Monday, November 23, 2009

Joe

"NO."

Never thought I'd say this, but, THANK YOU JOE LIEBERMAN

Monday, November 16, 2009

DEMANDING TIMES

DEMANDING TIMES REQUIRE GREAT PEOPLE

THROUGHOUT HISTORY, WE HAVE BEEN FACED WITH CHALLENGES, BOTH DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL, WHICH HAVE TESTED OUR RESOLVE AS A NATION. AND THROUGHOUT THE SAME PERIOD, WE HAVE SURMOUNTED THESE ASSAULTS AND PERSEVERED AS THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON EARTH.

TODAY, WE ARE FACED WITH AN INTERNAL CHALLENGE, WHICH BY ALL ACCOUNTS, IS UNIQUE IN IT'S MOTIVE AND IT'S INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL SUPPORT. OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, OUR ECONOMIC SYSTEM AND OUR WAY OF LIVE IS AT STAKE. LEADERS WHOM WE HAVE ELECTED HAVE MOTIVES WHICH ARE NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF WE CITIZENS. THE AGENDA, WHICH SHOULD PLACE US IN THE MOST IMPORTANT POSITION, HAS BEEN ABDUCTED AND MORPHED TO PLACE SOME NEBULOUS INTERESTS AS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

SIMILAR PAST EVENTS INCLUDE THE CARTER ADMINISTRATION, THE MCCARTHY ERA, WORLD WAR TWO, THE GREAT DEPRESSION AND SO ON AND SO ON. FORTUNATELY, OUR NATION HAS ALWAYS FOUND A LEADER OR LEADERS WHO SHEPPARDED THIS GREAT NATION THROUGH THESE MOST TRYING TIMES.

RONALD REAGAN, EDWARD R. MURROW AND THE CONGRESSIONAL OPPOSITION TO JOSEPH MCCARTHY AND FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT WERE IN THE RIGHT PLACES AT THE RIGHT TIMES IN HISTORY. WITHOUT THEM AND THEIR INITIATIVE, THE UNITED STATES MAY HAVE A DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT FOOTPRINT TODAY.

IT IS WITH THIS IN MIND, THAT I SUGGEST THAT DICK CHENEY AND SARAH PALIN ARE THE TWO MOST QUALIFIED PEOPLE TO EXTRACT US FROM THIS PREDICAMENT WHICH THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS PLACED US IN. STRAIGHT FORWARD LOGIC, BOLD INITIATIVE AND DECISIVE LEADERSHIP ALWAYS WINS OUT VERSUS HAND-WRINGING AND INDECISION. THEIR TIME IS NOW. THEIR ABILITIES ARE WITHOUT DOUBT. AND THE COUNTRY IS LONGING FOR A LEADERSHIP TEAM WHO WILL ONCE AGAIN PLACE THIS COUNTRY AT THE PINNACLE OF WORLD LEADERSHIP.
SO, THIS IS MY SLOGAN: " CHENEY/PALIN IN 2012, BECAUSE DITHERING IS NOT AN OPTION".

GSG12538

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Obama at Ft. Hood

Overall, President Obama delivered a nice speech in mourning the 13 soldier who were murdered at Ft. Hood last week. It was reverential, mostly focused on the 13 dead, and praising of the service of all military members. There are some things that he left out, like that this was a terrorist act against the United States on US soil. However, two points that he slipped in are troubling, and emblematic of Obama's troubling view of the military and attacks against the United States:

1. It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know -- no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. For what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice -- in this world, and the next.

The president seems to be afraid to condemn illogical ideas. There is no logic to extremist terrorist attacks. I understand that by adding "twisted" the president is implying that the acts don't fit into normal logic, but it's worse than abnormal logic. Insinuating that there's any logic involved gives weight to their ideas. Murdering 13 people because you've been co-opted by an Islamic cult, Al Qaeda, carries no logic. They are illogical, driven by hateful dogma, and not sanctioned by the authority by which they claim to be sanctioned (The Quran).

Coming from a party and ideology (liberalism) that is quick to characterize any anti-abortion action as the action of "right-wing Christian extremism," you'd think the President would know dogmatic, illogical religious extremism when he sees it.

2. For history is filled with heroes. You may remember the stories of a grandfather who marched across Europe; an uncle who fought in Vietnam; a sister who served in the Gulf. But as we honor the many generations who have served, all of us -- every single American -- must acknowledge that this generation has more than proved itself the equal of those who've come before.

We need not look to the past for greatness, because it is before our very eyes.

It's an eloquent statement, but one that raises a few questions. We look across generations to find heroes, from hundreds of years ago to today. We should always be encouraged to look to the past for greatness, as well as recognize it in our midst. Without understanding what made greatness in the past, we'll never be able to fully appreciate it today and in the future. When it comes to people who died for the US and for global freedom, there's no need to be exclusionary.

Without doubt, this generation is every bit as courageous and noble as those who fought for freedom in the Revolution, the Civil War, the World Wars and Vietnam. But it's yet to be determined if their cause will carry the same weight as the monumental victories for freedom in the Civil War and WWII.

I hope this statement implies that Obama is ready to devote the resources necessary to taming and making sense of Afghanistan. These people are not reasonable, and can't be killed with kindness. At the very least, the resources must be made available to destroy al Qaeda. Don't just fulfill the campaign promises you made to capture and kill Osama bin Laden and to track al Qaeda. Fulfill the promises made to the thousands of people and their families who've been murdered by Islamic extremism, and to the troops that have given their lives over seven years to preserve American freedom from those who seek to destroy it.

Monday, November 9, 2009

Blinding the Health Care System

The three biggest lies about the Obama/Pelosi/Reid health care "reform" are:

1. "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period." - Barack Obama, 6/15/2009.

Totally false. From a review of the bill passed by the House on Saturday:

Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.

That means if your plan, which you like, does not meet the parameters set by a government bureaucrat, you will not be able to keep it. You'll either pay more for inferior coverage or sacrifice good coverage that the government deems too expensive to fit in under a government mandated maximum coverage.

2. This bill will make health care less expensive.

On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.

Definitely false. Average costs might appear to be lower due to subsidies and lower Medicare payments to doctors. But while some people will receive new subsidies to make costs appear lower and doctors will limit care to Medicare and patients in order to avoid a cost/compensation deficit, private insurance plans and taxpayers will be fleeced to pay for those subsidies.

3. The Republicans are the party of "No" and have no alternative.

False. In addition the the Weekly Standard's compilation of conservative market-based and tort reform proposals, the GOP has introduced a bill (.pdf) and a side-by-side comparison of it with the Pelosi monstrosity:


Basically, Pelosi and 219 liberal Democrats passed a bill just to show they could pass something. It doesn't accomplish any of the goals that the GOP bill does, achieves the same level of coverage as the GOP plan, and costs trillions more. It will cost $1.2 trillion between 2010 and 2020, and will probably cost about $2 trillion between 2021 and 2030.

Please, please, please kill this in the Senate.

Post Traumatic Stress by GSG 12538

POST TRAUMATIC STRESS SYNDROME BY PROXY

IT'S ONE OF THE MOST POTENTIALLY DISTURBING EXPLANATIONS YET. A BOARD CERTIFIED PSYCHIATRIST, MEMBER OF THE MILITARY WHO COUNSELS HOME-COMING VETERANS, IS SUSPECTED OF ACQUIRING THE SAME DISORDER AS HIS PATIENTS WHILE NEVER BEING CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE LEGITIMATE CAUSES OF SUCH A DREADFUL POST-COMBAT COMPLICATION.

GENERAL GEORGE S. PATTON IS SPINNING IN HIS GRAVE. THE ARMY WILL FOREVER BE TAINTED IF THIS MOST EXTRAORDINARY EXCUSE FOR TERRORISM IS ALLOWED TO DEVELOP VALIDITY.

POST TRAUMATIC STRESS SYNDROME IS A VERY SERIOUS, POTENTIALLY DEBILITATING AND VALID MENTAL HEALTH DISORDER. IT DESERVES ALL THE ATTENTION AND TREATMENT MODALITIES AS A DOCUMENTED CASE OF APPENDICITIS OR MAJOR DEPRESSION. BUT, IMPLYING A CASE OF PTSS BY PROXY WILL NECESSITATE ALL THINKING SERVICE PERSONNEL AND AMERICAN CITIZENS IN GENERAL TO QUESTION THE LEGITIMACY OF SUCH, RESULTING IN THE COMPROMISING OF ALL UNFORTUNATE VICTIMS WHO WILL PRESENT WITH THIS PROBLEM.

OUR SERVICEMEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE SUMMONED TO DEFEND OUR WAY OF LIFE DOMESTICALLY AND AROUND THE WORLD REQUIRE AND ARE DUE ALL THE PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL SUPPORT WHICH WE CAN MUSTER. LET US REJECT THIS MOST LUDICROUS ASSAULT ON THEIR INTEGRITY. GSG 12538

Ralph Peters on the events at Ft. Hood

Fort Hood's 9/11

Islamist terror strikes US again


headshotRalph Peters

On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting "Allahu Akbar!" committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.

What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Ft. Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of non-denominational shoplifting.

This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it’s an act of terror. Period.

When the terrorist posts anti-American hate-speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as "Palestinian" in a Muslim spouse-matching program, and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit — well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an "Islamist terrorist."

But the president won’t. Despite his promise to get to all the facts. Because there’s no such thing as "Islamist terrorism" in ObamaWorld.

And the Army won’t. Because its senior leaders are so sick with political correctness that pandering to America-haters is safer than calling terrorism "terrorism."

And the media won’t. Because they have more interest in the shooter than in our troops — despite their crocodile tears.

Maj. Nadal Malik Hasan planned this terrorist attack and executed it in cold blood. The resulting massacre was the first tragedy. The second was that he wasn’t killed on the spot.

Hasan survived. Now the rest of us will have to foot his massive medical bills. Activist lawyers will get involved, claiming "harassment" drove him temporarily insane. There’ll be no end of trial delays. At best, taxpayer dollars will fund his prison lifestyle for decades to come, since our politically correct Army leadership wouldn’t dare pursue or carry out the death penalty.

Maj. Hasan will be a hero to Islamist terrorists abroad and their sympathizers here. While US Muslim organizations decry his acts publicly, Hasan will be praised privately. And he’ll have the last laugh.

But Hasan isn’t the sole guilty party. The US Army’s unforgivable political correctness is also to blame for the casualties at Ft. Hood.

Given the myriad warning signs, it’s appalling that no action was taken against a man apparently known to praise suicide bombers and openly damn US policy. But no officer in his chain of command, either at Walter Reed Army Medical Center or at Ft. Hood, had the guts to take meaningful action against a dysfunctional soldier and an incompetent doctor.

Had Hasan been a Lutheran or a Methodist, he would’ve been gone with the simoon. But officers fear charges of discrimination when faced with misconduct among protected minorities.

Now 12 soldiers and a security guard lie dead. 31 soldiers were wounded, 28 of them seriously. If heads don’t roll in this maggot’s chain of command, the Army will have shamed itself beyond moral redemption.

There’s another important issue, too. How could the Army allow an obviously incompetent and dysfunctional psychiatrist to treat our troubled soldiers returning from war? An Islamist whacko is counseled for arguing with veterans who’ve been assigned to his care? And he’s not removed from duty? What planet does the Army live on?

For the first time since I joined the Army in 1976, I’m ashamed of its dereliction of duty. The chain of command protected a budding terrorist who was waving one red flag after another. Because it was safer for careers than doing something about him.

Get ready for the apologias. We’ve already heard from the terrorist’s family that "he’s a good American." In their world, maybe he is.

But when do we, the American public, knock off the PC nonsense?

A disgruntled Muslim soldier murdered his officers way back in 2003, in Kuwait, on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Recently? An American mullah shoots it out with the feds in Detroit. A Muslim fanatic attacks an Arkansas recruiting station. A Muslim media owner, after playing the peace card, beheads his wife. A Muslim father runs over his daughter because she’s becoming too Westernized.

Muslim terrorist wannabes are busted again and again. And we’re assured that "Islam’s a religion of peace."

I guarantee you that the Obama administration’s non-response to the Ft. Hood attack will mock the memory of our dead.

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Compost: Courage?

Obama, on 219 liberal Democrats and one first-term Republican in a poor, liberal district voting for a government run overhaul of the health care system:
Speaking in the Rose Garden exactly 24 hours after he appeared there Saturday to call for House passage of the bill, Mr. Obama praised House members for what he called a ‘’courageous vote” that “brought us closer than we have ever been” to extending coverage to millions of uninsured Americans. He said the bill fulfilled his promise to bring sweeping change to the lives of millions of Americans.
Obama, on visiting Fort Hood, TX in the aftermath of the shootings this week by an Islamist soldier:
"..."
Oh, right. That was former President Bush that visited. Obama was at the Capitol rallying his liberals in Congress to do what they do best: spend a trillion dollars on a wild-eyed, already proven to fail government program that doesn't achieve what it promises.

What else did Obama have to say about war strategy and troops?

Obama, on the courage of American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq:
"..."
Obama, on his plans and his reaction to Gen. McChrystal's strategies for Afghanistan:
"..."
Obama, on the Cambridge, MA police department investigating a possible breaking & entering:
"No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home."
That's the courage in Obama's convictions.

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Mark Levin: The Conservatives' Paul Pierce

Because he is The Truth:



When Mark Levin says, "And see this building here. You own that building...," when he speaks of the constantly expanding presence of government in private lives and private business, when he speaks of an incredible debt that will burden people today, tomorrow, and generations from now, he is not speaking of abstractions. He is speaking of a reality in which peoples' freedoms - economic and social - are being taken away quicker and more permanently than ever.

For years liberals whined about the potential Bushitler and SkullFucker Cheney wiretapping potential terrorists. They whined about the Patriot Act being a transformative bill that would turn the United States into a permanent police state. Seven years later, where are the certain and abundant abuses of power by conservatives and bureaucrats that were supposed to be occurring daily? It never happened. And when the provisions that permitted secret wiretapping (FISA) were up for expiration and liberals controlled congress (2008), they voted for it as fast as conservatives.

Liberals love to whine about conservatives being anti-choice with respect to abortion. They thrive on characterizing the abortion debate as a dichotomous choice between women and state, without every acknowledging that the choice is much more elementary than that. It's between women and children.

While they whine about conservatives being anti-abortion "rights", they close off freedom of choice wherever possible: Would you like to keep the profit from the house you sold after seven years of living and improving it? Obama wants 20% first. Would you like to practice your faith as you see fit? Get an application, and maybe, after some bureaucratic review, you might get a permit. Would you like to speak freely, without restrictions and fear of retribution from one-sided human rights or speech panels? Don't go to a state university or work for the government. Do you like where you live, the home you've made your entire life? If the government sees a better use for it, say goobye. Did you own stock in Chrysler or GM? The unions needed that money and control more.

Private property, economic advancement is an abstraction to liberal politicians. They understand how it affects their goods and they know how to raise their salary, but couldn't care less what about what their constituents' property means to them or how badly it hurts some families to lose 20 or 30% of their income in taxes and receive little in public services to compensate.

Tonight, liberals in the House will try to take away the individual's right to decide their own health coverage: the level, cost, types, and availability of care will be put in the government's hands. All because they think American society is irreversibly inequitable and unfair. And because they think social services are a right for those who don't acquire them for themselves. If you've argued with a liberal before, you've heard it: "But, but, but they just can't do it for themselves. Some people can't. They were born into circumstances that prevent them from doing those things. You're a white male and can never understand." "Not having" or "not being something" is the excuse liberals use carte blanche to strip liberal in favor of a low-quality equality

Yeah, well bullshit. What about the droves and droves of 19th century German, Italian, Irish, and Jewish immigrants that got dumped on when they came to the US. "But that was different. They were white. They weren't discriminated against because of their skin. You can't change your skin!" The ruling class didn't care who was black and white. Irish and Italian whites were as bad or worse to Anglo whites because they shared the same skin color. Rum, Romanism and Rebellion was a battle cry against Catholics well into the 20th century. Intense discrimination was used to hold the central and southern European immigrants away from the descendants of English, French and Dutch colonialists. "But, but they were still white. They didn't know what it was like to have their skin color held against them." What about Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, and Hispanics who settled in American throughout the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries? They did so few to none of the institutionalized protections and advantages given to non-whites and lower class people now. They successfully built niches, became respected for them, and gradually assimilated while hanging onto the core of their culture.

Congress has the ability to pass discriminatory, economically crippling health care reform because of the blood and sweat shed by earlier versions of the groups they are now pretending to help. Those earlier versions of "different" and "poor" faced discrimination head on and changed the world, upholding democratic principles along the way by operating within them.

Color has nothing to do with it, economic circumstance has nothing to do with it. No matter who you are, you can do better than what the government is trying to give you.

Friday, November 6, 2009

The President's "Frightening Insensitivity"

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/A-Disconnected-President.html

The best part about this is that it comes from NBC CHICAGO. Another disgrace.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

"Good Morning, Don. And I don't want you to worry. I'm going to be a big fat winner."

Prophetic words? Neil Cavuto might have gotten a little excited by saying this interview changed the race in Christie's favor, but they were both right:



Dunkin' jobs aren't as cool as ObamaGreen jobs, but they're actual jobs for New Jerseyans.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Keep Clinging to Guns, Religion, and Winning

Republican gubernatorial wins in VA and NJ mean a lot to those states. In particular, New Jersey will benefit from someone with conservative fiscal beliefs. The state is a train wreck of government bureaucracy and property taxes:

Last year, the average bill for a homeowner was more than $7,000 — about twice the national average and 71 percent more than a decade earlier. It's a bill homeowners have to pay whether they get a big raise, a pink slip or a fixed pension.


Hopefully that will end for them. In Virginia, Democrats have promised to solve transportation and budget issues for the past eight years, but have continued to let smarter transit planning and mass transit languish and taxes rise. Bob McDonnell should help put an end to the malaise on those issues.

What does it mean to Obama? Enough for him to campaign heavily for Corzine, and even to continue to push for Deeds in VA when it was an obvious failure:





Well, big news: 2008 is over. Bush isn't president. People rightfully don't trust Democrats to create jobs or stimulate economic recovery at the state level. In 2 two years, hopefully they'll feel the same way at the national congressional level.

The Yankees and Taxing the Rich

I'm a big fan of political Catch-22s, and I think hatred of the Yankees' payroll is a big one.* For reference, the Yankees have had the highest yearly payroll in the game since 1996, and have been over $100M every year since 2001. They were the first team to crack $100M and $200M in yearly payroll. Generally, the angst over the Yankees payroll is overstated. Nine teams are over $100M in yearly payroll, and the two Los Angeles teams, two Chicago teams, the Mets, Boston and Detroit have been well up above $100M at various times. Anyway, there are many good defenses of the Yankees payroll, and that's not the point of this post.

*I'm from NY, but not a huge Yankees fan. I'm a Rockies fan. I'm only a Yankees fan in reflex to Boston fans, or those who rip on the Yankees for their payroll.

There are likely some conservative baseball fans who believe the Yankees' payroll is not good for baseball, but in general, it's hard to reconcile fiscally conservative principles with anti-Yankee payroll sentiment (operating within MLB is not the same as operating in a free market the parallel is not perfect). The major element of spending control in MLB are the luxury tax (in 2009, teams over $162M payed a 22.5-40% tax that was distributed to lower-revenue teams), and the most frequently proposed controls are a team salary cap and/or an individual salary cap.

Those are all forms of progressive taxation, and mostly don't mesh with fiscal conservatism. I'd guess that most people who advocate higher individual tax rates for the top income brackets or higher corporate tax rates would support the baseball luxury tax and would support a salary cap (not necessarily the other way around, since again, MLB is not a free market). The interesting thing is that in both of those cases, the total economic consequences end up hurting the interests that fiscal liberals want to help.

The ultimate result of higher individual income taxes is that high-income employees (who are generally the ones that set company rules and salaries) will freeze salary or limit raises for lower-income employees when their tax rates go up. This hugely affects minorities and young people, who depend on quick advancement through entry level jobs to higher salaries. The advancement may be there, but economic success will be limited. In sum, it will grow the wealth disparity in America.

The result of higher corporate taxes will be higher prices for American consumers, again disproportionately hurting low-income people. They depend on greater purchasing power to improve their standard of living. Price inflation decreases that purchasing power.

In baseball, the result of a salary cap would be more money for team owners and less money for players. With a 162 game schedule, there is a lot of tv, stadium and merchandise revenue in baseball to be spread around to players and owners alike. With a salary cap, owners wouldn't have to spend as much to put a team on the field. Necessarily, players' salaries would be depressed. There's not even a guarantee of parity in the standings. Higher revenue teams will still be able to spend more money on scouting and front office talent. That will create a gap in results that cannot be overcome by salary caps. Even if parity is achieved, fiscal liberals generally don't like putting more money in owners' hands and less in employees' (the players).

Interestingly, what fiscal liberals might hate about the Yankees' free spending, they love about the federal government. Just as the Yankees going 9 years without winning a World Series (and 6-8 other teams spending over $100M on payroll) demonstrates that spending does not equal success, fiscal liberals are quick to ignore the lesson that outrageous federal spending does not translate into a better American economy.

Don't Confuse the Meaning of Hoffman

Doug Hoffman's ascent to the only Republican/Conservative in the NY-23 Special Congressional election, and Dede Scozzafava's fall, is an incredible victory for genuine Republicans, and especially for conservatives who believe in limited and honest government. Scozzo had three major policy choices that should have prohibited her from gaining the GOP nomination: 1. She supports card-check, 2. She's pro-choice, and 3. She's stated that she would have/does support the stimulus.

Support for only one of these things may not have made her a terrible Republican candidate. If there was one, it was support of card check. If that ever comes to a Congressional vote, Republicans have to be a solid "No!". Supporting the stimulus, combined with being pro-choice, might be a prohibitive combination. It definitely makes her suspicious, and a very liberal Republican. It also likely made voters wonder if she would support Obama's healthcare reform. In the end, her support of all three absolutely prohibited Republican support for her. Supporting all three made her a liberal, not a liberal Republican.

Across conserative blogs, the significance of Hoffman's rise has been debated (see here, here, and here). In the national media, the three things liberal reporters have taken away from the proper function of democracy are:

1. The Republican party is fighting a losing battle with itself, consisting of mainstream Republicans vs. conservatives (even though 40% of the country identify as conservative). Liberal newspeople see conservatism as a dying breed. Therefore, the conservative Republicans are eating the party alive.

2. Extremists (which means 40% of the country that identifies as conservative) are going to be encouraged to primary incumbent Republicans, and to run on third party tickets in order to do an end-around on not-conservative enough Republicans. Again, the wishful thinking leads to Republicans eating themselves alive by splitting the vote and losing elections.

3. The purge of moderate Republicans will lead to the GOP further isolating itself from independents and moderate Democrats that are needed to win most state-wide and national elections.

These are conclusions that are illogically extreme, practically impossible, and/or partisan wishful thinking.

Republicans have nothing to worry about from losing a liberal as their candidate. This is not a RINO situation, but rather a circumstance where a liberal opportunist worked GOP county chairpeople to seize the nomination. She served in the NY Assembly for over 20 years, but that shouldn't be regarded as a positive. The NY Senate and the Assembly are dysfunctional organizations, where plenty of corruption thrives.

In a perfectly legitimate move, Doug Hoffman sought and received the Conservative Party nomination. He didn't appear to have original ideas, and isn't fantastically telegenic, but supports the right national policies and backs them up with the right knowledge. Gradually, with the aid of national attention and endorsement from blogs and prominent Republicans, he edged away at Scozzafava's base, and eventually pulled the race into a three-way contest.

Again, conservatives have much to rejoice for from this. They cannot afford to lose voices or votes in the House if card check legislation comes to a vote. Although the impact of a moderate House Republican waffling is not the same as Arlen Specter waffling, it does the party no good to have to handle a member defying ranks on a huge issue. The district is more than moderately conservative and, since both parties will only tolerate so many moderate Congressional members, it is senseless to waste a conservative district on a moderate-liberal vote.

However, while the national attention on the race is deserved, the national implications for GOP elections are limited. This was a solidly conservative district. 1) Most conservative districts will nominate a conservative Republican in the first place. 2) Only solidly conservative districts can sustain and support a third party conservative challenger. Also, it was a special election, and there will be another election next year. The negative consequences, while unfortunately giving Obama another vote in the Congress, were limited. There is already a huge Democrat majority in the House, and if the winner's vote went with Democrat often enough to make them a problem, they would be out in 2010. This was a perfect storm for conservatives and a unique set of circumstances, particularly in relation to the Northeast.

The race has little or no implications when it comes to other races or to incumbent moderate Republicans. It has little relation to Marco Rubio and Charlie Crist in Florida, where a conservative (Rubio) is going against a moderate (Crist) in a primary for an open seat. Conservatives should not fool themselves into thinking going all-out to defeating Crist is worthwhile. Rubio would be the better Republican, but he's not the general election lock that Crist is.

It has no relation to Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins in Maine. Snow (47.88 lifetime ACU rating) and Collins (49.55) aren't the most conservative senators, but Jim DeMint (98.40) isn't going to win in Maine. They are established Republicans in a liberal state that last voted for a Republican presidential candidate in 1988. Neither Snowe or Collins needs extravagant financial help from the national GOP that would hurt less established candidates in swing districts.

There's no great Schism within the Republican party. They pushed out a liberal from using their nomination to gain a seat for herself and other liberals. There is a need for reform at the organizational level. There is not a need for a purge of the organization, just real leadership. Redstate's Erick Erickson has a knack for using the most inflammatory language possible when describing issues internal to the Republican party. Too often that is turned against the party, as Frank Rich did with his Monday (Nov. 2) editorial in the NYT.

(Even though he says in that post that he only means the GOP leadership must be purged, too often he has spurred readers to oppose decently conservative, and ultimately winnable, Republican candidates - Crist, Kay Bailey Hutchison. The GOP does not need reactionaries like Erickson, they need conservative visionaries at the national and state levels to read local and state-wide elections better.).

There are implications for the national GOP and NYGOP: make better choices. There are only 435 Congressional districts. It shouldn't be hard to have an accurate read on the tendencies and preferences of voters in each district. The national GOP has the resources to gather that information, and has the resources to put an information sharing structure in place with the state and local GOP organizations. It could be accomplished by the national GOP hiring 55 people, conducting regular polls (they could even be online, anything) to get a read on tendencies and shifts in each district, and then starting an Access database to share the information with local GOP groups. It's not hard. Get a grip on what the constituents want, and provide the most conservative candidate who can give it to them. That may be Hoffman, that may be Snowe, or it may be DeMint. It's definitely not Scozzafava.

The real national electoral implications are in VA and NJ. In VA, Bob McDonnell crushed Creigh Deeds tonight. It showed that the Republican party has nothing to fear (especially in a historically conservative state) by putting forward a solidly conservative candidate. Conservative fiscal policy is the antidote to the country's current economic ills. Christie is a bit different of a candidate than McDonnell, but both are fiscally conservative people. It will be huge (but not an ultimate disappointment - it's huge enough that NJ is in play when the Democrat incumbent was previously a two term senator and outspent the Republican 3-1) if conservative ideas win tonight.