via youtube.com
this is an astounding video
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
The Raine Report Newsletter
I was recently asked by a well known 'Guru'...
"why on earth do you write The Raine Report Newsletter, you sell it for less than five bucks, it can't be worth the effort can it?"
Yes, and for two reasons...
Firstly, I am a writing kind of person, I prefer to write rather than make videos, I prefer getting my point across in words but I also know that if I don't write continuously then I find it hard to make a start. But as soon as I start I can write until I drop.
Now, when writing content for The Edge, I need to make sure it is both one hundred percent factual, well tested, concise, and also presented in a way that is easily understood. This takes more effort than most people realize... and this is where the Raine Report Newsletter comes in. It is my place to write anything, to speculate, to just get down on digital paper my thoughts about marketing and other things that interest me.
This is not saying that The Raine Reports Newsletter isn't factual, it's just that in there I am happy to speculate, share inconclusive test data, and bounce ideas, away from the critical crowd. But more importantly it just keeps me writing, which I love.
Secondly, up until we became a public company last month I used to give ten percent of all my income to charity. I have done this for over ten years now and unfortunately at the moment I can no longer do this, so all the proceeds from The Raine Report will go towards making that up and and allowing me to keep up the donations and also continue to fund projects on KickStarter and Kiva.
I hope that explains why The Raine Report exists...
If you wan't to take a look and find out what I have written about so far then head on over to:
well worth the $5
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
Riehl World View: Post 2010: Conservatives Must Reject Christie, Powerline And Other Short-Term Thinkers
« Daniel Hannan: I wish European pension protestors were more like the tea party | Main | Mike Pence: "This week's election was a historic rejection of American liberalism" »
Sunday, November 07, 2010
Post 2010: Conservatives Must Reject Christie, Powerline And Other Short-Term Thinkers
While NJ's Chris Christie displayed far more class and less duplicity than Powerline's Paul Mirengoff on O'Donnell versus Coons in Delaware, that both are singing the same tune today demonstrates the danger in their thinking for the conservative movement.
Because there are critical issues at stake for the movement after our recent resounding win, I'll skip merely pounding on useful idiot and surrender monkey, Mirengoff. His conniving and duplicitous nature has already spoken for itself. Across the conservative grassroots, he's already significantly damaged the brand of a once more highly-regarded blog.
Christie told NBC's "Meet the Press" that "I think Delaware was a missed opportunity to have a really good U.S. senator (meaning Mike Castle)."
While a Republican, a corporatist, or a governmentalist might describe Castle as potentially a good Senator, no honest, serious thinking Conservative ever would. That does not mean that O'Donnell was an ideal candidate. But it is imperative that the conservative movement learn from 2010, come to understand why we lost where we did, and reject the conventional Republican wisdom that only serves to undermine our cause. Surrendering to liberalism, while claiming victory as a Republican, is a defeat for conservatism. And it is precisely those types of defeats Republicans have been fostering for too long, damaging our movement and, ultimately, their own brand in the process.
Mirengoff also tried to lay at least some of the blame for Buck's loss in Colorado on him as a weaker Tea Party candidate. I've seen another blogger actually try to blame O'Donnell for it in what amounted to no better than an adolescent hissy fit. Meanwhile, GOP strategist and conservative Ford O'Connell knew Buck was in trouble even before the first election day ballots were cast.
Colorado Election Day smackdown: Tea Party enthusiasm versus progressive infrastructure ‘If Ken Buck is waiting for the cavalry, he'll be disappointed’
There are at least three critical lessons for Conservatives and Tea Party-aligned individuals to learn coming off of Election 2010. The would be conservative leaders who came to power under Reagan have mostly sat on their now fat asses and corporate donations in Washington, in exchange for corporate welfare, while the Left has built infrastructure across the many states. We were always going to lose races on the margins because of it. I've said so all along. All we saw play out on election day is what we all should have expected would come to pass. This is the single most important problem for the conservative movement to address.
It is only that infrastructure that can vet and produce better candidates and fuel better campaigns for conservatives. There is plenty to criticize in almost every prominent conservative campaign in 2010, because, as a movement, we are incredibly weak in that area. Yes, some candidates were flawed. They all are. But good campaigns make up for that. As long as there is an Al Franken sitting in the Senate, after beating a Norm Coleman, no establishment Republican has any right to cluck their tongue at a weak conservative candidate. It is, in a word, bullshit, that only serves to undermine the conservative agenda.
The establishment GOP is far better at vetting candidates and putting forward winning campaigns. What we need there is more synergy, by continuing to take back the Republican party over time. It is the Tea Party that is doing precisely that, not Chris Christie and certainly not Powerline.
Yes, we lost with O'Donnell, Buck and others, when I wish we didn't. But without the movement that fostered them, conservatives would have made no real gains at all. We'd be looking at a Senator Crist from Florida, for heaven's sake. And none of these establishment types want to say anything about the dismal failures they launched, with Carly and Meg in California, for starters.
We must improve our processes - and yes, our candidates, where we can. But we must also reject the thinking of the Christies and the Powerlines, or we will only continue the GOP's long history of surrendering to the Left to pursue the path of least resistance to power - for the GOP, not conservatism.
Stay engaged, stay in the fight. And, most importantly, do not be afraid to call bullshit on weak, short-term-gain minded musings from establishment Republicans when you see it. They are less interested in fighting for principled conservatism, than they are in aquiring centralized power for themselves. And that has absolutely nothing to do with either the Conservative, or the Tea Party movements. Strip them of their false flags and expose them for what they actually are, statists, but with a slower time-line for their agenda than the Democrats.
Selling out principled individual liberty for power is ultimtely a dead end for Republicans, just as it is now proving to be one for Democrats. And Republicans still unable to learn that lesson after Election 2010 are simply another part of the problem, they are not part of the solution, nor are they, ultimately, conservativism's true friends.
Dan on Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 02:52 PM in Politics | Permalink
Digg This | Save to del.icio.us | Tweet This!'); Tweet This!
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c1db69e20133f5a8c7b3970bListed below are links to weblogs that reference Post 2010: Conservatives Must Reject Christie, Powerline And Other Short-Term Thinkers:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Thank you. BTW, it is these same people who are praising Peggy Noonan to the skies for her column.
You are quite perceptive. Now is not the time for pale pastels, but for bold colors.
Posted by: section9 | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 03:13 PM
"Christie told NBC's "Meet the Press" that "I think Delaware was a missed opportunity to have a really good U.S. senator (meaning Mike Castle)."
Uh, Chris, DE conservatives were better acquainted with Castle than you.
That's strike one, Chris. Now, what about your NJ pensions, strike two if you're not careful.
Posted by: gary gulrud | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 03:20 PM
Dan,
Thanks for the great post.
While these candidates may have been electoral non-starters, I bet others in elected positions or considering them will think twice before heading leftward. I consider that a success.
Grant, for the sake of argument, that the candidates they name are in fact tea party misfires. Then, whose misfires got us 40 seats in the Senate? And whose misfires got us a minority in the House since 2006? There wasn't any tea party around then. The establishment apologists tend to ignore their accumulated failures. And they are in legion -- John McCain.
To me the most upsetting race is the Alaska race. They tell us to win the primary. We win the primary. But the establishments preferred candidate refuses to play by the rules. Does the Senate establishment punish her in any way? Not only does she pay no price, the duplicitous establishment furtively supports her. Lesson learned: primaries are a sham.
Why don't we just dispense with the primaries? Since there's no way to disprove the point, the establishment can play that game forever: "If you would have nominated Joe Whitebread, we would have won that race."
Posted by: lc | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 03:59 PM
selling out principled individual liberty for power is ultimtely a dead end for Republicans, just as it is now proving to be one for Democrats. And Republicans still unable to learn that lesson after Election 2010 are simply another part of the problem, they are not part of the solution, nor are they, ultimately, conservativism's true friends.
========================================================================
Excellent! Glad to see clarity and not slobbering over every supposed "conservative" who does some very good things, but has not been vetted.Remember the "Scott Brown for President" meme?
Posted by: T | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 04:01 PM
People really need to stop thinking Christie is a Conservative. He's the governor of a state that has no money.
Posted by: katiejane | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 04:02 PM
Amen.
Posted by: MotherRedDog | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 04:11 PM
The establishment Repubs were bound and determined to limit the number of Tea Party backed Senators(I also see some of the same telltale signs in the House) into the Senate as to retain the power of the main Party..races that should have gone to the Repubs were backed in talk, but real support was never given(Joe Miller in Alaska,Sharon Angle,Christine O Donnell )merely a little cash and no support.I spoke with a RNSC guy at Joe's office right after the primary and then he was gone , never to be seen again..an Ad the last week against a Democrat that never carried more than 20+/- of the vote, nary a word about the Repubs favorite RINO Lisa Murkowski...
..If this was Joe's treatment after winning the Republican primary...I wonder how they must have treated the others they did not want back in Washington.....Sorry folks ..I think that the losses in these Senate races falls squarely on the shoulders of the GOB's of GOP...and was a planned response...
...Sen Cornyn giving 8 Million to one Senators(not Tea Party) race in the last week of the campaign shows his commitment to the plan...
..I will remember in 2012...you should as well..
Posted by: Dave inAlaska | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 04:20 PM
Dan, thank you!
George Soros can buy Christie, let him just switch parties, already. The left knows he is more with them, then he is with us.
If Christie ever decides to run, he should do it as a Democrat, that is the only way he can win. All the Dems and 50% of fiscal conservatives will vote for him. If he runs as a Republican, the Dems won't vote for him, neither would the majority of conservatives.
It is about way more than the economy, every true conservative will tell you.
Posted by: Ricky | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 04:21 PM
I am much less put off by Christie than by the others. Christie, at least, is fighting the good fight as governor, rather than lurking in the shadows, doing nothing, and sabotaging Tea Party candidates. Christie has earned the right to criticize the turn of events in DE, even if he's wrong.
Let us not forget that Christie campaigned for Angle in Nevada, so he's not your run-of-the-mill establishment RINO. Rove, Gerson, and the GOPO establishment, on the other hand, are worse than useless. They actually got in the way.
Posted by: Denis | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 04:29 PM
I agree about Alaska. That a conniving, selfish RINO and actually really horrible person could have perverted the rules and been rewarded for it is sickening. I won't forget, you RINO bastards in the senate.
Posted by: rrpjr | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 04:31 PM
Really? Why aren't you bemoaning the fact that you could not find a good candidate in Delaware? Surely, you don't think CO was any good? No sane person would do an ad saying I am not a witch and that too in dark clothes! Forget castle. He maybe a dunce. But surely, you should have recruited or supported a great candidate! Where is the acceptance of your own failures?
Posted by: Pete | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 04:34 PM
Pete...you from Delaware?...or are you just posting some more smears of a Repub candidate? Pete..you do know that smears are designed to change the minds of the weak, who do not check the facts and basically believe everything they hear...
..Fool...Posted by: Dave inAlaska | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 04:47 PM
Hmmm.
1. I'm hoping that Chris Christie simply has his own political style. *shrug* we'll see.
2. The whole Christine O'Donnell and Sharon Angle situation where the national GOP and establishment Republicans basically threw them to the wolves. It still confuses me a bit. Why did Karl Rove go out of his way to hammer CO *after* the primaries? What's the point of that? Frankly I don't particularly care what Karl Rove has to say most times, his reputation for genius is vastly overrated IMO, but it doesn't take a lot of smarts to not trash your own party's candidate.
And then it occurs to me now that had the Tea party candidates all won their seats the GOP would control both the House and the Senate, the latter by a very bare margin, but not the White House. And if that happened then the GOP would be the ones held responsible for the next two years as the party in power even though Obama could veto everything of substance leaving the GOP to take the blame for the bad economy, lack of jobs, etc etc etc.
This is clearly not a good situation. By themselves neither the House nor the Senate are capable of accomplishing anything and even together, without the cooperation of the President, they are Constitutionally barred from enacting new laws or changing existing ones without a large majority than would exist. In that situation all the responsibility would lie on the GOP but very little actual power. While Obama would take his share of the heat for being an obstacle he could get around this by making the GOP play ball with backroom deals. Deals that would infuriate the GOP base but that would be required to avoid having to take responsibility for a completely gridlocked government and a bad economy.
So if you were in charge what would you do? You'd ensure you controlled the House, where all spending bills originate from, and throw the Senate by making certain you don't win enough seats to take control. And if you can make sure Harry Reid is re-elected so he'll continue being the face of the Senate to the voting public then that's a bonus too. On top of that you get to kick the Tea Parties in the kneecaps and then use their candidate's loss to continue hammering them for the next two years. Just long enough to keep them on the defensive. Any time the Tea Parties act up and start making demands, remind them of why the GOP doesn't control the Senate.
And all you have to do to succeed is make sure the national organizations don't support those TP candidates, have the local organizations treat them like lepers, deny them money and use key pundits (like Rove) to attack their credibility constantly.
So what's the result? Control of the House, almost enough to take control of the Senate and the responsibility for governing still in the hands of the Democrats. But with spending control in the hands of the GOP, a good position to take control of the Senate in 2012, the ability to totally gridlock the government and have the blame fall on the Democrats.
...
Growing up in a small rural town in New Hampshire you'd think that the education available would be a bit sparse. While Latin was never offered this wasn't true in a lot of ways. One of the more interesting classes was in Social Studies where the teacher would allow us to divide into groups representing various nations of the world and we'd "wargame" out the conflict between each group.
If I were back there and we were gaming this scenario then this is what I would do. Take enough power to control but not enough to be held accountable by anyone, most especially my voter base and position myself for a victorious 2012 election cycle where the GOP would retain control of the House and acquire the Senate and Presidency as well.
Maybe I'm a bit paranoid on this. But being paranoid doesn't mean that there aren't people out there trying to manipulate you. Goodness knows we see the liberals trying that all the time. So why only liberals?
Posted by: memomachine | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 05:01 PM
Dan, thanks for ringing the chimes on Christie especially. Everyone in the GOP blogosphere is kissing Christie's cheeks, and I've long thought from his stance on the TP and Conservative ideas that he's not much of a Conservative. Sure, he makes noise about the budgetary conditions in NJ, but that seems to be the extent of his conservatism. He is a Castle supporter and is not so much a Conservative philosophy man but a single issue man. His issue is fiscal sobriety. As for the rest, Christie is an elitist. There's a hint of a sneer in his TP and Palin references. IMO, the acid RINO test is does the person want Palin anywhere near them. Christie didn't.
Posted by: time to rise up | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 05:04 PM
Posted by: Bloggy Bayou | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 05:22 PM
"he whole Christine O'Donnell and Sharon Angle situation where the national GOP and establishment Republicans basically threw them to the wolves."
Karl Rove dumped millions and millions of dollars into Sharron Angle's embarrassing losing effort.
Posted by: barfo | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 05:22 PM
The GOP bench is so thin in blue states like Delaware that fielding a true conservative that can win statewide elections is near impossible. That may reflect neglect by the national GOP and state GOP in those states. This also is an end result of the Karl Rove "50% plus 1" strategery that wrote off parts of the country in order to cobble together 270 electoral votes.
It's going to take time to build deep benches in those districts and states, but one way not to do it is to keep running same ol', same ol' candidates like Castle, Fiorina, Whitman, etc. Nationally, you are already seeing the Old Guard lining up to blame the Tea Party/conservatives for the GOP not controlling the Senate. In CO and NV, you really have to wonder the extent of Democrat voter fraud and the manipulations of SEIU and Mi Familia.
Bashing conservative candidates that take up the Don Quixote challenges in blue states serves no purpose. Also, running progressives like Castle and squishes like Whitman (a pal of Van Jones) and Fiorina is no way to win. It's the Rove approach of just getting any old kind of an R in office. A progressive is still a progressive, whether or not there's a D or an R next to the name. And a squish helps advance progressivism, just at a slower rate.
Posted by: The Underground Conservative | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 05:33 PM
MSM liberals are trying to portray the situation as a civil war in the GOP. This makes them gloat with some sense of victory. Do not play into their narrative. It was a great victory.
Posted by: Dennis D | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 05:45 PM
I'm sorry, but if Chris Christie is outside of your conservative tent, your tent is too damned small. If "fiscal sobriety" is his single issue, well, that's good enough for me.
He is conservative where it counts, and is putting conservatism into practice in a successful manner, and in a way that proclaims "here is how conservatism helps everyone!" Sharron Angle, on the other hand, never actually accomplished much of anything politically, and managed to beclown herself (and by extension, the tea party movement as a whole) on a regular basis. I'll take Christie over Angle or O'Donnell (who I like much better than Angle) any day of the week.
Posted by: The Juice | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 06:15 PM
The most important issue on our conservative plate right now is campaigning for Boehner/Cantor to name Michelle Bachmann to the chairmanship of the Republican Conference, the fourth ranking GOP House position that is responsible for making committee assignments. I like Jeb Hensarling, who is now getting key endorsements including Mike Pence and certain Tea Party elected Republicans, but so far, I don't see the GOP rewarding Tea Party Republicans with any assignments of any importance. To not support Bachmann on this is tantamount to taking a back seat to the establishment on leadership.
Yes, we got a lot of Republicans elected so this was a major Republican victory. But the establishment is already at war with us conservatives and is already close to excluding our candidates from any key leadership positions. Why are we not upset about THAT?
Posted by: Pasadena Phil | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 06:17 PM
I love Christie and I couldn't and won't agree with him on the Castle type Republicans.He is right to have whatever opinion he likes.
I will now and henceforth vote for the best candidate based on integrity and conservative fiber, that doesn't mean I want tyrants, just common sense people who will get the job done, like Christie.I would also very much like the Federal government to not bleed off tax dollars from some states to bail out other states, the house of cards needs to fall in states who have zero fiscal sense, that alone will purple up those states,it's sad to say but the truth.
Posted by: Drider | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 06:18 PM
Let me elaborate a little on my prior comment. Getting Bachman that chairmanship means that there will be more leverage on the conservative side of the equation when getting conservatives on committees. With the "good ole boys" controlling all committee assignments, they will extract concessions to compromise our candidates. That is one of the key tools of co-opting the Tea Party. With Bachmann, that power is greatly diminished. And as much as I like Hensarling, he is NOT a Tea Party Republican.
Posted by: Pasadena Phil | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 06:21 PM
Buck was a weak candidate because he speaks off the cuff according to his emotional state (which comes across as constipated distress), and insulted lots of people with lots of comments, including insulting TeaPartyers as unintelligent. I know of at least one person (very conservative) who voted against him because of this statement. His "spike heels" comment was likewise lame-brained, and then when he went into the debate arguing repeatedly that he was going to "grow the government" until the moderator graciously corrected him, "you mean grow the economy."
He looked bored and imperious at the debates, staring at the ceiling when Bennet was talking, just looking like he had to go to the bathroom really, really badly.
No fire, no spark, I honestly thing Jane Norton or Ryan Frazier would have done better.
Posted by: pikespique | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 06:36 PM
I'm intrigued by the Rahmbo strategy: get phony conservative Democrats in at any cost. For the Democrats, they were just majority fodder, just numbers. I could hardly believe that adult human beings in that position could not see that they were simply being used. Like Rush says, I think that Pelosi and company were probably glad to see them go. Now the Democrats are in their natural position: minority loudmouths and troublemakers.
The establishment republicans are looking to do the same thing with tea party elected candidates. The chief remora, Trent Lott, said the establishment should co-opt the tea party members because the don't want a lot of Demint disciples. In his characteristic weasely fashion, Lott said last week that he meant co-opt in the good way. Of course, he didn't address his Demint disciple remark.
Congressional tea partiers beware: don't become one-night stands like the so-called blue dogs.
Posted by: lc | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 07:11 PM
Dan, I know exactly who the blogger is that you are describing as having a hissy fit. The vitriol espoused to some of his own commenters, so he could spout the 'I told you so' caused him to lose some long time commenters, and I'm sure more traffic than he has realized.
Anyhoo...thank you for, so many times, saying what needs to be said. Many times since the election, I have seen the ignorance, still, of the establishment refusing to acknowledge the importance of the tea party in this election cycle. Without the Tea Party influence, I'm not sure we would have won the House. To blame them for not taking control of the Senate underscores the cluelessness of establishment Republicans.
Even worse is having to pressure the NRCC to help Renee Ellmers in NC with the recount. I guess to Cornyn she didn't matter, since she is a Tea party candidate, and we had already gained control of the House. Who needs her, right?
I am still just as disgusted with establishment republicans as I was before the election, and I don't see that changing anytime soon, if ever. I thought I would lose some of that afterwards, but in some ways it is worse. It makes me sad.
Posted by: Susie Q | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 07:18 PM
Bachmen had better get that chair or the elitist of the gop will have more on their plate than they can handle. As in say good-bye in 2012.
Posted by: Dr. Kildare | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 07:25 PM
christie is missing the point. he seems to be concerned with whats good for the party. these conservative voters are not concered with the party. they want someone who will do what they want not what the party wants. if the democrat is more conservative then the republican they'll be voting for the democrat.
Posted by: tommy mc donnell | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 08:19 PM
if gop establishment have their way, theres no rubio, no rand paul, no toomey. We have a senate full of "moderates". Plus don't buy into the premise that the establishment want gop the win. They don't believe in a a big tent, as conservatives are ALWAYS rejected, even if they have a chance of winning
Posted by: 4rc | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 08:27 PM
in the case of Miller. Tea party did not cost us that seat. It would be the gop establishment. If lisa step out and endorsed miller. Miller would've easily won
Posted by: 4rc | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 08:31 PM
Dan...excellent commenary from a consistent and dedicated conservative point of view. And you're right, Ace ticked off more than a few of us with his establishment second-guessing.
Posted by: Ad rem | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 09:05 PM
I don't want an issues candidate. I want a philosophy candidate. Philosophically, Christie is not a Conservative. He is mired in the political paradigms of the past in which issues, rather than philosophy, could help a candidate get back. No more. Voters rejected issues and the socialist liberal philosophy. Fiscal sobriety is but a single element, insufficient in and of itself to cause me to pull a lever for Christie. The POTUS nominates SCt judges. What is Christie's political philosophy that will give us insight into whom he would nominate were he to be POTUS? Nobody knows because Christie is dealing with issues. Absent a philosophical framework, Christie will be able to devise only ad hoc solutions to critical issues. That's not good enough for me.
Posted by: time to rise up | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 09:24 PM
Ack! It should be "could help a candidate get elected" and not "could help a candidate get back."
Posted by: time to rise up | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 09:25 PM
We all knew this would be a multiple election cycle run. We lost 3, maybe 4 in the Senate this year. But in each case, the candidate had to fight the Republican establishment first. That is a problem that can only be solved from the ground up. Join the Republican Party, become a precint captain. Take them over from the ground up.
And then think of the target-rich environment in 2012 with 23 Dems up for re-election.
Posted by: neomom | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 09:38 PM
What will it take until the establishment can acknowledge that it was the Team Party movement that must be credited for inspiring Republicans and Independents to the polls to achieve this record setting House landslide, not to mention all the state houses that switched aisles as well? The RNC and other establishment Republican organizations certainly did not inspire this result. I for one am done with trusting the Republican party, they way I gave up on the Democrat party in the 90s. We need to keep this Tea Party movement going, to never let the Republicans get comfortable with their power again.
Posted by: Brian | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 09:42 PM
Dan, your name was brought up in one of the Christine-O'Donnell-Is-A-Fraud threads at the HQ (not by the Ewok).
I agree with your take, but am not ready to flay Christie over some of his gaffes concerning the Tea Party "movement." I want him on the correct side of the issues, but some things he's said make me wonder where his head is, really.
I say watch his cues on the illegal alien issue. That's his "tell."
Posted by: K~Bob | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 09:56 PM
did sharon angle lose because she was a bad candidate? did she lose because she ran a bad campagin? or did she lose to the frequent voter?
Posted by: tommy mc donnell | Sunday, November 07, 2010 at 10:53 PM
I would not have donated to, nor supported anyone in this last election if it looked as though the Republican party was headed back into it's George W Bush liberal light mode. In the next election, if the Republican party turns into liberal light I will be sitting on the sidelines or voting third party. That is all there is to this whole thing. I imagine that there are tens of millions like me who will be going this route should republican just mean a slow ride to the left.
Posted by: astonerii | Monday, November 08, 2010 at 12:06 AM
HAHAHA Powerline is the short-term thinker? Because they prefer marginal red shifts to...losing?
I really like it when you try to get people to dislike conservatives who disagree with you. Keep it up!
Posted by: CliveStaples | Monday, November 08, 2010 at 02:27 AM
I ran Christine O'Donnell's successful 2008 primary campaign for US Senate in 2008 (settled in the May convention). Although I was not officially part of the 2010 campaign, I did go up to Delaware and volunteer with the RNC victory campaign and take a variety of efforts to get both Glen Urquhart and Christine O'DOnnell elected. (I actually focused as much on Glen on the theory that he was getting less attention and a little bit could go a long way.)
Why did the US Senate and US House candidates lose in Delaware in 2010? First, the ground game / GOTV was a problem. (See 6 week election calendar below.) GOTV is supposed to mean identifying one's supporters and then getting them to the polls. The Democrats get their people to the polls. Republicans get our people to the polls. Whomever does a better job has an advantage.
Instead (see 6 week election calendar below) Republicans in Delaware were blindly motivating everyone to vote indiscriminately. We were still making "ID" phone calls the day before the election. Asking people whom are you going to vote for the day before the election, or the week before, simply reminds EVERYONE to vote - including those planning to vote against the Republican.
Massive amounts of effort by Republicans went into reminding Democrats to vote. On election day, I was making phone calls in one County GOP headquarters, where we were calling "SOFT DEMOCRAT" phone lists as well as independent and soft Republican phone lists - all blind. The phone lists had not previously been screened. There were large numbers of bad phone numbers. So we were calling blind lists just reminding everyone to vote.
Posted by: Jonsthon Moseley | Monday, November 08, 2010 at 07:04 AM
"I really like it when..."
Who cares what you like!
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Monday, November 08, 2010 at 07:04 AM
Republicans in Delaware reminded Democrats to vote. And in a "blue" State stirring everyone up to vote indiscriminately is going to mean more Democrats vote than Republicans.
The RNC had a beautiful new computer system. Technically wonderful. But no one seemed to know the STRATEGY behind using these systems. Republicans lost sight of WHY they were engaged in all of this activity.
The campaigns were in conflict with each other. Local GOP candidates were followign one GOTV strategy in their districts. The State and Federal campaigns were following different strategies (contacting different lists). The RNC effort in Kent County was following one strategy (which lists to call). The RNC effort in NCC was calling over the heads of Kent County into Kent County (Dover) using a completely different GOTV strategy (which lists to call).
The result was an unfocused, untargeted mish-mash, just generally stirring everyone up to vote indiscriminately.
The heart and soul of GOVT is to first identify one's supporters -- MONTHS in advance. Then by the time you Q U I E T L Y contact your supporters and get them to the polls, the other voters who are going to vote AGAINST you have forgotten.
The GOTV effort in Delaware encouraged Democrats to go vote.
Posted by: Jonsthon Moseley | Monday, November 08, 2010 at 07:06 AM
Meanwhile, it is completely impossible to - honestly and logically -- discuss the Delaware election without addressing the 6 week general election campaign calendar from September 14 to November 2.
I can't prove what was in anyone's mind when they set up this 6 week general election calendear, but it sure looks to me like a planned "POISON PILL" designed to make sure that no candidate can ever win the general election unless they have been hand-picked by party insiders way back in January. (This applies to both parties in DE.) The message is if you try to buck the "Lords of the Back Room" you will lose. Even if you win the primary, you can't win in a 6 week general election.
Christine O'Donnell and Glen Urquhart had only 6 weeks compared with the other candidates around the country who had MONTHS in which to put together a general election campaign.
Christine arrived over the finishin line on Sept. 14 with only $20,000 on hand, having "left it all on the field" to win the primary. The usual candidate would have had absolutely no chance whatsoever. Imagine a typical candidate with only $20K on hand, able to maybe raise $100K if she were lucky. Only 6 weeks to mount a general election campaign statewide.
The fact that it was possible for Christine to win is a credit to Christine. No one else would have had a snowball's chance in hell of winning.
The system is, I think, rigged so that if anyone goes forward without the blessing of the insiders, they are guaranteed to lose. So the message is come kiss the ring and "heel" like a good little pet, following the policies, agenda, and choices of the insiders.
Posted by: Jonsthon Moseley | Monday, November 08, 2010 at 07:16 AM
It can take several weeks simply to interview and choose key staff for a general election. Then several weeks more to figure out who is good at what, to educate everyone whom to go to for what purpose, who does what, how to work together, etc. By that tiem, the 6 week election is over.An election campaign does roll over some key staff from the primary, but the effort is much bigger to reach all voters statewide instead of a smaller circle of likely primary voters. (For example, Krystina, local Delaware volunteer coordinator, was wonderful.) A bigger, more elaborate effort is needed. A challenger has to invest everything in winning the primary (a party backed insider can spend some fo the year running a general election campaign confident of a primary victory).
Did Christine make mistakes? How could she NOT in only 6 weeks? Trying to squash 4-6 months of campaigning into only 6 weeks guarantees that mistakes will happen. Would her self-appointed experts like Fred Davis ahve made mistakes anyway? Who knows..... But with only 6 weeks to accomplish 4-6 months worth of campaigning, there is no way to avoid mis-steps, confusion, and such. That is what happens when you only have a 6 week calendar.
Did Christine choose the right pros? How can you make such a selection in a 6 week time table? In order to put plans in place in time to do some good means making a snap judgment within only days of the primary. How can you be certain you have made the right choices with so little time available?
NO ONE can create a smoothly-functioning team, who understands each other and works together like a well-oiled machine in 6 weeks (Actually in 1 week, so the team can be at work for 5 weeks). Christine's PR guy Doug - a really nice guy whom I liked a lot -- mentioned that he had only been on the job 3 weeks. How can any one understand a candidate's needs and beliefs without months of knowing each other? In the now-famous snap while Christine was on te radio, I don't know how someone could interpret a signal from a candidate without really knowing each other. Building that kind of teamwork takes time. I know Christine. I know she was signaling for something specific, which -- in context of their plans at the time -- I want to believe I woudl have understood if I were in the middle of that. But understanding each other's expectations and signals takes time.
Posted by: Jonsthon Moseley | Monday, November 08, 2010 at 07:25 AM
Then let us turn to the "BATTLE OF THE TWO THEORIES" about Delaware:
a) Christine O'Donnell, flawed candidate
b) The Founder of our Party Abraham Lincoln famously quoted "A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND." The extraordinary attacks by supposedly neutral Party leaders on Christine O'Donnell could not help but attract the attention of the national news media.The problem with the "flawed candidate" theory is that Christine O'Donnell was the official nominee of the Republican Party for US Senate in 2008.
The Presidency was at stake in 2008. The GOP candidate for Governor was on the ballot.
Yet Christine's presence on the 2008 ballot did not bother anyone then. Christine was ASKED to run for the US SEnate by some in the GOP party establishment. She then had a convention challenger. We won in the convention.
No one challenged Christine in the September primary.
So Christine was perfectly acceptable as the US Senate nominee in 2008 -- with the Presidency and Governor's mansion at stake.
In 2010, Christine suddenly becamse unacceptable only when Mike Castle's "MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY" supporters decided they would win at any cost.
What changed from 2008 to 2010? Not Christine.
In 2008 the GOP was unified, with a moderate Country-Club John McCain at the top of the ticket.
In 2010, the GOP was engaged in the most savage and vicious inter-party warfare in memory.
Posted by: Jonsthon Moseley | Monday, November 08, 2010 at 07:32 AM
Yes, by September 15, the national news media was starting to rain down on Christine, pouring over every detail of her life in order to FABRICATE out of nothing supposed faults.But what lit this fire? Tom Ross did. The supposedly neutral party Chairman, who is supposed to wait for Republican voters to choose a nominee, savaged Christine with such juicy, interesting, extraordinary, hair-raising coments that it could not help but attract the attention of the national news media. Journalists love to cover stories of Republicans attacking each other.
Dear reader, if we could piece together a video of all the dumbest things you (or I) ever said, how bad do you think it would look? No matter who you are reading this right now.
Barack Obama famously said he had campaigned in 57 States and was looking forward to campaigning in the other 2. Search for "Obama gaffes" on You Tube to see Obama sound like a blithering idiot. Why is he considered a genius, but Christine questioned?
Astonishingly, the left-wing media -- who accepts national clown Al Franken as a Democrat US Senator -- dares to question the qualifications of Christine O'Donnell.
Karl Rove -- who was always ground zero for everything bad about the Bush Presidency (big spending, big government, more regulation, amnesty for illegal aliens, etc.) -- repeated false lies even after the primary.
For example, Christine posted on her website early in the year documents proving that SHE NEVER OWED ANY MONEY TO THE IRS and the IRS ADMITTED that after an audit looking at her documentation, she was right and they were wrong. She had the documents posted there for all the world to see for many months. Yet Karl Rove attacks on national TV that she needs to explain why she did not pay her taxes. Did Karl Rove lie? Or did Karl Rove, political genius, not do his homework?
Christine never owed any taxes (that is, the disputed amount). She went through an audit, showed her receipts and documentation, and the RIS agreed with Christine. Christine beat the IRS. Yet the moderates attack her for taking on the IRS.... and winning.
Posted by: Jonsthon Moseley | Monday, November 08, 2010 at 07:42 AM
In fact, from 2008 to 2010, Christine ran more on fiscal conservatism in 2010. THe issues she campagined on were those of concern to the voters of 2010 -- jobs, the economy, taxes, national debt, over-spending, over-regulation, crippling small business, a massive government take-over of health care (while advocating targeted reforms for consumer), cap and trade.
Christine would have seemed to be even more acceptable to the Country Club wing in 2010 than in 2008.
So what changed? If Christine changed, she campaigned more on their fiscal conservatism issues.
What changed from 2008 to 2010 was that the insiders threw a hissy fit at not having their way.
The insders did not mind defending Bush's many tongue-tangling moments. Their failure to row in the same direction promoting Christine cost them far more than a seat.
Does the GOP really want to be thought of as a bunch of old White guys? Here you have an attrractive young woman. Christine would have been the first woman Senator ever from Delaware. Would the GOP like the honor of having the first woman Senator from Delaware -- appealing to young people and a broader crowd?
Or does the GOP want to be known as the bald old White dude party, and let the first woman Senator from Delaware be a Democrat?
Posted by: Jonsthon Moseley | Monday, November 08, 2010 at 08:05 AM
Finally, the idea was that Mike Castle was the guaranteed 10th win to take control of the US Senate. Sorry, but I was never convinced.No, I can't prove it, but in my humble opinion if Mike Castle had been elected to the US Senate, and was the final deciding vote bewteen the Democrats adn Republicans, Mike Castle would have pulled an ARLEN SPECTER. Mike Castle would have been offered senior committee seats by Harry Reid, and Mike Castle would have become a Democrate, just like Jumpin' Jim Jeffords did.
Is there any confidence that Mike Castle would have governed as a Republican rather than caucusing with the Democrats?
Remember that the Delaware insiders have a "great" track record of picking candidates: In 2006, the insiders anointed Jan Ting. Two years later Ting campaigned for Barack Obama, and the Republicans kicked him out of the Party.
Ting has every right to campaign for anyone he wants. But now we are supposed to trust the judgment of the Delaware Republican party insiders at picking candidates? WOW, THEY CAN PICK 'EM ! The insiders picked a nascent Democrat as the US Senate nominee in 2008. In only two years later -- after winning the GOP nomination in 2006 -- Jan Ting was campaiging for the Democrat candidate for President over the Country-club moderate Republican candidate John McCain.
The insiders told us in 2006 that their choice was the only wise choice -- then kicked Ting out of the Party only two years later!
So forgive us if we are not impressed by the track record of the Delaware Republican Party in telling Republicans whom Republicans MUST support.
Posted by: Jonsthon Moseley | Monday, November 08, 2010 at 08:11 AM
The "telling point" for me was when O'Donnell did the yeoman's work of pushing back against cap and trade...and didn't get support from the Delaware Republican establishment, including Gov. Christie who endorsed cap-n-trade Republican Mike Castle. Perhaps cap-n-trade is an unspoken established Delaware Republican "that which will not be spoken about" issue....for some reason or other.
Posted by: chercast | Monday, November 08, 2010 at 09:08 AM
Jonsthon Moseley makes some grea points. If COD was ok as the 2008 Senate candidate - why was she such a joke in 2010? Did Castle not want to run in 2008? Are TP candidates only acceptable if no establishment candidate is running?
My problem is - whether you thought she was a good or bad candidate - she WAS the GOP candidate and if someone didn't support her they should have kept their flapping mouth shut. The GOP insiders and voters should not have helped the Dems defeat her. At the risk of being called paranoid it seems to me like some of her bashers were being the snobs we accuse the insiders of being. The rush to bash COD was a way to convince others that the basher was so much smarter than that " looney crazy woman."
Posted by: katiejane | Monday, November 08, 2010 at 09:41 AM
There is a reason Reagan's 11th commandment exists. "Thou shalt speak no evil against a fellow Republican.", and Delaware proved him right once again.
Posted by: Georg Felis | Monday, November 08, 2010 at 10:44 AM
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
Posted by: |
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:Your comment has been posted. Post another commentThe letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
i wish i could figure out how to trim these "excerpts" from blog posts that amount to the entire post when i'm using posterous to post a link... anybody know how?
How to Buy a Horse | Help to Buy a Horse
via buyahorse101.com
great site about what to look for (and what to look out for) when you're getting ready to buy a horse.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Daycare in Cincinnati :: Helpful Links
page of daycare-related links (mostly specific to ohio, but a lot of them will be useful to almost anybody) on daycare in cincinnati
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Friday, November 5, 2010
Daycare in Cincinnati :: How To Choose a Daycare
First things first: you have to know exactly what you're looking for, or you're not likely to find it. Start a list of things that the perfect daycare would be for you; location, atmosphere, price range, anything and everything that you can think of that would make it ideal. Once you've narrowed your search down to a few top contenders, compare them to your list; the closer they are to meeting all your expectations, the happier you're likely to be with them.
Also, once you've settled on a handful of daycare providers that you want to look at more closely, you should visit each of them at least twice: once by yourself (to ask questions and have a good look around), and once with your child (to see how they react to it). Kids are actually very good judges of character, and if your child doesn't seem pretty comfortable with the adults and other children at the facility, you should definitely take that into account in your evaluation.
Ask your friends, relatives, and coworkers if any of them have heard of, or have had any experience with, the people or places you're considering; if they have, what have they heard, or what were their experiences, good or bad? If they don't know personally, ask them to ask their friends, relatives, and coworkers for you; it's a small world, and there's no substitute for insider knowledge when you're looking for the best quality child care.
About that first visit: when you go, bring a list of questions with you. It's hard to remember all the questions you'd like to ask, especially once you're in the middle of a conversation with someone you're just meeting for the first time. Having a list with you will ensure that you don't forget any important questions while you're there. (We have a handy starter list of questions here.)
Also, when you're visiting potential child care facilities, it's a good idea to take a list of things to look for while you're there. Once again, it's not easy for most people to remember everything they want to look at with all the distractions that will probably accompany your visit; having a list will make you confident that you haven't overlooked anything important. (And once again, we have a starter list of things to look for on a visit to a prospective daycare facility.)
Here's a video I found on youtube about how to choose a daycare:
-->
a multi-part post (with video) on how to choose a daycare.
weirdest cute cat photo collection ever
the supertremendous "15 cats with guns" post...http://supertremendous.com/Content/15-cats-with-guns.html
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Daycare in Cincinnati
Wed 3 Nov 2010
Daycare in Cincinnati
Posted by kevin under Daycare in Cincinnati (edit this)
Welcome to “Daycare in Cincinnati”! I chose this name for the site because I figured that if there was any such thing as Google when I was young enough to be looking for day care, that’s what I would have typed in there to look for it, and I want to provide a resource for parents who are looking for a quality child care provider here in Cincinnati.
As a working parent, you’ve got to find daycare you can be confident in, at a price that won’t break the budget, and ideally, in a place that’s convenient to where you live and work. And it can be a time-consuming process: you’ll probably want to do background checks, get referrals, and visit potential daycare centers before you decide on the one that’s right for your child.
Also, depending on how old your child is, you’ll want to make sure that they get a good early childhood education to help them be prepared for when they go to school, or that they have a good environment to return to after school; a place where they can do their homework, so they’re not up all night after dinner finishing it up.
It’s also important to confirm credentials with the appropriate regulatory agencies, which means you have to know which agencies are actually responsible for daycare licensing here in Cincinnati, which all by itself can be a chore. A rule of thumb is that if the daycare center is in a home or at a business not located in a school or associated with an educational service center, the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services is the licensing agency; if the daycare center is located in a school or associated with an educational service center, it should be licensed by the Ohio Department of Education.
That’s a lot of research!
Which is the reason for this site: to help you short-circuit at least some of that research by recommending select daycare providers in each of Cincinnati’s neighborhoods, to help you narrow down your list.
Be sure to take a look at our section on how to choose a daycare provider for some helpful tips on how to get started, what questions to ask, and what to look for when you settle on a daycare or two that you want to visit.
-->Tags: child care providers, cincinnati, daycare, daycare centers, daycare licensing, early childhood education
a new site i found about daycare in cincinnati
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)