A bit premature? I don't think so.

"I still believe that marriage is and should be between one man and one woman and I would support an amendment to the state constitution reaffirming that definition. The eyes of the country are on New Jersey and the people deserve to hear from my opponent on this issue."

Thus, with 0% of the vote in (0% precincts reporting), the Ace of Spades HQ Election Desk now projects Tom Kean Jr. to win the Senate campaign in New Jersey.

And I'm thisclose to calling Missouri for Talent, too. Trouble is, a federal judge has already ordered St. Louis polling stations to remain open until February, 2007, so there might be some late voting.

My very early election night coverage thus stands at Republicans +1. But it's a long night, and furthermore, the night in question is still 13 days away.

Still, pretty good, right? No one else has called an election yet. So I'm pretty ahead of the pack.

Stay tuned for more early calls from the Ace of Spades HQ Election Desk.

More Reax... from Blount and Romney.

And... Social cons seem to be coming home, after a brief scare following Foleygate.

Posted by: Ace at 01:44 PM | Comments (100)
Post contains 218 words, total size 2 kb.

A friend I won't identify (as I just outed his credentials) writes:

More options 4:25 pm (15 minutes ago)
Did you see the ruling today on gay marriage? Here's the deal, same-sex couples must have all of the same rights (7-0) though the statutory scheme that provides it doesn't necessarily have to be called "marriage" (4-3).

Want to hazard a guess whether the four who wouldn't judicially impose actual gay "marriage" have lifetime (until 70) tenure? That's right, in NJ you get appointed and confirmed, and then seven years later you have to get re-appointed and re-confirmed. By my calculation, none of the four have. Of the three who wanted to judicially impose marriage, one, the CJ, retires today, another was just confirmed as the CJ and will reach 70 before the 7 years is over and the third has lifetime tenure.

I really could give a rat's ass about gay marriage. Personally, I see no reason not to allow it. I mean, shouldn't gay people have the right to be as miserable as other married people. Shouldn't they fear losing 50%+ of everything they have for, you know, scratching an itch? I say, be careful what you ask for, because once the divorce sharks get you, you're going to wish you never asked for such a "right."

What is aggravating, however, is the Court's clear disregard for the state creation and recognition of institutions between people. If the state legislature can't define marriage (as it obviously can't to the satisfaction of the Court), should it have to recognize any marriage (even common-law marriages which NJ does not). I guess I'm sick of judicial activism cloaked in the guise of equal protection or the so-called liberty interest, and the blatant opportunism of all things judicial. I'm also sick of the fact that the only consistent judicial approach seems to be hypocrisy. This court finds a fundamental liberty interest in a union similar to marriage, but said the Boy Scouts (clearly [an anti-] gay organization) couldn't exclude gays or decide who would qualify to be in their association. This Court also repeatedly denies due process to drunks and petty drug users, but has refused to allow the execution of some admitted stone cold killers.

This Court says a private mall has to allow protesters on its property, but would allow me to be terminated for using the word cunt at the office? This Court allows Children wear just about anything at school, unless it offends Muslims or gays, in which case it punishes schools for creating hostile environments. I'm really getting sick of bad reasoning, hack lawyers, and hack legislators who are willing to allow the judiciary to rule from the bench and merely rail against the rulings (to raise funds) without answering with legislation because they are afraid to take a stand.

This gets at me: Do we live in a democracy or not?

Apparently not.

An undemocratic branch of government, without direct and true accountability to the people they are now de facto governing, shall have the right to set any and all pubic policy.

But there's still room for We, The People to play our part, too.

We get to choose a name for the policy decided for us by our judicial betters.

That's something, right? It's not as if they're taking all democratic power from the people. We get to pick out names and stuff.

Like children. Which we increasingly are, thanks to the paternalistic, infantilizing, power-grabbing courts.

Posted by: Ace at 12:44 PM | Comments (157)
Post contains 593 words, total size 4 kb.

The decision (PDF file).

The upshot, as reported to me by Andy the Squirrel (haven't dug into it yet myself--

Gay marriage is now mandated in NJ, imnposed, yet again, by judicial fiat.

However, the state is not required to call it marriage, unless it so chooses.

But in all saliet aspects, the court has mandated that gay marriage is "constitutionally required" in New Jersey.

Let me say something about the New Jersey Supreme Court: I do have some respect for their integrity. It would have been easy to put off this decision, in order to deny relevant information to the voter in the upcoming elections, had they so chose.

And I'm sure they were surely tempted to do so.

However, while their decision is, as usual, gravely mistaken, at least they did not compound that by corruptly withholding a decision they'd arleady made until, say, November 8th.

This is what you're voting for when you don't vote, folks.

October Surprise.

I can't wait for Chris Matthews et al. to fume that we shouldn't worry ourselves about such silly, unimportant issues... after they flogged the Mark Foley scandal for three flood-the-zone weeks.

MORE: Unlike Massachusetts, New Jersey Is Free To Export Same-Sex Marriages to Other States' Citizens: Massachusetts bars out-of-state citizens being married under the gay-marriage "law."

New Jersey does not.

Note that New Jersey enacted, legislatively (i.e., properly, with the consent of the governed), a civil-union law that wasn't quite marriage, but was pretty damn close to it.

Not enough, says the New Jersey Supreme Court.

This is what's coming -- unless you vote.

You smell that?

There's something in the air. It smells like... 2004.

By the way... If you think a mere state-constitutional ban against gay marriage protects you from the courts imposing this on you, think again.

Liberal courts have several times invalidated parts of their own state constitutions in finding in favor of liberal policies.

As Nevadans, who had a constitutional provision forbidding tax increases without supermajority legislative support. Not so fast, said the Nevada Supreme Court -- the constitution's preamble says the state will fund education and such, and that means it has to spend money -- a lot more money -- and that invaldiates the specific mandate against raising taxes with anything less than a supermajority. The general, "We the people" preamble trumps the specific constitutional provision in this case.

So-- they ruled you can raise taxes with a mere majority.

In Florida, an initiative passed that would have limited the Supreme Court's desicison to invalidate laws.

But they decided the initiaitive limiting their own power was, wonder of wonders, passed by unconstitutional means, as, they claimed, the public was "misled" about what the iniitiative meant, and didn't fully understand all the great benefits the SCOFLAw provides for them.

Hence-- ruled off the books by a vote of five liberals.

Only liberals could imagine that their own written constitutions are themselves unconstitutional, and they're not afraid to play that absurd trump card when they feel the cause is important enough.

Posted by: Ace at 12:00 PM | Comments (199)
Post contains 529 words, total size 4 kb.

Terrific news-- Negron faces a not-terrible 7 point deficit, and his opponent, who in a way becomes the favorite as if he were an incumbent, is at less than 50%, at 48%.

If the Dems can't win here, at Ground Zero of the Sex Bomb, rumors of the death of GOP control of the House have been greatly overstated.

Michael Barone... Doesn't see this as a "wave" (let alone "tsunami") election. As of today, he calls it narrowly for the Democrats in the House -- picking up 16 Republican seats, to finish at 219 D to 216 R.

It would only take a few of his "lean Dem" contests -- such as Joe Negron rallying to keep a usually Republican seat -- to swing the other way tp result in a skin-of-their teeth Republican retention.

Jay Ambrose... note that it's a lesser of two evils choice -- as it often is.

So the Democrats, if returned to power, are going to spend less? Of course not. They have never even pretended as much.

They are always yelping for higher expenditures, not lower, making it sound as if it is the call of conscience that shapes their pleas when itÂ’s actually the conviction that you get votes in return for federal giveaways.

In part, they are likely sincere. They really don’t seem to get it that this administration has actually upped spending on poverty programs, that lax immigration policy increases poverty and unwed motherhood solidifies it, that the Bush tax cuts have been a boon to the middle class or that the free market is the best gift humankind’s material needs have ever known. They won’t go along with keeping tax cuts in place — and all of us will pay.

...

Let the Democrats rule the Senate, and forget the possibility that, in the event of a vacancy, Bush will be able to get yet another person on the court as deeply respectful of the Constitution as Samuel Alito and John Roberts.

Yes, many of the criticisms against the congressional Republicans and Bush are legitimate, but many range from the grossly exaggerated to the highly dubious, and there is this to keep in mind: The Democrats, by and large, are far worse.

Again, it's a choice between a party that promises to do what you'd like them to do, but delivers rather spottily, and a party that promises to do precisely what you'd like them not to do, and is just crazy enough with BDS at this point to actually ram their preferences through.

They will have the media on their side, remember-- all of the rough edges of their increasingly extremist (hidden) agenda will be nicely sanded down and polished to a rich, golden sheen by the likes of Leslie Stahl and Brian Williams.

It's difficult for conservatives to get their policy preferences made into concrete law. It's less difficult for liberals to do so, even if there are far fewer of them. They own -- positively own -- powerful institutions that act as critical force multipliers in the war of ideas.

Posted by: Ace at 11:41 AM | Comments (19)
Post contains 531 words, total size 3 kb.

It's not "old." It's "recontextualized."

Thanks to Rodney for the reminder.

Happy Agincourt Day! It's the anniversary of the Batttle of Agincourt, which we celebrate because a fuck-lot of French were killed.

The New Editor digs deep into the Guardian UK's archives to see how they reported on the victory.

Posted by: Ace at 10:51 AM | Comments (43)
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

Of course, they make the expected defense: they had no idea the employee was engaged in such an effort and have "dismissed" him.

Expect a media storm about this revelation any second now.

Posted by: Ace at 10:48 AM | Comments (73)
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Hmmm.... what a puzzler.

(NYT link, but here's the main stuff.)

In many ways, the economy has not looked so good in a long time.

The price of gas at the pump has tumbled since midsummer. Unemployment has fallen to its lowest level in more than five years. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial average has finally returned to its glory days of the late 1990Â’s, setting records almost daily.
...

But Republican candidates do not seem to be getting any traction from the glowing economic statistics with midterm elections just two weeks away.

The economy is virtually nowhere to be found among the campaign ads of embattled Republican incumbents fighting to hold onto their House or Senate seats. Nor is it showing up as a strong weapon in the arsenal of Republican governors defending their jobs from Democrats.

“I don’t know of another election cycle in which the economy was so good, yet the election prospects for the incumbent party looked so bad,” said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist. “If something goes wrong, Republicans are to blame. If something goes right, Republicans don’t get credit.”

The only place that the economy has emerged as a major campaign theme has been in the aging industrial heartland around the Great Lakes, where the bleak economic prospects are being deployed against incumbents, Republicans and Democrats alike. But where the economic winds seem to be blowing their way, voters appear unwilling to hear that Republican policies made it so.

Disenchantment over the war in Iraq has morphed into disillusionment over the direction of the country, breeding distrust in the administrationÂ’s policies, surveys suggest. Moreover, concerned by weak wage growth, costly health care and eroding benefits, many middle-class voters do not see the economy improving for them.

“Voters overwhelmingly don’t approve of the president on the economy,” said Amy Walter, a senior editor at the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan firm that handicaps political races. “It comes down to the issue of credibility. And so many voters feel so pessimistic about the direction of the country.”

...
...

Of voters polled in the latest New York Times/CBS News national survey this month, 60 percent rated the economy as either good or very good, up from 56 percent in September.

I don't remember seeing that bit of polling given much attention.

It's all a boggle to me. It must be Iraq. Surely there is no other explanation possible to explain how the economy could be so good, and yet the public is misled into thinking it's awful.

Posted by: Ace at 10:45 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 449 words, total size 3 kb.

They may be fighting each other for power, but one thing can always unite them: killing Jews.

Fatah may be gearing up for a showdown with its rival Hamas, but terror cells throughout the Gaza Strip are planning to align with Hamas for large-scale attacks against Israeli positions along the Gaza border in the coming days.

Terror leaders hope their plans for an imminent strike from Gaza through rockets, suicide bombers and tunnels will provoke a military response by the Israel Defense Forces. This would then unite Palestinians and thwart Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud AbbasÂ’ attempt to dissolve the Hamas-controlled government.

Israeli and Palestinian security officials are aware of the potential showdown and have beefed up security along the Gaza border crossings.

“The Israelis have misunderstood the period of calm in the last few weeks and months. This was the calm before the storm,” Abu Abir, spokesman of the Gaza-based Popular Resistance Committees terror organization, told WorldNetDaily.

Posted by: Ace at 10:33 AM | Comments (35)
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

Heh:

arly-childhood-education and health programs on next month's ballot could lose millions of dollars if a misplaced decimal point is interpreted technically.

Proposition 203 is built around an 80-cent-per-pack tax increase on cigarettes to pay for the programs. But the ballot language calls for an ".80 cent/pack" tax increase, or 1/100th of what backers say they intended. That's less than 1 cent per pack.

Backers of the First Things First campaign always have promoted it as an 80-cent-per-pack tax increase. Even opponents have agreed it calls for an 80-cent hike. Proponents say a typo is to blame.

...

No one apparently noticed the misplaced decimal point until Tuesday, when a reader called a Republic columnist.

...

Still, the decimal point could prove troubling, said Ken Behringer of the Joint Legislative Council. He sees the misplaced decimal point as a typo but said it could be all someone needs to challenge the measure in court.

"I could imagine someone might make a challenge to say the ballot has wrong information on it," he said.

Um, yeah. It's understandable that the pro-tax folks want their eighty cents if the question passes, but people aren't voting on an eighty cent increase. They're voting for a .8 cent increase, aren't they?

Posted by: Ace at 10:16 AM | Comments (32)
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

Pretty damn important. A very strong GOTV effort can wipe out a 10+ polling deficit:

On November 4, 2002, one day before the election, the Atlanta Journal/WSB-TV poll showed Roy Barnes at 51% and Sonny Perdue at 40%. The internal polling of the Barnes campaign showed similar results. So did the internals of the Perdue campaign, except the Perdue campaign was no longer looking at its internal polling. Instead, the campaign was looking at its GOTV ground game data and knew Perdue would win.

On November 5, 2002, Sonny Perdue beat Roy Barnes 51.4% to 46.3% with the Libertarian taking 2.3% of the vote.

Hit the Geraghty home page and scroll down to see a lot of polling weirdness, as he calls it. Conflicting polls which show someone up by either two points... or eighteen points.

Public polling has been becoming more and more unreliable over the years, due to the growing number of nonresponders.

Who knows, really, where ths election is?

Posted by: Ace at 10:01 AM | Comments (25)
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.