They blow bubbles, don't they.

Here is Spengler's take on President Elect Obama's financial wizards, from an article with some good background:

For a quarter of a century, the inbred products of the Ivy League puppy mills have known nothing but a rising trend in asset prices. About the origin of this trend, they were incurious. The Reagan administration had encountered a stock market in 1981 trading 50% below its the long-term trend. Reagan restored the equity market to trend by cutting taxes, suppressing inflation and easing some regulations. The private equity sharps were fleas traveling on Reagan's dog. They simply rode the trend with the maximum of leverage...

Without leverage, the clever folk around Barack Obama are fleas without a dog. None of them invented anything, introduced an important new product, opened a new market, or did anything that reached into the lives of ordinary people. They wore expensive cufflinks, read balance sheets, exercised regularly, sat on philanthropic boards, and assumed that their flea's ride on the Reagan dog would last forever.

Apparently their new idea is "shock and awe" stimulation for the economy.  Like the old joke says, when you have a hammer all your problems look like nails. The Real Estate bubble worked out well for Rahm  Emanuel, Barney Frank and the Congressional Democrats. Their Wall Street Pals will "bail out" alright, too.  Obviously, if you know how to create bubbles then when you see a problem break out the bubbly.  So soon we'll have a bubbly auto industry, a bubbly "alternative fuel"  sector and a bubbly bath for the taxpayer. I hope it is "for the children" since they are the ones who will pay for it.

Will his sensible appointees come up with sensible policies?  Or will they break out the bubbly?

Want a well used crisis? How's about Global Warming for 45 trillion?

History News Network

What is to be done? We must use this crisis to make major strides towards energy independence. A major part of the stimulus package should be spent on investment in our energy resources. This is the time to take a holistic approach. We should do everything, so that never, but never, will energy warlords be in a position to hold us hostage again. As in 1973 and 1979, they have demonstrated yet again that they cannot be trusted. Enough is enough.

I wonder. If President Obama wants to serve two successful terms he will go slow on alternative energy development. Alternative energy is expensive energy and will drain America's wallet while putting the nation's industry at a competitive disadvantage. He would be wise to keep the price of oil low (and our enemies -- now his enemies, too -- poor) by allowing more domestic production and generating cheap, coal powered electricity for the grid. The fact that we may be entering a mini ice age should help. Instead of a ten year time frame for alternatives, he should think thirty years and have a successful Presidency.

He has been making sensible appointments. He should follow up with sensible policies.

Settled Men

Pajamas Media » The Peter Pan Myth: The Real Reason Men Won’t Settle Down

But what was original was just how much of a backlash Hymowitz herself incited –all of it from the boys. Her inbox overfloweth with righteous invective styling itself as the “Menaissance,” which sure sounds as ridiculous as “Iron John” did in the ’70s, but recommends an altogether healthier program than banging bongo drums naked in the woods. The Menaissance mantra seems to be, “We’re mad as hell, and we’d rather be masturbating”...

I watched "House" Tuesday and on that show an "emancipated" 16 year old girl said the reason she was estranged from her parents was that her father had raped her. I thought the statistical genius Doctors on the show should point out that for the biological father to rape the daughter is a rather rare event. For the "live in" boyfriend or the latest hook-up of a single mom, much more common. This is one of my favorite gripes against Hollywood: They constantly show the "traditional fathers" as wretches; the single mom as heroic. Then they will associate the social problems of the broken family with the intact ones. In the real world a daughter living in an intact family is at much less risk.

Now in this case the daughter was lying about her father raping her. On the program it seemed regarded as a perfectly acceptable "polite" lie, however. In the end they did show the parents reuniting with the daughter. That is progress, for Hollywood.

I think the gripes of the "boys" have to do with what they are called when they become men.

An august bureaucrat gives us August in October

From the folks who brought us bogus "climate models" heavily biased toward global warming (or rather prejudiced against Free Markets and Free Enterprise) comes Flaming October!

The world has never seen such freezing heat - Telegraph:

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

Jimmy Hansen and his jimmied up climate records is a prime example of a bureaucrat taking over a taxpayer funded institution to promote their own ideology. There is apparently nothing we can do about this if the individual shows up to work on time and don't take too many sick days or murder their co-workers. I remember this guy saying -- when global warming critics claimed that much foreign temperature data was inaccurate -- that third world readings track with US data so it's all good. Then when his "reformulation" of US data turned out wrong (the 90s were not the warmest decade in the US) he said it tracked with foreign data so he was still right globally even if his claims were wrong locally. 

The author Christopher Booker describes the cause of the latest screw up:

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The mistakes seem to go one direction -- the direction of giving these folks all sorts of power and spending $45 trillion in a crash program to crash the economy.

Neo-Socialism and the Subprime Paradigm.

Neo-socialists are interested in the acquisition of power, not money. Therefore Neosocs work to make the population resentful of those who appear interested in the acquisition of money. They then use that resentment to acquire power over those interested in money (whose interest can be useful) and everyone else.

The fact that the economy began to tank under a Republican is a godsend to the Neosocs who surround President Elect Obama. So President Obama will do what he says he'll do, not what most on the "center line" of the political highway hope.

Back when everyone was talking $180 bbl oil I said the world has plenty of oil at $60 bbl and if the markets are allowed to function that is where the price will go. So obviously, the markets cannot be allowed to function.

For Obama and the Neosocs, $2 a gallon gas has got to be $5 a gallon gas if their "alternative energy" power grab is going to work. The business of OPEC is raising the price of gas by cutting supply. The Democrat Congress is the most important member of OPEC (see previous post) so look for them to significantly cut future US production. Of course it must be done with plausible deniability. Environmental concerns will stop oil exploration, stop oil shale development and stop new refining capacity. Meanwhile expanded oil use in the rest of the world will be allowed, if not encouraged, through Kyoto style loopholes (it's an antipoverty measure). Taxes and regulations of the oil companies must be greatly expanded in the name of Fairness. In return Big Oil will get -- from the Democrats -- expensive oil and good profits (the Democrats get their cut in the form of taxes). The Neosocs must get the price back on an upward path soon. They don't want their finger prints on "five dollar gas."

The USA as the TVA is part of the Neosoc agenda, and economic distress will provide all the excuse they need to implement it. Look for grandiose public work projects (as broadly defined as possible).

Meanwhile the economy as a whole will be organized into Cartels of Caring. Cartels exist to advantage producers over consumers and cartel community organizers over everyone. Cartels are justified as providing a social good -- even in autocratic Nations. As they spread through our economy they will provide little but social harm. The poor will become poorer (but they will be "helped") and the workers will become Cartel dependent. In fact, economic distress will make the emerging system more stable by making the dependent citizen conservative in the "change adverse" sense. The "change we can believe in" is neosoc "fear of change" in the population as a whole once the neosocs are in charge.

The Cartels of Caring will get a steady stream of income and protection from competition in return for supporting the new social order. In the neosocialist order, management and "Capitalists" will front for the bureaucracy and the Washington Party -- that combination of politicians, top bureaucrats, major media and "public private partnerships" that make up our ruling class. They will be politically dependent clients of the Washington Party. They will be selected for being responsible not in the sense of being competent, but in the sense of taking the blame when things go wrong (and they will go wrong).

Under old style socialism, socialist took the hit when economies collapsed. Under Neo-socialism the "capitalists" become neosoc puppets. They are kept around to take credit for failure rather than provide additional credit to success. Neosocialism operates on the Subprime Paradigm -- where the architects of the mortgage meltdown take charge of the "blame shift" and take over the government. Nice work, if you can get it.

The Democrat Congress: The most powerful member of OPEC

Pajamas Media » We Can Solve the Financial Crisis by Destroying OPEC

We need to ask ourselves the question: Why has the housing market collapsed? If you want the answer, just follow the money. It’s gone to pay for oil.

Consider: This year, with OPEC-rigged oil prices averaging near $110/barrel, Americans will pay $900 billion for their oil supply, and the world as a whole will pay $3.6 trillion. These petroleum costs are up a factor of ten from what they were in 1999, and represent a huge highly-regressive tax on the world economy. For Americans, the $900 billion oil levy (up from $80 billion in 1999) is equivalent to a 33% increase in income taxes across the board — with sixty percent the sum being paid over in tribute to foreign governments.

To see how this tax can destroy real estate values, it is only necessary to compare expenditures. In 2003, Americans paid $268 billion for new homes, and $197 billion for oil. In 2008, we paid for new homes at an annual rate of $134 billion, and $900 billion for oil. So the increase in our oil expenditures was more than five times as great as the fall in our spending for new homes.

OPEC functions by limiting supply to drive up prices. What is the response of the Democrat Congress to the recent fall in oil prices? They announced they will block oil exploration, not only off shore but on land -- in other words they will keep millions of barrels of oil (every day) off the market.

The most powerful member of OPEC is the Democrat Controlled Congress. They keep more oil off the market (by far) than any other member. And the American people pay through the nose. Why would they do anything to undermine the organization of which they form an important part? If they can find a way to get control of that money rather than sending it to foreigners — then maybe. Still, they will want the money (or more to the point the "power of the purse" and the power of regulation), not affordable fuel. They need expensive fuel to make their alternative future, with them in command in DC, a reality.

What do you call Bankrupting the coal industry? A good start on the road to bankrupting oil.

AP says President Obama to ban Embryonic Stem Cell Research!

My Way News - Obama to use executive orders for immediate impact

WASHINGTON (AP) - President-elect Obama plans to use his executive powers to make an immediate impact when he takes office, perhaps reversing Bush administration policies on stem cell research and domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.

Reversing the Bush administration policies on stems cells research means reinstating the total ban on Federal Funding of embryonic stem cell research which was in place before President Bush changed it (allowing funding for research on existing embryonic stem cell "lines"). Is this what AP means? Probably not.

And they can't mean the second part either. Because Sen. Obama looked right into the electorates eye during the second debate and said "I do not oppose drilling!" Of course the AP and every other reporter knew he was lying to the voters and that was OK because he was lying to the voters and not to news fellows. And so they past over it in silence. And now he's doing so many pirouettes that if you put a drill bit on his shoes he'd be down to 4,000 feet. And what will the media do? Help him spin.

We should look upon the news manipulation of the new administration as a teaching moment. It is an opportunity to show the nation why centralizing power in Washington is a bad idea: Why the Democrat’s “groupism” of the parts hurts the group as a whole. Such instruction requires patience; that’s why I’m not a teacher. Anyways, here’s my take.

President Elect Obama rocketed to the top by opposing the US war in Iraq. There is nothing wrong with that.

So what is wrong with opposing his war on the US economy? The neo-socialist war on free enterprise? Why can’t “save the whales” become “save our trade”? And the machinations of the Carbon Market (which we don’t need) be compared to the worst that an excess of corruption and incompetence ever brought to the Free Market (which punishes the sorts of wretched excess that governments so often reward).

The left opposed the malefactors of great private wealth. We can oppose the malefactors of great bureaucratic power. The left opposed Christian “theocrats” reaching into our homes. We can oppose environmental Gaea-crats reaching into our homes, our bodies and everywhere else we inhabit (and even the areas we don’t).

We can safely oppose trashing an old power network that delivers power cheaply and — if the environmentalist would allow upgrades — reliably, only to replace it with a fantasy one that is expensive and unproven. This is like sending a good $25,000 car to the crusher (forgoing the resale value) to be replaced by a bad $50,000 car that is still on the drawing boards, can’t yet be manufactured and will end up costing 75,000. In fact, it may be exactly like that. It is, in short, a crash program to crash the economy. The only good thing here is that critics won’t have to make anything up or distort the truth when they point this stuff out (they need only persevere through persecution).

I even think being anti the neo-socialists war on the private economy will be patriotic. As the saying goes, “Do the right thing.” What do you think?

Europe has a Change of Viscera, too

Denis Boyles offers a humorous take on Obamaphile Euros.

 At Long Last Love by Denis Boyles on National Review Online

Americans, especially those on the Left, love to be loved, and there hasn’t been this much of the stuff aimed at the U.S.A. for a long time — just over seven years in fact. The last time Europe erupted in a clamor of amour it was because terrorists were flying airplanes into the World Trade Center. That bout of affection lasted about 48 hours. This love is made to last for weeks, maybe even months, but probably not years. Still, by the standards of the trans-Atlantic marriage, that’s an eternity.

When the internationally esteemed, noble peace prize winning "Great Satan" Jimmy Carter was President -- and our embassy personnel still captives of the Iranian Mullahs -- I was traveling through Asia. I ran across many people on the international left who told me that the Japanese, for instance, hated Americans. I never encountered much overt anti-Americanism myself, but perhaps that is because I come from the "so what?" school.

It was an attitude I developed when traveling in Europe when Nixon was President and I would often find myself talking to leftist -- the riotous "1968ers" I encountered in '70. I remember once they snarkily demanded to know when the US would stop being racist. I said in fifty years (this is almost forty years ago). They got intrigued: why fifty years? I said, "Because most people alive today are going to have to die." Or they would demand that we stop occupying West Germany (We had 300,000 troops there at the time). I'd say, "Sure, we can do that. But West Germany would either double the size of its military or become a satellite of the Soviet Union. Which outcome would you prefer?" Generally speaking, since their pushing anti-American buttons didn't get me upset or apologetic or just generally defensive, they'd just as soon carry on a healthy conversation as go for the cheap thrills.

I think what gives anti-Americanism its charm is that many Americans actually seem to care.  And so I think it will be back.

The World has a Change of Viscera

According to Philip Stephens, "In recent years, the anti-Bushism born of Iraq, Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo has hardened into visceral anti-Americanism." But seems it ain't hardened into concrete and must be made of ice because the blow-torch election of Sen. Obama to the Presidency has melted it. "The election confounds the prevailing image (always something of a distortion) of a nation described only by its arrogance and indifference." Well, good. I'm glad they're confounded, confound it! But is it arrogant to be indifferent? Here's more (FT.com Obama’s victory: a change the world should believe in):

With Dick Cheney, the vice-president, hovering ever present in the wings, few have believed that the [Bush] administration’s motives could be anything but bad, its embrace of engagement anything but tactical. Mr Bush completely lost the benefit of the doubt.

That will change. It will no longer be possible (it should never have been so with Mr Bush) for America’s adversaries to draw moral equivalence between the president of the world’s most powerful democracy and tyrants, despots and terrorists everywhere: Mr Obama as the Great Satan?

In demonstrating the infinite capacity of the US to reinvent itself by rediscovering idealism, Mr Obama robs friend and foe of their alibis.

The way I look at it, anti-Americanism comes in two types: that based in self interest and that based in emotion. Typically, the self interested anti-Americans are using it to manipulate the emotional ones. During this stage it is more their problem than ours. Only when the Demagogues take over does it become ours -- typically because of what they are doing to everyone but us.

There is only one difference between the anti-Americanism of the recent past and of that going forward: When Bush was President, the media cared (or pretended to) and going forward it won't. That is because their interest in anti-Americanism was utilitarian in nature (something to whack Republicans with) and its utility is now gone. In fact it was they who drew the "moral equivalence." The adversaries of America need only repeat it.

Those who need anti-Americanism as a political crutch will continue to use it at the expense of those who need it as an emotional one. We just won't hear much about it. I grant you, this will be an improvement.

Mr. Stephens goes on:

A week ago Moscow’s latest threat to site its missiles on Poland’s borders might have been greeted with a pained shrug: after all, Russia, many in Europe would have said, had been provoked by Mr Bush.

As it was, the sour response of Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, to Mr Obama’s victory spoke to his own failure to grasp the significance of the event. Moscow has precious few friends even now. Henceforth it will find it a lot harder to hide its belligerence behind America’s unpopularity. The same might be said of Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and one or two others.

There is an important lesson here for Washington’s allies, too. Mr Bush has been an excuse for inaction. Many Europeans have spent the past few years carping from the sidelines: the US has been messing things up everywhere, so why should they contribute anything to global security?

Apparently a new day has dawned and the Russians have hit the snooze button. But not to worry, the Europeans are already making coffee and croissants.

Actually, as his supporters on the left know, President Elect Obama has pledged to kill anti-missile defense. Now when he abandons missile defense (and the radar and missile sites in Poland) it will look like he folded in front of the Russian threat.

I once had a girl friend who explained to me the difference between fashion and style. So let me put it this way: Obama may have fashion. But the Russians, they have style.

A Gruntled American Speaks -- or rather Writes

We really shouldn't take the future of our country too seriously -- or at least that seems to be the attitude of the electorate. Just kidding. I do feel a bit like one of those Old Testament Prophets, though: Nothing to do now but wait for the locust plagues to show up. Again, just kidding. I do expect a rain of frogs on Saturday, though. OK, more like a light toad shower.

Originally I thought of Kiddington Oh! as the setting for a comic novel (I think the very first post is the very first part). Then I reread it and realized it wasn't funny. Be that as it may. I am toying with another idea for a novel.

See, there's this extended family of bankrupt coal miners. And they strap the mattress to the top of the SUV and borrow some gas money from a rich uncle who works for the government. Or maybe they have one of them stoves strapped to the back that cooks gas from coal to run the SUV. Now their coal cooking SUV spews black soot, and it's a good thing they got carbon credits from their rich uncle because they use them to bribe the enviro-police.

As they travel down the refugee filled roads, they stop at abandoned coal pits to scavenge more fuel. They have to beat off the widows and orphans who make their living clawing coal from the face of the strip mine with their fingers! (And the mine is filling with water so the kids have to dive to get it! And it's freezing! Good thing they're young!). So the family -- basically decent sorts with a few sexual peccadilloes and one potentially explosive sociopath who's just turned sixteen (should it be a girl?) -- end up stealing their coal from the young coal divers because they are desperate for fuel for their coal cooker! And some of the young coal divers might starve as a result if they can't get to where they give out food stamps to the well connected!

But the basically decent family (with the few exceptions I noted) have got to steal the coal from the children because -- you see, they're heading for the new Government work camps that have sprung up in the wind blessed Midwest! There windmill farms are built to send ever more power to Washington! And when the wind ain't blowing, the people get on treadmills because they are like, like, back-up batteries! What do think?

I think I'll call it The Shafts of Coal. No, that's too dark. I know. The Shafts of Lite.

Congratulations to the Democrats and a few predictions.

If doing a splendid job winning the Presidency is proof that you will be a good president, then I think my country, the good 'ol USA, will be in good hands for the next four years. Unfortunately, the one does not necessarily follow the other.

A Democrat friend, to whom I had described the possible downside of an Obama Presidency on a number of occasions (but who voted for him anyway) asked me today if I really thought he'd make a bad President. I said, "If Obama is as pragmatic as he often sounds, he'll be alright." Of course, that's the question: Was Obama fooling the left radicals who promoted him to the nomination? Or was he fooling us?

The Democrat Congress may come back into session this fall. If so they will pass a great big Christmas gift for the voters paid for by the Rich Uncle Collective.

The Christmas package will be tied up with several unpleasant strings -- riders the Democrats will want George Bush to sign into law (not Barack Obama). Possible examples might be the "Fairness Doctrine" (to take down talk radio) and "card check" (to thug up the unions by removing the secret ballot). In this way they can say "The Bush Republicans put in place the Fairness doctrine" (or whatever the item is) and repeat it a thousand times. If they do add poison pills, I hope George Bush has the wisdom to veto the whole $500 Billion stocking stuffer. And tar the Democrat Congress with the trick they will try to pull.

From The Volokh Conspiracy.

Looking for a Post-Election Republican Agenda?:

Here's something I think the vast majority of Republicans/conservatives/libertarians can agree on: holding Obama to this pledge, made to the American public during the third debate: "what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.... What I want to emphasize ... is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as- you-go. Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut so that it matches."

We should remember that the Democrats and the Media considered the Bush Tax Cuts an increase in spending. Back in 2001 and 2003 they would say, "How much can we afford to spend on tax cuts?" So there is a cheap rhetorical out for Obama (but an expensive one for us). The Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. Since the US government was spending on tax cuts, allowing the taxes to increase becomes a spending cut. Extending the Bush Cuts for some tax payers becomes an Obama tax reduction for them (even though their taxes are not reduced -- only not increased). Therefore, the spending cuts in "pay-as-you-go" are actually massive tax increases. The tax cuts are, in the main, merely refraining from raising taxes on some tax payers. I believe the new figure will be couples making less than $120,000.

Mr Bernstein further comments:

it would be wonderful...the Senate and House minority leaders each congratulated Obama, and added, "we look forward to helping President-elect Obama fulfill his promise of a net spending cut."

Unfortunately, if they helped Sen. Obama fulfill his promise they will find themselves supporting tax increases.

In the national security arena, Barack Obama will find himself handicapped by the way he used the Iraq War to gain power by tearing down George Bush and Hillary Clinton over their stands on the war. Having pointed the way, he will fear that others will follow the same route to destroy the Obama Presidency. His first term will be spent avoiding the types of commitments that will lead to this outcome. He will not succeed.

Good luck and God bless.

What do you call Bankrupting Coal? A good start.

A tape of Sen. Obama talking to his campaign staff in San Fran surfaced. These folks man the office at the San Francisco Chronicle.

CBS News

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can,” Obama said. “It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.”

An Obama spokesperson said that Obama’s remarks were taken out of context and pointed out that in another part of the interview, Obama said that the idea of eliminating coal plants was “an illusion.”

The "illusion" is that talking about destroying the coal industry and getting elected is a possibility. Actually destroying the coal industry after being elected is the reality, not the illusion. The CBS Obama spokespeople quoting other Obama spokesperson go on:

“The point Obama is making is that we need to transition from coal burning power plants built with old technology to plants built with advanced technologies--and that is exactly the action that will be incentivized under a cap and trade program,” the spokesperson said. “We know that additional work is necessary to develop and deploy these technologies. That is why Obama has argued for a robust funding program for carbon capture and sequestration. It’s strikingly similar to what McCain has said (in fact McCain goes a step further saying he wants to transition completely away from coal).”

The real story is the escalating costs of the Obama plan -- that his energy alternatives will cost trillions of dollars to rate payers. His use of regulation and taxation to ruin industry may start with coal but that is just the beginning. Regulation will stop the use of Nuclear power. Regulation will force the adoption of expensive alternative fuels. Regulation will stop oil drilling.

Folks, I am all for a alternative energy future. What I'm not for is crashing the economy now.

I come here not to Damn the Coal Industry, but to bury it.

Via Gateway Pundit:

OBAMA TELLS SAN FRANCISCO HE WILL BANKRUPT THE COAL INDUSTRY

When I tell Democrats that Obama's alternative energy future will require seven or eight dollar a gallon gas they just sort of shrug. Tell a coal miner that Obama's alternative energy future will require his mine to shut down and I suspect he'll shrug, too. And even if he does not, his kids probably will. It is a strange election in which a fantasy future of peace and plenty -- "Tom Tomorrowland" -- will win (if you believe the MSM). I call it a crash plan to crash the economy.

As for the voters in my area, here are a few observations I left as a comment at the Belmont Club:

In my last 12 hours of driving around Western Pa and Eastern Ohio I’ve seen two bumper stickers: one McCain, One Obama. I haven’t seen a large number of yard signs. I live in a heavily Democratic area and the Obama signs are not numerous but they have been around for a few weeks. McCain signs have sprouted up in the last few days in “upper working class” areas. You see a lot of McCain signs along the rural roads — a lot of signs but, unfortunately, few voters.

I joke with a lot of Democrat voters about the election. They seem to have proudly returned to their party because of the financial meltdown and the Dems’ reputation (deserved or not) for fighting for the little guy. They even listen to me trash that reputation (with a smile on my face and a lilt in my voice). Their commitment to Obama seems less solid then their pride in the party, though. I’ve had Democrats say to me, “When people get in the booth, who knows?” I tell them they can vote for McCain and still stick with their party. And sometimes I think they’re not sure how their friends will vote for president — or what they might do themselves. They will all be a brick wall down ticket, though.

By the way, they’ve asked me not to have a wig out Wednesday if McCain loses.

I drive through African American neighborhoods, too, and don’t see many Obama signs. Of course he will carry those areas by 98 percent so they might feel yard signs are redundant. Or maybe African Americans will sit out the Civil War the English Profs will wage if the One comes up short one elector. I have not talked politics with any African Americans this go round, nor they with me. But regardless of color or party, people are keeping their politics on the down low.

From what I’ve seen I would not rule out a McCain win: Just the likelihood of it.

To which I'll add that I talked to a small business man who said if he votes his interest he will vote McCain but if he votes the nation's interest he will vote Obama. Now, he is much better off than me (financially, at least) and I ended up explaining where his interest and the nation's coincide -- and sending more power and money to DC is not in the nation's interest. Geez. The Washington Guard Dog Media does it's work well.

But what if voters decide not to pull the lever for Tom Tomorrowland? Then there is this Audio which is just wacky enough to be believed. A McCain landslide? The hosts, Quinn and Rose, have a radio talk show with good ratings in Western Pa and Eastern Ohio (I'm a sometime listener). Still, I can't vouch for the accuracy of the prognosticators involved.

Happy election day and may all sides emerge victorious (that's a McCain win, for the underinformed)!

120K is the new 250

From Fox news via Instapundit. How Low Can It Go?

For the second time in a week, a prominent Democrat has downgraded Barack Obama's definition of the middle class -- leading Republicans to question whether he'll stick to his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000.

The latest hiccup in the campaign message came Friday morning on KOA-AM, when New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson pegged the middle class as those making $120,000 and under.

Now that is change we can beleive in. A few days ago I noted:

On tax increases, his floor has come down from $250,000 to $200,000 in one week. Sen. Biden then knocked it down to $150,000. Let's see, dropping at fifty thousand a week their tax increase floor should be under me by Thanksgiving. In fact my feet feel more firmly planted already.

Yep. I'm going to cash those checks Barack sends me and buy gold.

That Zogby be one good kidder.

DRUDGE:

ZOGBY SATURDAY: Republican John McCain has pulled back within the margin of error... The three-day average holds steady, but McCain outpolled Obama 48% to 47% in Friday, one day, polling. He is beginning to cut into Obama's lead among independents, is now leading among blue collar voters, has strengthened his lead among investors and among men, and is walloping Obama among NASCAR voters. Joe the Plumber may get his license after all...

How can the polls be wrong when they are all over the place?