Don't think of names, think of principles.

I've been witnessing many calls for Palin/Jindal '12 or Jindal/Palin '12, but I feel it's important to remind conservatives not to wed themselves to particular candidates right now. These candidates may be more effective in '16 or '20. Other good candidates may emerge for '12, and we should not make any assumptions now. Be patient. Work on the principles. And if we succeed in that, the best candidates will emerge naturally in '12.

Congratulations, Obama. But...

The next election is the start of your downfall. This is the election where I start to work against you. I have taken the steps to make a career change. Economic policy. I will work anywhere and everywhere to oppose the socialist agenda. I will turn Belgium Republican if that is even possible. Good luck. You will need it.

Simple explanation of the housing/lending crisis

There's a great post by Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air about the current financial crisis. In short, bad stuff happens when the government makes results-oriented economic policy decisions. Tunnel vision can be devastating, because a single policy change can have far-flung impacts.

Obama wants to "manage" the economy and he doesn't even know how investing works

Obama wants to "manage" the economy and he doesn't even know how investing works. He attacked McCain's support for privatizing social security accounts. Aside from the obvious rebuttal that the privatization plan only gives people the OPTION to invest in the stock market, there is a second response that hits home against Obama's financial scaremongering. As explained at RedState, people do not invest in social security over weeks or months, they invest over decades.

Most people will contribute to social security over a period in the vicinity of 40 years. Even investing in the stock market over a 40 year period including the entirety of the Great Depression would have yielded a positive return of a couple hundred percent. Don't take my word for it. Check out for yourself here.

Will the spinner be the winner?

A Queen's University computer scientist has developed a software application that measures politicians' "spin" based on the text of their speeches. Surprise, surprise, the results are as follows:



If you read the article, though, their definition of "spin" also includes hyperbole and soaring rhetoric. Extremely polarizing words and action words are considered "spin". Hopefully, this will in some degree expose Obama as the shyster he is.

I found this line particularly amusing:

"Obama uses spin in his speeches very well," says Skillicorn. For example, Obama's spin level skyrockets when facing problems in the press, such as when Jeremiah Wright, the reverend of his former church, made controversial comments to the press.

Does the algorithm count "uh" and "um" as spin?

The Fiorina Non-gaffe gaffe.

So there's a big hubub about McCain adviser and former HP CEO Carly Fiorina, who suggested *shock* that Sarah Palin and John McCain would not be qualified to run a large company. It's a gaffe only if you consider revealing an obvious truth to be a gaffe.

Of course she also said that neither Barack Obama nor Joe Biden would be qualified. In fact, the only major presidential competitor this year who would be qualified for such a job is Mitt Romney.

So this revelation doesn't matter in a relative sense. I would argue that it doesn't matter in an absolute sense, either. Why? Because this isn't the damned Soviet Union, that's why! The United States does not have a centrally planned economy. It never has. This distinction, however, seems lost on the Obama campaign:

Predictably, the Obama campaign pounced. "If John McCain's top economic adviser doesn't think he can run a corporation, how on Earth can he run the largest economy in the world in the midst of a financial crisis?" spokesman Tommy Vietor asked.

Hell, even the Soviet economy wasn't run by one person. It was operated by a hierarchy of economists and politicians. But if anyone can do it, it's the Messiah, right?

For fun, here's a list of centrally planned economies (from Wikipedia):

Soviet Union
Great Leap Forward China
Pre-1990's India
Cuba
Libya
Saudi Arabia
Iran
North Korea
Myanmar

Resounding successes, all!

This is one reason why I can't really respect Ron Paul.

This is one reason why I can't really respect Ron Paul. How could he give even the slightest notions of support for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney, whose ideas of governance run perfectly contrary to his own? Here he mars his idealistic reputation and paints himself as an aimless rabble-rouser whose only appeal is to pure anti-war voters. To Paul, taking down the establishment is more important than ensuring that the right mechanisms will take its place.

I don't know why I'm surprised. This fits very well with Paul's other associations with less than savory characters.

h/t AoSHQ