The 310 area code ...

So I'm sitting down with the family, watching a movie (Drillbit Taylor, pretty funny), and my cell chirps. Now for the record I never answer 1-800 numbers and at 7:45pm Pacific time I figure, as I walk to the phone, this is who it has to be. It wasn't. Seeing that it was a "regular" number I answered. And a very polite young man asked for me, by my Christian, legal name. After identifying myself he explained that he was a volunteer for the Barak Obama campaign and inquired whether I had made up my mind as to whom I was voting for this year. I couldn't help but laugh - I was picturing anyone I knew listening to an Obama representative ask ME whom I was voting for. The poor guy was immanently polite, excellent phone manners (kudos), so I assured him I wasn't laughing at him, and it was just that I am a conservative Republican, and in that order. He kind of laughed himself and said, "Soooo. I can put you down for strongly supporting McCain." I instantly realized that given Nevada is a "battleground" state (we have an unpopular Republican governor and a disasterous housing market for sellers), this young man was conducting internal polling for Barry and company. But of course I answered. "No." I said. "You can put me down for strongly supporting McCain, Palin." He thanked me for my time, I he, and that was that.

Hmmmm. I've never been part of a poll before, but it did make me curious as to how he got my cell number. I realized soon after that my voter registration form included a spot for a number, which I listed - its the only logical explanation. But then it occurred to me that my registration also clearly notes me as a Republican. So why call a Republican to ask him which way he is leaning? I think - this is purely a "hunch" as it were - that they were calling exclusively Republicans to gauge the "Palin affect" in swing states. Thus the category for supporting McCain allowing for "somewhat" to "strongly." If so, he got his answer. I think Axelrod (Barak's campaign manager) will soon reflect what is painfully obvious to the rest of us: they MUST utterly destroy Governor Palin in order to win this election. Her addition is what is making the difference for the undecided in my opinion. Not because she's convincing independents that modern political conservatism is the path to prosperity (although it is), but for a far simpler reason. She is simply very likable. For people like us - committed to a robust national defense and sane economic policy, etc - this election seems like a no-brainer. But what percentile do we fall into (if you'll allow a moment of hubris)? And I'm not even talking intelligence (although that would certainly refine the field even further), but just an intellectual commitment to following the issues of the day. What, 2%? Maybe 1%? In this highly advanced media age I think the likability factor will matter more then ever, and she is just a sweetheart on camera.

****
I like Tolstoy better for "Uni's" nickname. If I remember my Egyptian history correctly, ANON was the name given the sun god .... which may be appropriate now that I think about it. After reading that "manifesto" I was beginning to think Napoleon had an Anon complex.

****
The Obama/O'Reilly interview. I've heard ORielly say before that minus the Iraq invasion Bush's numbers would be above 60%. But assuming you didn't hear Bill incorrectly, I have found no trace of this sentiment within the realm of conservative talk radio. None. And I listen to a lot of it. My unsolicited advice to Bill: it's a silly statement because it is utterly impossible to prove - and declaratively spouting out negatives as if you can prove them doesn't serve your intellectual credentials whatsoever.

You said Obama looks like an idiot ... there's 2 reasons. First, he simply can not flat out define his positions as they truly are, for they are far too radical. And the conversation you witnessed is inevitably the result when a person attempts to make more palatable what are radically held points-of-view. He starts out by trying to dress it up as moderate but his heart just isn't in it. For example he has noted that it is his opinion America should, "... urge the Ukraine and Georgia to deepen their Trans-Atlantic ties." See? He just can't bring himself to say the word NATO knowing Putin is listening. And what is that gooobly-gok platitude of "deepening Trans-Atlantic ties"? It is utter nonsense and sends one signal and one signal only to Russia et al: WEAKNESS. Which is apparently a word he has no problem with whatsoever. And that leads me to my second observation - his undeniable lack of a fundamental grasp on how treaty's, military alliances, and economics work is quite literally frightening. The bottom line, to paraphrase a well known commentator, is when he discusses what ails this world he clearly believes that America is the problem rather then the solution.

****
Economics ....

I have only done what amounts to preliminary research on this, but WHAT THE HELL is the federal government doing bailing out one company after another? "They [Freddy and Fannie Mac] are too big to let fail", is what I've heard as the rationale thus far. What the hell does that mean? Are you insane? Nothing is quote, "too big" to fail. What shred of conservative credibility does the GOP hope to hang on to by supporting this? Does anyone think its no accident this is parallel to an election year? They want to be seen as doing "something" to show they care. Flipping go play golf or something - it's bad enough when you guys are in session. 96% of mortgages have been maintained on time, yet Freddie and Fannie are on the ropes? Then the CEO of each is rehired as a consultant! You can't make this stuff up. Then here come Leiman Brothers. Silver State Bank of Nevada closed last month on a Friday and reopened on a Monday as Nevada Sate Bank and Washington Mutual - two private companies that came in and purchased the failed Silver State assets and clientele. I aced macro Economics in high school - THAT is how it is supposed to work. The FDIC is one thing, but in my opinion these measures by the federal government that are supposedly to stave off economic woes, will end up prolonging and worsening those very problems. Since when did mortgage houses, and anyone else the feds cut a check to or takeover recently, get into the ZERO risk game? Can I get that garuntee if I decide to start my own business? We haven't discussed this much, but its my contention even FDR would blush at such moves, and it certainly isn't what I would define as "conservatism." And what happened today, when the markets opened after all of these "preventative" measures involving federal dollar bail outs and take overs have been put into motion? The DOW had its' worse day since the first active day of trading after 9/11. Down 500 points and that is WITH oil dropping to under $100 a barrel at $95.14. It's not that I am unsympathetic to people in danger of foreclosure, certainly not. But someone tell me just what f-ing paragraph within the constitution it's written that Fannie Mac is "too big to fail?" This is exactly the kind of thing that peels off support from the GOP to libertarian 3rd party whack jobs and gives the "Ron Paul's" of the country a reason to run and hand the election to Democrats. Like I said, I haven't done deep research yet, but there is a knee-jerk gut level reaction I have to these bail-outs / take overs and it quite nicely simulates many an encounter at the Grand EDR ....

****
And tell Mick I said, "ello there then lad", next time you see him. ... but don't give that rail thin red head a dime at the pub ... he,he.