Monthly Archives: September 2012

Where the Presidential Race Stands – Because Nobody Else Will Tell You

It’s still close in the swing states.  But Romney still needs to lift his game:

This is based on Rasmussen polling, because the others are bullshit.  The bottom line is that nobody likes Romney, and people still like Obama, even though he has been a terrible President.  The “who would you rather have a beer with” question is still relevant, especially when the GOP candidate doesn’t drink.

Rumours of Romney’s Demise Greatly Exaggerated

If you ignore all the D+7 polls out there and focus on Rasmussen, the only company who got it right at the last election, this is what you come up with.  Red for Romney, Blue for Obama, Yellow for anything 2% or closer:


You need 270 to become President (or 269 to throw it to the House, which means Romney wins anyway).  So while Obama has firmed up slightly more electoral college votes than Romney (meaning, as I stated earlier, that Romney MUST win Florida), there is no clear leader right now.  Nobody has firmed up the votes.  There are 89 electoral votes up for grabs, and Romney only needs 57 of them, of which Florida provides 29.

Now I do in fact, think that Obama is slightly ahead, and he only needs to be ahead one vote in each of all those yellow states to become President.  If you allow for crappy sampling in other polls, here’s my prediction of what would happen if the election were held today:


By some weird ominous coincidence, this is a very similar margin to that which won it for Jimmy Carter in 1976.  I believe Obama is ahead in Ohio, Virginia and Florida at this point in time, which is what would give him the win.  But his lead in these three states is tiny – less than 2%.  There is no way the Obama campaign could be comfortable or confident of winning those states, and Romney could wipe those leads with a finger-snap.

Romney is very much in this.  In fact, any casual perusal of state polls would make that obvious to the point where I don’t quite understand why I have to point it out.  But the insane media bias out there against Romney, and the shoddy polls that are coming out necessitates it, sadly.  I really hope that loveable, tin-eared, flip-flopping bastard with too much money for his own good can pull through.  It is his for the taking.

Right Wing Talking Points: John Banks

I really do get sick of the so-called right wing bloggers of New Zealand.  There seems to be this desperate need for them to be “even-handed” so as to be liked and respected by the Left, and by the mainstream media.  I suspect this is partially because New Zealand is such a small place, and people just want to get on with each other, or be a big fish in a small pond.

Well f*ck that.  That’s never been what motivates me.  I am interested in good policy, and winning, so that we can implement that good policy.  Nowhere in that equation does that involve sacrificing the truth to be liked by people who disagree with me.

Take John Banks, for example.  I thought making Banks the Leader of ACT was the dumbest in a long line of dumb moves by that party.  Turns out I was wrong.  Banks has been the most successful ACT Leader and MP ever.  He is implementing Charter Schools, a core component of Sir Roger Douglas’s Unfinished Business.  How much else of that Unfinished Business has been implemented (18 years later)?  Well… time limited Treaty settlements, and that’s about it.

Banks has also proved to be a team player by voting according to the views on his party with his conscience votes.  Which is more than can be said for his predecessor.

ACTivists should be wearing big cheesy grins on their faces right now.  They should be holding parties.  Stuff is getting done.  And what’s more, they, and all of us on the Right, should be defending John Banks.  He is doing a stellar job.

Instead, we have had the opposite.  Banks has been accused of being dodgy with donations, or something like that.  The Right has largely been mute, or equivocated, or given “even-handed” responses.  They have hung him out to dry, and thrown him under the bus.

Folks, we stand for FREEDOM.  That includes the freedom to donate to a political party of our choice.  That includes the freedom to be anonymous when we do so.  The freedom to spend as much as we like on our own political campaigns.  And the freedom to tell people to mind their own business when they ask where the money is coming from.  There is nothing wrong or shameful about accepting donations in aid of a good cause.  And if Banks fudged around to avoid breaking some STUPID LAW that SHOULD NOT BE A LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE, then I really do not give a flying f*ck, neither should you, neither should the public, and we should be defending him to the public as having done nothing wrong, and pointing out that the law is a stupid law.

Instead we are apologising and fudging ourselves.  Which is why we keep losing, and they keep winning.

Can Romney Win?

This is turning out to be a very strange Presidential election. At the moment it looks like Obama is ahead of Romney. But most of the polling done so far has such skewed sampling (ie. based on the 2008 vote) that it is almost impossible to take them seriously. One recent poll even had a D+13 sample! That sort of demographic is a fantasy, unless you live in Massachusetts. The only truly reliable polls (and not entirely without coincidence, the only Republican polling company) is Rasmussen. If a poll doesn’t have Rasmussen on it, it’s not worth jack shit.

So what do we learn from Rasmussen? Well, the two candidates are neck and neck, and seem to have been that way forever. There’s been plenty of "moments" in the campaign, but it seems to have had almost no effect on the numbers. And Rasmussen polls in individual swing states are sporadic, so how the electoral college will go is a toss-up.

This makes things very hard for Romney. He could win some of the swing states, but not others, which would make those magical 270 electoral college votes precarious to reach. He definitely needs to win Florida – there is no path to the Presidency without it. But he is also level-pegging in Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, and Colorado, with Michigan, New Hampshire and New Mexico marginally in play. Romney would have to win the majority of those toss-ups to become President. To do that, there needs to be some sort of game changer, because as it stands, there is too much uncertainty about that possibility for anyone to be comfortable.

What can Romney do? He made an inspired choice in picking Paul Ryan for his VP nominee, but that barely moved the polls other than in Wisconsin. He had a terrible convention where other speakers barely mentioned him and nobody watched. The Democrats had a lousy convention too, but at least they had Bill Clinton, who gave an amazing speech. That speech didn’t give the Dems much of a bounce either, but it was enough to put Obama back up. There are very few undecided voters left – most people have already made up their minds. Romney is already winning Independent voters. To move up, he is going to have to shift soft Democrats.

Those soft Dems are the key. Essentially they don’t like Obama, but they have bought the line that Obama inherited such a mess from George W Bush that no-one could have restored America’s fortunes in four years. In fact, Clinton said that very thing in his speech. And their fear with Romney is that he would be George W Bush Part Two. Romney has failed to adequately counter that charge.

That’s really what this election has come down to. Obama has decided to run against Bush (again), and it is working for him. The only way Romney is going to win is to come out swinging to point out the emperor has no clothes. They need to mercilessly mock Obama for trying to blame Bush, and destroy that lie once and for all. They also need to contrast themselves and Bush. If they can do that successfully, Obama has no more cards in his deck. If they don’t, and they continue to campaign the same way, they will lose.

I actually think Romney has campaigned pretty well so far, all things considered. Everything he has done is pretty much what I would have done. But now he needs to shift gears, or we will be stuck with Mr Six Trillion Dollars of My Daughters’ Money Down the Toilet. Oh, and did I mention World War Three? Yeah, that’s coming too, no matter who gets elected.

Afghanistan Statistics that the MSM Ignores

The United States has been in Afghanistan since 2001.  Bush was President for most of that time.  How many American soldiers died on Bush’s watch?





The answer is 575.  Not a large amount, relative to 20th Century wars, but still 575 too many.
So how many do you think have died under Obama?  He’s done a much better job, right?  Surely not that many?







There have now been over 1400 military deaths in the three and a half years Obama has been President.

Not a lot of people know that.  That’s three times the deaths in half the time.  And if you listened to the media, you’d think Obama was doing a fantastic job of winding things down over there.  Clearly something is messed up.

The reality is, as events of the last couple of days have shown, Obama has been weak on defense issues, and it has encouraged insurgents in Afghanistan.  And it seems like nobody in the media is calling him out on it, not least all the war protesters who were so vocal about Bush all those years ago.

David Bain is Still a Murderer and WTF Would Some Random Canuck Judge Know Anyway?

So… it appears that, according to some fool of a Judge from what isn’t even a real country, instead of David Bain killing his family, it is more likely that Robin Bain woke up, got out his son David’s gun from its cabinet, slaughtered his entire family, changed clothes, put the bloody clothes in the washing machine and turned it on, typed on the computer that his son (whom he didn’t get on with) was the only one who deserved to live, then, without bothering to take off the silencer, held the gun at an almost ridiculous angle to shoot himself, then, with blood streaming from the wound in his head, wiped the gun clean of prints before expiring… all without showing any signs of struggle with said family, or bothering to pee.

Justice Binnie, Tui called, they want you to write some ad copy.

I must admit to being naive about this process. I simply assumed that, being a Judge, he would look at the bare facts of the case and, being sane, come to the obvious conclusion that, while there may have been leverage for a jury to favour reasonable doubt, there was no way in hell that Robin, or an outside party, was more likely to have killed his family than David. Clearly I did not factor in that weird brand of Canadian liberalism that seems to perversely delight in being the polar opposite of whatever entrenched constitutional conventions occur south of the border, whether that is obstinately insane or otherwise.

Binnie seems to delight in this sort of activism. He is quoted here as saying:

In the United States, some judges on the Supreme Court have a theory that the Constitution should have the meaning that it had in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was adopted, and that it is illegitimate for judges to depart from that. It also so happens that in 1791, public floggings and hangings, and so on, were a very popular pastime.

In Canada, we have never had that view. We don’t have a Jefferson or an Alexander Hamilton or a Benjamin Franklin, for us to read their views on what the Constitution does or doesn’t mean. At the Quebec conference, Sir John A. Macdonald’s most memorable reflection was: “Too much whisky is just enough.” That was the guidance we got as to our Constitution.

Yeah, somebody had too much whisky. But when you hold this attitude as a judge, it means pretty much anything goes. It means that "balance of probabilities" can easily turn into "benefit of a doubt". And that is what appears to have happened in this case. Binnie has decided there is enough smoke to qualify as a fire, and refused to look like a prick by doing the right thing.

I should have known the fix was in when the Justice asked for a copy of Karam’s book. Really? You’re going to use some book instead of relying on the trial transcripts?! There was certainly no attempt to interview those on the other side – Bryan Bruce, Martin Van Beynen, Kent Parker, or especially David Bain’s wider family, who knew the character of both men accused and have, for two decades now, taken the view that David did it.

This report is bullshit. As activist judges are wont to do, Justice Binnie has taken the path of least resistance and, like Pilate, washed his hands. Well I, and many others, will not let this farce stand. David Bain must not get a cent of compensation for his crimes. We will continue to seek justice for Robin Bain and his family.

Clint Eastwood’s First Interview Since the GOP Convention

Eastwood gives an interview to the local paper of the town where he was formerly Mayor:

“President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” Eastwood told The Pine Cone this week. “Romney and Ryan would do a much better job running the country, and that’s what everybody needs to know. I may have irritated a lot of the lefties, but I was aiming for people in the middle.”

For five days after he thrilled or horrified the nation by talking to an empty chair representing Obama on the night Mitt Romney accepted the Republican nomination for president, Eastwood remained silent while pundits and critics debated whether his remarks, and the rambling way he made them, had helped or hurt Romney’s chances of winning in November.

But in a wide-ranging interview with The Pine Cone Tuesday from his home in Pebble Beach, he said he had conveyed the messages he wanted to convey, and that the spontaneous nature of his presentation was intentional, too.

“I had three points I wanted to make,” Eastwood said. “That not everybody in Hollywood is on the left, that Obama has broken a lot of the promises he made when he took office, and that the people should feel free to get rid of any politician who’s not doing a good job. But I didn’t make up my mind exactly what I was going to say until I said it.”

This pretty much confirms what many of us on the Right have been saying – that there was nothing accidental about what Eastwood did, and that it was aimed squarely at undecided voters. Will it work? Only time will tell. But one thing is certain – Eastwood generated the most memorable convention speech since Ronald Reagan’s "time capsule" remarks in 1976. In a tough fight, who else would you want in your corner?

US Presidential Race – The Conventions

I don’t think I have been this nervous about an election since Brash vs Clark in 2005. There are about half a dozen swing states where Romney and Obama are neck and neck, and several more that are in play. So the conventions over these last two weeks are a big deal.

I was moderately impressed with the GOP convention. The fact that I was not more impressed was probably down to the fact that Romney is a pretty boring nominee, and the energy was one of getting Obama out, rather than getting Romney in. Though I have to say that I could not now envisage Gingrich being as credible on that stage, and I am glad he was eventually put out of the running. But someone like Rick Santorum would have been much better. And Sarah Palin would have been infinitely better.

Romney was, I think, pretty wise to exclude Palin from the convention. Palin has a way of making it all about her – no bad thing in itself – she is the finest political talent to emerge since Bill Clinton, but when you are trying to sell the actual nominee, having the shouldabeen nominee there is not going to help. You risk a Reagan moment like that of 1976, where Reagan’s speech was more memorable than that of Ford’s.

Of course, other speakers outshone Romney anyway, whose speech did the job, but in the merely adequate style to which we have become accustomed from him. Marco Rubio, who preceded him, is a freakish talent, and he just owned it when he spoke. Can anyone stop this man in 2020? Likewise, the wonkish Paul Ryan had some excellent moments, especially when he talked about faded Obama posters on bedroom walls. You can see how effective it was too – the Democrats (and Cameron Slater) cannot stop talking about how it was supposedly full of lies. Many people rubbished Christie’s speech, possibly because they expected him to tear Obama a new arsehole and he underdelivered. I think this is unfair – Christie gave an excellent, positive speech and showed that he is more than just a noisy union-buster from Joisey.

I don’t think I saw anyone do anything but wildly praise Condoleeza Rice’s speech, so let me be the first to say that I thought it was awful. It was a tepid defence of neocon foreign policy, which offered no convincing criticism of the current administration. In fact, Rice did not mention Obama once in her speech, when a couple of lines of laying into him might have been the most powerful thing said all week. Her halting delivery made me glad that Romney had not chosen her for the VP slot. As for what she said about Romney and Ryan, forgive me if I thought it was damnation with faint praise. She probably voted for Obama last time, and her speech gave me no confidence she won’t do so again.

But of course the speech everyone will remember from the GOP convention was that of Clint Eastwood. Watching it live, I was convinced that the Republicans had blown it very badly, and that I was watching a demented eightysomething actor "going Brando" on us. Now I am not so sure it was all that bad. Eastwood knew what he was doing. He’s an actor FFS! And here he is, on live TV, doing what no comic has hitherto been prepared to do: Make fun of Obama. Watching the speech on the internet, in isolation from the convention around it, the powerful message of Obama as an "empty chair" who is "not up to the job" and needs to be "let go" really hits home. Convention ratings have been very low, and for many voters, Eastwood’s speech could be the only thing they saw of the event. And that is no bad thing at all. Who better to reach independent and undecided voters? By accident or by design, Eastwood’s speech was a WIN.

Other than that fascinating pop culture moment, the best achievement of the convention was the attempt to humanise Romney and show his character and compassionate side. They did so well on that count that even I have trouble thinking of him as a lying flip-flopper any more. He seems like a good fellow who knows how to fix stuff. Let’s make him President then.

The convention TV ratings so far have been pretty piss poor, and even worse for the Donks than the GOP. I suspect this is because most people have already made up their minds, but in the case of the Democrats, I think it is a great shame. I want as many people as possible to watch the Democratic National Convention to see how out of touch the party has become with ordinary Americans. They insist on highlighting their stance on issues where they are in the minority view, such as the abortion and gay marriage debates. That’s not how you win votes. You can’t get Americans to support you by showing them how different you are from them. It is a marked change from the conventions of the 1990s, when it was the Republicans who were giving Pat Buchanan speaking slots, fighting a losing battle on the culture war front, and looking like the out of touch ones. Speeches so far have been nothing but rants on the straw men of women’s rights and class warfare. I was disappointed that Harry Reid only spoke for a few minutes. He defines Angry Old White Male. I would have given him a whole hour to rail against the world and lose even more votes.

Things they have done right so far:

Better enthusiasm levels than the GOP (but this means nothing, since I am sure Kim Jong Un generates the same levels at his conferences, and supporting Obama IS somewhat reminiscent of cult fanaticism);

Newark Mayor Cory Booker slayed it – even if his rhetoric was the same empty leftist crap, he yelled it in such an inspiring way;

Showing Mitt Romney’s old campaign footage against Ted Kennedy – if I wanted the Donks to win, all I would ever do is show old Romney footage, and I don’t understand why they haven’t made more use of it;

My local Mayor Julian Castro was good talking about his background, and his line about borrowing money from your parents to start a business was the most cutting thing said all evening. Another Obama though? It’s hard to run for President without holding a statewide office, and Castro has almost zero chance of that in Texas;

…and I have to say that Michelle Obama’s speech was… not bad. She kept the politics to a minimum and talked about her family and background, which is what she needed to do to distract from her husband’s failed Presidency. The past is a safer place for the Democrats than the present.

How is this convention going to pan out for them? Honestly, I think they are caught in a delusion. They really do think that Mitt Romney wants to outlaw contraception and tax the middle class so that him and his wealthy mates can go buy some yachts. The American public aren’t that stupid. They want to know how Obama is going to fix the deficit, and what they will see is a man who can speak pretty words, but can’t actually solve the problem. What the Dems do have on their side is Scientology Syndrome – by the time you realise your religion is based on some weird alien narrative, you’ve already invested so much in it that going back now would be suicide, so you double down. Are enough people really prepared to break from their faith in Hope and Change and acknowledge that there was nothing there but… an empty chair?!