls of dependency. And I certainly had no idea what was the proper role of government. Milton Friedman changed that for me.

After last night's State of the Union with all of Obama's proposed government meddling, interventions, subsidies etc., I thought it might be a good time to revisit Professor Friedman. There's nothing new about what Obama is proposing. Utopians have been around since Plato and they all have one thing in common: In their societies the elites will have all the power and they will spill blood to keep it.

So, if you haven't done it already, I urge you to read "Free to Choose" and "Capitalism and Freedom" (if you're in the mood for something heavier). Like so many great works, it's as if they were written yesterday. Also you can click on the header and catch Uncle Miltie on Donahue back in 1980 (his jokes suck but hey, he's a college professor).

Newt Can't Handle the Silence

2012-01-24T16:23:00.017-05:00

The debate last night was a bit soporific at times. One reason for that is the subject matter for most of the evening had been covered ad nauseum over the last nine or so months. The other reason was the audience was asked to hold their applause. Personally, I thought it was a welcome break from the raucous crowds we've been treated to in the past.

But it had another advantage-it knocked Newt a bit off his game. He seemed subdued without the support of the crowd; even some of his lines seemed to pause for an expected audience roar of approval.

Clearly Newt recognizes his unexciting (but to be fair, still solid) performance, in great contrast to his last two debate performances when he had a little help from Juan Williams and John King. So on Fox and Friends this morning, Newt made the threat that he may not participate in future debates if the crowd can't get involved. Yeah, right Newt.

Seems Speaker Gingrich is terribly concerned about the free speech rights of the audience. Wonder if he'd feel that way if he didn't need them so much to egg him on.

Stagecraft at its Lamest

2012-01-24T16:15:00.004-05:00

Curious as to what we may hear in the SOTU tonight?

Wonder no more. One of the props--er, guests--seated with the First Lady tonight will be Warren Buffett’s secretary. You know, the one we keep hearing about, the one who pays more in taxes than Warren Buffett himself does?

We need an over/under on how many times the Oracle of Omaha's name is invoked. How utterly ridiculous these people are.

No Lefty Like An Old Lefty

2012-01-24T10:14:00.000-05:00

Robert Redford tells us that his Sundance Film Festival is "for the 99%", not the 1%. Uh, right.

Governor Romney's Tax Returns

2012-01-24T09:39:00.000-05:00

Well, it looks like things are beginning to squirt out about Governor Romney's taxes, and I think Fox News gets it right when they dclare "He's Rich, He Donates, He Pays Taxes". As I read over press reports this morning, I am waiting for the "bomb" to drop--you know, the one that would have made him reticent to release this information before today. I simply don't see any of it at this point.

I was down hard last night (flu symptoms combatted by two hits of Nyquil and 12 hours of sleep), so I didn't see the debate. My reading of things this morning is that he handled this issue well, and that he had a good debate in general.

You Be the Judge

2012-01-23T17:22:00.007-05:00

John Kerry showed up at a White House ceremony honoring the Boston Bruins today with two black eyes.

He claims he broke his nose playing hockey. (Nose looks okay to me).

I claim he had some plastic surgery.

What say you?

Romney in South Carolina

2012-01-22T10:52:00.000-05:00

Last night was not a good night for Mitt Romney. Voters in South Carolina repudiated him in a stark way, and sought comfort in the arms of a candidate thought by many (outside SC) to be weaker in the general election. Of interest to me last night were the exit polls in which SC voters consistently cited Speaker Gingrich as the more "electable" candidate, with "electability" related directly to debating skills. The voters are HUNGRY to see someone who can give it to the President with both barrels, and there is no question that Newt can do that. What Mr. Romney must now do is show that he too can do the same. He needs to get aggressive, and go on the offensive. And his immediate target is NOT Barack Obama, it is Newt Gingrich.

Romney lost in South Carolina because of one thing and one thing only--his answers in two straight debates on his tax returns. His defense of free market capitalism and his time at Bain were well done; his prevarication and stumbling in the face of questions about his tax returns--not so much. People viewing were left with many questions in their minds, including 1) what is he hiding? and 2) how can he possibly be fumbling this question after five years of running for President? In other words, either his ethics or his competence were questioned, neither of which is a good thing for someone running for President as an ethical and competent man.

Voters are smart enough to figure out Mr. Gingrich. I fear South Carolina's role of picking Republican nominees has come to an end, in the interest of voters sending a serious message of discontent to the eventual GOP standard bearer. Mr. Romney MUST take this seriously. His decision this morning to release his 2010 tax returns is the right one--doing so on the day of the State of the Union Address is also a good tactical move. But he damn sure better be ready to explain them in a way that Americans can at least then sit back and say, "ok--he's not dishonest, and he's got his stuff in one sock." He doesn't have to be the high school debate champion--he simply needs to re-instill confidence that he can go toe-to-toe with Obama.

Romney has said from the beginning that this would be an extended process--without I think, believing that it would be true. Well, it is now. Time to put that Bain, Olympic competence to work.

Separated at Birth?

2012-01-22T10:39:00.020-05:00

Hillary: Cut. Your. Hair. It's just not working for you, girl.

Maureen Dowd Suddenly Discovers the Obamas are Arrogant

2012-01-22T06:40:00.007-05:00

I fully expected from MoDo this Sunday a scathing piece on Newt, but somehow she resisted the temptation and instead turned her formidable knives on the Obamas. Best line: 'the president and the first lady do believe in American exceptionalism — their own...'

Read the whole thing here.

Palmetto State Despair

2012-01-21T08:02:00.013-05:00

I just can't believe that lacing into a debate moderator is a winning strategy for winning a primary. Yet sadly, it's appearing that may be enough for Newt today.

I can't believe people might be duped into voting for Newt Gingrich because they want to see him smack down Obama in debates. Debates will consist of about SIX HOURS of the fall campaign. What about the rest of the time?

I can't believe Newt really thinks Obama will agree to even one Lincoln-Douglas style debate. Why would he? Candidates that are ahead by double digits, which O will be if Newt is the nominee, rarely if ever agree to more debates than necessary. And all that Gingrich pomposity would be tough to take anyway over the course of a few hours.

I can't believe Romney has let things get out of control to the point that a Gingrich South Carolina win is even a possibility.

I can't believe that Newt Gingrich is almost making Ron Paul appear a better choice. Heck, Ron BURGUNDY looks like a better choice.

Despite the gargantuan size of this man's ego, Newt is a small, small man. Did I mention I can't believe this is happening?

Grandiosity, Thy Name is Newt

2012-01-20T16:41:00.005-05:00

A hilarious press release from the Romney campaign, following Newt's declarations of his grandioseness last evening:

“I THINK GRANDIOSE THOUGHTS”
A Selection Of Speaker Gingrich’s Thoughts Over The Years

Gingrich On Gingrich:

· “I Think I Am A Transformational Figure.” (PBS.org, 12/2/11)
· “I Am Essentially A Revolutionary.” (Adam Clymer, “House Revolutionary,” The New York Times, 8/23/92)
· “I Have An Enormous Personal Ambition. I Want To Shift The Entire Planet. And I’m Doing It. … I Represent Real Power.” ( The Washington Post, 1/3/85)
· “I First Talked About Saving Civilization In August Of 1958.” (GQ, 8/05)
· “I Am The Longest Serving Teacher In The Senior Military, 23 Years Teaching One And Two-Star Generals And Admirals The Art Of War.” (GOP Presidential Candidates Debate, 12/15/11)

Speaker Gingrich Has Compared Himself To A Litany Of Historical Leaders:

Ronald Reagan And Margaret Thatcher: “Gingrich said he learned a lot about himself in the political wilderness. … In the same breath, he compares himself to two conservative giants. With Gingrich, humility has its limits. ‘Because I am much like Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, I’m such an unconventional political figure that you really need to design a unique campaign that fits the way I operate and what I’m trying to do.’” (CNN.com, 11/16/11)

Woodrow Wilson: “He earned a PhD in history and taught college before winning a seat in Congress. He has often spoken of himself as a historian. In 1995, he told CNN’s Bob Franken: ‘I am the most seriously professorial politician since Woodrow Wilson.’” ( The Washington Post, 11/22/11)

Henry Clay: Gingrich said that like Clay, he did more than just preside over the House. ‘I was not a presider, I was the leader,’ Gingrich said in the interview. ‘I think Henry Clay’s probably the only other speaker to have been a national leader and a speaker of the House simultaneously.’” (USA Today, 8/30/99)

Pericles: “In a long interview on May 4, 1992, devoted almost exclusively to the topic of Gingrich, former White House aide Richard Darman concluded that Gingrich was ‘an unstable personality’ who talks about four or five great people in history, including Pericles and himself.” (Bob Woodward, The Washington Post, 12/24/11)

The Duke Of Wellington: “Obsessed recently with Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, Gingrich likened the appropriations triumph to the way the British expeditionary force maneuvered against the French during the Peninsular War, a campaign in Portugal and Spain in the early 1800s that eventually led to Wellington’s ascendance and Napoleon’s abdication.” (The Washington Post, 8/13/95)

A Viking: “With his machine-gun staccato delivery, Gingrich is the center of attention. He terms himself a ‘Viking.’” (South Bend Tribune, 7/28/95)

Some Thoughts On Last Night's Debate

2012-01-20T12:16:00.001-05:00

Let's get the tough part out of the way first: Mitt Romney is in trouble in South Carolina, and it is largely his own fault. His answers to the tax return questions in the last two debates have been the low points in his campaign. I have a hard time believing that there isn't a chorus of people around him saying "just do it, Mitt", so I'm left with the sad sense that this is his call, and it appears to be a bad one. My guess is that he wanted to wait until he had the nomination sewn up before he released them, but that plan looks to be in jeopardy. Worst of all was even if his reticence to release his returns is entirely Mitt's own doing, he should have had a much better answer crafted than the one he had.

Newt's performance in the first five minutes was great theater, but utterly embarrassing to witness as a sentient being. While the crowd loved the red meat he threw them (what conservative crowd doesn't like a little press bashing), the bottom line is that this situation is not the press's doing, it is Newt's. Newt had affairs with at least two women while he was married to two other women. Newt conducted a six year affair. Newt wants all of us to believe that he has changed, and that we should forgive him his transgressions. Sure, Newt. You're forgiven. But forgiveness is not absolution, and that MANY people currently supporting him have little or no idea about the facts revealed in last night's interview IS GERMANE to his pursuit of the Presidency. I would have sent $500 to ANY of the candidates who raised their arms and said "hey, wait just a moment. I take a back seat to NO ONE when it comes to bashing the liberal press--but this is not a liberal press issue, this is a question of character issue. Rick Perry had it right when he said that if a man cheats on his wife, he'll cheat on his business partner. What kind of Party are we becoming, if our hatred of the Press blinds us to real, moral failure?"

But instead, we saw a well mapped out and utterly successful strategy executed by the Speaker, while Mitt Romney stumbled. I hope Governor Romney figures out a solid strategy for addressing his taxes (I would LOVE to have seen him whip them out of his coat pocket last night and hand them to John King), and puts this issue behind him.

UPDATE: Whoops, forgot the other two...

Rick Santorum had an awesome debate--really took it to all three of the others. He is sincere, he's got good ideas, he's making a good impression. And Mitt Romney's chances of winning SC depend ENTIRELY on Santorum stealing votes from Newt.

Ron Paul was ridiculous, as always. Sorry Dr. Paul, abortion is not just a medical issue....

Democrats Propose "Reasonable Profits Board". This is Not a Joke

2012-01-20T11:59:00.000-05:00

Six house Democrats have put forward a bill designed to arbitrate whether or not oil companies make too much money. No word yet on whether accompanying legislation will cover trial lawyers and Hollywood.

Have You Contributed to Romney for President Yet?

2012-01-20T06:10:00.000-05:00

Do it today, and I promise he'll release his tax returns by April 15! :)

Seriously folks--Mitt's in a race, and then he'll have to beat the President. Dig Deep!

Big Fat Friday Free For All

2012-01-20T06:05:00.000-05:00

What's on your mind, folks? Ex-wife been talking smack? Can't seem to find those old tax returns? No one paying any attention to the fact that you really ARE the President? Let it all hang out, let your freak flag fly....I present the Big Fat Friday Free For All!

Debt is the Issue!

2012-01-19T10:53:00.004-05:00

Debt will ruin this country. Debt will steal our liberties and destroy our way of life. This debt burden we have is so large, that even if we do everything right in terms controlling spending etc., it is not at all certain we will ever recover. But I don't think the American people get it. I just don't think they realize the implications of such a unimaginable amount of debt. I think they think it will all be worked out and somehow we'll come through this like we always have. I once held that view but I'm growing increasingly pessimistic.

I believe in American Exceptionalism. I believe the Constitution is the greatest political document ever written. And I also believe if adhered to and respected, prosperity and freedom will follow as day follows night. But if we stray from the course, if we grow tired of its restraints that limit our ability to "do good", if our arrogance extends beyond the point of reason, we as a nation and society will be diminished.

Britain's experience teaches us a valuable lesson. Prior to World War I Great Britain lived by the rule that her navy must be twice as big as the next two biggest navies, plus 10%. In 1918 Britain had over 60 battleships, 120 heavy cruisers and about 470 destroyers. She had a big empire to protect and that's what it took to do the job. By 1925 her fleet was a shadow of its former self and the empire was soon to follow. What happened? A war DEBT, that's what happened.

What can we conclude when the greatest (and healthiest) empire since the Romans is brought down in less than 10 years due to crushing debt? My conclusion is it can happen to us.

The Death of Newsweek?

2012-01-18T09:53:00.009-05:00

Most of us know Tina Brown. She's an Oxford educated British ex-pat, a hardcore leftist (in the tradition of Tony Benn and Michael Foot), and shares the Fleet Street tabloid tradition of yellow journalism. Here in the States she's edited the New Yorker and Vanity Fair, both reliably liberal publications appealing to the progressive northeastern intelligentsia (or knee-jerk, narrow-minded, leftist halfwits as I like to call them). After Newsweek changed ownership she became managing editor.

So, how's she doing? Well, not so good. Reportedly the news mag is bleeding money at a rate of $20 mil. a year. Investors (Barry Diller, Jane Harmon, a consortium or two) have a target of 2013 to turn things around but are losing patience with such high loses. Even though the Washington Post basically gave them the brand, and this is obviously a labor of love, loses are loses and even leftist scum hate loses (at least when it's their money).

Therefore, in my humble opinion Newsweek is a dead duck. To start with it's an outdated business model. The internet is killing "slow news" publications like this and there is absolutely no reason to think this 15 year trend will change. Plus, Ms. Brown style of journalism doesn't fit with a news mag. Turning Newsweek into an overtly leftist, opinion oriented magazine will have by definition limited appeal and sensational, attention seeking stories or controversial covers (Michelle Bachmann's wild eyed photo comes to mind) aren't going to raise circulation. If Newsweek is around a year from now I'll be very surprised.

On Live Audiences at Political Debates

2012-01-17T10:40:00.000-05:00

Last night's debate, like any and all others of this election and other recent ones, was cheapened by the presence of a rowdy studio audience. CNN's got a guest commentary up about this subject, and it is worth a read. Bottom line for me is that the crowds distract from good debate, break up the flow of the conversation, and generally display boorish behavior. The Party needs to run these debates on cleared soundstages--and the quality of the debates would improve.

The Reason Newsweek was Sold for a Dollar

2012-01-16T19:40:00.004-05:00

Because they produce stuff like this.

Live-blogging Tonight's Debate

2012-01-16T17:30:00.001-05:00

Ok folks, let's all meet here in the app to the right to live-blog tonight's debate, shall we?

Where Are The Serious Editorial Page Editors?

2012-01-16T12:04:00.000-05:00

Washington Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt takes to the pages of his newspaper this morning to ask the question "Where are the serious Republican candidates?". This is a ridiculous question, his column reflects classic lefty-media bias, and his banality should be refuted. So here goes.

What weak field? We have (had) a twice elected Governor of Utah, a thrice elected Governor of Texas, a Governor of Massachusetts, a Speaker of the House and a twice elected member of the Senate from Pennsylvania. That they may have acquitted themselves unevenly as candidates is beside the point--this is an accomplished group of politicians with deep records of accomplishment.

Those who didn't run, who Hiatt speaks of as likely to have "...turned out human too"? They didn't run for at least two reasons--one of which Hiatt gets right (the perceived strength of Obama), and the other that he misses completely--the perceived strength of Romney. Mitt Romney's been quietly working the hustings for four years, supporting candidates with his PAC money and ingratiating himself with state party apparatus(es) nationwide. He was considered by those in the know to be a difficult man to beat, and they acted accordingly.

For whom does Hiatt yearn? What is the definition of a "serious" Republican? Tim Pawlenty, who he describes as "...a conservative governor from a swing region with a record of working across the aisle..." So there we have it. What is it the field is missing? Why, someone with whom Fred Hiatt has political agreement, someone who...to put it bluntly...doesn't always act so....Republican.

Go back to 2000 folks--look at who was running then. George Bush--two time Governor of Texas. John McCain--war hero, Senator. Alan Keyes? Gary Bauer? Steve Forbes? Orrin Hatch? What was so damn prestigious about that field that we didn't hear people--D and R--complaining about the weakness of the field? Nothing. The plain truth is that the Press has an institutional interest in dogfights, and Republicans are simply not giving them one. So they are piqued.

This field is just fine--and any one of several of these folks could have been the nominee, if so many Republicans nationwide didn't already feel that the guy in our party best suited to defeat Barack Obama is Mitt Romney. Republicans aren't interested in providing "bread and circuses" to the Press....we're concerned with winning.

Huntsman to Leave GOP Race

2012-01-16T07:59:00.000-05:00

The interwebs have been a-flutter with news since last night of former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman's decision to leave the 2012 race. This is a good thing for Mitt Romney (who he will reportedly endorse), the Republican Party, and Jon Huntsman.

It's a good thing for Mitt because it removes the only player left in the field with whom he competed for "moderate" Republican votes. Fiscally conservative, socially ambivalent Republicans didn't have a lot of choices in this race--and now there's one less.

It's a good thing for the Republican Party because it removes a minor candidate from the distraction status that he'd achieved during the race. Huntsman had a good New Hampshire, but not good enough. He's getting no traction in SC or FL.

And it's a good thing for Huntsman. Let's face it folks, he ran a strategically flawed campaign. Rather than run as the conservative Governor who got things done, he decided to run as the "to the left of Mitt" guy who speaks Chinese. Republicans wanted more red meat than he was willing to serve up. I hope he goes home to Utah and spends the next eight years (the Romney terms) refining his message for a 2020 run--because he could be the real deal.....someday.

WaPost Hit Piece on Romney at Bain

2012-01-15T08:46:00.002-05:00

Now isn't this special? William D. Cohan, a writer for Bloomberg and troubadour of Wall Street inside stories, has penned an editorial in this morning's Washington Post in which he says (among other things) the following:

"Yet, there is another version of the Bain way that I experienced personally during my 17 years as a deal-adviser on Wall Street: Seemingly alone among private-equity firms, Romney’s Bain Capital was a master at bait-and-switching Wall Street bankers to get its hands on the companies that provided the raw material for its financial alchemy. Other private-equity firms I worked with extensively over the years — Forstmann Little, KKR, TPG and the Carlyle Group, among them — never dared attempt the audacious strategy that Bain partners employed with great alacrity and little shame.

Call it the real Bain way. Here’s how it worked. Private-equity firms are always eager to find companies to buy, allowing them to invest chunks of the billions of dollars entrusted to them and from which they earn hundreds of millions in fees. One ready source of these businesses is Wall Street bankers hired to sell companies through private auctions. The good news is that when a banker puts together a detailed selling memorandum about a company, chances are very high that company will be sold; the bad news is that these private auctions tend to be very competitive, and the winning bidder, by definition, is most often the one willing to pay the most. By paying the highest price, you win the company, but you also may reduce the returns you can generate for your investors.

I never negotiated directly with Romney; he was too high-level for any interaction with me. Rather, I dealt often with other Bain senior partners, who were very much in his mold. In my experience, Bain Capital did all that it could to game the system by consistently offering the highest prices during the early rounds of bidding — only to try to low-ball the price after it had weeded out competitors.

So let's break this down, shall we? First of all, the headline to the piece speaks of Romney's word not being "....his bond" and Cohan writes as much in his closing. Yet Cohan admits in his piece to never dealing directly with Romney. Ok....next.

Cohan does a reasonable job in laying out the process that connected him (as an adviser to Wall Street banks) and Bain (looking to do private equity deals), a process that includes early rounds of bidding in which the company being sought for purchase and its lawyers "weed out" private equity firms not able to meet their idea of price. Critical to this round of bargaining is that the PE firms have not had access to in-depth information about the company--something Cohan explains thusly: "By bidding high early, Bain would win a coveted spot in the later rounds of the auction, when greater information about the company for sale is shared and the number of competitors is reduced. (A banker and his client generally allow only the potential buyers with the highest bids into the later rounds; after all, you can’t have an endless procession of Savile Row-suited businessmen traipsing through a manufacturing plant if you want to keep a possible sale under wraps.)" What this? I'm shocked, shocked there's capitalism going on in here.

What Cohan reveals here are the inherent tensions in a capitalist exchange. He was trying to get the highest price for the companies being sold, in order to deliver the greatest return to the bankers involved. Romney was trying to get the lowest price for the company, in order to return value to HIS investors. In the middle, is a transaction, freely entered into by two parties with the ability to walk away at any point in the process. Bain would have been guilty of financial misconduct were it not to lower its bidding price as more information came available to indicate the value of the company in question. If this were a Bain strategy, than presumably if it weren't successful in determining a truer market value of the company for sale, the market would have punished Bain, more people would have done what Cohan did in 2004--as is recounted here: " By the end of my days on Wall Street in 2004, I found the real Bain way so counterproductive that I no longer included Bain Capital on my buyer’s lists of private-equity firms for a company I was selling."

But the market did not punish Bain for its strategy. It rewarded it. And Cohan left Wall Street to become a writer. Wall Street valued what it Cohan refers to here: " But Bain Capital took the art of negotiation over price into the scientific realm."Yes Mr. Cohan--after the negotiation entered the realm of truly fair negotiation, where both buyer and seller had the opportunity to reach a price based on sufficient information, Bain scientifically and painstakingly analyzed what the business was really worth--and bid accordingly. Cohan makes a great show of how disruptive it would have been for the parties on the sell side to walk away, but this is simple hogwash. It happens all the time. This accounts in no small part for the number of lawyers on Wall Street.

One would have thought though, that Mr. Cohan's clear revulsion with Romney would have been manifest with his decision in 2004 to pass on any deals with Bain. Yet a (ridiculously easy) Google search of Mr. Cohan's political contributions over the past few years reveals that although he has heavily favored Democrats (including President Obama for the full $2500 in this cycle), he made a $1000 donation to Romney in 2007. How can this be, Mr. Cohan? Have you all of a sudden come to conclude that Romney might bait and switch the Congress, or the Chinese? Had you not reached these conclusions in 2007? Or is the answer closer to a case of the shoe being on the other foot--Cohan looking to implement a "win-at-any-cost" strategy of his own in support of the President's re-election?

It's Friday Folks--Have You Donated to the Romney Campaign Lately?

2012-01-13T06:14:00.000-05:00

Things are looking awfully good for Mr. Romney, folks. The field will narrow considerably after Mitt puts SC in the win column--then it's on like Donkey Kong through November. Mr. Obama is amassing a huge campaign war chest--some estimate it will be $1B. If we want to win the White House, we're gonna have to open our wallets.

Click this link to donate to Romney for President....today. And please check the box indicating that you know your referrer.

Big Fat Friday Free For All

2012-01-13T06:06:00.000-05:00

Well folks, it's that time of the week again. Got something to get off your chest? Have you spent the last year of your life campaigning in New Hampshire, only to come in 3rd? Tired of bringing it every day only to have people think you should be dumped for Hillary? Share, people. Share!

Elvis Has Left the Building!

2012-01-10T19:05:00.003-05:00

Well, not Elvis, but maybe the only adult in the West Wing. Bill Daley is a Democrat to the core, but he's nobody's fool. This guy has been steeped in the amalgamation of politics and business that is Chicago. He knows both sides of the fence and in my estimation would be a handy guy to have around with an election coming up. Evidently Obama & Co. think differently.

From what the talking heads are saying Daley had been isolated and marginalized for a good while now, which is unfortunate for Obama and the country. I guess they got tired of him bringing up things like spending and regulation and those other little niggling things that are destroying the economy. Regardless, this is a good indication the ideological forces in the White House, as opposed to the pragmatic, are in full control.

Was it Worth It?

2012-01-09T07:41:00.003-05:00

First the cost: The numbers are in for Iraq but we're still jerking around in Afghanistan so things could change. In Iraq we lost 4500 American lives with about 32,000 wounded (Iraqi dead in the hundreds of thousands). The Iraqi war cost the taxpayer $800 billion but ongoing medical treatment etc. for veterans could easily double or triple that figure. Afghanistan has cost us about $500 billion so far with 1900 American dead and another thousand or so Coalition troops. Some reports suggest the final bill for both wars could exceed the cost of World War II.

So, was it worth it? What did we gain? To be honest I'm not sure, and I wish somebody would tell me. But I can tell you how other countries benefited. In 2010 the China National Petroleum Corp became Iraq's biggest customer scarfing up 5 major oil field auctions. China is busily rebuilding infrastructure and refineries and hopes to quadruple production in 10 years. Russia's Lukoil is also doing pretty well in Iraq along with Royal Dutch Shell. So how are American companies like Exxon Mobil and Conoco doing? Not so good, they got nada.

I wonder what was going through the minds of all those oil executives and Chi-Com government types while they were getting the Baghdad red-carpet butt-smooch as American choppers hovered overhead providing security. Russia and China vehemently opposed the war at every turn but that didn't stop them from swooping in when the goodies were being handed out. They couldn't help but think Americans are the biggest chumps on the planet; and justifiably so.

We are fools. We are so blinded by political correctness, and so weak and afraid of criticism that we might, just might act in our own self interest that we have become an international laughing stock. Sometimes you have to say to hell with what others think. When you do that you are free to act, and that brings opportunity and possibility and that my friends is how you progress. We did not go into Iraq because of oil, so now we have to prove it by allowing our diplomatic and economic enemies to steal resources for which our soldiers paid so dearly in blood? We liberated Iraq, not the Chinese or Russians. If any country benefits it should be our Coalition partners and us.

This will not bode well for the United States. Not only do we not get any economic return for our sacrifice but we demonstrate our weakness before the World. And showing weakness as opposed to projecting strength is how wars start.

The Coming Chinese Slump

2012-01-09T06:23:00.000-05:00

Robert Samuelson has an excellent column in this morning's Washington Post describing mounting fears of a "China Bubble". Here's the nature of the problem:

How all this affects China’s growth is controversial. “Most likely, China will have a soft landing,” says Justin Yifu Lin, the World Bank’s chief economist. “Growth goes to 8 percent or 8.5 percent.” That’s down from about 9 percent in 2011. Government debt is still low enough to permit ample stimulus, Lin thinks. Many forecasts agree. But skepticism is mounting. The Japanese securities firm Nomura sees a one-in-three possibility of a “hard landing” — a drop in growth to 5 percent or less. To Americans, now experiencing annual economic growth around 2 percent, this may seem fabulous. But for China’s modernizing economy and huge labor force, a 5 percent growth rate would raise unemployment and social discontent. The adverse GDP swing would roughly equal the U.S. decline in the 2007-09 recession.

Read that again--China could have a 5% growth rate and STILL experience an economic swing reminiscent of our recent swoon. Folks, China is building pyramids, spending money on roads to nowhere and office buildings that are largely empty--in order to produce 9-10% growth a year. After all, when you need to create as many jobs each year as the Chinese Communist Party does, the music can never stop.

You want to talk about a threat to our national security? China's economy sinking fast qualifies. There should be an NSC Study group meeting regularly--bringing together State, Commerce, Treasury and Defense--devoted to thinking through what happens when the China bubble bursts. It could get ugly, fast.

Some Thoughts On Last Night's Debate

2012-01-08T09:17:00.000-05:00

We live-blogged last night's debate here on the CW, and it was a rousing good time. Some drive-by thoughts on what we saw:

1. This was the worst of the debates so far overall, driven largely by the ineptitude of the moderators. They should be ashamed of themselves, and they should take a page from the book of Fox News Anchor Bret Baier when it comes to debate moderation. The questions were really, really dumb. Here we are in the midst of a horrible economy and we spend 15 minutes on contraception. Not a word on the President's new defense strategy. Horrible.

2. Rick Perry showed a great deal of what "could have been". If he had gotten his act together and poured over the briefing books for six months, he could be sitting pretty right now. I hope he's learned his lesson if he looks to run again. He's the real deal, but he was unprepared.

3. Rick Santorum did fine, but he didn't lay a glove on Romney, and he didn't lay a glove on Newt. He landed lots of gloves on Ron Paul, but those voters won't vote for him. Therefore, he lost.

4. Newt Gingrich? Same story. Though he should have been pursuing the Paul line--and that is to attack the "non-Romney" (Santorum).

5. Ron Paul gave his supporters what they wanted, and he'll do well in New Hampshire. But he's a wingnut who would make a dangerous President.

6. Mitt Romney--game, set, match. This thing is all over. Unless he explodes on Meet The Press this morning, he'll crush in New Hampshire and roll up the field thereafter.

When Romney has the nomination wrapped up, he'll need to thank Ron Paul. Paul savaged Gingrich in Iowa and he's doing the same to Santorum in NH.

"Obama Outflanks Congress" (and the Joint Chiefs) Fawns WaPost

2012-01-07T19:04:00.003-05:00

I'm writing this post here on this site because it is largely political in nature, though it does touch broadly upon national security strategy and the kinds of things I usually write about on the other site (Information Dissemination). I am posting this one here because it is abidingly political, and I fear I may wear out my welcome over there with my biased views.

Here's the deal. I came across this article on the Post whilst scanning the interwebs this afternoon. Headlined "In Creating New Defense Strategy, Obama Attempts to Outflank Congress." The thesis of the piece is that by gaining the military's "buy in" at senior levels during the development of the strategy, Obama now faces the Congress with proxies of the Joint Chiefs in his pocket. The article is largely a hagiography of our learned, professorial President who has finally brought order and logic to the national security planning process, which has apparently suffered for decades in not having an inexperienced constitutional academic driving it. The truth? This piece could only have been written by reporters who don't have a clue about the way things work, unquestioningly lapping up the manipulative statements of those seeking to be seen as influential.

First of all, this notion of a free-wheeling, inclusive process among the Chiefs and Combatant Commanders may very well have existed; but the plain truth of the matter is that the President had already struck a bargain with the Congress that reduced the Pentagon's budget by $487B. They had NO CHOICE but to come up with some method of applying military power in support of national security, because the old way was unaffordable given the new budget target. That the National Security Staff, the Secretary of Defense and the uniformed leaders of the military were able to put together a process that appears to have been collegial, inclusive and collaborative is a credit to those men and women, and their professionalism. Uniformed leaders take orders from civilians--when the President says make due with half a trillion dollars less, you can either quit or make it work--and making it work is what uniforms do.

Much is made in the article about the President coming to the Pentagon to announce it and having the Chiefs standing behind him. Are we supposed to believe this means the Chiefs are happy with the outcome, that they support defense getting hit for half a trillion? Of course not. They did the best they could, they played the hands they were dealt. They were standing there because that is their job, and because he is the Commander in Chief. This sense that somehow the President was buoyed by all this, and that Congress will be cowed by the optic of the President and all those uniforms is naive. The Congress is full of big boys and girls, and they have a say in budgets too.

Additionally, any senior DoD civilian in the last decade, and any senior uniformed leader in the same period--should be incensed by the incredibly self serving view of those involved in THIS process who helped the reporters form this view of previous strategy efforts: "Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sought to ram his change agenda through the Pentagon’s bureaucracy with mixed results. His successor, Robert M. Gates, often relied on a group of trusted aides as he developed policy." This is simple hogwash. Both of those secretaries relied on smart people throughout the bureaucracy to help frame strategy to match requirements, and their processes were NO LESS inclusive or collaborative than those held up for such high praise here.

Folks, this article rightly praises the President and his senior team for a smart, focused approach to considering difficult national security questions. Good for them. But the suggestion that somehow the Obama/Donilon team stumbled into new territory here is misplaced, and the President's team at the Pentagon during the Gates years (especially) should be pissed at the extent to which their hard work was dismissed.

Live Blogging the Debate Tonight at 9PM

2012-01-07T14:25:00.000-05:00

Join me here tonight at 9PM to liveblog/chat the Republican Debate. We'll use the Conservative Wahoo Chat feature on the right side of the blog. I look forward to a great crowd and a spirited debate!

George Will on Redistribution and Inequality

2012-01-07T11:05:00.002-05:00

If you read anything today, it should be George Will's editorial in the Washington Post. It is an intelligent discussion of issues we hear talked about quite a bit, though the interlocutors are rarely informed about what they say and think.

We hear much talk about inequality of wealth in this country. Mostly, the talk comes from liberals for whom the very existence of inequality is anathema. They search about for various bogeymen, fixing mostly on bankers, Wall Street, rapacious capitalists, and Republicans. They look at inequality and declare it bad, though they haven't been able to articulate WHY it is bad, and why it measures anything but envy. They prattle on about the size of CEO pay as compared to those who work for him, without asking coherent questions about the lot of that worker compared to 25 years ago. The comparison is never apples and apples. Why? Well because those comparisons tell a far different story.

But I am open minded enough to consider that the FACTORS contributing to inequality of wealth are worth looking into. Perhaps in that inquiry, we will find ACTUAL mechanisms for causing the kinds of social distortions that liberals claim are coming our way. The Depression and the rise of the Nazis are most often put forward as proof that inequality is going to destroy us, without any real discussion of those times in our history when inequality was high and social unrest low. The rhetoric is plain envy, and Will has it right when he opines: "People are less dissatisfied by what they lack than by what others have. And when government engages in redistribution in order to maximize the happiness of citizens who become more envious as they become more comfortable, government becomes increasingly frenzied and futile."

But what is it about this particular editorial that caught my eye? Well, it is the whole discussion of how the very "socially conscious" policies we have pursued in this country as we enshrined the welfare state have contributed to inequality. That is, redistribution of wealth--the panacea of the Demo-Socialists--brings about the very conditions against which they now rail. Here's Will: "The welfare state’s primary purpose is to subsidize the last years of Americans’ lives, and the elderly are, after a lifetime of accumulation, better off than most Americans: In 2009, the net worth of households headed by adults ages 65 and older was a record 47 times that of households headed by adults under the age of 35 — a wealth gap that doubled just since 2005. The equalizing effects of redistributive transfer payments are less today than in 1979, when households in the lowest income quintile received 54 percent of such payments. In 2007, they received 36 percent. Because Social Security and Medicare are not means-tested, the share of transfer payments going to middle- and upper-income households tends to increase, for several reasons. The retirement age is essentially fixed, but people are living longer. And because the welfare state is so good to them, the elderly are unusually diligent voters and are especially apt to vote on the basis of protecting their benefits".

Here is something I can get my teeth into. If American workers -- irrespective of how much money they make-- in their prime earnings years begin to believe that their labors are to an unacceptable degree going toward the sustainment of good living for America's retirees--rather than to the advancement of their family's goals--we have the makings of inter-generational strife that could actually be politically meaningful. THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is a cause and effect relationship that I can grasp, and which I believe ought to be addressed with policy solutions. The fact of inequality does not bother me so much as the fact of one of its major contributions--redistribution of wealth from citizens of working age to citizens of retirement age. This means we spend an increasing amount of our tax money on people who simply don't need it.

Of course we must be compassionate toward our seniors, and we must never allow the kind of Depression-era grinding poverty in old age to be a facet of our economics again. But that doesn't mean that we should be siphoning off money from productive wage earners to pad the coffers of well-heeled seniors. Social Security and Medicare should be MEANS TESTED in some manner. Both long ago ceased to be contribution funded as our life expectancies increased and our fecundity decreased. We can't abide by the fiction of these programs being ANYTHING but entitlements, and the great lie of the FDR era that social security can never be confused with welfare must be exposed. It IS a form of welfare, one that as a society we generally support and one that as a civil nation we are morally bound to provide.

On our New Defense Strategy

2012-01-06T09:40:00.000-05:00

My thoughts are up on the other blog, for those so inclined.

It's Friday Folks--Have You Donated to the Romney Campaign Lately?

2012-01-06T08:59:00.000-05:00

Big weekend ahead (two debates) and New Hampshire Tuesday. Dig deep folks, let's send a message to Barack Obama that the his days in office are numbered.

Click the link to the right and be sure to own up to knowing your referrer!

Big Fat Friday Free For All

2012-01-06T08:56:00.001-05:00

Hey folks--what day is it? It is FRIDAY!!!!! Time to kvetch, bitch, whine and pout. Your fourth place finish in Iowa causing you to display the instability that everyone feared (and which put you in fourth place)? Your new defense strategy got folks thinking you're waving the white flag? C'mon folks, share!

Interesting fact: Tubby McG and Mrs. Tubby will make a mint portraying the Romney's if he is elected...

Romney, Gingrich and Santorum.

2012-01-05T14:44:00.000-05:00

As I was driving home from work yesterday, I listened for a bit to Hannity on the radio, and he had as a guest former Clinton strategist and now hired gun Dick Morris. I like Dick Morris. He seems a little bit sleazy, but that doesn't mean he isn't smart. And his analysis of the Republican field was spot on.

The interview came shortly after a very fiery Newt Gingrich was Hannity's guest. Newt made it clear that he's taking off the gloves, and that he's going to come at Romney with guns blazing. Morris doesn't like that strategy, and he believes it will pretty much hand the nomination to Romney--here's why.

Morris believes Gingrich is the only guy in the field who can challenge Romney. He believes that Santorum's surge in Iowa was less a factor of his hard work/99 county strategy and more a reflection of Iowa voters having been through everyone else already--Santorum was the last man standing. By going at Romney--Gingrich essentially is doing the same thing Santorum will do--and they will split the "anti-Romney/non-Paul" vote--leaving Romney sitting pretty, fat and happy on top.

Morris believes Gingrich's strategic play is to go at Santorum--to get him out of the game, unify the anti-Romney vote and then make a real run at Romney. Put another way, Newt's emotional snit is causing him to focus on the wrong guy. I think Morris has this right.

On Iowa

2012-01-04T08:32:00.001-05:00

Well, the "votes" are in, and it looks like Governor Romney won a close one in Iowa over Senator Santorum,. Santorum ran a classic insurgency campaign, and he did it superbly. Iowa is tailor-made to produce someone like him, and it did not disappoint.

Trouble is, he doesn't scale up. Watch what happens in New Hampshire.

What truly surprised me was that Ron Paul didn't do better. I was certain he'd win. Coming in third does not bode well for he of ill-fitting suits.

Rick Perry is toast, as is Michele Bachman. Newt appears to be getting fired up for a scorched earth run, but he simply doesn't have the money to pull it off (being negative costs money).

No friends, things are looking mighty good for Governor Romney. I know, I know--some of you will cry "he only got 25% of the vote". Yes, but he did that in Iowa, which showed its colors by delivering second place to Santorum. "He got fewer votes this time than last time in Iowa". Yes, that's true. But last time, he was the "conservative candidate". He's moved to the right since. Iowa moved farther and faster. "But CW, it is a weak field". Perhaps, but what made it that way? The weakness of Chris Cristie, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio and every other White Knight who considered Barack Obama unbeatable and decided to sit this one out. Romney never wavered, he soldiers on. And he will win.

Get out those checkbooks, folks. Donate to Romney for President.

On Our Insipid Presidential Primary System

2012-01-02T10:30:00.000-05:00

The voters in Iowa will go to the polls tomorrow night to render their long-sought after opinion on the Republican Presidential Primary. Actually, this isn't quite right. Caucus-goers will assemble throughout the state, all at the same time. Representatives of the campaigns will all make one last speech, and then the caucus-goers will cast their votes. Organization and ground game intensity are the keys to success. Iowa protects its "first in the nation" status with terrible determination, and neither party nor any serious candidate has or can criticize its outsize impact for fear of retribution.

Iowans like to believe they are "doing the job" for the rest of us. The retail style of politics, in which individual voters actually take offense if they haven't been able to personally meet each candidate, is held up as some sort of effective screen for the rest of us. Thanks, but no thanks.

The problem is, we're not all Iowans. For whatever reason, Iowans are both more liberal and more conservative than the parties they hold hostage. For months now, we've been treated to the spectacle of 8 or so candidates kissing the collective "arses" of Iowa voters, and going into tomorrow's primary--only one of the top three men in the polls has even a prayer of beating Barack Obama. Neither Ron Paul nor Rick Santorum can do so, and it remains highly questionable that either can even win the Republican nomination. I am on record as supporting the third candidate in contention, but clearly, there are others in the race FAR MORE likely to be threatening to President Obama than Paul or Santorum--Gingrich and Perry come to mind. Essentially, what Iowa represents is an opportunity for the fringe to define the party, and they seem very effective in seizing this opportunity. How can this be a good thing?

What do I recommend? The Republican Party should select four states, one in each of the US timezones--and conduct a January primary on the same day in each of the four states. This would 1) demonstrate the national electability of a candidate 2) mitigate the outsize influence of small, homogeneous states, and 3) cull the field early, as the ability to marshal resources necessary to compete in four states would be beyond those marginal candidates who can survive with an "everything in Iowa" strategy.

I have nothing against the State of Iowa or Iowans. I simply believe that we need to change the way we nominate the party Presidential candidate to a system that more closely approximates the conditions of a general election.

Eric Cantor to 60 Minutes: When Will I Be Loved?

2012-01-02T09:01:00.009-05:00

Sorry Eric, the answer is never, not by these people. More to the point, when will you and your fellow Republicans realize you are hated by Leslie Stahl and the establishment media? Oh I'm sure she told you it would be a nice puff piece with a few political questions. They just want to introduce you to the American people and show your "human" side with the fam and everything. And Leslie being a nice Jewish girl, well SHE wouldn't set you up, not a chance. I'm sure your heart sank when Stahl started the segment with terms like "gridlock", "obstructionist" and "hardline image". Oh the betrayal!

I don't have a problem with tough one-sided interviews and I don't have a problem with Leslie Stahl; she is who and what she is. My problem is with Cantor's stupidity. Stahl has a long history of hit piece journalism on subjects and people she doesn't like and conversely a long history of "let's set the record straight" interviews with people she does like (see Jeffrey Immelt). But Cantor's bend over backwards demeanor was so infuriating, at one stage his press secretary (in a fit of rage no doubt) interrupted to call BS on Stahl. Somebody needs to tell Republicans that when you go into an interview like this you need to be prepared. Let them ask what they will but get some editorial control up front so your best stuff won't be cut. Go on the offensive, make the damn argument with no apologies or inhibitions. Take the fight to the interviewer and if they want to get it on, BE READY! But for Pete's sake don't just sit there waiting for them to knock one past you because you make their point for them, and the point is you're an idiot.

The Debacle in Atlanta

2012-01-01T10:02:00.001-05:00

Last night, my Wahoos got stomped by Auburn. Some of you will say, "what did you expect, CW? Auburn is the defending national champion and they play in the SEC.". We heard quite a few SEC chants, especially in the swcond half. I would like to believe that we were beaten by a better team last night and perhaps we were. Only problem I have, is that you simply couldn't tell that from the game I watched. We were thoroughly outcoached and thoroughly outprepared, but the team that UVA fielded last night was not the team that beat Ga Tech, Miami, and Fla St this year. Some particulars:

Special teams: UVA has been only average on special teams this year. Every punt return is an agonizing wait to see if the return man will botch a fair catch or if the uncaught ball will bounce into one of our clueless players. Our kick return team has been unsatisfying all year. Last night? An average unit took the field without sufficient preparation. Two blocked punts. A botched fake field goal. An out of bounds kick. A ridiculously underdefended free-kick after a safety. The special teams were simply not ready to play, and that is a coaching issue. UVA coach London owned up to it after the game, but a head coach needs to be able to count on his assistants. London cannot count on Anthony Poindexter.

Tackling: Yes, I know. Auburn was fast, and fast guys make you miss tackles. But last night? Even their not so fast guys were breaking tackles. UVA's defense was simply out-prepared; Auburn's misdirection offense takes timing to execute, amd it was obviously well-prepared.

I think any Auburn fan who watched the game last night believed that they were in for a rough game after the first 20 minutes or so. Our offense moved the ball at will. If our special tems had shown up, we might have been able to get into an offensive shootout, since neither team seemed to be able to stop the other. But that game didn't happen, because we were not ready.

Later tonight after I return home, I will dutifully post an Auburn emblem on my Facebook page for 72 hours, and I will plan on once again taking The Hammer to dinner to pay that debt. Great to see a ton of old friends in Atlanta, I only wish the team had shown up. Sorry for typos, doing this on my iPad.

Happy New Year

2011-12-31T07:42:00.000-05:00

I write to you from the pleasant confines of BWI's new airport lounge, contentedly sipping a free coffee whilst awaiting transport to Atlanta to watch my Wahoos take on Auburn in what was formerly known as The Peach Bowl. Apparently, the $500 a year I send AMEX does get me something worthwhile now and then.

Thanks to the Kitten for giving me my liberty card to hang with the boys on New Years Eve. All good things to all readers of this blog--Merry New Year!

Have You Contributed to Romney for President Yet?

2011-12-30T07:30:00.001-05:00

Look to your right, folks. We're on the verge of breaking through the $3000 point in blog support for the ultimate GOP Standard Bearer. Looks to me like Newt is fading and Ron Paul will get ground down under the weight of his own statements. Who will be the one to put us over the $3K level?

Don't forget to click the box saying that you know your referrer's information--that will track it back to the blog.

UPDATE: A frequent visitor to the blog put us over the $3K point today!

Big Fat Friday Free For All

2011-12-30T07:27:00.000-05:00

Well folks? What have you got? Watching your lead slip away in Iowa? Worried what happens to your campaign when all your supporters go back to college? Worried about losing to an ACC team in your Bowl Game? Step right up and bitch away!

WaPost Gets Iowahawked

2011-12-29T06:59:00.000-05:00

Iowahawk takes a look at a recent WaPost piece on the Solydra scandal, and it is a gem. Here's a wonderful bit from it, rightfully criticizing the Post's view of what the "scandal" at Solyndra actually was:

"Look, I have nothing against Linda Sterio, any more than I have anything against a waitress unwittingly employed by an Al Capone speakeasy. I wish her well in obtaining employment. But let's be clear: the scandal is not that she lost her job at Solyndra, it's that she ever had a job at Solyndra. And that she, and countless others, were deprived jobs at legitimate businesses because government sucked $500 million out capital markets to endorse and underwrite the "clean-energy" hustles of its favorite check-writing eco-crooks."

Classic.

Don't Forget Scott Brown

2011-12-28T11:00:00.001-05:00

Yes, I know. He voted now and again in ways that have pissed all of us off. But take a look at this piece from the Boston Herald. He's voted with Republican leadership 75% of the time--the "other" Senator in Massachusetts--John Kerry--voted with Democratic leadership 97% of the time. Indeed, he is among the most moderate of Republicans in the Senate, right there with his neighbors from Maine. But he votes with the Republican caucus. He's yet another vote toward control of the Senate. Dead-enders can turn against him because he didn't turn out to be a perfect Tea Party candidate--but that is not a strategically sound decision. You'd rather have Elizabeth Warren, perhaps? Support Scott Brown. Contribute. Today.

National Review Has A Go At Wall Street

2011-12-28T08:32:00.001-05:00

Kevin Williamson

Kevin Williamson, Deputy Managing Editor of National Review, is a very smart man. He also has the look of someone who has done hard time, which tends to put me in a bit of an intimidated position when I read his stuff...you know, he's smarter than I am, and he looks like he knows how to kill me in several imaginative ways.

Williamson has an article in the latest National Review, and National Review Online has graciously posted it here. In it, Williamson does a manful job of exposing the high state of crony capitalism running amok in the United States, fueled in no small measure by the ultra-cozy relationship between major Wall Street types and politicians of both parties. Few emerge from this article unscathed, and if Williamson is to be believed, few should.

Many people wonder how Wall Street could have been so famously enthralled by the young man from Illinois, he of nary two years of undistinguished Senate experience. Wasn't he a "share the wealth" guy? Didn't he sound vaguely anti-capitalist? Well--yes, He did. But--and here is where Williamson is at his best--we shouldn't confuse Wall Street with free market capitalism. It is a place in fact, where free-market capitalism has been replaced by state influenced--dare I say Fascist--collusion between government and capital. So those who shook their head in wonder as investment banker millions piled into Barack Obama's coffers simply saw things wrong. They weren't voting against their interests...they were voting FOR their interests--and that is, the best bet for continuing to give them the thumb on the scale needed to make the money they want to make.

I know, I know--I sound like a populist. I sound like I am anti-Wall Street. Well, I'm not. I believe Wall Street carries out a necessary function in our-nay, the world's--economy. I know there are a ton of hard working, virtuous people who do their very best to ensure shareholder value in their enterprises. But you've really got to wonder how it was that SO MANY people that you once believed saw the world like you do voted for and financially supported a candidate so diametrically opposed to your beliefs. The answer clearly is that I was wrong about them. Those who voted for President Obama aren't interested in free markets and minimal regulation; those who voted for President Obama are interested largely in keeping the good deal that they had going as long as it could go. Williamson's portrayal of the sneering contempt with which some on Wall Street view REAL free-market capitalists (like the guy who sold you your car, who paved your driveway, who renovated your house) may have been a bit overdone, but it hit a nerve with me.

I've been a pretty consistent backer of Wall Street, and a fairly loud backer of free markets. I'll continue to do both--but I will sharpen my thinking and rhetoric and be more willing to write about excesses enabled by the all-too-cozy relationship between Washington and Wall Street. I hope that a change of administrations next year can move the issue forward, in a way that returns free-market principles to the world of high finance. But we all know where "hope" got us this time....

2012 Predictions

2011-12-27T16:59:00.017-05:00

1. New Orleans will beat Green Bay in the NFC Championship game.
2. Kim Kardashian will write a memoir.
3. Kate Middleton will be with child by years' end.
4. Jerry Sandusky will be the victim of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
5. On Election Night, riots will break out in Chicago, Detroit and Philadelphia.
6. Eric Holder will dig in, the press will circle the wagons, and he will keep his job.
7. The Washington Post will set a record for most consecutive days running essentially the same article to remind us that George Allen used the word macaca in 2006.
8. The Occupy movement will gain steam when the weather gets nice, and something very ugly will finally happen at one of their rallies.
9. The press will suddenly become fascinated with the Mormon faith and there will be an unprecedented number of stories devoted to covering it.
10. At least one and perhaps both of my dogs will finally realize that they're simply never going to catch a squirrel.
11. In CW's continuing effort to be 'nicer,' he will get a Gator for Halloween to tote all the neighborhood kids around.

2012 New Year's Resolutions

2011-12-27T09:17:00.001-05:00

Ok folks. This is a new one--I generally don't make many New Year's Resolutions, and I'm not aware that I've shared them in the past. Posting them here may have the capacity to make me try harder to attain them. So in no particular order, here they are.

1. Eat better. Low carb, all year.
2. Exercise more. Even a little bit is better than nothing.
3. Curse less. I'm an educated, reasonably articulate man, but I can curse like a Sailor. It's time to put that away.
4. Be a "nicer" guy. I don't think the first thing that comes to people's minds when they think of me is that I'm a "nice guy". I guess I'm okay with that, as I don't really strive to be seen that way. In 2012, I think I'd like to be seen as a "nicer guy", at least nicer than 2011.
5. Be more patient. In all things. With all people.
6. Be there more for my family. In all ways.
7. Smile more.
8. Strive to develop a more nuanced sense of humor; value lightness more, sarcasm less.
9. Work around the house more, in the house less.
10. Read more books, fewer URL's.

Scorecard--2011; Predictions--2012

2011-12-27T09:07:00.000-05:00

It was a dismal year for my predictions--you can see them for yourself here. Looks like I got exactly ONE of TEN right--predicting that unemployment would be under 9%. Never one to be dragged down by poor past performance, here are my 2012 Predictions. I invite my fellow bloggers to post theirs as the spirit moves them.

1. Mitt Romney will be elected President
2. Marco Rubio will be elected Vice-President
3. Republicans will win majorities in both Chambers of Congress as a result of the 2012 Elections
4. The Presidential Election of 2012 will be notable for its ugliness. Apologists for Mr. Obama will claim the result was a sign of lingering US racism, forgetting of course, 2008.
5. My renovation will be completed by the time I write next year's wrapup
6. The Dow will break its previous high sometime during the year
7. UVA's Football Team will lose only two games, one of which will be to Va Tech (which will play in the BCS Championship Game)
8. Israel will be at war with at least one other nation-state during 2012. The US will provide logistics and intelligence support, but nothing else.
9. Scott Brown will lose his Massachusetts Senate Seat
10.Scott Brown will be Mitt Romney's choice for Attorney General

Book Review: "In My Time" by Dick Cheney

2011-12-27T07:03:00.000-05:00

The Kitten gave me a copy of Lord Voldemort's autobiography for Christmas, and it is worth the read. It isn't US Grant's story, mind you, but it is an interesting, straightforward account of a very interesting life.

Essentially this is two books--one, the pre-Bush VP days, and the other, an account of Cheney's time as VP. To my mind, the pre-Bush Cheney is far more interesting. Power company lineman (and 2 time DUI recipient), asked to leave Yale (again, twice), college/grad student, husband, father, White House Staffer, White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Chief of Staff, Congressman, Secretary of Defense, Corporate CEO--the man lived a big life. A lot here I didn't know, and a lot here that helped explain why he was the man he was.
The VP part of the book? Well, it is told with less wistfulness, less joy, more business and dedication. There is some serious score settling here--as Condi, Colin Powell, and Richard Armitage come in for some rough treatment. The Bush Years were probably too fresh in my mind for me to really like this section--it seemed more like reading a stack of Time Magazines than reading a life story. But there are some great sections in this part--especially the discussion of striking Syria's nuclear complex (something Cheney advocated), a job eventually taken on by the Israelis.

Cheney's treatment of GWB remains loyal and respectful, though it is clear the President's failure to pardon Scooter Libby created distance between them. Cheney was never what he was portrayed to be in the press (pulling the strings, the man behind the curtain) and he's not afraid to say that here. He was, however, a very different brand of Vice President, and his role in many of the most important decisions of the Bush Presidency sets him apart from the field in terms of influence and legacy.

Read the book. It is clearly Dick Cheney's no-nonsense voice, with spare prose and sentences written that point you in the direction of conclusions but never actually take you all the way, especially when he was trying to say unpleasant things about another person. Of interest to me was the fact that Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich came into the House the same year--and while most of Newt's time in the spotlight occurred while Cheney was in the private sector, the two did serve together in the house for ten years. Cheney is again, respectful of Gingrich and gives him a good deal of credit for bringing about a Republican majority in the House. But he did not align himself with Gingrich's young insurgency, choosing instead to send his Chief of Staff to Newt's meetings.

Christmas Eve....Second Biggest Traffic Day Ever!

2011-12-26T14:52:00.002-05:00

Why was this? Why, it is because we were linked to by my favorite all-grown up blogger, Tigerhawk! Thanks to him for the link and to Sally for supplying the post.

♫ Where Have All the Conservatives Gone?...Long Time Passing ♫

2011-12-26T10:34:00.002-05:00

Interesting piece today in the Washington Post (by our old friend Bob Woodward) describing Newt's troubles with the Republican establishment, specifically the 1990 budget deal between George Bush and Congressional Democrats. Woodward's thesis is that Gingrich was an uncompromising, emotionally unstable jerk who had a problem with authority and betrayed a sitting President thereby facilitating his eventual defeat. Perhaps, but if the 1990 version of Newt were running for President, I would be an enthusiastic supporter.

Compromise is overrated. Compromise is a politician's default position, not a leader's. Say what you will about Obama, Pelosi, Reed et al., when they had the power they didn't compromise. They have their policies and the opposition be damned. I respect that. Compromise is what happens when you have exhausted every possible avenue to winning. I think Maggie Thatcher described the Romney wing of the party exactly: "“If you just set out to be liked, you will be prepared to compromise on anything at anytime, and would achieve nothing. ” Amen.

Jonah Goldberg Masterfully Skewers Ron Paul

2011-12-26T08:04:00.001-05:00

I've been kinda quiet here on the blog (but not on the real-time debate chats) about my distaste for Ron Paul as a Presidential candidate. While there are a number of interesting domestic policy ideas in his satchel, his views on foreign and defense policy make George McGovern look like a war-monger.

Jonah Goldberg--a conservative thinker generally well-disposed to Libertarianism--takes Paul out for a spin in this wonderful column. Here's just a bit for you:

"Paul’s supporters love to talk about how he was a lone voice of dissent. They never explain why he was alone in his dissent. Why couldn’t he convince even his ideologically sympathetic colleagues? Why is there no Ron Paul caucus?"

The Entitlement That Is Social Security

2011-12-26T07:54:00.000-05:00

For its history, Democrats have been able to point to Social Security as something other than an entitlement, a program in which people essentially "pay for their own benefit". They realized (FDR first among them), that for Social Security to be protected and popular--it could not be seen as a giveaway to the poor. No, it must be equally available to all, funded of course, by the contributions of workers themselves.

Something happened on the way to Utopia though, and that is, the birth control pill. That's right, the birth control pill (and the equal rights evolution) conspired to drive birthrates down in the United states to the point where there are only a few workers actually paying for every retiree (while there were over 50 when the program started in the '30's). In less than 15 years, it will be two workers for every retiree. The bottom line is that the program can no longer pay for itself, and its continuation is a function of co-mingling payroll taxes with transfers from the general treasury. In effect, Social Security is now an entitlement, something that has come into sharp relief with the recent payroll tax fight on the Hill.

We simply don't have enough workers to fund the program anymore, unless taxes are raised in dangerously non-productive ways. It is time to means test Social Security and see it for what it is--an insurance policy to keep people from slipping into poverty when they stop working. The fiction of "I paid in, I'm entitled to the benefit" is undercut by longer lives and earlier retirements.

Note to liberals and their echoes: I am not saying get rid of social security. I'm saying we should end the fiction that it is anything other than an entitlement. Doing so opens the way for the kinds of reforms necessary to protect the plan's ability to do good for those who actually need it.

Virginia Ballot Fiasco

2011-12-24T10:36:00.013-05:00

There will only be two candidates to choose from in Virginia's primary on Super Tuesday: Romney and Paul. It's an unusual system-10,000 signatures are required to get on the ballot, with a minimum of 400 from each of the state's 11 Congressional districts.

Newt, Perry, Bachmann, Santorum and Huntsman (hard to remember that last fella!) didn't make the cut. While at least two and possibly four of those candidates will have quit the race by then, Newt was actually leading Romney by a significant margin in the last statewide poll.

Newt is crying foul and blaming the system. RedState is hinting at a conspiracy. The Republican Party of Virginia, who was responsible for verifying the signatures, better have clean hands on this one. But assuming their hands are clean, it's hard to muster too much sympathy for Newt. The rules may be dumb, arcane, whatever. But they're not new rules. Eight candidates managed to get on the ballot in 2008. Goes to show you the vital importance of organization.

We Now Interrupt the Joy of the Season...

2011-12-23T15:46:00.008-05:00

...to bring you a horror story:

Hey Everyone....Mitt Romney's Running for President

2011-12-23T07:53:00.002-05:00

And you can contribute by clicking the link on the right side of the blog. Make sure you check the "I know my referrer" block so that people will know you are a CW reader! Check out the total, folks--we're really making a difference. Every little bit helps!

By the way--if you have a chance, watch the video. Some words you'd never hear Barack Obama say.

Big Fat Friday Free For All

2011-12-23T07:49:00.000-05:00

So? What's on your Christmas list this year? Asking Santa for a little sweetheart deal for your "green" energy firm? Looking for your your party's self respect after the Senate simply left town and said "deal with it"? Miss your wife and girls in Hawaii?

Unburden yourselves, people.

Would Somebody Please Get Barney a Bra?

2011-12-20T17:40:00.015-05:00

Barney on the House floor yesterday
post-surgery.

I'm sorry to report to all of you that you cannot un-ring a bell...and you will not be able to un-see this photo.

Book Review

2011-12-20T06:17:00.016-05:00

Here's a great gift for the non-Obama fan on your list. A 150-page manifesto of everything O knows about the economy published by a 30-year-old banker from Tennessee.

The entire book is blank.

Available on Amazon for $9.99.

Dead Man Walking Holder and Voter ID

2011-12-18T08:04:00.000-05:00

Our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder--under withering pressure generated by the "Fast and Furious" scandal--has come out fighting and decided to choose opposition to state requirements that voters produce some sort of ID before voting as the parapet he will mount. Check out this piece from National Review Online for a report.

I went Christmas shopping during the past few days here in the People's State of Maryland, and each time I went to use my credit card, I had to produce some form of ID (as I choose not to sign the back of them). I complied.

I will later today, attempt air travel via commercial conveyance. I expect to show ID several more times.

I will check into a room on an Army post late this afternoon--and will be required to show an ID.

Yet when I go to vote next year in the Maryland Republican primary, I will not be asked to show a single form of ID. Critics of doing so state that requiring an ID is simply a modern poll tax--a way for Republicans to keep largely minority Democratic voters from going to the polls. Presumably, minority Democratic voters have a very difficult time getting ID's, even when states sponsor legislation saying that they can obtain them for free as part of the ID legislation. This is absolute nonsense, and the Attorney General has selected an issue that will serve the President well with a constituency he's already got locked up, while reasonable moderates shake their heads and wonder what the big deal is. More of this please, Mr. Attorney General.

Your race to return to the private sector (against Secretary of Energy Chu) just got more competitive.

Fairfax County Not Spreading The Wealth Around

2011-12-18T07:40:00.000-05:00

Great post here from Reason's online offerings, one skewering oh so left of center Fairfax County Virginia's input to the Commonwealth of Virginia's legislature. Home of the governmental professional elite, Fairfax falls just behind neighbor Loudon County as the two wealthiest counties in the country. Apparently, spreading the wealth around only works when it is other people's wealth, as Fairfax is somewhat piqued at having to support the rubes unfortunate enough to inhabit the wilder environs of the Commonwealth.

H/T--Glenn Reynolds' Facebook site.

44th President is our 4th Best President, Says 44th President

2011-12-17T09:58:00.027-05:00

O appeared on 60 Minutes last week in an interview where he coughed up a number of howlers, one in particular the view that he always knew it was going to take more than one term to turn things around in this country. This runs contrary to what he revealed in February of 2009, when he claimed if he didn't have things turned around in three years this was going to be a one-term proposition.

The best part of the interview, however, remained on the CBS cutting room floor. In it, the President made the absurd claim that "I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president -- with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln -- just in terms of what we've gotten done in modern history."

Newsbusters addresses the breathtaking narcissism better than I can. The entire interview is here, if you can bear to watch it.

Courage: The Keith Ellison Story

2011-12-17T08:39:00.010-05:00

The Occupy DC losers have embarked on a hunger strike as a way of agitating for DC voting rights. It began December 8 and will likely end without fanfare long before DC voting rights are established or anyone dies of starvation.

Enter Rep Keith Ellison, a Democrat from Minnesota. To show his solidarity with the protestors, he's joined them on the hunger strike. One caveat: his hunger strike will only last 24 hours.

He's practically Mahatma Gandhi.

Is Newt Nuts?

2011-12-16T21:51:00.003-05:00

I didn't see the Republican debate last evening due to illness. I was in the clutches of a robust URTI with attending coughing spells producing a thick, green, bile-like secretion reminiscent of a cheap zombie movie. Misery loves company and I just wanted to share.

But I have watched much of today's coverage of the event and I need to ask, has Newt lost it? He wants to subpoena sitting judges? He wants to do away with whole circuits? He wants to impeach the judiciary according to his political whim? Ok, ok I know the history. I know Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and I know FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court. And if this was just a shot across the bow for our more activist justices, I say well done. But this was neither the time nor the place. And, if one attempts something like this, it behooves one to lay a little groundwork first, so folks can take it in context.

Look, I've seen the damage judicial activism can do and I take a backseat to no one in my frustration with the courts. Over the years I've watched California pass Proposition this or that on everything from taxes to immigration to affirmative action, and I've also watched as they were almost immediately struck down by the 9th. Circuit. I've seen judges take over school districts because they didn't like the funding or the racial makeup in a community. I've seen them invent rights that don't exist and ignore rights that do. Rather than defending and protecting the Constitution, we have chuckle-headed lawyers trained (it seems) in circumventing the the greatest political document ever written on the rights of man. I've seen it, I know it exists, and so have you. But Gingrich's remedy is bad politics and bad policy and it may well have ruined his candidacy.

I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, but I know the courts are a co-equal branch of government, and if the Congress or the President or a State has a case against one of the more "inventive" opinions handed down by the Rose Byrds or Willian Brennans of the World, then they have a Constitutional DUTY to tell the courts to piss-off and take it to the people. And then, guess what? Ultimately the people will decide. And to borrow from WFB, I'd rather be ruled by the first hundred people in the phonebook than the first hundred lawyers in the West Legal Directory.

Well Hello There Mom

2011-12-16T16:21:00.011-05:00

A high school in my ancestral homeland of Minnesota has managed to pull off a rather bizarre stunt.

At a pep rally, all the captains of the winter sports teams were led into the gym blindfolded. They were told they were going to be kissed by someone special, and that they had to guess who the mystery kisser was. Some of the mystery kissers really got into it...these were not innocent little pecks.

Harmless youthful fun, you say? The mystery kissers were the opposite-sex parents of the kids.

UVA vs. Auburn in the Chick-fil-A Bowl

2011-12-16T13:28:00.002-05:00

So what does $320 get you at the Chick-fil-A Bowl? Four tickets in upper deck, end zone nose-bleed. See you in Section 314...

Last Night's Debate

2011-12-16T08:05:00.000-05:00

We had a good time live-blogging last night's debate, a debate that I found to be the most substantive one yet. Michele Bachman was on fire, tearing into Newt with great impact. Newt was alternately brilliant and rambling. Santorum was strong, and I think his numbers in Iowa could surprise. Huntsman just does not connect with me for some reason. Ron Paul is just out there. Rick Perry had his best debate yet.

My man? Mitt did well...very well.

Here's how it plays out in Iowa--you heard it here first:

1. Ron Paul--28%
2. Mitt Romney--25%
3. Newt Gingrich--24%
4. Rick Santorum-- 8%
5. Michele Bachman--7%
6. Rick Perry--6%
7 Jon Huntsman--1%
8. Others-- 1%

Ron Paul will win because he's got committed volunteers and it is a caucus state. College kids home from break will saturate the state and give him a "Pat Buchanan"-like victory.

Romney will beat Gingrich. Folks will spend holiday meals among friends and family talking about the two men, and Newt will simply not digest as well as Mitt.

Santorum will surprise in Iowa. He'll be able to claim a "victory" and then assume the "anti-Mitt" mantle.

Bachman, Perry, and Huntsman are out after Iowa.

Big Fat Friday Free For All

2011-12-16T07:40:00.000-05:00

Well folks, what's eatin' you? Anything you'd like to share with the broader audience. Anything to get off your chest?

Have You Contributed to Romney for President Yet?

2011-12-15T20:20:00.000-05:00

Click the link to the right to donate to the next President's campaign. Don't forget to check the box that states you "know my referrer's information".

Live Blogging the Debate

2011-12-15T18:46:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the late notice everyone, but we'll live blog the Republican debate tonight using the Conservative Wahoo Chat feature on the right side of the page. Looking forward to a big night for Mitt!

Happy Hanukkah

2011-12-15T18:25:00.010-05:00

Presenting the Obamulke, the latest of the Obama campaign's shameless marketing ideas.

You can probably take your time in ordering, I'm just not seeing a rush on these.

Jimmy Wires Turns 80!

2011-12-12T05:00:00.000-05:00

My Dad turns 80 today, and we feted him in grand style in North Carolina over the weekend. Dad always referred to himself as a "humble wire peddler", and he taught my brothers and me most of what we know about golf, talking smack on the golf course, the art of playing catcher, and how to grill bluefish--among other very important things. Happy Birthday, Dad. 80 looks good on you.

Renovation Progress

2011-12-11T19:42:00.001-05:00

Had several people ask about the renovation over the weekend, and the plain truth is that it isn't done. We're close, but then again we've been close for four months. Some painting, a little carpentry, some electrical work, and then of course, a ton of landscaping remains.

Here's a before and after that shows exterior progress. Summer's obviously gone, so the two wings are hidden in the before.

Dec 2010

Dec 2011

Aug 2010

Republican Power Summit: Raleigh, NC

2011-12-10T00:04:00.000-05:00

Yes indeed, ladies and gentlemen, it was quite a night in Raleigh. In payment of the debt earned through Virginia's non-performance against the NC State Wolfpack this year, I met The Hammer for dinner in a fine steakhouse in Raleigh, and what followed can only be termed as a delight. My sister Kelly joined us, though Hammer's Mrs. was feeling ill and had to stay home (sorry Rachel, I hope you are available next time).

The Hammer and CW

It was a thoroughly enjoyable evening. The food was superb, the conversation first-rate, and the company was convivial. Definitely a "do-over". Thanks, Hammer, for your good cheer and friendship.And thank you to my sister Kelly who made the two of us look less like an old, gay couple.

Tonights the Night

2011-12-09T08:03:00.003-05:00

As a result of CW's out of control gambling jones, my wife and I will be dining this evening at his expense. As I have only briefly met CW, I am looking forward to conversing with a real Washington insider. It's not everyday a backwoods redneck like me gets an opportunity like this.

So CW, we shall see you at 8:00 (don't be late) and what time should we expect the limo?

Guns Walk, Holder Balks

2011-12-08T18:17:00.007-05:00

Not a fan of Eric Holder. I think he's a hyper-partisan political hack, I think he's a racial chauvinist, and I think his judgement can best be described as imbecilic. His testimony today before Dan Issa's oversight committee tells me two things. 1) Obama has no intention of firing this clown and has told Holder exactly that, and 2) Holder thinks he can ride this out. From a political perspective this is good news for Republicans.

In the upcoming campaign let's make Obama explain why ATF facilitated the purchase of over 2000 assault rifles (some say three times that number) by fraudulent buyers (often times foreign nationals) for the specific purpose of arming organized Mexican drug gangs. And how were we to track these rifles, by the trail of mayhem? Let the President explain away the hundreds of crimes committed on both side of the border, including a dead American Border Patrol agent, perpetrated with these weapons. Let's hear why the Mexican government was not consulted or otherwise informed of this asinine scheme that has resulted in damaged relations between our two countries. Furthermore, what did you Mr. President know and when did you know it? And finally, let's hear why there hasn't been a top to bottom reorganization at DOJ starting with Holder's resignation and possible indictment.

CW Bucket List Item....

2011-12-06T20:36:00.000-05:00

West Wing Entrance. A very cool day.

Some very gracious people on President Obama's National Security Staff had me over for a visit and discussion today. We met in the West Wing---the "Situation Room" to be exact, and to be painfully specific, the very same room that the famous shot was taken of the President and his staff following the action during the Bin Laden takedown.

It was really a treat to be invited, and doubly so that we didn't do the meeting in the Old Executive Office Building (been there, done that) --a beautiful old place, but not the "show".

One of the things I came to learn during my final tour in the Navy was the degree to which where matters of foreign policy and defense are concerned, the adults are generally in charge atop both parties. Folks working on this National Security Staff are no exception. Very smart, very collegial, listening intently. This was an all time great day.

Hunting Report

2011-12-04T11:12:00.003-05:00

CW, you didn't miss much. The only things we killed were time and brain cells. At least we didn't have to clean guns or game, but we did have a good time stressing our livers and inventing new remedies for hangovers and morning after cigar breath. Alcohol, tobacco and firearms--it's not just for government anymore.

CW on NPR Tonight

2011-12-04T08:53:00.001-05:00

I was interviewed Friday for Sunday night's edition of "All Things Considered" (check your local listings). It is a story on military retirement benefits, and I am apparently one of several people they interviewed. I'll post the podcast when it is available.

The story is here, with a link at the top of the page to listen to the podcast.

The Payroll Tax Issue

2011-12-04T08:47:00.000-05:00

Last year, President Obama and Republicans came up with one of their ridiculous bargains designed to show that the parties can "work together". In it, the "Payroll Tax" was cut by about a third, meaning that the revenue flowing into Social Security and Medicare was also reduced. This was--we were assured--a "stimulative measure", and it was one that was designed to make EVERYONE happy. For Republicans--who it is thought cannot pass up a tax cut--it hit them right in the wheelhouse. For Democrats, they could appear to be tax cutters by attacking the regressive parts of the tax system that EVERYONE (including a great number of their constituents that pay zero income tax) pays. This was a no-brainer for the Dems, as they could support it knowing full well that the resources available for Social Security and Medicare have very little to do with the payments from those programs--as we simply borrow and print money to make up the difference. The fact that two of the biggest entitlement systems in the country would be underfunded seemed not to matter to either the irresponsible Republicans who supported it or the irresponsible Democrats who supported it.

Now there is a debate on the Hill whether to extend the cut. The WaPost gleefully writes of a "split" in the GOP over the issue, as some in the party that likes to consider itself more fiscally responsible (with some evidence to the contrary) are troubled with continuing to underfund these entitlements. Dems would "pay" for them by raising taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" (you know, the ones the President vacations with at Martha's Vineyard and Oahu), and Republicans would "pay" for them by cutting spending elsewhere.

Friends, cutting payroll taxes is a ridiculous piece of political theater. Republicans are fools for letting themselves get dragged into this one, when the fiscally responsible path (letting the holiday expire) is the politically risky one. The President is already out there hammering Republicans for denying taxpayers $900 a year in these "hard times".

The hard, right thing would have been NOT to do the cut in the first place. Comprehensive reform is the path to savings in those entitlements, not starving them of resources that get put in by other means. Now that last-year's cut has achieved the status of "settled law", Republicans will get smeared if they continue to resist extending it. They should get behind the extension, but continue to hold the line on what pays for it. Bad strategy here, Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell.

Ponnuru on Romney

2011-12-03T10:48:00.000-05:00

National Review Senior Editor Ramesh Ponnuru has a piece in the latest National Review in which he declares for Mitt Romney, and in typical Ponnuru fashion, he backs it up with thoughtful writing. Ponnuru doesn't shy away from considering Romney's weaknesses, but in a comprehensive net assessment of the field, he identifies Mitt as the man for the moment. Ponurru echoes some things I've said here and elsewhere with a bit of solid thinking:

"On the other hand, there is also something to be said for calculation in a politician. Successful political leaders need to have a realistic sense of what public opinion, and the political system, will bear, a sense cultivated by the habit of calculation. And there is a limit to how much political risk conservatives should want a president allied to them to take. Most of the time conservative activists should be trying to reduce the risks of advancing conservative initiatives rather than to goad elected officials to political recklessness. Conservatives should, that is, point the way for ambitious politicians to advance good ideas that can command the support of a national center-right majority."

Ramesh has it right. The process will play out, and I don't think it will be a quick one. But in the end, Republicans will get in line behind Romney--because they don't want a second Obama term.

Let Them Eat Cake!

2011-12-03T10:36:00.000-05:00

Our Royal Family decamps for a 17-day Hawaiian Vacation later this month.

Have You Contributed to Romney for President Yet?

2011-12-02T05:00:00.002-05:00

Let's get going, folks! Just a month until Iowa....got to get off to a good start. Donate to Mitt Romney for President here, check the block indicating that you "know my referrer's information".

Ann and Mitt

Big Fat Friday Free For All

2011-12-02T05:00:00.000-05:00

Well folks, it's that time of the week again. That 13 year affair got you down? A little worried those photos of you and Nancy Pelosi are gonna keep showing up? Well--unburden!

Here's One Problem Solved

2011-12-01T00:14:00.005-05:00

Oh you naysayers, you detractors, you malcontents; when will you put aside your prejudice, your bigotry, your obdurate racism and admit our beloved President has finally and forever solved one of the most egregious and immoral problems facing our society. I refer of course to homelessness.

As I'm sure you're aware, this was a terrible problem in the time of the Reagan/Bush takeover. It abated for the most part with Bill Clinton's wise and considered stewardship of our great nation, but came back with a vengeance during the Bush II regime.

Now under the awe-inspiring leadership of President Barack Obama, burdened by the most trying of circumstances not of his making, the problem has been definitively and decisively eradicated. One need only watch our ever diligent network news to draw this incontrovertible conclusion.

Thomas Sowell is Just Plain Wrong

2011-11-30T11:18:00.000-05:00

In a piece at National Review, the normally indisputably great Thomas Sowell attempts to "teach" us all a lesson--that for Republicans, ideology trumps centrism. Sowell's already on record as being hostile to Mitt Romney, so this piece really is a veiled criticism of the GOP's most electable candidate. Professor Sowell is however, cherry-picking his history in a manner unbecoming his scholarship.

Let's face it--Richard Nixon--who also (like Reagan) won two victories--was not the most conservative of Republicans. Nor was Dwight D. Eisenhower, who also won two victories. The ideologically pure Barry Goldwater? Trounced. Even George H.W. Bush--who won Reagan's third term--was not the most conservative candidate in his primary. Because more centrist Republicans have suffered defeat can be attributed to factors other than their centrism--McCain and GHW Bush (re-election) were associated with grinding recessions. Dole ran against the arguably the most talented Democratic politician of our time, who also happened to be pretty darn popular.

No, Sowell's got it wrong this time. The only lesson we should learn is that we should nominate the person with the best chance of winning.

Johah Goldberg on Joe the Puppeteer

2011-11-30T10:49:00.000-05:00

I simply can't get enough Jonah Goldberg. He is consistently the funniest, smartest guy writing on the right--ok, maybe he's tied with Mark Steyn. He's got a piece this morning at National Review in which he compares Joe Thierrien, out of work puppeteer, with Joe Wurzelbacher--a.k.a. "Joe the Plumber". It is a must read, especially for Goldberg's analysis of the wholesale abandonment of working-class whites by the Democratic establishment in favor of a coalition of the well-educated and largely lower class minorities. Quoting Tom Edsall in the NYT, Goldberg writes:

“All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up . . . of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers, and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African American and Hispanic.”

The message here? The Republican candidate for President MUST appeal to this group of working class whites. The one doing so most effectively right now is Rick Santorum--and I would love to see Mitt Romney pick up the torch. Working class whites have a streak of conservatism in them, and we can do better to swing them to our side.

If you think that Republican prospects are better served targeting Hispanics with emotionally charged soliloquies about "law-abiding" illegals who have been here for 25 years, raising families and attending church etc--vote for Newt Gingrich. If you feel our prospects are better served by getting the Reagan coalition back together...then Romney's your man.

More on Income Inequality

2011-11-30T10:28:00.000-05:00

I've written quite a bit here about income inequality, specifically my holding that it measures nothing useful, only envy. It is however, the "subject du jours" for the "Occupy" folks, and so it remains newsworthy.

In this editorial, Nick Schulz at AEI lays out three reasons why inequality has grown...and why they may be "inconvenient" to the "99%" Worth a read.

On Yesterday's Drubbing

2011-11-27T08:32:00.000-05:00

Virginia Tech rolled into Charlottesville yesterday and beat us like a drum, 38-0. There was nothing good about this day, nothing at all. They manhandled us on the offensive line, their skilled position players made ours look like Ankle-biters, and our defensive backfield evidently phoned this one in from whatever Bowl Game they were thinking about.

Worst of all, there were--to my estimation--at least as many Tech fans in the stadium as there were UVA fans. Now of course, Tech travels well--and opposing teams have the opportunity to buy a certain amount of set-aside tickets. But the tech folks were interspersed throughout the crowd, pretty much everywhere but the student section. To me, this means that there were a ton of UVA fans who didn't go--but more execrably--gave their tickets to Hokies.

And because my season tix are on the low end of the dollar scale, I just happen to be in the general vicinity of where the opposing team's seats are set aside. I was thoroughly overwhelmed by Hokies. It really was an unsatisfactory day from start to finish.

On the subject of tailgaters--you don't get to park your vehicle and then set up your ring of chairs in the space next to you. You put your chairs astern of your bumper, and leave the spaces for others. It was AMAZING how many douchebags (of both schools) were taking up spaces like this--on the biggest game of the year with the largest expected crowd. UVA cops/officials were nowhere to be found.

Walter Russell Mead on The Energy Boom

2011-11-27T07:54:00.001-05:00

Wanna read a devastating take-down of the New York Times to get your Sunday off to a great start? Take a look at this piece, which WRM eviscerates the New York Times' coverage of the oil boom in the midwest. One wonders whether NYT would be so moved were it solar panel manufacturers and windmill placers who were blotting the landscape. A sample of this thoroughly entertaining piece:

This is what economic growth looks like. It is sudden, disruptive, often inconvenient. It messes with the status quo. New stuff gets built and not all of it looks like the Cloisters. All kinds of rough and hungry men flock to it; they sometimes misbehave. They spit on the ground, say unpleasant things about women, and generally fail to meet the behavioral standards of the Upper West Side.
Decline is so much more decorous. Prairie towns slowly wither on the vine; the young people quietly leave, the stores gradually empty and close. Reporters from the Times write haunting and moving stories about the gentle, drifting sadness of it all. Novelists in creative writing programs can write delicate tales of rural decline; filmmakers can make understated little films about the lost hope and vanished promise of the American dream.

H/T: Instapundit

The Politics of Hate

2011-11-26T09:42:00.002-05:00

This is former NY Times "Chief Theater Critic" Frank Rich in the lobby of a Broadway playhouse with presumably a rising young star (especially if Frank has his way). I say former because the powers that be at "The Old Grey Lady" promoted Frank to the opinion pages some years back due to his many years of service to (and being serviced by) the New York intelligentsia.

Mr. Rich has a wonderful column (click on the header) relating his views on right-wing extremism which he feels (Frank always feels) was directly responsible for JFK's untimely death, and of course our current President's problems.

Now, you may say this is claptrap, revisionist history that would make Oliver Stone blush. Perhaps but I say Frank Rich is a national treasure and if he's good enough for the salons of Upper East Side Manhattan, he's good enough for me.

*As a sidebar, Frank loves the new Hugh Jackman musical: "Sexy, sexy, sexy, oh and did I mention sexy! Great fun, old school entertainment. Hugh Jackman has a beautiful talent and is willing to share." Yeah, you wish Frank, you wish!

Health Care Is Expensive Because We Don't Know How Much It Costs

2011-11-25T09:12:00.000-05:00

There are lots of things wrong with America's health care system(s). The one on which I concentrate in this post is the pernicious impact of "employer-based" health care provision. That is to say, the system under which most of us receive our health care. A relic of WWII wage controls, health care through one's job developed as a "fringe benefit" not subject to the impact of wartime restraint. In order to attract scarce labor, companies began to add health care...and the rest is history.

The problem with this system--at least in how it has metastasized--is that we have arrived a a point in which the average Joe has no sense of the real costs of health care. Instead, he is confronted with a poor proxy, and that is the monthly insurance premium he pays--which for some reason, he feels is too high. He feels this way because month after month, hundreds of dollars come out of his paycheck to subsidize everyone else's health care, while he and his family are only modest consumers. Well, some may say, that is the nature of "insurance"--but from where I sit, it is an insurance like no other.

When I pay a monthly car insurance premium, I do not expect to receive routine auto care. I do not expect gasoline. I do not expect new tires on a regular basis. Each of these services is priced separately and a transaction is the result of my having chosen among several providers. Insurance kicks in on the high end--when my car is stolen, when I have had an accident--when a tree falls on it.

Of course health care and car insurance are not the same; but that again, is a choice of our society. Instead, we lump our payment into "premiums" set as the result of a negotiation between our employer and (usually) one insurance company, who has already negotiated a series of rates with "providers". We--the ultimate consumer--are insulated by at least two other rounds of transactions from the TRUE cost of our health care, the result of which is, we are not consumers. We are recipients. We don't make choices, we receive care. We don't negotiate for the value, we take what we are given.

I came across this article this morning on Instapundit, telling the story of a startup that seeks to expose the true costs of medical care. Why do I find this interesting? Because I advocate for a largescale overhaul of the way we deliver health care in this country. No my socialist friends...not single-payer. I'm talking about a system in which consumers wield the power of their purse, choose among providers and spend their own money on routine health care while negotiating directly with insurance companies to deal with the costs of other than routine matters.

We must break the employer provided health care chain, one that insulates consumers from cost and limits their choice--not to mention, holds down their wages and decreases tax revenue. Less freedom and more government is not the answer. The answer is empowered individuals.