Murray/Rossi Debate Tonight:

Their second and final one. So if watching the Bielat/Frank debate doesn't give you political junkies enough of a fix then you can tune into this debate which will be livestreamed here. It starts at 7 p.m. PST (I.E. right now). A number of very recent polls (which I can't seem to find a link to at the moment) seem to indicate that Murray has opened up a lead over Rossi that's outside the M.O.E., 6-8 points, so that sucks. And if you don't already have it bookmarked, here's linky to Real Clear Politics' Poll Average Page. It covers pretty much every election in the country above dog-catcher.

Some Magoo fer You:

Just because, that's why.

Posted by: Genghis at 06:00 PM | Comments (564)
Post contains 497 words, total size 5 kb.

As usual, it's the conservative against the Dem and his sympathetic moderator, but Sean holds his ground admirably here. Long (hey, it's a debate, 28 mins or so), but worth a watch to see how a) Barney fumbles and mush-mouths his answers while twisting his own personal record, and when confronted with it, dives into the weeds of "inside the beltway, politics on the hill" bullshit, and b) Sean doesn't give an inch, even to the the hostile moderator who sees when things look bad for Frank and hustles on to some talking point/gotcha questions.

He keeps his cool, and lets Barney step on himself. Quite a few times.

Am struck mostly with Barney's emphatic defenses that dive down into the "sausage-making of politics", which is his way of deflecting personal accountability, and Bielat's patience while pressing his points, and not giving in on Barney's blabbing assertions.

Interesting stupid question at 15:10 or so, "hey, what if the tax cuts were only for the rich and not the middle class, would YOU SUPPORT THAT?"

For cryin out loud.

Oh, in case you hadn't heard, Sean Bielat is a Major in the United States Marine Corps Reserve who killed terrorists and builds robots to kill more of em*.

As a Program Manager.

Lemme tell ya, PM over killer robots is a tough job.

* I don't know that the robots actually kill terrorists, but it would be awesome if they did.

UPDATED: Oh, the robots kill IEDs before they can kill our soldiers.

I knew that, I think, just screwed it up. My bad.

via several RTs here.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:01 PM | Comments (101)
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

I will let this poll sink in for those of you who remember Dan Inouye as the literal face of the Democratic party in Hawaii and who won his last election with 75% of the vote. A totally solid no-way-in-hell lock for re-election. Polling 22% below his last total against a relative unknown. There's still time for you morons in Hawaii.

Savor the fantasy.

BTW: Cavasso for Senate of Puddingland

Posted by: CAC at 12:09 PM | Comments (187)
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

This is what fear smells like.

To connect West to the motorcycle gang, Democrats have pointed out that he's a contributor to Wheels on the Road, a publication that covers [among many other things] the Outlaws' Florida clubs.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 12:01 PM | Comments (86)
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.

No, it couldn't be his deeply unpopular policies or the the economy-destroying legislation his allies in Congress have been passing around. The President says Democrats are failing in the polls because Americans aren't thinking clearly.

Seeking to explain his party's troubles, the president focused not on controversial legislation like national health care and the stimulus but on evolutionary psychology. "Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared," Obama told the assembled Democrats, who paid $15,200 a person to attend. "And the country is scared."

To "break through the fear and the frustration that people are feeling right now," Obama told the crowd, will require high-end donors not just to "write checks" but also to "lift up people's spirits and make sure that they're not reacting just to fear."

As with his unscripted "bitter clingers" remark two years ago, the President is entirely ignorant of his own insulting elitism. He simply has no idea what an utter douchetool it makes him to tell Democratic high-rollers "Give me your money because Americans are being dumb; we'll show them." I bet you a beer that he was off his telebinky for this too.

Via Slublog.

More: Thinking about it, Obama's done more than his share of fearmongering this election cycle. If Americans are afraid, they've got good reason to be.

The President says that the GOP repeal of ObamaCare will lead to increased premiums and reduced benefits. He must have missed the massive rate hikes that went into effect to pay for ObamaCare mandates. He must have missed his own CMS actuary who found that ObamaCare has reduced benefits for seniors.

The President says that the GOP will hurt the economy by scuttling his stimulus, especially "green energy subsidies" and "thousands of green jobs." Of course, he just admitted the other day that there's no such thing as a "shovel-ready project" and no magical "green economy" has materialized. His promise to keep the unemployment rate under 8% turned out to be a big fat lie. As a result, Americans are still without work, the economy is still in the dump, and our children will get to pay the bill for Obama's failed "stimulus".

Obama continues to fearmonger on tax cuts, claiming in a blatant lie that the GOP will not renew tax cuts for the middle class. The truth is, the Bush tax cuts (which included cuts for the middle class) are expiring because of his own party. They would have been permanent but for Democrat opposition. For the GOP it's not about "giving" the middle class a tax cut. It's about keeping the greedy government from taking money that's already rightfully theirs. In the two years they've been in power, the Democrats haven't done more than pretend to be interested in cutting taxes for the middle class, though they've certainly enjoyed passing wealth redistribution measures in the form of tax credits.

Lauraw reminds me that it's not just the Democrats in the White House or in Congress. Democratic cronies in executive agencies like the EPA are also set on economy-killing regulations. No amount of reasoning -- "Hey, maybe never's a good time to raise energy prices for every American." -- will penetrate the Democrat's global warming fearmongering.

Obama asked his rich donors to "lift up people's spirits." In fact, Americans' spirits will be higher and their futures brighter after the Democrats get a big old whack on the nose in November. I know you can do it.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 11:35 AM | Comments (104)
Post contains 632 words, total size 4 kb.

And last minute pick reminder.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 08:45 AM | Comments (439)
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.

Alright, we have the football pickem for the sporty types, haiku contests (hmm, been a while, Lauraw) for the clever morons, and Monty's got his romance novel thing going on down there... It's time for a contest for political prognosticators.

Actually, let's make it two contests. The winner of each gets one entire year of absolutely free content at AOSHQ. And bragging rights. Entries are due by Friday, October 22 at noon Eastern; see below for details.

First Contest: House of Representatives
How many seats will the GOP gain (net) in the House?

Rasmussen predicts 55.
Nate Silver says 47 or 48.

Whoever gets it right on the dot or closest without going over (hey, it worked for Bob Barker) wins.

Second Contest: Senate
Predict the outcome in the following eleven senate races, which we've given particular attention to here at the HQ:

AK
CA
CT
DE
FL
IL
NV
PA
WA
WI
WV

Whoever gets the most right wins.

Entries are due by Friday, October 22 at noon Eastern. I'll put up an "Official Entries" thread on Thursday evening for you to post your predictions (meaning, predictions in this post won't count) OR, if you'd rather keep your l33t political skillz to yourself, you can email me your entry any time before noon on Friday at "gabriel.malor" at gmail. I'll tally the results and announce the winners after the recounts are done.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:15 AM | Comments (182)
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

You know you read them, ladies: those books with the gauzy pictures on the front of some busty wench swooning in the arms of some muscular dude who looks like a roadie for Metallica. Romances. Bodice-rippers. Estrogen-flavored pr0n.

My mother and my sister both went through truckoads of them -- my mom had just about every Harlequin romance ever printed, and if you know how many of those novels have been printed over the years, you know that's a lot of books. When she passed away, the whole collection went to the local library. My sis preferred the thick historical novels that usually involved a pirate who was really a nobleman in disguise who was nailing some abandoned waif who was really a countess or a duchess in disguise. (Yeah, I read a couple of them, big whoop, wanna fight about it?)

I have reached the age in my life when I'm actually disappointed if a novel doesn't have a love story in it of some kind. Even such a studly adventure novel as Stephen Hunter's Point of Impact has a love story in it. I will even confess to having read Jude Deveraux's The Black Lyon several years back when I was reading a lot of Middle Ages history. (But really: Jude Deveraux? That's gotta be a pseudonym. I'll bet it's really a guy named Wally Schwartz or something.) I like happy endings, I like books that have a noble hero and a really evil villian, and I like heroines who are spunky, proud, and can do the horizontal tango like feral weasels. The Black Lyon delivered on all counts.

Romance novels are really the last hold-outs of a very old-fashioned mode of storytelling (back when nearly all adventure/satire/love novels were called "romances"). They tend to be highly socially conservative -- for all the shenanigans, marriage and children are almost always the goal. The man is the provider and protector; the woman is the caregiver and social center. Romances are, in fact, sort of an expression of cultural gestalt at any given time because they tend to illustrate exactly what women (and many men) want from life and love. I guess we ought to be gratified that the answer is still "marriage and children".

It's always struck me as funny that so many romance heroes of modern times are pirates, privateers, thieves, brigands, and rebels -- but not really. The highwayman is actually a Scots Laird, you see, who is only trying to feed his starving people. He can never be some stinky loser who's too lazy to work for a living. Women love the bad boys, but only if they're not really bad. And there's always some plot where the heroine dresses up as a young lad to hide herself away; apparently she's counting on the hero being as thick as a plank in addition to being good looking, bronzed, and muscular. (Never a thin, cave-chested hero, either: only orange mesomorphs need apply.)

This thread is for all you ladies -- and maybe even you dudes; confession is good for the soul -- who read and enjoy romance novels.

Posted by: Monty at 03:46 AM | Comments (357)
Post contains 527 words, total size 3 kb.

Miss me last night? I didnÂ’t think so. The feelingÂ’s mutual.

More cowbell? I got yer out-of-synch cowbell right here (including cowbell solo near the end):

Ok, enough of that nonsense. Let's move on to... more...

Posted by: Genghis at 06:15 PM | Comments (684)
Post contains 472 words, total size 5 kb.

Well, that was a little work, but not so bad. Phone banking's pretty easy. Of the people I actually got a hold of, I'd say there were two or three Bielat supporters for every Frank supporter.

One woman told me that no she had never heard of Bielat. Is he Republican?, she asked, sounding angry. Yes, I replied sheepishly.

Well then he's got my vote, she said. I don't care what his name is, I'm voting all of them (Democrats) out.

Not a whole lot of people showed up here, but a a few stalwarts: Have Blue, Stumbo, Fluffy. Not as many as I'd hoped, but we did some good.

Oh, a little news I heard: Bielat outraised Frank in September, $378,000 to $315,000, and, hear-tell, it's gotten better since.

More GOTV: Be The Wave had a slow roll-out this week, but there should be a lot more events ready to go for next weekend.

One more thing: I'm sorry I didn't blog too much this week. I got stuck on this one project, and wound up not really taking care of my actual job here. But now that that's sort of done, and I know the basics of this, I'll go back to regular-hours blogging without taking off hours and hours during weekdays.

Next week, for me, I'm thinking NJ-3, Jon Runyan (former Philadelphia Eagle) vs. incumbent Adler and his fake-Tea-Party put-up stooge. (No, seriously, the "tea party" stooge is a fake and recruited just to siphon votes away from the challenger-- at least that's what everyone (including the newspapers) thinks.)

Posted by: Ace at 02:14 PM | Comments (350)
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.