Those who quit their proper character to assume what does not belong to them, are for the greater part ignorant of both the character they leave and of the character they assume.
- Burke, English Political Writer and Statesman (1729-1797)
Monthly Archives: October 2012
two (update: make it three) crazy trends going into Tuesday’s election, one of which (the so-called Redskins Rule) I’d heard about for a long while, the other two I’d just learned of over the last few days:
Trend Number One: The GOP Owns Nov. 6, with Republicans having won every November 6th presidential election since Election Day was standardized in 1845:
1860 – Abraham Lincoln over Stephen Douglas
1888 – Benjamin Harrison over incumbent Grover Cleveland
1900 – William McKinley over William Jennings Bryan
1928 – Herbert Hoover over Al Smith
1956 – Dwight Eisenhower over Adlai Stevenson
1984 – Ronald Reagan over Walter Mondale
source: John Sexton at Breitbart.com
Trend Number Two: the NFL’s Redskins moved to Washington, D.C. in 1937. Since then, the following rule has applied in 17 out of 18 elections: If the Redskins win their last home game before the election, the incumbent party wins the next election, if the Redskins lose, the incumbent party loses.
Even after The Redskins Rule held for sixteen straight elections, when the Redskins lost in 2004 and the GOP / Bush held the White House, you can recast the rule to work 18 out of 18 times by changing the rule from the party that won the last election being linked to the Redskins’ last home game to the party that last won the popular vote.
As improbable as the rule is in having predicted 72 years worth of presidential elections, it’s even more bizarre when you consider the rule applies to not just any NFL team, but a Redskins team playing a home game in the same city where the president resides.
|Year||Redskins Last Home Game||Election Results||Redskins
W or L
W or L
Pittsburgh Steelers 10
|Roosevelt defeats Willkie||W||W|
Cleveland Rams 10
|Roosevelt defeats Dewey||W||W|
Boston Yanks 21
|Truman defeats Dewey||W||W|
Pittsburgh Steelers 24
|Eisenhower defeats Stevenson||L||L|
Cleveland Browns 9
|Eisenhower defeats Stevenson||W||W|
Cleveland Browns 31
|Kennedy defeats Nixon||L||L|
Chicago Bears 20
|Johnson defeats Goldwater||W||W|
New York Giants 13
|Nixon defeats Humphrey||L||L|
Dallas Cowboys 20
|Nixon defeats McGovern||W||W|
Dallas Cowboys 20
|Carter defeats Ford||L||L|
Minnesota Vikings 39
|Reagan defeats Carter||L||L|
Atlanta Falcons 14
|Reagan defeats Mondale||W||W|
New Orleans Saints 24
|Bush defeats Dukakis||W||W|
New York Giants 24
|Clinton defeats Bush||L||L|
Indianapolis Colts 16
|Clinton defeats Dole||W||W|
Tennessee Titans 27
|Bush defeats Gore||L||L|
Green Bay Packers 28
|Bush defeats Kerry||L||W|
Pittsburgh Steelers 23
|Obama defeats McCain||L||L|
Carolina Panthers 21
|Redskins loss = Romney win?||L||L|
UPDATE: REDSKINS LOSS POINTS TO OBAMA LOSS!
Trend Number Three: The candidate who blinks more during debates has lost every election but one since 1980. Can you guess what the lone exception was? That’s right, as with The Redskins Rule, the one time it didn’t apply was in 2000, when a faster-blinking George W. Bush bested Al Gore in the electoral college, but lost the popular vote. So you can say that The Blinking Rule has been 8 for 8 in predicting the popular vote up to this election.
source: The Daily
So who blinked more in this year’s debates between Romney and Obama? Why Obama, of course. Obama blinked at a rate of 71 times per minute, blinking 1,000 more times during the debate than Romney did at 53 per minute. Was that a part of the unconscious factoring in Obama losing the debate by the largest margin in Gallup polling history? More importantly, will the Blinking Rule make it 9 out of 9 in predicting the presidential winner with a Romney win on Tuesday?
From the GOP Owning Nov. 6, to the Redskins Rule, to the Blinking Rule, three improbable ways of predicting the election are proving even more improbably accurate in doing so. Those are three pretty incredible streaks if you look at the mathmatical probabilities of either of them. I can’t say I put too much credence in any of it, but you can be for damn sure I’ll be rooting for the Panthers this Sunday.
Click here to subscribe and never miss out!
Over the weekend, Facebook took down a message by the Special Operations Speaks PAC (SOS) which highlighted the fact that Obama denied backup to the forces being overrun in Benghazi.
The message was contained in a meme which demonstrated how Obama had relied on the SEALS when he was ready to let them get Osama bin Laden, and how he had turned around and denied them when they called for backup on Sept 11.
I spoke with Larry Ward, president of Political Media, Inc — the media company that handles SOS postings and media production. Ward was the one who personally put the Navy SEAL meme up, and the one who received the warning from Facebook and an eventual 24 hour suspension from Facebook because Ward put the meme back up after Facebook told him to take it down.
Mark Zuckerberg may have more money than God, but it still doesn’t change the fact that the Facebook of today is tomorrow’s MySpace – the way the Internet evolves, even though it really wasn’t all that long ago, you almost have to think back hard to remember when MySpace was cool. It will be the same thing with Facebook, a place in the social media world that was, back in the day, a cool place to hang out at – a billion accounts that will become used less and less and ultimately the whole Facebook phenomenon will be just a be a period of time that will be remembered with a quaint nostalgia, a trend that came and went on the Internet.
Facebook’s flash in the pan may last a little longer than MySpace, but that’s exactly where they’re headed and that’s a good thing because their whole existence is based on selling out you and all your personal data and not just the data they’ve accumulated from the time you’ve spent on Facebook, but from data they compile on you from all corners of the Internet.
Max Schrems, 24, the Austrian law student who sued Facebook for its complete record of his personal data was recently astounded to receive 1,222 pages of information. As Steve Klingaman says, “Some of it made sense – old Wall postings and photos – but some of it was material he had never even entered into Facebook. His action spurred more than 40,000 requests for Facebook data in Europe.”
It’s not as harmless as just watching your habits and then offering you up relevant pay-per-click ads the way Amazon does, it goes way beyond that. Facebook’s revenue from pay-per-clicks is miniscule compared to what they get selling you and your 1,222 pages of info to third party aggregators who then sell you and your 1,222 pages to lenders, credit agencies, insurers, prospective employers, the IRS, you name it.
The one thing you can say about Facebook is they timed their IPO perfectly when they were at the height of their hype, but when you consider that whoring out your personal data is their only real profit model and when you consider that there should have been some lessons learned from the dot com bust, I feel no pity for people who bought into Facebook’s IPO at $38 and now see their shares at $21. The company that has lost about $50 billion from its original value of $100 billion at its IPO is never going to see that money rematerialize.
Apple is the richest company on the planet because they sell tangible things that consumers crave. Same with Cisco and Amazon who both survived the dot com bubble, losing about 90% of their value only to reclaim it and then some in the decade that’s followed, but Facebook has all the same characteristics of every other company people lost their asses on during the dot com bust – Facebook is all sizzle, no steak.
As a person who has laid myself bare to the world on the posts all over this blog, the privacy issues are obviously not the main source of my disdain for Facebook as it is for many, and for most people, Facebook will fall out of relevance for the simple fact that it’s already peaked and there will be new places to move on to. For me though, it’s incidents like this – Special Operations Speaks, Facebook Censors – that will make me enjoy every moment of their slide into lesser relevance on the Internet.
UPDATE: Facebook reversed itself, but they still suck.
Click here to subscribe and never miss out!
Back in 2008, there was a candidate who famously said, “If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.” His name was Barack Obama and it boggles the mind to imagine that just four years later, in an election of monumental proportions, he is running the most frivolous and trivial campaign we’ve ever witnessed.
I want to compare and contrast two videos, one by a college-aged Obama supporter and one by a thirteen-year-old Romney supporter. First let’s start with an ad from the Obama camp featuring a woman who uses an unhealthy dose of lame double entendre, likening her first time voting (for Obama) to losing her virginity and then proceeds to tackle such weighty issues as to whether taxpayers should be responsible for paying for her birth control:
Remember, this was an ad that was officially released by Obama’s reelection campaign, meaning that while the rest of America is looking for serious answers to the serious issues facing our nation, the Obama team is delighting itself in an ad they must think is oh-so-clever in its sexual innuendo.
Now compare that bit of tripe from the college-aged Obama lover to this brilliant and insightful analysis of the two candidates by a thirteen-year-old girl named Jenny:
There you have it in a nutshell. From the same Obama who lamented over the politics of making big elections about small things in 2008 and promised us CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN, we’re now given a presidential ad as frivolous as anything we’ve ever seen. It’s completely beyond me to imagine how the so-called brain trust in Chicago could be so clueless as to run an ad like “My First Time” during times such as these.
Now compare the snarky college-aged woman Obama picked to speak on his campaign’s behalf with the heartfelt convictions of a regular, yet incredibly exceptional thirteen-year-old Jenny and there should be no question as to which candidate we should take seriously. Jenny makes an eloquent and airtight argument – do we really want to go FORWARD with four more years of fail, or should we place our faith in the professional who has been so incredibly successful throughout his career as both an executive and a businessman?
Click here to subscribe and never miss out!
Jenny just may be the smartest 13-year-old in America. In fact, I thought her analysis in comparing and contrasting the two presidential candidates was so brilliant, I was compelled to transcribe and share the full text of her video here as well, so you can share this webpage complete with video or you can just email the text. However you share it, please do pass along Jenny’s grading of the candidates with every undecided voter you know.
I need to talk to you about something very important. My name is Jenny, and I’m thirteen. My future, and the future of Tommy, Heather, Kelsey and all the other kids in my class is in your hands. Here in Mrs. Jackson’s class, each student gets to be the teacher for a day and today is my day and as the teacher, I decided I wanted to talk about the election on November 6.
In school, we track success by the grades that show up on our report cards, so I decided we should look at the report cards for President Obama and for Governor Mitt Romney, and since I’m not old enough to be a Democrat or a Republican, I’m just going to look at the facts.
For the president, let’s look at the war on terror. President Obama has been doing some good things to keep us safe, he got Osama bin Laden and he’s gotten many Al-Qaeda leaders using unmanned drones. But in the Middle East, there are lots of problems. The recent tragedy at the U.S. Consulate where the American ambassador and three other Americans were killed is horrible. Hopefully we’ll find out why they weren’t protected.
I’m not so sure about the president’s leading from behind strategy. How does that help us?
Now let’s look at Governor Romney. In 1984 he started Bain Capital. It’s a great American success story. They helped companies that I like, like Dominos Pizza, Dunkin Donuts and Staples. My parents buy from all three of them. They’ve created jobs, thousands of jobs, and sure, some companies didn’t do so well and laid off employees, but this is a free enterprise system and some companies do not make it.
Good companies that take care of their customers do well and the not-so-good companies go away. Competition is a good thing, it makes us all better. That’s why America is so successful compared to other countries.
Some people talk like profit is a bad thing, but it’s really a good thing that makes more jobs possible. My dad owned a company that went out of business when he was younger. He says he learned from his mistakes and now his company is doing really well with lots of employees. The marketplace is exciting and full of opportunities but there are risks and there’s no guarantee of success in any business. This is free enterprise at work.
Okay, what about the economy? It’s not looking too good. There are twenty-three million people unemployed today. That’s horrible. Business owners have too many new rules and regulations to follow. The president wants small business owners to pay more in taxes. My dad said there’d be more in demand and he’d hire more people if things weren’t so shaky.
Did you know that corporations are sitting on over $500 billion in cash? That’s “billion” with a “b”. If our president supported business, these companies would invest that money and create new jobs and lots of opportunity.
Let’s talk about the 2002 Salt Lake Winter Olympic Games. In February 1999, Governor Romney was called in to be Mr. Fix-It when out of control spending threatened to sink the games. It was a mess, sort of like our government’s money problems. He brought much needed transparency and opened meetings to the public. He cut spending on just about everything – no more catered food for board meetings and instead, pizza at a dollar a slice.
The games were a great success. It was difficult yes, but Governor Romney has a track record for tackling very difficult problems and finding simple solutions.
And hey, he donated his $1.4 million salary to charity.
What about health care? In January 2009, Obama had control of the White House, the House and the Senate. We were in the worst economic crisis since the Depression. Instead of helping businesses create jobs, the president poured our country’s resources into creating Obamacare. In class, we call it the bill that nobody read. Does that make any sense?
The majority of the citizens said no, and the other party said no, and the doctors said no. Today, the bill that nobody read is becoming one of the largest tax increases in history.
How about being Governor of Massachusetts? After fixing the problem at the Salt Lake Games, Mitt Romney was elected governor. That was an accomplishment by itself, a Republican governor surrounded by Democrats? The legislature was 87% Democratic, but he worked with everyone there from 2003 – 2007. It was difficult, but he didn’t blame the previous governor. He focused on the future, he turned a budget deficit into a surplus and held the line on taxes. He didn’t knock it out of the park, but he did a good job.
Now on energy – in 2009, gas was $1.89 a gallon, now it’s around $3.83 a gallon and that’s a bummer, because I’ll be driving soon. Everyone agrees that energy independence would make us safer and improve the economy. President Obama stopped the Keystone Pipeline that would bring oil to the U.S. from Canada and make us less dependent on the Middle East and he stopped drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and gave tax dollars to other countries like Brazil to drill offshore. I need help understanding how this helps the U.S.
How about free enterprise? So if I can get an idea about how to help people, I can start a business, hire workers and play a part in the success of other people. The United States is about opportunity and personal responsibility.
Free enterprise is what created all the wealth in the United States. That’s why people from every country in the world dream of coming to America.
The president has made it hard for people to do business in America. Governor Romney is pro-business and pro-America.
Now, let’s look at the deficit and out-of-control spending in 2011. Government spent $3.6 trillion but only brought in $2.3 trillion, so we spent $1.3 trillion more than we brought in. Do that math. The president promised that he’d cut the deficit in half and he’s doubled it. Mr. President, that’s fibbing.
My dad says, if you want to get a difficult problem fixed, you’ve got to hire a guy with a proven track record of success. Mitt Romney has a proven track record of success.
So based on all of the facts, here are the report cards:
You decide who should be the next president of the United States. Your vote is very important and remember, the future of Tommy, Heather, Kelsey and all the other kids across America is in your hands.
Click here to subscribe and never miss out!
The Des Moines Register has the highest circulation of any newspaper in Iowa, one of the all important swing states in this election. For over forty years, the newspaper has been staunchly loyal to the Democrat party in the issues they champion and the candidates they support.
The Register has supported the Democrat nominee in eleven of the last twelve presidential races. The last time they came out in support of a Republican presidential nominee, it was forty years ago.
Des Moines Regsiter Presidential Endorsements:
• 2008: Barack Obama (D) – won
• 2004: John Kerry (D) – lost
• 2000: Al Gore (D) – lost
• 1996: Bill Clinton (D) – won
• 1992: Bill Clinton (D) – won
• 1988: Michael Dukakis (D) – lost
• 1984: Walter Mondale (D) – lost
• 1980: Jimmy Carter (D) – lost
• 1976: Jimmy Carter (D) – won
• 1972: Richard Nixon (R) – won
• 1968: Hubert Humphrey (D) – lost
• 1964: Lyndon B. Johnson (D) – won
source: Des Moines Register
So imagine the shock and dismay felt throughout the Obama campaign when they found out that a loyal and influential Democrat newspaper such as the Des Moines Register has turned its back on Obama in asking it’s readers to give him another four years!!!
It shows you just how dismal this presidency has been when the Des Moines Register felt compelled to break 40 years of tradition in backing Democrat presidential candidates to support Mitt Romney for president.
The case they make for Romney is articulate, compelling and convincing and well worth the readThe case they make for Romney is articulate, compelling and convincing and well worth the read as The Register tells it’s readers they endores Romney because he offers a fresh economic vision.
The endorsement is well worth the read, but if a picture is worth a thousand words, these two pictures from Thursday’s front page shows the choice we have and the stark contrast between the two candidates in vivid detail.