Iowahawk is well-known as one of the best humorists on the right, which makes him one of the best humorists in politics, as everyone knows the left has no sense of humor whatsoever.

As with any great humorist, his work is uneven, from screamingly funny and on-point to meh.  His latest piece, using an old-school text computer game to satirize Obama's time as President, is one of the single best things he's ever written.

Why are you here? Go read it before it's linked by every single right-leaning blog in existence (which it will be).

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 01:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.

It's time to evaluate my choices and make my decisions about the coming elections.  Being in inland Southern California, my primary choices will be in my local House race (Issa / Who Cares), Governor (Whitman / Moonbeam), and US Senator (Fiorina / Ma'am).  In theory, I'm perfectly willing to vote for either party; in practice, in California, voting for a Dem is the same as showering in hydrochloric acid -- incredibly painful, disfiguring, and ultimately fatal.

I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, so my choice is either to vote for the GOP candidate or sit it out / cast a protest vote.  I would only consider both candidates if they were both good candidates and I had to make a decision about which was better.  As 'good candidate' and 'California Democrat' are mutually incompatible terms, I'll simply evaluate each GOP candidate on their own merits and decide whether they're worth a vote or not.

The House race:  It's always good to be able to get off to an easy start.  Issa is one of the single best House members.  I'd like to see him be even more focused on fiscal issues, have more of a public presence, and bring out the big guns on some major bad actors.  He's on the right path for this, and I have high hopes for his long-term prospects.  Returning Issa to the House is as easy a decision as anyone can ever have in politics.

The race for Governor:  Whitman is about as exciting as a bowl of oatmeal.   The state of California's finances is so bad, however, that her range of potential action is going to be extremely limited.  To her credit, she's attempting to get out in front of certain issues such as public service pensions, and I think she'll be reasonably proactive in trying to deal with fiscal matters.  I'm not thrilled, but I think she's good enough to get my vote.

The Senate race:  Fiorina is an enigma.  Her tenure at HP was stormy, to say the least, and there are as many opinions on her performance as there are opinionators.  Unlike many, I'm not going to fault her for HP's stock price performance, as her tenure coincided with the collapse of the tech bubble.  She has real fiscal chops; the question is whether she will use them for good (reform) or evil (obfuscation / status quo).  She has the potential to be a brilliant Senator.  She could also be a flop of epic proportions.  Being GOP, she'll be thrown out on her ass in 6 years unless she is brilliant, so I'm going to vote for her and hope for the best.

So there you have it -- GOP votes across the board.  Note that I'm giving no consideration whatsoever to social issues.  This is because I don't give two shits about them.  On the margins, as a libertarian, I'd go for someone who is socially liberal, but at this time social issues are completely dwarfed by fiscal ones.  As none of these candidates have any draconian social positions, my evaluation of them is based strictly on their likely fiscal performance.

I think I'll be 3/3 this year, but it's possible I could be 1/3.  Issa is a sure thing.  Is anyone even running against him?  I didn't bother checking, as I'd vote for Issa over the ghost of Hayek -- that's just how much I like the guy.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 12:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 579 words, total size 3 kb.

I have a dream of a situation that highlights just how fucked up the US Senate is.  A situation that shows that almost every single sitting Senator is hopelessly corrupt.  A situation in which each vote is important and Senators find it nearly impossible to hide their back-door dealings.  A situation which also forces the administration to get involved and fully reveal the bankrupt policies of Obama.  A situation of such utter gridlock that legislation, except that which is truly popular and needed, would have no chance of passing.

I have a dream of a 50-50 Senate.

If the House is a circus, the Senate is the sewer below the circus into which all the elephant shit and other waste drains.  The only sitting Senator for which I have any admiration is DeMint.  A 50-50 Senate would give him a much bigger platform from which to spread his reformist policies.

A 50-50 Senate would force Joe 'the village idiot' Biden into the spotlight as a possible tiebreaker.  Biden, the clueless dipshit that he is, would bask in the spotlight and do irreparable harm to the Obama administration.

The GOP would prefer to flip the Senate.  I say that this would do far more harm than good, especially in consideration of the 2012 elections.  A 50-50 split would be much more likely to drain the sewer that is the US Senate, keeping the pressure on individual Senators, rather than on the GOP as a whole.

A 50-50 Senate is a very real possibility this year.  I have a dream.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 02:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

In order to try to break up the beltway gang that's selling this country down the river, more people seem to be in favor of term limits these days.  Yet I, a huge supporter of 'throw the bums out', think the idea is completely idiotic.  Why?

First, it's lazy -- a direct deriliction of our duty as voters.  If we're willing to throw the bums out, we don't need term limits.

Second, and much more importantly, you get the worst of both worlds.  People who are good public servants get termed out, while those who are willing to whore themselves out have no reason not to.  If a dishonest pol is going to be out, no matter what, after a fixed time, he's going to be completely unrestrained in selling himself.

Lastly, term limits ignore one of the biggest problems in government -- the entrenched bureaucracy.  A good pol that gets termed out has no real chance to cut the huge fat in government.  The bureaucracy can just wait him out, something they're experts at.

Term limits remove incentives for good politicians while doing little to nothing to restrain the bad ones.  They're a terrible idea.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 12:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.

It turns out that Paladino never actually said the specific remarks that started the whole firestorm over at DPUD.  So, by attempting to frame the debate dishonestly, IVD has just made himself look like a complete and utter tool.

This whole fiasco is a perfect example of why one should frame their points honestly.  Then, when new information comes to light, you can still have a valid argument, rather than a smoking crater where your credibility used to be.

Even though Paladino didn't say those specific words, the facts remain that: (1) He was reading the prepared comments of a third party, and in such a way that they could be misconstrued as his own comments, and (2) He's discussing a very divisive social issue in an election where one should be able to run solely on fiscal issues.  Both of these show extremely bad judgment, at the very least.

If you can't win this year when running against a long-term political insider by focusing on just fiscal issues, you weren't going to win under any circumstances.  Whether or not Paladino is homophobic may be back up in the air, but there's no doubt he's a dipshit and a lousy candidate, which brings us right back to the issue of candidate vetting.

If this debate had been framed honestly from the start, this revelation about what Paladino actually said wouldn't make a bit of difference.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 06:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 1 kb.

One last note on the issue of candidate vetting.  In the aforementioned DPUD post, IVD finally gets around to saying this:

I get the nation's mood. Throw the bums out, all that.  Perfectly fine. I love the idea of new blood and strong primary challenges so that incumbents are either (1) thrown out for a better option or (2) scared into believing that they're not invincible. 

HOWEVER.....

I would prefer that candidates be vetted.  Would it be so much to find candidates who don't think homosexuality is a social disease or identity disorder? Or someone who's had a job in the past 10 years that didn't revolve around suing people? I really don't think that makes me an establishment RINO, but if it does, I'll gladly be one.

Now this is the way to approach the issue.  In fact, if IVD had used this as his original post, I would have mostly agreed with him and the discussion could then have revolved around the best way to get candidates vetted in the current environment.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 09:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

This post at dpud, and some of the comments, really bother me.  Not because there is disagreement on the issue of whackjob Tea Party candidates, but because the 'establishment types' seem to think it's fine to mischaracterize (to the point of outright lying about) their opponents' positions.

Look, if I want to listen to a bunch of lies about my positions, I'll read the NYT or watch MSNBC.  I don't need that bullshit on an otherwise excellent blog.

The real issue:  The situation within the GOP is so chaotic that the Tea Party has gotten a few shady characters nominated.  There is a legitimate debate to be had on the vetting of candidates, and whether the 'throw the bums out' movement has gone too far.  I'm all for having this debate and would be willing to do so in a respectful fashion if only those on the other side of the issue would stop lying about my position.

Attempting to use Paladino's homophobic comments to tarnish  the Tea Party as anti-gay is incredibly dishonest.  Making an outright assertion that Chris Christie would never have gotten elected in this environment is a bald-faced lie.  Saying that (paraphrasing) 'if the GOP had vetted candidates better it would have been viewed as a power move'  is complete crap.

Those who believe in a more cohesive, top-down approach to GOP candidates need to start making their points honestly, or I (and many others like me) are going to lump them in with the MSM and tune them right the fuck out.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 08:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.

Obama has used a pocket veto on HR 3808.  For those not familiar with this issue, see this post at Denninger's place.  Read the comments too, as Denninger has one of the best forum communities going.

Given the huge pending problem with the way in which mortgage titles have been recorded, this veto was incredibly important.  Hell, even the statement at whitehouse.gov sounds Presidential:

Today, the White House announced that President Obama will not sign H.R. 3808, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010, and will return the bill to the House of Representatives.  The Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010 was designed to remove impediments to interstate commerce.  While we share this goal, we believe it is necessary to have further deliberations about the intended and unintended impact of this bill on consumer protections, including those for mortgages, before this bill can be finalized.

Notarizations are important for a large range of documents, including financial documents.  As the President has made clear, consumer financial protections are incredibly important, and he has made this one of his top priorities, including signing into law the strongest consumer protections in history in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  That is why we need to think through the intended and unintended consequences of this bill on consumer protections, especially in light of the recent developments with mortgage processors.

The authors of this bill no doubt had the best intentions in mind when trying to remove impediments to interstate commerce.  We will work with them and other leaders in Congress to explore the best ways to achieve this goal going forward.

I feel like I'm in Bizzaro-World, with a real President or something.  Knowing Obama, this will last all of about 15 minutes, but at least he got a very big one right.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 04:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

The goals of today's appearance by Stephen Colbert before Congress were transparantly obvious: Distract from the testimony of Christopher Coates to the Civil Rights Comission, and reengage the drooling morons who take people like Colbert seriously.  From what I can tell by perusing the non-conservative intertubes:  Mission accomplished.

From Crazy Days and Nights, a gossip site:

"At the beginning, one member of the committee asked Stephen to not speak and just to submit in writing what he wanted to say. Lucky for us, he got to speak. If more celebrities testified like this someone might actually watch CSPAN."

There you have it.  Fuck the basic math on the cost of illegal immigration, the fact that Mexico can't provide a stable society for their own population, or anything else sensible related to the issue.  Stephen Colbert made the funny in front of Congress, and that's what matters.

Sadly, this attitude is entirely too representative of a large portion of the American populace.  Meanwhile, A quick check of the mainstream (including Fox) MSM sites shows both the Colbert and Lohan (going back to jail) stories featured prominently, with almost no mention of the Coates testimony.  Yeah, I know it's the Obamedia, but that media does represent a significant portion of America, regardless of what any of us might wish for.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 03:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.

Listening to a beltway insider on the merits of political reform is the same as listening to an assistant crack whore on the merits of rehab.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 10:29 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Awesome

Posted by: LC Aggie Sith at September 22, 2010 03:58 AM (+bSoE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I find it hard to believe that the hubbub over the DE primary is still going on, as to me the takeaway message is extremely simple:

People are so sick of business as usual in Government that they'd elect an old, smelly tennis shoe over a hack establishment politician.

That's it.  It really is that simple.  Whether or not O'Donnell is a somewhat-shady loon is completely beside the point.  Standard measures of 'electability' are meaningless, because playing the lesser-of-two-evils game has run this country into the toilet.

So the GOP doesn't get a Senate majority?  Considering what they've done with it in the past, who gives a shit? To the GOP establishment, every election has become 'the most important one evar!!!111!!one!' -- which is always bullshit, but rings especially hollow on a Senate race in fucking Delaware.

In case I'm not making my point, I'll be blunt:  the GOP leadership has absofuckinglutely zero credibility.  None.  Nada.  Zip.  Zilch.  Zero.  I'm not buying the "we're really going to vote like fiscal conservatives and not just play politics this time" line and, at this late date, almost nobody else is either.  If someone is pushing that crap, they're either hopelessly naive, or they have skin in the political game.

This isn't some dick measuring (bust-size measuring for females, I suppose) contest between the GOP establishment, RINOs, the Tea Party, neocons, paleocons, and/or any other conservative faction.  It's quite simply:  Throw the bums out.  That's it.

The most important part of this lesson, in my opinion, is not for this election cycle, but for 2012.  Assuming things go as expected and the GOP gains control of the House and captures about half the Senate, people are going to expect fiscal action.  So, jacking each other off and touting 'an enduring GOP majority', without making serious inroads into the current fiscal insanity, is going to lead to exactly one thing:  everything flipping back to the Dems in 2012 and even more GOP establishment bums thrown out.

For incumbents and the political establishment the old saying is now true:  The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 10:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.

In the wake of the DE primary election, Karl Rove came out blasting O'Donnell. For some reason, this surprised and infuriated a lot of people.  These folks need to step back and rethink their previous adulation of Rove.

Karl Rove is an election tactician.  Period.  He's not a conservative.  He's not a long-term strategist.  He's only a Republican by whatever accident of fate put him in the party.  He'd be just as comfortable doing his thing for the Dems, as he has zero ideological basis to his actions.

To him, nominating O'Donnell over Castle is the height of stupidity, as you go from a likely win to a likely loss.  The concept that, if the Republican is going to vote like a Dem, it would be better to have a Dem in the seat, is completely foreign to him.  The idea that ideology matters simply does not compute in Rove's brain.

And all this is fine, if Rove has bosses that take ideology and strategy into consideration, and keep their pet tactician on an extremely short leash.  The problem is, as the GOP 'leadership' has become about maintaining their personal power and political perks at all costs, Rove has become the defacto face of the GOP establishment.

As can be seen from the time Rove came to prominence, having him as a party leader has been a complete disaster.  Sure, he won a few tight elections -- there's no doubt he is an excellent tactician.  However, the cost to win those elections in terms of sacrifice of principle and sound governance has proven to be far too high.  This is why there is a huge rebellion against the GOP establishment.  In the attempt to keep any power they can, the GOP leaders have triangulated themselves into oblivion, and now stand for precisely nothing.

It would be nice if someone in a GOP leadership position would take Rove aside and tell him that he'll be called upon when needed to manage a tight election with a desirable candidate, but otherwise he can piss off.  This won't happen, of course, as Rove is far too full of himself at this point, and the GOP leadership simply isn't that smart.

So, all this fury at Rove for, well, being Karl Rove, is a bit perplexing.  He'll end up being marginalized, which is what should have happened to him ages ago.  When your pet tactician goes rabid and gets off his leash, the best thing to do is put him down.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 11:43 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 423 words, total size 3 kb.

The big news today is that Arlen Specter has changed parties to Demcorat from Republican.  For once, I agree that this is bigger news than the various economic revelations.

The reason this is such big news is because it gives the Dems full and obvious control of the legislative branch of Government.  They had this control already, in practice, but it will now be impossible to spin anything onto the GOP.  Not that I care much about party politcs, but it's a significant shift.

The most important point, however, is that the GOP is now, across the board, a true minority party.  For those of us with a libertarian / conservative philosophy, this is a very good thing.  This represents a real chance for the GOP to stop with the Rovian triangulation and work towards re-establishing a governing philosophy that is much friendlier to a free, fair, and open society.

Do I think the GOP will take advantage of this opportunity?  Sadly, no.  I have no faith in almost anyone involved in our current, thoroughly corrupt system.  I still believe that a popular revolt, that eventually sweeps aside both parties, will be necessary.  I sincerely hope to be proven wrong.

So, let's hope that the 'conservative consolidation' continues ... goodbye Collins and Snowe .... don't let the door hit ya Graham ... buh bye McCain ... etc.  I despise the current incarnation of the GOP, but I'm also realistic enough to realize that the in-place infrastructure would take longer to replace than to co-opt.  Smaller, stronger, smarter ... and positioned for a rebound with actual values instead of just a bunch of talking points.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at 07:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.