In an article for The Daily Telegraph, Andrew Lansley says the core values of the NHS are under threat as never before from a “financial crisis” that will see annual health spending double to £230 billion a year without urgent reform.

While insisting he would never privatise the NHS, Mr Lansley warns that its future as a universal service, available to all and free at the point of use will be at risk “within years” if radical change is blocked.

Sounds eerily familiar to the financial diagnosis for Medicare – the crumbling foundation underpinning Obamacare. The pathetic and sad truth is that, despite the politician’s claim to contrary, the salvation of NHS lies on the shoulder of private health care providers in the UK (where all people with money actually get their health care).

the Health Secretary’s article will be seen as a clear reaffirmation of his belief in the reforms, which would abolish two tiers of NHS management and allow GP-led consortia to decide whether to buy treatment from local state-run hospitals or private providers.

Is anyone going to believe treatment will be most cost effective from the management and bureaucracy heavy NHS hospitals – or the free market driven private providers? The guy can pretend all day long salvation is not coming from the free market, but without the option to save costs outside the NHS there would be no salvation.

Remember, the UK is 1/5th the size of the US population, yet it is going to see it’s annual costs run at $377 230 billion. If the UK were the size of the US, that would translate into $1.88 1.15 trillion, for a program with lines months long in which people have been known to die from delayed treatment. When will people realize paying premium dollar for substandard service is not a sound judgement, in any fantasy world.

This winter has proven that the world is unprepared to meet the basic needs of its citizens. As the myth of global warming spread among the ignorant – fed by the greedy and power hungry – no one stopped to even think about what was behind the delusion of global warming cries. Let alone the dangerous ramifications of being being duped.

As a niche area of an immature science, too few of us realized the true essence of the matter. We allowed respect for ‘scientists’ to lead us to assume a certain level of openness, a certain level of mathematical credibility and a certain level of honesty. We gave a lot of benefit of doubt to the people behind these myths – initially. All that has been proven to have been misplaced.

The illusion of openness was shattered by a handful of arrogant people who were enjoying some backwater lime light. They rigged the ‘scientific process’ of peer review by journal so no one could challenge their claims. They bullied journals, squelched dissent and hid contrary results. So Goebbels like.

The illusion of mathematical credibility was destroyed when a clear -eaded and rigorous analysis of the uncertainty around their claims produced error bars that dwarf the magnitude of the supposed century-long warming (errors of +/- 3+°C going back in time against a signal of 0.8°C of warming). The fact is, within the ability to measure a global temperature anomaly, the last 100 years has been the same temperature, with short cool and warm periods that actually follow the gyrations of the ocean currents. A sort of ‘duh!’ realization when you consider (a) the mass of water compared to air and (b) the heat content of water compared to air. The engine of our climate is contained in the reservoir of heat captured and being held in our oceans, not in the marginal atmospheric gas called CO2.

And the assumed honesty was lost when the linchpin of the entire argument fell to the admission that tree ring proxies ‘diverged’ from actual temperatures in the modern era after 1960. Instead of admitting this divergence greatly expanded the error bars on tree ring data representing any kind of regional temp (not even a global temp- another fanciful leap never scientifically justified), the ‘scientist’ hid this from everyone by plastering the thermometer record over this scientific truth. They did this because they knew the proxy divergence would destroy the entire foundation of the global warming concept, and the credibility of the environmental movement on the left.

And so it has. Now there is no credibility for these people – they are the laughing stocks who claimed the Himalayan Glaciers would all be gone in 14 years and that snow would never return to England in the winter.

But I still allow some blame of complacency to lie on all of our shoulders. Consider myself guilty as charged on this count. I let the reputation of science past by the greats of Newton, Kepler, Watson & Crick, Tesla, Einstein and many, many others blind me to the fact this crew were poseurs. Al Gore should have been a warning sign of trouble – the guy is basically clueless. If you think Dan Quayle was not too sharp, Gore makes him look like a damn genius.

We should have simply looked at the claims and wonder why was there such a mountain of panic from an ant hill of temperature rise? Think about it folks – they are wetting their pants of a supposed 0.8°C rise in temperature over 100 years! Forget about the fact we have been coming out of a mini Ice Age for 400 years (some warming is expected). Forget the fact there is no way to get this global accuracy today, let alone use sparse data from before the time of wide spread electricity (let alone indoors plumbing) to get a global temperature number over 100 years ago for comparison. Forget about the poor math and the cover up of the data proving they had no claim for long term comparisons. Forget about this handful of arrogant ignoramuses dominating their little backwater of science and duping the gullible.

0.8°C over 100 years?

In the time it took me to write this post this morning the temperature rose 1°C. Every hour in the morning and in the evening the temperature changes by multiple degrees per hour. Every day the temperatures range by tens of degrees, and every year by many tens of degrees. All the while life on Earth suffers through these traumatic conditions!

Perspective is key here. Would we panic if there was 1% more water in the air any given day? Do we care if the low is 5°C or 5.005°C? Remember, this is 0.8°C per 100 years. that is 0.008°C per year. That is 0.0000022°C per day.

Let us compare this to something else to understand how minuscule and irrelevant this claim is. if I started out with 1 cent and increased it by this fractional amount per day (addition, not compound interest) it would take me 44,500 days to get my second penny. That is 122 years.

These so called scientist know this, which is why they had to create ‘models’ that did not assume a linear increase, but used an unproven feedback loop to accelerate the build-up of temperature. In their models CO2 creates out of control green house feedback. Interesting since CO2 is a fractional gas (~3%) while the dominant green house gas – H20 – apparently sits around and does nothing.

We all need to be more skeptical and more demanding of such wild and far reaching claims. The onus stands on those making the claims to have bullet-proof math, data and models. And at a minimum, their predictions have to hold water. Which they do not in this case. The first predictions of runaway warming were made 30 years ago. They interestingly match those being made today in terms of per-decade warming. And yet, they have been proven wrong by history. If you can’t predict results your claims are garbage – science 101.

We should never have given this nonsense anymore credibility than Wyley E Coyote suspended in air in violation of the force of gravity. But at least the Coyote was funny. Unprepared infrastructure has lost lives. This is not something to take lightly, or forgive easily. There is no ‘moving on’ from the farce that has become the IPCC and its industry of deception.

Same thing with unemployment and employment. People are either temporarily employed for a short time, or the unemployed are busy attempting to make the best of their holidays and putting off first time claims until later. Worst yet, compassionate employers prefer to wait until after the holidays to dish out the bad news of lay offs.

Each Holiday season this year has resulted in a blip of good news due to short work weeks. The December jobs report is no different:

Please respect FT.com’s ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article – http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c27463a0-1a64-11e0-b003-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1AS5qjBLF

The employment survey, the normal focus of attention, showed overall growth in payrolls of only 103,000. That was well below expectations, especially after a disappointing November report and a remarkably high estimate from private- sector payroll processor ADP earlier this week.

Yet the household survey, from which the unemployment rate is calculated, sent a completely different message. It showed an extra 297,000 people in jobs and 260,000 fewer people in the labour force. The combination of the two was enough to cause a drop in the unemployment rate from 9.8 to 9.4 per cent.

The weekly job reports tell the same story. The last report of the year (12/30/10) showed a weekly decrease of 34,000 first time claims for the week of Christmas. The next report, covering the period between Christmas and New Years, showed the opposite trend with an increase of 18,000.

I guess the liberal news media is still trying to spin a silver lining for the Dems out of the black economic clouds that have built up from the liberal deficit spending madness. I tend to look at indicators like how many people are still on extended unemployment as compared to a year ago (the heart of the great democrat recession of the 21st century). By that measure the Jan 1, 2011 data shows nearly 3 times as many people on Extended Unemployment benefits now than a year ago (929,570 now as compared to 316,988).

The number of people on Extended Benefits is a long term number which does not shift due to number of work days per week. Therefore don’t expect some magical relief from the Democrat spending binges. The only way to fix this is to shrink government dramatically, and end the accumulation of generational debt that is crushing us. Until then, fuggettaboudit.

Is the shared fear of Christmas and its Christian roots some interesting and bizarre coincidence, or a commonly shared fear of good people and historic teachings? Sadly, ’tis the season to ponder such disturbing questions.

I found these news stories before Christmas quite enlightening. First Hitler’s view:

But the Nazi Christmas was far from traditional.

Hitler believed religion had no place in his 1,000-year Reich, so he replaced the Christian figure of Saint Nicholas with the Norse god Odin and urged Germans to celebrate the season as a holiday of the ‘winter solstice’, rather than Christmas.

Out of sight at the top of the tree behind Hitler was a swastika instead of an angel, and many of the baubles carried runic symbols and iron cross motifs. The remarkable pictures were captured by Hugo Jaeger, one of the Fuhrer’s personal photographers.

Sounds quite familiar. Seems the left can’t shake its fear of the symbols of good over evil. The modern fear of celebrating Christ’s life is just as pathetic. Check out the title to this WaPo nonsense:

In defense of Santa and the cult of Christmas

An earnest academic, writing on the Web site Patheos, recently made the case against Santa Claus. Saint Nick is a multicultural nightmare: “A person shouldn’t have to pander to a white man – sit on his lap and beg, even! – to enjoy the good life. . . . If Santa were a refugee, or a woman of color, or even a plant or animal, I could probably get on board.”

Someone has some serious race issues. Whether a person is white or not, they are human beings. It seems ‘minorities’ are no more capable of getting over their own evil racism than those despicable whites (of which I am).

Or how about this liberal nonsense at NPR, trying to equate drugs to the creation of Christmas:

As we prepared to leave, we turned a corner, and there, in a glass case, was an odd assortment of artifacts: Christmas decorations shaped like red mushrooms with white flecks on them, Amanita muscaria, by name. There was also a Santa Claus, dressed in his traditional red robe with white trim.

While I was puzzling at this display, Pfister turned to a colleague, Anne Pringle, and mentioned that he was planning to make his annual lecture about the link between Amanita muscaria — which happens to be a hallucinogenic mushroom — and Santa.

I wonder of a little hallucinating wasn’t at the source of this nonsense. As the previous link notes, St Nick was a multicultural phenomena – not created out of one doped up moron’s imagination (like the theory itself being proffered).

Look, I am not religious, but Christ lived and Christianity wiped away more of humanity’s base evil than any union or government handout. From Christianity we get the basic and radical concept that even the weakest amongst us our of immeasurable value.

Stop and contemplate that again. From Christ’s teachings the rights of the individual, the inherent worth of the individual, was established throughout humanity and raised above the drive for raw power. The Jewish religion failed to share this basic tenant of life – probably due to the fact they are closed to those who don’t believe in their specific teachings. Muslims believe in religion over humanity and the individual, and the power of that brings. Hindus believe we are just one form of life without special abilities and responsibilities. An attempt to level the playing field between the authoritarian leaders and the rest of humanity, but one where people are asked to become equal with rats and cockroaches.

After Christ laid his seeds of thought and opened eyes to a new perspective, the West was able to create the democracies and individual rights that allow short sighted and pathetic voices to be heard without retribution. The rights the left like to claim much ownership to where built upon the teachings of an imperfect religion, which helped spread the teachings of Christ.

It is for that reason we celebrate Christmas, and for that reason St Nick became the symbol of giving – not procuring as some lame leftists like to pretend. Since we have to procure or make something to give some poor, twisted and hurting souls are focused on the buying of gifts instead of the giving. Well, that’s their problem to deal with.

The rest of us understand – even if some of us don’t support the modern Christian Church – that the teachings of Christ were profound and can be respected, just as we respect others who opened our eyes and cleansed us of evil. If we can celebrate Lincoln, we can celebrate Christ. It just happens more people follow Christ than Lincoln – so be it. It is not a competition, but an act of learning from history and understanding how it formed our modern lives.

To those who hate and fear Christmas or Christians, I feel for you. It must be horrible to be so insecure and filled with bile. It is a testimony to your own intolerance, your own version of racism that makes you weak and angry. There are many of us who accept the good and bad of the Christian Church without fear or anger. While I cannot fathom a religion that relegates women to some kind of male-insecure second rate status, I can applaud their efforts to feed and protect the weak, their dedication and sacrifice of their lives to the cause, and their efforts to reconcile out of date dictats and teachings with modern day reality. Some may twist the Bible to better reflect themselves instead of Christ’s teachings (the reason the book came into existence), but that is such a common human trait it should not be seen as a threat or evil. It is just one more handicap we need to work through.

Hitler feared Christmas and what it stood for. Anyone sharing his views may want to assess what really is bringing them to the point where they agree with a man who murdered tens of millions of human beings for a variety of sick reasons. I know I would consider this a warning bell for myself, but then again I don’t fear Christians or the Church.

Update: Sean Trende at RCP does a similar form of analysis, gets similar answer.

Update: Those not seeing the wave are blinded by denial – so says The Hill. And The Hotline concurs.

Update: Read the analysis and then come back and check out this Hillbuzz rumor about moderate Democrats energized to vote straight GOP in protest. This is the nightmare scenario, where the Dems lose just about all.

- end update

Lots of conflicting stories out there regarding the early voting trends and what they could mean. The complexities with early voting are due to the fact they are a small sample in many cases, and may not accurately represent the final party vote when all is said and done. This data has some limits, but it is not useless.

One thing you can do with the data is determine which group is performing above their registration levels. Voter registration reflects the overall state party affiliation, therefore comparing which political group is out voting early compared registration is a good indication of who may be energized and who is not. This is the enthusiasm gap we hear so much about.

A second thing you can do with early voting tallies is treat them as an approximate turnout model for the election. We can run scenarios through the early voter turnout statistics based on expected (or polled) preferences for each party. For example, Gallup is showing in all their generic voter models what I call a 60-40/95 model, wherein the GOP and Dems each garner ~95% of their party voters and the GOP has a 20% lead (60-40) amongst independent and 3rd party voters. Running this through model through early voting percentages produces a theoretical count of votes cast in early voting. Gallup’s 60-40 GOP lead with independents is the independent gap we hear so much about.

But here’s the rub. I don’t think Democrats are holding their base that well. I think there is a schism between the liberal far left and the moderate, center left. I think Democrats are going to be losing a significant number of their base this year. I don’t think you can lead with 20% of the independents and not pull at least 15% of the Democrat left-of-center voters. So I have decided to run another test, the 60-40/D:85 scenario to see what the vote results in early voting would be like if, as I suspect, there is a significant Democrat defection rate (something we hear nothing about). Here I assume the GOP hold 95% of their party voters, but the Democrats only hold 85%.

So this analysis covers the enthusiasm gap (who is voting above or below their registration levels), what the impact of the GOP lead on independents would mean in terms of early votes cast, and what would the result be if the Dems are also losing 15% of their party voters to defection.

Summary Results:

As we look across the three years of partisan registration data for each state one thing stands out – there is not a lot of movement towards the GOP registration-wise. This is not a surprise, since this election is driven by a rejection of the Democrats, not by any attraction to the GOP.

Most sates show some edge in enthusiasm to the GOP. When using the Gallup 60-40/95 test scenario the GOP wins the theoretical early vote numbers in most states. In those states which show Democrat enthusiasm or simply larger numbers of registered voters, a small 10% defection rate (the 60-40/D:85 scenario) can turn a blue state red (theoretically).

There is an clear GOP enthusiasm edge in the early voting data. When combined with the GOP lead with independent voters (Gallup has measured all month for the GOP) the GOP wins nearly all the early vote contests. But if there are also significant Democrat party defections on top of the enthusiasm and independent gaps, then some ‘swing states’ (like FL and PA) become absolutely toxic to Democrats.

Finally, early voting trends are proving to be very static over time. I have tracked some states daily, and once a percentage is set for one group of voters never really changes. That means the voter intentions are locked in and set already. Whatever the real enthusiasm gap, edge with independents and depth of Democrat defections – this race is set in stone through election day.

Detailed Analysis

So here is my updated detailed analysis of the early voting trends – comparing early voter turnout to registered voter levels in 9 states (previous version here). I added the voter registration levels for 2006 and 2008 to the charts since they were graciously provided in this Politico analysis. Much of the early voting data was found at this site at GMU, and this site for NC. State 2010 registration data are linked for each state. You can click all images to enlarge.

Colorado:

2010 Voter Registration

While Democrats are out voting above their 2010 registration ceiling by +4%, the GOP early voters are running +6%. In other words, a GOP ‘registered voter’ lead of just under 3% turns into a GOP early voter lead of 5%. In tight races 5% makes a big difference!

Now let’s look at the two test scenarios. If we assume Gallup’s 60-40/95 model then the Dem’s GOTV effort is falling way short. This is because the combined GOP & “Other” percentage dwarfs the Democrat’s measly 36% of early voters. Under the 60-40/95 model the Dems are losing the theoretical early votes by 9.5% (58.4-45.2).

Under the 60-40/D:85 model it is a blow out. In that case, where Dems lose not 5% of their base but 15% (not a lot), then the GOP wins by 16.8% (58.4-41.6)! This is what the Dems fear, the trifecta of lower enthusiasm, rejection by independents and defection by moderate dems. This why statewide races for the Senate and Governor are even in play.

Florida:

2010 Voter Registration

Florida is going to be a disaster for Democrats next Tuesday if early voting is even close to the final turnout data. Here the Democrats are running almost 8% points below their registration level, while the GOP is running 17% above theirs. In registered voters the Dems lead by 5%, but in early voting they are lagging by 19%.

Under the 60-40/95 Gallup model, where each party holds its partisans, the Dem lose theoretical early voting by a stunning 19.9% (59.9-40.1). If, as I suspect, the Dems are not able to hold their base and lose 15% in crossover votes, then situation in FL is completely toxic to democrats, as they lose the state by 26.6% (63.3 – 36.7). Heaven help Dems in Florida this year, no recounts will be necessary.

Iowa:

2010 Voter Registration

Iowa is a great example of why you cannot go by early voter percentages alone. There are no Iowa Republican candidates in trouble as far as I know, yet look at how the Iowa dems are rocking the early vote! They are 12% above their registration level and 7% above the GOP early voters. This is one of those examples used by math challenged liberals and journalism majors to claim a Democrat edge in early voting. The GOP is looking good here with a +7% on their registration level, but the Dems voters should be expected to swamp the GOP. If only that were how it will play out.

If we use the Gallup 60-40/95 model the Dems lead the state by 3.3% (48.2-51.7). But we know there are few if any endangered GOP candidates here, so the only answer is the Dems are losing more than 5% of their voters in Iowa. So we turn to the 60-40/D:85 scenario and find the GOP wins Iowa by a comfortable 5.8% (53-47.2). Granted, each state will have a unique crossover vote pattern, but I think Iowa is the example that proves where the final mass of the tsunami lies. After voter enthusiasm and after the gap of independents comes the democrat party defections. I just don’t see the Gallup 95 model holding up this year.

Louisiana:

2010 Voter Registration

What I love about this analysis is seeing how each state is unique and responds uniquely to the 2010 wave. LA has an enormous Democrat lead in voter registration (+24.7% over the GOP). But in Early voting that massive lead has disappeared down to 2.4%. The Dems are down 5% off their registration levels and the GOP is up 17% above theirs. There is no mistaking the GOP enthusiasm edge in LA.

How this may be reflected in votes is also interesting. The 60-40/95 scenario produces a 50-50 tie! Is Senator Vitter in a close race? No he is not. Are GOP candidates in trouble? Except Rep Cao in LA2 the answer is no. So clearly the Dems will not hold 95% of their voters in LA. The 60-40/D:85 model confirms this, showing a GOP win of 9.2% (54.6-45.4) in LA under these conditions.

Like Iowa, LA indicates the 2010 wave will be a combination of low enthusiasm for Dems, the loss of independents and moderate democrat defections. I don’t think pollsters have all these effects rolled into their turnout models yet.

Maine:

2010 Voter Registration

Maine is one of those states dominated by independents. Here the Dems can win by overpowering the GOP voters and offsetting any lead with the “other” voters. That would be the case if the voters came out close to their registration levels, where the Dems hold a 5% lead over the GOP. But in early voting this cycle the Dems, while garnering a few more voters, are losing the overall numbers game. Being on parity with the GOP on voters coming out will not do the job while the GOP takes the majority of the “other” voters.

In the 60-40/95 case the GOP wins Maine by 5% (52.5-47.4). But if you want to know why congressional Democrats from Maine are not sleeping well these days, it is because a 60-40/D:85 scenario boosts the GOP to a +12.4% lead (56.2-43.8). This is how the gap of independents, where the GOP is running 20% ahead, comes into play and wreaks havoc on Congressional dems.

North Carolina:

2010 Voter Registration

North Carolina is another state that starts out with a huge registration edge for the Dems over the GOP with +13%. In early voting there are no indications of Democrat enthusiasm, as their early voters are right in line with their registered voter levels. The GOP, on the other hand, is up +8% in early voters relative to their registered voters. Here, defection is everything in terms of Democrat chances.

In the 60-40/95 model from Gallup Generic, Dems eek out a 2.5% win here in theoretical votes (48.8-51.2). But as with previous examples in LA and IA, I am not aware of a blue wave hitting NC this year. The 60-40/D:85 model gives the GOP a modest 6.4% win in theoretical early votes (53.2-46.8). But I think NC will see even higher defections than that come election day, so I consider this a floor and not a ceiling.

New Jersey:

2010 Voter Registration

One of the new states I was able to add because of the data in that Politico piece referenced above was NJ. Voter registration over the years is very interesting to see in NJ, as independents apparently moved to the Democrats from 2006 to 2010. But NJ is home to the now infamous 2009 GOP mini-tsunami which put GOP governors in NJ and VA. That wave later traveled to MA in January of 2010 and seated Scott Brown in the “Kennedy” Senate seat. One could argue NJ and VA were the first to be hit by the voter backlash now cresting towards next Tuesday.

The 2009 NJ win came with the Democrats holding a 13% registration lead over the GOP. But it was the 13% lead of the “other” independent voters over Democrats which pushed Christie to his big win. It can happen again in 2010. Early voting has the Dems 10% above their registration levels and the GOP up 8%. Here could be argued a case for Democrat intensity. They are overcoming the enthusiasm gap and the gap of independents. But will the “other” sit home??

In the 60-40/85 theoretical model the Dems win NJ by 7.7% (46.2-53.9). The 60-40/D:85 test brings the GOP to a very slight edge of +0.9% (50.5-49.6). Again, if the Dems lose even 10% of their voters, a large lead just evaporates.

Because the NJ early voting numbers look so skewed in terms of the dominant political group (other), I added a unique 60-40/D:85 test for NJ. I wondered what that would look like if assume the final percentages were in line with 2004 registration levels (simply assume the 2010 actual voters looked like the 2004 registered voters). In that case the GOP jumps out to a theoretical 6.2% lead – not far off from Christie’s win percentage last fall.

Nevada:

2010 Voter Registration

The home state of soon-to-be-retired Senate Majority Leader Reid. Again we seem Democrats holding to their 2010 registration levels in the early voting pool, while the GOP is up 6% above theirs. A Democrat 4.4% lead in registered voters is all gone in the early voter numbers – in a record turnout year for Nevada. This clearly will not help Reid.

Under the 60-40/95 model Harry Reid would be losing the theoretical vote total by 3.1% (51.5-48.5). But with some Dem defections it becomes a blow out. Under the 60-40/D:85 model the GOP jumps to a 11.6% lead in theoretical votes (55.8-44.2). I would wager Angle’s win over Reid next Tuesday will fall withing these two scenarios.

Pennsylvania:

2010 Voter Registration

This is also a new state I was able to assess thanks to Politico. The Dems enjoy a hueg registered voter lead in PA, up 14% over the GOP. But we know from recent polls that PA is a place very hostile to Democrats this year, but not attracted to the GOP. Only recently have the statewide races tipped to the GOP (see here for Toomey’s sprint away from Sestak). Early voting indicates why there is such a Dem wipe out in the making – look at the enthusiasm gap! That 14% registration lead is turned into a 19% early voter deficit for the Dems.

Turning to the Gallup 60-40/95 model the GOP wins PA by an incredible 18.5% (59.3-40.8). The 60-40/D:85 model is of course even worse, showing a 25.9% GOP lead in theoretical early votes (63-37.1). This data reflects an early and small sample, so I would not put a dime on its accuracy. But I have to re-emphasize these early voter percentages don’t move much after the first set of data come out. Even shaving the Gallup 60-40/95 model back by 50% represents a GOP wave so big there may not be any congressional Dems left standing.

There is a huge wave out there.

With two weeks remaining until Election Day, the political map has expanded to put Democrats on the run across the country – with 99 Democratic-held House seats now in play, according to a POLITICO analysis, and Republicans well in reach of retaking the House.

It’s a dramatic departure from the outlook one year ago – and a broader landscape than even just prior to the summer congressional recess. As recently as early September, many Republicans were hesitant to talk about winning a majority for fear of overreaching.

Today, however, the non-partisan Cook Political Report predicts a GOP net gain of at least 40 House seats, with 90 Democratic seats in total rated as competitive or likely Republican.

Better yet:

Signs, Signs, everywhere there’s signs
Chasing down the liberals, busting up their minds
Mountains ‘o debt, Tea Party rants – How’d they miss the signs?

Goodbye Speaker Pelosi, and good riddance.

Update: Great beer drinking minds think alike!

Update: What is it with Mrs Coons? Everytime Coons gets in trouble he looks to Mrs Coons to stop O’Donnell and give him a life line! What a loser - end update

If anyone could salvage Christine O’Donnell it has to be that blatantly biased, brunette moderator we have affectionately called “Mrs. Coons.” I am watching the debate, impressed by Christine’s coaching and ability to think on her feet, and wondering who the hell placed a liberal Coons supporter next to Wolf Blitzer – who is seriously wondering about the intentions and bias of his co-moderator.

I am no fan of O’Donnell, but she finally answered my concerns by admitting she did what she had to do to survive this recession. She sold her house and tried to make right. She took care of herself, and apparently tried to avoid the handout. So my concerns are now answered in that regard.

But I still want to know, who is the woman spoon feeding Coons and prompting him when to rebut and how to rebut? Did CNN really think us poor ‘ol dumb voters would not see how the tired liberal medialite was controlling Coons??? If she was any closer to Coons there would be divorce papers being issued!

Good lord – Christine what will you be doing when you win your Senate seat from that fool Coons. His pat response is “there’s not enough time to explain my problems”. What a disaster for the Dems in DE.

[Click image to see more excellent patriotic artwork]

For those on the right who think the GOP pledge does not go far enough to the right – thanks for standing up and letting us know who not to follow. Any element of the conservative movement that proposes to implode by pushing America outside its comfort zone and off its priorities the way Obama, Pelosi and Reid did is not someone to lead this nation forward. There is no reason to repeat the mistakes the liberals made and many on the right made leading into 2006 and 2008.

The pledge (full text here) looks to be a good balance of where to redirect our collective focus. This collective focus has been precisely scoped to not go outside common ground where consensus cannot be won with the broad middle of America. Its stays out of the fringes. But more than that, the pledge’s underlying premise is small, nonintrusive government. That libertarian streak throughout is why it holds together. I would like to echo the National Review Editorial here and note this is more than a contract with America:

The pledge is bolder. The Contract with America merely promised to hold votes on popular bills that had been bottled up during decades of Democratic control of the House. The pledge commits Republicans to working toward a broad conservative agenda that, if implemented, would make the federal government significantly smaller, Congress more accountable, and America more prosperous.

Emphasis mine. This last swing of the hyper-partisan pendulum we’ve been experiencing the last two years, which drastically thrust America to the left, was the straw that broke the People’s backs. The nation has finally accepted the idea a limited and constrained government is better than an all-intrusive, heavy-handed, busy-body government – whether the thrust behind the policies is liberal or conservative. Debate on how far and how fast to take these national objectives will consume us for many years. But it will be a debate with a direction acceptable to most Americans and not some social experiment backed by a minority.

The top priority is to get the government out of the way of the private sector so our economy can grow and create good jobs again. This area of the Pledge has the fewest specific actions listed, mainly because many other aspects of The Pledge will also have positive effects on businesses and the economy (e.g., lowering taxes, repealing and replacing Obamacare, shrinking the government and thus reducing deficits and debt). It is a recognition that government cannot do much more than get out of the way of the economy. Therefore a short list of actions to pull government’s jack boot from the economy’s neck is the right answer.

The longest list of actions is associated with trimming and fixing government. From overhauling Freddia Mac and Fannie Mae, to ending the failed stimulus bills that are still wasting money, to ending TARP and bailouts – the main thrust of the Pledge is healing our country by killing off the cancer of out-of-control government. There are so many things that the government needs to stop doing that this effort to get government back in shape will bear fruit for years and years to come. The important part of this is to make sure the Americans now working for the government are not punished or negatively impacted while this takes place. The compassionate path is to close down filling jobs or adding new ones, and let attrition and a growing private sector consume the fat of government over time.

I like the Pledge a lot. I think there is a lot for the broad center and the right to jointly cheer and support. There will be those who need to calibrate their expectations and there will be compromises. Lots and lots of compromises. But the debate will be on how far or fast to go – not which direction we will be heading.

No one will buy the claim a measured pace towards a libertarian balance of government and private sector is the same as being a big government liberal. There is no coherent argument there anymore. We are all RINO’s, because we are all Americans first, with diverse and independent views that can be handled with respect and a modicum of professionalism.

That is another trait we can dump that the Dems brought us. We don’t need conservative versions of snarky Carville’s and Begala’s – we need more Reagan’s, W Bush, Condi Rices, etc. Keep it classy folks.

Obama, speaking with NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams on Sunday afternoon, was equally dismissive of conservative talk show host Glenn Beck – saying he didn’t watch the Fox host’s Saturday rally in Washington but wasn’t surprised that Beck was able to “stir up” people during uncertain economic times.

…

Obama, who just returned from a long vacation on Martha’s Vineyard said he didn’t watch Glenn Beck’s massive rally at the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday, adding that he was focused on the long-term, not on the “Nightly News.”

In other words, our President is not listening or paying attention again. You’d think even a dim bulb would have figured out by now to at least pretend to understand, feel the pain, regurgitate the concerns. Bill Clinton he is not.

Mr Obama acts as if the nation is out to get him. If it is, it’s his own fault since he had it full square behind him when he was elected. He is the one that made a series of misreads, missteps and mistakes. He reacts like this is campaign time, which simply under scores the now obvious – the man was not ready to be an executive in charge of a large organization. He does not understand how it works. And he is annoyed reality is not behaving as he expected when he was fantasizing about being President of the United States. He better begin listening to the people, or he will be a horrible one term president and his party will have been decimated in the process.

A must read from across the pond on all the factors that are creating a perfect fire storm of backlash. A small sample of the 10 reasons November will be a historic retribution on Barack Obama and the Dems:

3. Obama fails to inspire

In contrast to the soaring rhetoric of his 2004 Convention speech in Boston which succeeded in impressing millions of television viewers at the time, America is no longer inspired by Barack Obama’s flat, monotonous and often dull presidential speeches and statements delivered via teleprompter. From his extraordinarily uninspiring Afghanistan speech at West Point to his flat State of the Union address, President Obama has failed to touch the heart of America. Even Jimmy Carter was more moving.

4. The United States is drowning in debt

The Congressional Budget Office Long-Term Budget Outlook offers a frightening picture of the scale of America’s national debt. Under its alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO projects that US debt could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent in 2035. While much of Europe, led by Britain and Germany, are aggressively cutting their deficits, the Obama administration is actively growing America’s debt, and has no plan in place to avert a looming Greek-style financial crisis.

Keep this one on file – it is the obit for November.

There are a questionable data points in the mix – those polls of adults. Let’s look at the gap by sample class. In the “Adult” group we find [-3, 0, -3, +4] an average of -0.5%.  This means even in the very left-leaning sample of adults Obama’s presidency is teetering on the brink. But when we look at voters (likely and registered) we see [-12, -4, -5] an average of -7%. To be more precise we can see with voters Obama’s approval is sitting around 44%, while his disapproval is sitting around 51%. No politician can implement anything once a majority of the voters disapprove of them. If this trend holds, Obama has become a lame duck, one term disaster.

But of course I don’t think these numbers will hold. I don’t think the Dems and Obama have  hit rock bottom yet.

BTW, if you look at today’s RCP generic congressional ballot the average (which is mostly registered voters with one ‘adult’ sample and two ‘likely’ samples) is +3.3%.  But if you pull out the two likely voters samples alone the average jumps to +9%. If that likely-voter number stays where it is – or gets worse – in November the damage to the Democrat party will be generational in nature.

Sort of like the damage they have been doing to our economy and debt – generational.

The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said Byrd “combined a devotion to the U.S. Constitution with a deep learning of history to defend the interests of his state and the traditions of the Senate.”

“We will remember him for his fighter’s spirit, his abiding faith, and for the many times he recalled the Senate to its purposes,” McConnell said.

Sadly for the Democrats, Senator Robert Byrd passed a few days too early because now there will be a special election in WV to replace him, a state that has become adamantly anti-liberal and anti-Obama. I would say Robert Byrd has gone to a better place, and has left this nation a better chance of wresting control of our future away from the liberal fanatics in DC. Control of the US Senate is now in play.

Update: Scott at Powerline exposes the real Robert C Byrd, the one the liberal media have hidden from Americans for decades.

Byrd was old enough, for example, to have vowed memorably regarding the integration of the Armed Forces by President Truman that he would never fight “with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

Even after his resignation from the Klan, Byrd continued to hold it in high esteem, writing to the Klan’s Imperial Wizard in 1946: “The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia.”

And Byrd was old enough to have participated in filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as to have voted against it after cloture along with 18 other Democrats — in the name of the Constitution, of course. Funny Stolberg didn’t invite Byrd to take a walk down memory lane on that subject. It would have been highly illuminating.

A truly ‘great’ American …

Right now I am going to sit back and watch the public reaction. If, as usual, the public was duped into a false sense of success (i.e., the doomed to fail, lethargic government funded stimulus plan) then the lack of positive, substantive change will begin to erode what little support there is for this mess.

But more than that, we will soon learn if VA, NJ and MA were just coincidental flukes and not  the center of the country being really pissed off about this attack on their health care by a bunch of dysfunctional bozos in DC. Did the liberals waken a sleeping giant? It will take weeks to find out.

I do know as a small business owner that our health insurance will not be the same, as promised by the liars in DC. We will have to have adjustments for pre-existing conditions (premiums will go up) and covering children until 26 (premiums may go down). We will have to prepare for IRS audits of our plans, which will need to be adjusted (because I doubt any plan has all the requisite coverage). And we will decide whether we carry insurance or we all go into the health care pools. What I do know is our current situation will not survive the year. Clearly it cannot with all these new mandates.

Only time will tell if this recklessness will actually sink the liberals this fall, and begin the move to dismantle the federal bureaucracy.

Update: John Hinderaker at Powerline has some excellent postmortem observations.

Update: Look who woke up – the New York Times:

The battle over health care is poised to move swiftly from Congress back to the country as Democrats, Republicans and a battery of interest groups race to define the legislation and dig in for long-term political and legal fights.

President Obama plans to open a new campaign this week to persuade skeptical Americans that the bill holds immediate benefits for them and addresses the nation’s shaky fiscal condition. Republicans said they would seek to repeal the measure, challenge its constitutionality and coordinate efforts in statehouses to block its implementation.

The politics of health care are fragile — and far from certain — in the eight-month midterm campaign that will determine which party will control Congress next year. But both sides steeled for a fight to extend well beyond November, involving state legislative battles, court challenges and, ultimately, the next presidential race.

…

The next chapter in the health care fight will play out not only in the midterm elections, but also in the courts. Attorneys general in three states — Virginia, Florida and South Carolina — have indicated they will file legal challenges to the measure, on the grounds that it violates the Constitution by requiring individuals to purchase insurance.

You betcha! The damn thing has bipartisan and majority opposition. What did these fools think would happen?

Addendum: First, I want to remind DC that if they believe they have the authority to restructure 1/6th of our economy and take over health care, then we the people have the authority (and moral obligation) to restructure the federal bureaucracy. There will be no room for whining and complaining after this episode.

Secondly, if VA, NJ and MA were not flukes, it is time to lay out how we can restructure the federal government to (a) make sure it doesn’t impose on our personal rights again, (b) upholds the constitution in terms of protection of the nation and its people,  and (c) is insulated from lobbyists and special interests (this is surprisingly simple). If opinion turns, I am thinking about a series of essays on how to change DC (no more changing America) to work for us.

We The People can show those buffoons inside the beltway how the real world solves problems like DC.

Among all voters not affiliated with either party, the GOP leads 48% to 17%.

By almost 3 to 1, independents have abandoned the Democrats. We will see what this means on January 19th in the MA special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat – but whatever the outcome the message is loud and clear. And aimed at both parties.

America is fed up with the fringes. The far right is foolish to think they have rehabilitated themselves in the eyes of the country which dumped them from power in 2006 and 2008. The only reason Independents are moving is the liberal fringe went farther, faster than the far right tried to go.

The Tea Party movement is not a right wing movement, it is revolt across the left of center to right side of the spectrum. The winning candidates so far have all been center right candidates. I expect to see this trend continue. The independents and centrists decide who wins, and we can keep cleaning clocks until the message gets through.

Copenhagen climate change conference: ‘Fourteen days to seal history’s judgment on this generation’

This editorial calling for action from world leaders on climate change is published today by 56 newspapers around the world in 20 languages

The world’s education system is clearly in need of repair.