Last night (Tues) was an interesting night for the Conservative Movement. For the most part it was a good night, with some setbacks. Last night the Conservatives won 2 out of 3 of the major elections the country was watching. The only loss was in NY 23, when Bill Owens beat Doug Hoffman for the special election. But overall the Conservatives did well in many local state elections, and state wide elections

Was this a repudiation of Obama??? Well I think is is yes and no. Yes, inthe fact that many Independents elected Conservatives because of the economy. The policies that Obama has put forth have not taken us out of the Recession that he “inherited”. If nothing else most of them made things worse. So in some ways it was elections based on Obama’s presidency. But on the other hand there was much to say about local and state politics that affected the elections. Corzine and the Democrats in New Jersey have been affected by the arrests of many Democrats in a state run on corruption. Without these big time arrests would Christie have won??? That is hard to say.

There will be much debate over what really happened in NY 23. Hoffman was a little known entity just a few weeks ago. Before the Conservative bloggers and new media (73 Wire) arrived on the seen, Hoffman was running in 3rd place at 20%. After all is said and done, he got around 46%, after much attention. It goes to show that when Conservatives get their act together we can change election results. Did we win?? Yes and no. We lost the election but won the battle against the GOP establishment.

I do think that the GOP should be the “Big Tent” Party. I do not think that we should kick out every Moderate republican, we need them in the whole scheme of things. But as a whole the GOP needs to listen to the base instead of always thinking the Moderate candidate is the best way to go. NY 23 is a Conservative district and Dede Scozzafava was not the person to pick. She was a Liberal Moderate in a a Conservative district. Bill Owens is more likely more Conservative than she is.

So overall I think this should be considered a win for the Conservative Movement. We are not going to be able to win overnight these are baby steps in bringing some sanity back in government. And hopefully the RNC will at least not take the Conservatives for granite anymore and start listening to us.

originally posted at Stix Blog

Looking at the results from yesterday’s elections I see different meaning in the different races we all were following. It’s almost as if people are individuals with differing outlooks and ideas of what is important. (Yes, that was sarcasm)

In New York City — Mayor Bloomberg won by a much narrower margin than the money he spent seemed to indicate. I think in part this is a mixed message of people in favor of the job he is doing, but somewhat turned off by the way he fought for the right to win another term.

In Virginia — The McDonnell win in Virginia, after nearly a decade of Democratic control, is partially a repudiation of Obama policies and direction. Although most of the electorate said that Obama wasn’t a direct consideration in their vote, the economy and jobs did play a large role and that is a reflection on the year old administration.

In New Jersey — This was probably the biggest upset of the night. While the trends ahead of the election were in Christie’s favor, few people expected the margin that came in. While this race, again, wasn’t all about Obama, the flip side of that coin is that the significant support the President gave Corzine didn’t move the voters. That sends a message for 2010. Economy and property taxes were the main issues. Now it’s up to Christie to lead on those things. If there’s not real movement in these areas I fear for my birth state.

In New York 23 — This race received a tremendous amount of national coverage, probably out of proportion to it’s national impact. There were so many things going on in this race, especially in the last few weeks, that we may never know all the factors that entered in to this decision. I doubt is we will ever see another race where the republican candidate is arguably to the left of the democrat, and where a conservative third party candidate garners overwhelming national attention and support in a moderate republican district. Did conservatives have too much riding on this outcome? I don’t think we know, at least not yet.

Those are my first thoughts. Leave yours in the comments.

Are the results we are about to see meaningful beyond the districts and states involved, or is the outcome essentially meaningless?

My gut says that the truth is somewhere between the extremes. At the core, however, I think that this will be a good day for conservatism and conservative values. Your thoughts? The comments are open.

UPDATE: Poll Added.

I meant to post this at midnight last night. Oh well.

In order to encourage comments and discussion this is your open post.

Note: We have threaded comments set up. You can reply directly to someone’s comment instead of having to reply down stream. You’ll see a link titled “Reply” beneath each comment. You can click on that to reply to the associated comment, or just fill in form at the bottom to add the next thought.

Have at it. Tell your friends.

Jump Start: Discuss today’s elections.

Ah yes,good old Stalin to the rescue of Al Franken and the Democrats in Minnesota. If you do not get the votes, recount until you get the desired result. This whole recount is an embarrassment to the entire US voting population. When you have 25 precincts with more votes the n voted on election day, you know there is problems with the recount.

Funny Business in Minnesota

In which every dubious ruling seems to help Al Franken.

Wall Street Journal

JANUARY 5, 2009

Strange things keep happening in Minnesota, where the disputed recount in the Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken may be nearing a dubious outcome. Thanks to the machinations of Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and a meek state Canvassing Board, Mr. Franken may emerge as an illegitimate victor.

Mr. Franken started the recount 215 votes behind Senator Coleman, but he now claims a 225-vote lead and suddenly the man who was insisting on “counting every vote” wants to shut the process down. He’s getting help from Mr. Ritchie and his four fellow Canvassing Board members, who have delivered inconsistent rulings and are ignoring glaring problems with the tallies.

Under Minnesota law, election officials are required to make a duplicate ballot if the original is damaged during Election Night counting. Officials are supposed to mark these as “duplicate” and segregate the original ballots. But it appears some officials may have failed to mark ballots as duplicates, which are now being counted in addition to the originals. This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. By some estimates this double counting has yielded Mr. Franken an additional 80 to 100 votes.—WSJ

Stix

Not to sat that only Obama voters are not informed, but the American Public is very uniformed about policies of the candidates.   This is not just on one side of the aisle, but this is a good interpretation of  how people get their news about the candidates.     The Media drives what people think is truth, and willfully neglect to show both sides evenly.   And I am not only picking on Obama supporters, but to not know who runs CONgress, who Reid or Pelosi is is unbelievable.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Here is the sample from Zogby poll to go along with this video.

512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet…..

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we “gave” one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

The Republicans need to find a way to get their information out there.  And the best way to do that is to use the New Media; blogs, talk radio and social networks.   We need to get all Conservatives to go out and get the message across to people.

Before posting this I would like to express my condolences to the Durbin family. Their eldest daughter died over the weekend.  I have met her before when I was a child at a neighbors house, but really do not remember it.  My thoughts and prayers are with his family.  With that said,I am still supporting Sauerberg.  I do not think he really has a chance in Illinois,but I have to vote my conscience.

The Path to Victory We are in the final hours of our campaign to defeat Dick Durbin and return Illinois values to Washington. For Steve to achieve victory, we need to get every voter we can to the polls.  This means your family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers & fellow students. If you can make phone calls or work the polls, please call your local headquarters for instructions:  Click here Click below to find your polling place: Join us on election night Dr. Steve Sauerberg Republican Nominee for U.S. Senate Cordially invites you to join him for an Election Night Celebration Tuesday, November 4th 7:00-9:00 pm Harry Caray’s Italian Steak House 70 Yorktown Center – Lombard (Westin Lombard Yorktown Center) Complimentary Appetizers and Drinks Please RSVP by Monday, November 3rd Teresa Belmonte 630-424-3490 tbelmonte@sauerberg2008.com     # # #

Paid for by Sauerberg for U.S. Senate., Leonard Metzl, CPA,Treasurer.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I do not
H/T to Exurban League

100 economists think that Obama’s economic policieswould be drastic for oureconomy.   It would bring our economy farther down and into a recession.

Economists Statement On Barack Obama’s Risky Economic Proposals

ARLINGTON, VA – Today, McCain-Palin 2008 released the following statement signed by 100 distinguished and experienced economists at major American universities and research organizations, including five Nobel Prize winners Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Robert Mundell, Edward Prescott, and Vernon Smith. The economists explain why Barack Obama’s proposals, including “misguided tax hikes,” would “decrease the number of jobs in America.” The prospects of such tax rate increases under Barack Obama are already harming the economy. The economists conclude that “Barack Obama’s economic proposals are wrong for the American economy.” The proposals “defy both economic reason and economic experience.”

The full economists’ statement on Barack Obama’s economic proposals and a complete list of economists who support it follows:

Barack Obama argues that his proposals to raise tax rates and halt international trade agreements would benefit the American economy. They would do nothing of the sort. Economic analysis and historical experience show that they would do the opposite. They would reduce economic growth and decrease the number of jobs in America. Moreover, with the credit crunch, the housing slump, and high energy prices weakening the U.S. economy, his proposals run a high risk of throwing the economy into a deep recession. It was exactly such misguided tax hikes and protectionism, enacted when the U.S. economy was weak in the early 1930s, that greatly increased the severity of the Great Depression.

We are very concerned with Barack Obama’s opposition to trade agreements such as the pending one with Colombia, the new one with Central America, or the established one with Canada and Mexico. Exports from the United States to other countries create jobs for Americans. Imports make goods available to Americans at lower prices and are a particular benefit to families and individuals with low incomes. International trade is also a powerful source of strength in a weak economy. In the second quarter of this year, for example, increased international trade did far more to stimulate the U.S. economy than the federal government’s “stimulus” package.

Ironically, rather than supporting international trade, Barack Obama is now proposing yet another so-called stimulus package, which would do very little to grow the economy. And his proposal to finance the package with higher taxes on oil would raise oil prices directly and by reducing exploration and production.

We are equally concerned with his proposals to increase tax rates on labor income and investment. His dividend and capital gains tax increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions of Americans. His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and reduce employment and take-home pay, as would his mandates on firms to provide expensive health insurance.

After hearing such economic criticism of his proposals, Barack Obama has apparently suggested to some people that he might postpone his tax increases, perhaps to 2010. But it is a mistake to think that postponing such tax increases would prevent their harmful effect on the economy today. The prospect of such tax rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy. Businesses considering whether to hire workers today and expand their operations have time horizons longer than a year or two, so the prospect of higher taxes starting in 2009 or 2010 reduces hiring and investment in 2008.

In sum, Barack Obama’s economic proposals are wrong for the American economy. They defy both economic reason and economic experience.

Robert Barro, Harvard University

Gary Becker, University of Chicago

Sanjai Bhagat, University of Colorado

Michael Block, University of Arizona

Brock Blomberg, Claremont-McKenna University

Michael Bordo, Rutgers University

Michael Boskin, Stanford University

Ike Brannon, McCain-Palin 2008

James Buchanan, George Mason University

Todd Buchholtz, Two Oceans Fund

Charles Calomiris, Columbia University

Jim Carter, Vienna VA

Barry Chiswick, University of Illinois at Chicago

John Cogan, Hoover Institution

Kathleen Cooper, Southern Methodist University

Ted Covey, McLean VA

Dan Crippen, former CBO Director

Mario Crucini, Vanderbilt

Steve Davis, University of Chicago

Christopher DeMuth, American Enterprise Institute

William Dewald, Ohio State University

Frank Diebold, University of Pennsylvania

Isaac Ehrlich, State University of New York at Buffalo

Paul Evans, Ohio State University

Dan Feenberg, NBER

Martin Feldstein, Harvard University

Eric Fisher, California Polytechnic State University

Kristin Forbes, MIT

Timothy Fuerst, Bowling Green State University

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Hudson Institute

Paul Gregory, University of Houston

Earl Grinols, Baylor University

Rik Hafer, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville

Gary Hansen, UCLA

Eric Hanushek, Hoover Institutions

Kevin Hassett, American Enterprise Institute

Arlene Holen, Technology Policy Institute

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain-Palin 2008

Glenn Hubbard, Columbia University

Owen Irvine, Michigan State University

Mike Jensen, Harvard University

Steven Kaplan, University of Chicago

Robert King, Boston University

Meir Kohn, Dartmouth

Marvin Kosters, American Enterprise Institute

Anne Krueger, Johns Hopkins University

Phil Levy, American Enterprise Institute

Larry Lindsey, The Lindsey Group

Paul W. MacAvoy. Yale University

John Makin, American Enterprise Institute

Burton Malkiel, Princeton University

Bennett McCallum, Carnegie-Mellon University

Paul McCracken, University of Michigan

Will Melick, Kenyon College

Allan Meltzer, Carnegie-Mellon University

Enrique Mendoza, University of Maryland

Jim Miller, George Mason University

Michael Moore, George Washington University

Robert Mundell, Columbia University

Tim Muris, George Mason University

Kevin Murphy, University of Chicago

Richard Muth, Emory University

Charles Nelson, University of Washington

Bill Niskanen, Cato Institute

June O’Neill, Baruch College, CUNY

Lydia Ortega, San Jose State University

Steve Parente, University of Minnesota

William Poole, University of Delaware

Michael Porter, Harvard University

Barry Poulson, University of Colorado, Boulder

Edward Prescott, Arizona State University

Kenneth Rogoff, Harvard University

Richard Roll, UCLA

Harvey Rosen, Princeton University

Robert Rossana, Wayne State University

Mark Rush, University of Florida

Tom Saving, Texas A&M University

Anna Schwartz, NBER

George Shultz, Stanford University

Chester Spatt, Carnegie-Mellon University

David Spencer, Brigham Young University

Beryl Sprinkle, Former Chair Council of Economic Advisers

Houston Stokes, University of Illinois in Chicago

Robert Tamura, Clemson University

Jack Tatum, Indiana State University

John Taylor, Stanford University

Richard Vedder, Ohio University

William B. Walstad, University of Nebraska

Murray Weidenbaum, Washington University in St. Louis

Arnold Zellner, University of Chicago

100 ECONOMISTS WARN THAT WITH CURRRENT WEAK FINANCIAL CONDITIONS BARACK OBAMA’S PROPOSALS RUN A HIGH RISK OF THROWING THE US ECONOMY INTO A DEEP RECESSION