Tuesday, October 29, 2013

The Presidency-Who Needs It? Not The GOP




A Republican strategist, in the waning days of the 2012 election, told Ron Brownstein “This is the last time anyone will try to do this” — “this” being a presidential campaign that tries to assemble a majority almost entirely through white votes."

Despite what turned out to be the Romney teams over-optimism, based on their own faulty polls (even though Nate Silver's polls, which they disregarded would have disabused them) it appears that the unnamed strategist is correct. Here is the Romney teams battle plan.


"Obama’s strategic equation defines Mitt Romney’s formula: 61/74. Romney’s camp is focused intently on capturing at least 61 percent of white voters. That would provide him a slim national majority—so long as whites constitute at least 74 percent of the vote, as they did last time, and Obama doesn’t improve on his 80 percent showing with minorities.

On its face, the math is tougher for Romney. If he reaches 61 percent among whites, he would equal the best performance ever for a Republican presidential challenger with that group of voters: Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, Ronald Reagan in 1980, and George H.W. Bush in 1988 each won between 56 percent and 61 percent of white voters, according to polls at the time.
If white voters maintain their 2008 share of the vote, that in itself would represent a significant shift. Whites have declined as a portion of the electorate in every presidential election since 1992, according to exit polls."

A detailed examination of the actual election results at The National Journal  showed that Romney actually did match the massive 61% of white voter support but unfortunately for his hopes the decline of Whites as a percentage of the electorate continued on its seemingly inexorable decline.

On the other hand, and clearly totally unexpectedly for Romney, the level minority support for President Obama stayed at 80%. Crucially, a slight decline amongst Blacks for Obama in Florida was slightly more than matched by a switch from Cuban Americans to the Democrats, which enabled Obama to squeak in by less than 1%. With Florida gone the election was gone. In Ohio the Black support for Obama, at massive levels in 2008 even managed to tick up.


Sean Trende at Real Clear politics sees a path to Republican victory even with the non-White vote staying at such high levels. This involves getting the "missing Whites" (Perot voters) to turn out in their millions next time. Unfortunately for that premise, there would also have to be a concomitant reversal in the decline in Whites as percentage of the voting electorate which seems impossible given current and future demographics.


For the GOP Establishment, the answer is to make an appeal to Black voters. Prying even a relativity small percentage from the Democrats, perhaps easier next time without Obama as a candidate, would offset the White participation decline and, in tandem with the Perot-ites, might give a majority.


Is that a reasonable proposition? Hardly if the perusal of recent articles in some Black journals is any indication. The degree of antagonism and antipathy towards White Republicans is striking. The apparent perception of the Tea Party "Confederate flag wavers at a Black family in the White House" amongst Blacks simply reinforces such views.


That it is unfair, and broad brushes groups based on individual actions, shows how much resentment has clouded judgement. What possible appeal to universal brotherhood will reverse generations of economic and social adherence to the Democrat's?  No appeal to reason based on the examples of Detroit, where years of corrupt Democrat rule worked against the best interests of the Black community, can overcome perceived racial antagonisms. Whether Blacks will turnout for a non-Black candidate in the same numbers remains to be seen (Hillary might be "owed" the same level of support that was given to Barack Obama) but any decline may be matched by the seemingly inexorable White participation decline.


With the Hispanic community racial pride could in fact work for the GOP if the 2016 ticket included an Hispanic man or woman, of which their is a wealth of prospects. That may make the difference in Florida, but Ohio,Virginia and Colorado are still required. 


Longer term, with race antagonism less marked amongst Hispanics than Blacks, the usual shift from low to middle income will work the same way it did for waves of Italian and Irish immigrants. Initially staunch Democrat's they, and other immigrant groups, are now found in great numbers in the conservative ranks as well.


For the foreseeable future in presidential elections the Republicans look to face, in any or all combinations, a Black/female/Gay/lesbian/Hispanic opponent. If that were the case it could take 40 years for the "first" element to work itself out and for the associated incentives to women/minorities/LGBT to turn out in record numbers to recede.


In the short to medium term if demographics, race, sexual preference perceptions and attractions, allied to declining White numbers, not to mention the possibility of millions of lower income Hispanics franchised in an amnesty, prove it impossible for the Republicans to win the popular vote in a presidential election, then the question arises-why bother?


Such continuous divorce from the presidency for a major political party is nothing new. In the six elections 1800 to 1820 the Federalist party lost every time to the Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans. In the nine elections from 1824 to 1856 the Jacksonian Democratic party won six election to various Whigs and J. Q. Adams three.


The most striking example of one party utterly dominating the presidential field is seen in the Republicans electoral triumphs. In the 18 presidential elections across 68 years

the GOP won 14 times. Only the two non-consecutive Grover Cleveland and the Two Woodrow Wilson elections interrupted Republican rule. In fact, were it not for the Teddy Roosevelt/Taft split in 1912, it is possible that Wilson would not have been elected.

In modern times, and partly because of extraordinary circumstances depression/war, the Democrats won every election from 1932 to 1948.


From 1860, with the two party system settled between Republicans and Democrats, and through periods of near total one party presidential election dominance did the opposition party disappear-of course not.


Working in exact accordance with the Madisonian system of checks and balances near total presidential dominance was balanced by the opposition party holding either the House or Senate or both. From the 44th congress in Grant's second term to the 54th in Cleveland's second term the opposition, mostly Democrat's, held at least the House or Senate or there was a tie.


In the Eisenhower and Nixon Republican landslides the Democrats, except for Eisenhower's 84th Congress, held both houses and even under Reagan/Bush presidencies the Democrat's held the House for all twelve years.


Did either party collapse or fracture never to be seen again (apart from the one off Taft/Roosevelt 1912 split) of course not.
Did the presidential dominance of first the Republicans and then the Democrats give them unfettered legislative capacity?
Perhaps it can be fairly said that the Franklin D.Roosevelt
administration came the closest to legislative dominance and was able to bring a new welfarism.

However, even with the Democrats having huge control of the Senate and House, the checks and balance system still held sway with the Supreme Court acting as a conservative stop of too radical legislation. So much so that President Roosevelt undertook to remove this blockage by "packing" the court. Further, even within his own party there were checks and balances with the Southern Democrats having their own agenda and the labour union leadership able to remove the too radical Vice-president Henry Wallace.

The Obama administration's inability to have any radical agenda put through, except for its health care law which only passed because a Republican senator switched sides,
shows that control of the House is all the GOP needs to stop a liberal president. As long as 60 votes are needed in the senate even if the Democrats have majority there the GOP has a measure of control.

What then is the problem with uninterrupted Democratic control of the presidency? Yes the Supreme Court will end up with a liberal majority, but the social issues have all been won by the left or will shortly be so-abortion/same-sex marriage/Marijuana usage are clearly headed towards full legalization (whether one agrees with them or not).

That ambassadorships will go to Democrats is of no worry to most people. Foreign policy moves on under Republican and Democrat administrations wars are fought, drones are used, allies are spied upon, mistakes are made but the Republic still stands.

What does matter is the national debt, welfare dependency, an ageing population and creating the best possible environment for business growth and thus employment growth. Control of the House is crucial not only as a check against a Democrat president but to reverse the mad growth in debt.

If, for the foreseeable future the Republicans put all their efforts, especially the financial, into holding their current and growing their future House majority that may be the most sensible answer to the seemingly unbeatable demographic challenge at the presidential level. Further, good governance will encourage more states to elect conservative legislatures and Governors which will feed back into more House seats being won. 

Certainly the GOP should put up decent candidates for the presidential elections and, with the foreknowledge that Electoral College victory is near impossible, it is an opportunity to have the most conservative candidates possible who can elucidate conservative economic and social welfare policy. The Establishment's "we must have a centrist "winnable" candidate" can be quietly laid to rest as irrelevant.

If an unforeseen economic collapse like 1932, or some other "black swan" event happens which causes a future Democrat administration to be so unpopular that it is unelectable then the winning of the presidency would be welcome. But if it doesn't happen a new division of America along state and House lines can satisfy conservatives ambitions.


REFERENCES;

The NationalJournal: Obama Needs 80% of Minority Vote to Win 2012 Presidential Election
http://www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/politics/obama-needs-80-of-minority-vote-to-win-2012-presidential-election-20120824


The National Journal: "Why Republicans can't win with Whites alone"
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/bad-bet-why-republicans-can-t-win-with-whites-alone-20130905

The Guardian: Republicans rise in states as national GOP sinkshttp://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/22/republicans-rise-states-national-gop-sinks


Wikipedia: Party divisions of United States Congresses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
Real Clear Politics: Sean Trende 

Demographics and the GOP, Part IV

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/02/demographics_and_the_gop_part_iv.html

Real Clear Politics: Sean Trende  

Yes, the Missing Whites Matter

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/12/yes_the_missing_whites_matter_119170.html

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Chait At New York Magazine Compares Tea Party To Ayers Weatherman In Triumph Of Alinsky-ite Orwellianism

At The New York Magazine' "Intelligencer" (sic) the bastion of leftism in the citadel, Jonathan Chait manages a great feat of Alinsky-ite doublespeak that would have made Orwell proud.

 Chait examines the current state of the GOP post-shutdown "The Shutdown Was Not a Failed Strategy. It Wasn’t a Strategy at All".  In particular, the tea party movement is scrutinized and Chait concludes it is a tilt at windmills, hopeless, bunch of fanatics and is the same as the Ayers Weathermen!

 "But the shutdown was the tea party’s attempt to stop Obamacare in roughly the same sense the Days of Rage was Weatherman’s attempt to stop the Vietnam War. you’ll see familiar echoes of the recent events in Washington: far-fetched scenarios, confessions that the effort was worthwhile even if it was doomed, even the Gadsden Flag. Its adherents may have wanted to believe they would achieve their goal, but the lack of any plausible path by which the end might follow the means did not trouble them.

The demonstration of outrage was a form of politics well suited for a movement that views itself as a hopeless minority in a democratic process rigged against them. It is a (not the, but a) logical culmination of a movement that loses its now-or-never moment. Everything that has happened since then in Washington: the backlash against Republican efforts at accommodation, the ever greater frenzies of protest, the rejection of traditional notions of compromise and attainability — this is what never looks like."

What Chait is incapable of comprehending is that that a given situation may be worth opposing, with utter vehemence, even if the weight of popular opinion is, mistakenly, in favor of it, but that opposition can be constructively negative and non-violent.

Beyond the ludicrousness of comparing a totally peaceful movement of middle Americans, which includes many seniors incapable of such physicality, Chait's Weathermen comparisons are nonsensical and shortsighted.

Firstly the tea party acts on principle. Unlike the bizarre young radical leftists, the tea party has seasoned conservative political operatives/thinkers in its ranks e.g. Jim DeMint-these are hardly bomb throwers.

Secondly, and most importantly, the tea party adherents don't see themselves as an "hopeless minority" in some sort of doomsday scenario. Everything that was done before and during the shutdown was aimed at increasing tea party support over time through dedication to principle.

This is exactly the scenario that the founders of the Republican party undertook in the 1850's when they were an "hopeless minority' in the eyes of the Democrat's (and Establishment Whigs for that matter). The "now or never" moment concluded for the GOP Establishment with the Romney campaign, the future is with the conservatives no matter how long it takes to build the movement and bring it to electoral fruition.


Fair Use Notice



FAIR USE NOTICE:

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107
§ 107. LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: FAIR USE
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Copyright issues e-mail to:
holprof57@yahoo.com









Sunday, October 20, 2013

Ted Cruz Unapologetic Fighter:Post Shutdown Interview

From Donald Douglas at American Power

Sunday, October 20, 2013 

Turncoat Senate Republicans Staged 'Intervention' to Stop Ted Cruz on #ObamaCare Defunding

My admiration for this man is growing daily and exponentially.

I listened to the entire Ted Cruz interview with CNN's Dana Bash. The Right Scoop has the full video, "FULL INTERVIEW: Ted Cruz tells CNN’s Dana Bash he isn’t giving up fight to stop ObamaCare."

Click on Right Scooop and scroll to 9:45 minutes. CNN's Bash presses Cruz on GOP divisions over the defunding strategy. She says that Senate Republicans told her that their luncheons with Senator Cruz were so angry and intense it was "like an intervention." Here's the passage from CNN's transcript:


CRUZ: No. What I'm choosing sides with is the American people. And what I think the focus should be is on Obamacare. Is it working? You know what's striking? In the last two months in the course of this debate over Obamacare, Democrats aren't defending Obamacare. They're not saying, hey, these things working great. They're not saying, hey, it's not killing job.

They're not saying, hey, it's not forcing people into part time work. It's not driving up health insurance premiums. It's not taken away people's health care. And the reason is you can't defend it. On the merits, I mean, there's a reason, Dana, the unions are jumping ship. They're saying let us out, it's not working. There's a reason Democratic senators went to the president and said we want a special exemption for members of Congress because it's not working.

And so, I understand you want to draw me into the back and forth with other Republican senators and that's fun to cover. I'm not interested in playing that game. Do you know what many of the elected officials in Washington are most upset about is that their constituents were calling and holding them accountable.

I can't tell you how many of my colleagues have expressed outrage to me that my constituents are calling me. Dana, we work for our constituents. That's our job.

BASH: But the reason they're frustrated, the constituents, they're calling them is because senators have said this to me, because they thought you were selling them snake oil. It was never going to happen.

CRUZ: You know, they can insure we can't win this fight by going on television constantly and attacking everyone who's standing up to win this fight. That made certain we couldn't win.

BASH: Let's chill down on what some of your colleagues seem to be most upset about. First of all, you referred to the fact that your colleagues were yelling at you red faced about their constituents calling. There were a lot of very animated private lunches with you and your colleagues, correct?

CRUZ: Look, I'm not interested in focusing on the disagreements between politicians in Washington –

BASHLet me just ask you about this, because one of your colleagues told me it was like an intervention, that there were so many of your colleagues saying, you know, why are you doing this? And really angry at you. And I'm just wondering even on a human level, they told me that you really didn't flinch.

On a human level, that's got to bother you, to be sitting in an institution like the Senate and having your, not Democrats, fellow Republicans, so angry at you.

CRUZ: Dana, not remotely.

BASH: Why?

CRUZ: Because the people I work for are the women and men you just saw. I work for 26 million Texans. That's my job to fight for them. I don't work for the party bosses in Washington. I work for the people of Texas, and I fight for them. The reason people are frustrated all over country is that far too many people get elected and they think they're there to be part of the club.

You know what was very interesting about some of those closed door discussions? What I said in those closed door sessions, I would have said the exact same thing if CNN's camera were sitting in the room. What I say privately to my colleagues is the same thing I say publicly. And you know what's interesting?

Virtually, every person in that room that was criticizing what Mike Lee and I were doing would have said very different things if the camera was in this room, because what they're telling their constituents is very different from what they're saying behind closed doors.

BASH: Do you think Mitch McConnell has been a good leader?

CRUZ: I think Senate Republicans should have united. Senate Republicans should have united and supported House Republicans. The one hypothetical that I really think is worth thinking about is how would this have played differently if when the House stood up and led Senate Republicans had marched into battle side-by-side and said we are united and saying we should fund government.

But we should not fund Obamacare. Now, one of the things that might have played out differently, one of the most revealing exchanges and an exchange you were a part of when you asked Harry Reid about the funding for NIH. When the government was shut down, the House passed 14 bills to fund vital government priorities. The Democrats objected to all of them. They sat on Harry Reid's desk. He wouldn't allow a vote. Every one of them was a clean bill. So you had a bill to fund the veteran's administration.
You have to think about his for a minute, breaking it down.

When friends or family "stage an intervention" it's because a loved one is sick. The classic example is the alcoholic whose family life is being destroyed by drink and family members want to confront their loved one's denial and disease with "caring and compassion." Or perhaps it's a family member who's got a gambling addiction. A loved one's entire life revolves around going to casinos to the point that all of life's other priorities are rationalized away for the sake of generating the thill of the slots or the roulette wheel. Out of concern for the health of their loved one, family members organize an intervention to help the addict cope with the devastating consequences of their problem.

In both cases, the "intervention" is staged to help someone who's sick, someone with the disease of alcoholism or the clinically irrational addiction of gaming.

And now here we have Senate Republicans holding luncheons with the Texas Senator to literally hound and harass him on his "hopeless" ObamaCare defunding agenda. These meetings, according to "Senate colleagues," were confrontational and angry.

And Ted Cruz "didn't flinch." He didn't cave to the pressure from his craven and yellow-bellied establishment GOP pols. He resisted Senate Republicans' calls for "collegiality" in abandoning his crusade to protect the American people against the ObamaCare monstrosity.

Ted Cruz is not sick. He doesn't need an intervention to save him from pathologically diseased behavior. It's the Republican establishment that's sick. The establishment GOP has joined forces with the JournoList media to demonize the one person speaking the concerns of everyday Americans. Ted Cruz has gone to Washington to represent the interests of his constituents. He's doing the people's work. And members of his own party want him destroyed!

They're "really angry at you," Bash says to Cruz. And he doesn't flinch!

The entire establishment is attacking Ted Cruz as this crazed Frankenstein of the tea party. And he doesn't flinch. He's being flayed by the Obama-alled press as a "tea party deadender" out to normalize "the new crazy" in American politics.

But who's crazy? Seriously?

We now have a budget deal that's eliminated any caps on borrowing until 2014, and Democrats will push to make the removal of those borrowing limits permanent. We blew past $17 trillion within hours of the announcement of the budget deal. And there's no end in sight. And who's crazy? We have a national healthcare debacle in which insurance premiums are skyrocketing around the country, with 45 states documenting surges in insurance rates. American healthcare is crashing down the path to single-payer. And who's crazy?

Republicans fear losses in upcoming elections. Senate Republicans especially fear that Democrats could win a filibuster-proof majority, and individual senators are angling, at all costs, to keep their seats. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will be next year's poster boy for the Senate GOP's Obama-shoe-shine coterie.

But the one constant on display through all this craven partisan protection will be Senator Ted Cruz's courage and commitment. He's committed to the values that have made this country great and prosperous and he's got the crosshairs firmly affixed between his shoulders for it. But his analysis is the correct one: We simply need more members of Congress committed to the limited government agenda, members who are willing to leverage their institutional power to stop this healthcare train wreck dead in its tracks. There's gonna be a reckoning on ObamaCare soon enough. It's simply not working and it won't be fixed in time for people to get enrolled. The White House is going to be forced to delay the law, and when it does it will be heroes like Ted Cruz who are vindicated.

Friday, October 18, 2013

Tea Party Won 'Shutdown" As Big Spending Ethos In D.C. Has Been Destroyed

Whether the conservative forces "lost', as determined by the leftist media the most recent government shut-down is an argument over the results of a skirmish. 

The actual result of the skirmish are of course still to be determined once the dust settles but even if there was a minor set-back for the "good guys" as Governor Palin rightly characterizes them it is of little import in the greater scheme of things.

The conservatives in congress, and especially in the House of course where they hold a majority, won the battle in 2010 when the country, overwhelmingly signalled it was utterly fed up with big government, big spending state-ism and produced a massive House changeover to the right. W

What that produced was a chipping away at big spending, at least in the budget even if the reserve bank is still going berserk with it's insane money printing.

As this chart so graphically illustrates the government's budget deficit started to shrink as soon as, as Palin titles them, "common sense conservatives" were able to put the brakes on. Even though the shut-down was seen as a set-back the facts are that the budget following the agreement is 7% less that President Obama asked for.

    What is perfectly clear is that the culture of pork (soon to be primaried McConnell notwithstanding) has been
    been blown away by the Tea Party ascendancy, as has big spending-big deficits. 

This is why conservatives must stay the course in the face of temporary set-backs and media hate. The very solvency of the country is what is at stake and the fact that some elements of big
business are allying themselves with the big spending Dem's shows the true nature
of the two-party (sic) crony capitalism that Palin warned against.

Make no mistake what is in play is the very nature of the governmental and political process. If, as 
Palin stated the establishment wishes to leave the common folks behind in their alliance with the left and crony-capitalists then a third party is the option.




    After Tea Party victory 2010 Debt as a percentage of GDP was 9.8% 
    Year 2012 (est.) 3.9% 

  1. Debt as a percentage of GDP year 2008 was 39.3% and in 2013 it is 73% (est.)

Anglican Church Wins Right Not To Ordain Gay Man In Legal Gay Marriage Country

In a major case which gave the Anglican-Church of England (Episcopalian in America) church the right not to ordain a Gay man, the church has won the right to stand for its founding principles. That this could happen in a country which has recently legalized same-sex marriage is remarkable and a victory for the church's right to stick to its 2000 year old foundations.

Potential priests must be "chaste" to enter the training process, which is defined by the Anglican Church in this country as single and celibate or in a heterosexual marriage.
"Those ineligible for entry include those in a heterosexual de facto relationship and those in a homosexual relationship which is committed and monogamous in nature," said the tribunal's decision.
"Being gay or lesbian is not in itself a bar to ordination. But any candidate not in a marriage between a man and a woman must be celibate."
These are the core standards for ordination; What is not stated is the apparent allowance for a Gay or lesbian person to, after ordination, become married and continue as a priest. 

The situation has not arisen but it would seem that such priests would be allowed. On the other hand, It would appear that not allowing same-sex married couples to be priests is legal, if the church so wished, under the court's ruling which "correctly identified the balance between individual human rights and the autonomous nature of the church in a way that ensures the freedom of religion".



Anglicans in clear over gay-man case

By Morgan Tait
Friday Oct 18, 2013
Eugene Sisneros.
Eugene Sisneros.
A New Zealand church has been let off the hook for forbidding a gay man from becoming a priest.
The Human Rights Tribunal yesterday dismissed a complaint by the Gay and Lesbian Clergy Anti-Discrimination Society against the Anglican Diocese of Auckland because it said the church was following its own rules.
The complaint referred to Eugene Sisneros' unsuccessful application to be considered for priesthood by the Bishop of Auckland, Ross Bay, because he was in an unmarried relationship.
Potential priests must be "chaste" to enter the training process, which is defined by the Anglican Church in this country as single and celibate or in a heterosexual marriage.
"Those ineligible for entry include those in a heterosexual de facto relationship and those in a homosexual relationship which is committed and monogamous in nature," said the tribunal's decision.
"Being gay or lesbian is not in itself a bar to ordination. But any candidate not in a marriage between a man and a woman must be celibate."
Mr Sisneros was an events coordinator for St Matthew-in-the-City who gave up to three sermons a year, was in an unmarried relationship and believed the treatment unfairly discriminated against his sexuality and marital status.
he spoke of his "humiliation and disappointment" at not feeling equal to his peers.
Mr Sisneros, an American who holds New Zealand residency, began theology studies at university in 2006 and at the same time expressed his desire to become a priest.
Yesterday's ruling stated that because Bishop Bay acted within the church's parameters, he did not breach the Human Rights Act.
"... there was no element of unlawfulness under the Act when the Bishop of Auckland addressed the request by Mr Sisneros that he [Mr Sisneros] be permitted to enter the discernment process," it said.
Bishop Bay said he welcomed the decision that "correctly identified the balance between individual human rights and the autonomous nature of the church in a way that ensures the freedom of religion".



Fair Use Notice



FAIR USE NOTICE:

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107
§ 107. LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: FAIR USE
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Copyright issues e-mail to: 
holprof57@yahoo.com


Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Governor Palin Is The Biggest Winner Of The New Jersey Senate Election

Here are the Real Clear Politics polls for the New Jersey senatorial election from the day that Governor Palin announced her support for Lonegan October 2nd





And here are the polls on election day October 16th

The sharp upward movement for Lonegan is obvious and the average against him went from 17.5 to 13.8
The last Rutgers poll had Booker winning by 22 and Quinnipiac had him up by 14
The election result on the night was Booker by only 10.3.
Lonegan did a lot better than imagined in a very blue state. He won 10 counties, more counties than Romney did and by wide margins. including a couple that were won by Obama in 2012.

And rememberLast NJ Senate race: Menendez won by 19.5%. President Obama carried the state by just under 18 points over "moderate"Romney.

But above and beyond the indisputably positive effect Governor Palin's endorsement had on the Lonegan campaign-not only in lifting his poll support, finances and activist support there was her heroic, self-negating dedication to her beliefs in what was, at all times, a very long shot campaign.

"Democrats outnumber Republicans in New Jersey by about 700,000 voters"
"New Jersey has not elected a Republican to the Senate since Clifford Case in 1972."
“We are being outspent 12-to-1"



To quote from C4P "There's no one in the State who has his back; he's just twisting in the wind in a very blue,blue State. Gov. Palin showed a lot of courage endorsing him. A typical weasel politician would have calculated the odds and stayed away. If he loses she will be blamed in the sense that the Rovians will try to say that it's an example of her being "irrelevant". 

The truth is, it shows that she puts principle above self, principle above political odds. She's willing to use her influence even for someone who may be a long shot because with her it's about principle."


Lonegan was a very long shot and Governor Palin knew she will be attacked, if he lost, as a "kiss of death" endorser (which is a lie of course given her outstanding record) but for her all that matters is that she does what she believes in.


That is absolutely correct. Lonegan was, at one stage, 35 points behind the Dem's high flyer Cory Booker and it was noticeable that Governor Christie has given Lonegan the most perfunctory of support. It was at that Palin moment, at great political risk, gave not only her endorsement but flew all the way from Alaska to headline a mass rally.

That there was such a huge turnout gave the lie to Palin's detractors who said she is irrelevant and only appears in public for money making speeches. Campaigning for a very long shot, who was written off by all the commentators, can be chalked up as one of Governor Palin's greatest triumphs-no matter the election result.

What Palin has shown by her huge effort for Lonegan is that she puts her beliefs above any personal consideration whatsoever.There is no personal benefit, in the politcal sense, that can be ascribed to Palin's support of Lonegan. But the sense of gratitude from her supporters for the ongoing and in this case huge reinforcement of their belief in her ethics and selflessness is immense.

Palin proved, yet again, that her brand of "country first' is almost unique. It is inspiring and she deserves all kudo's
for being a beacon of hope and truth in a political desert.