Category — Wisconsin

 36 million drivers would flunk drivers tests

 Is it just your imagination, or do many of your fellow motorists lack even a rudimentary grasp of traffic laws?

Well, if a test administered by GMAC Insurance is any indication, one in six people cruising our highways and byways — roughly 36 million licensed drivers — would flunk their driver’s test if they had to take it today. Not only that, but based on the 2007 GMAC Insurance National Drivers Test data the state with the most road-going dummies is New York, while the most knowledgeable ones are out West to Idaho. [snip]

Also of interest from the GMAC Insurance test:

• Drivers 35 and older were more likely to pass
• Illinois, Georgia, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Massachusetts were the least knowledgeable states overall, with average scores under 75 percent
• Fifty-five percent of the respondents didn’t know how many feet before making a left or right to signal. [snip]

The following state rankings were released for the 2007 GMAC Insurance National Drivers Test:

• 1. Idaho.
• 2. Alaska
• 21.Vermont
• 36. Maine
• 37. New Hampshire
• 40. Connecticut
• 46. Pennsylvania
• 47. Rhode Island
• 48. Massachusetts
• 48. New Jersey
• 51. New York

After analyzing the article, before glancing at the list, I thought population was the key. That would place Wyoming first and Vermont second. Not so.

Perhaps, I reflected, the political belief system of the states held a clue. That appears to work for the bottom states, but didn’t vindicate Wisconsin at 4, Washington at 6, Oregon at 9 or Iowa at 10.

Given that the 2007 failure rate doubled to 18% from 2006, a reason exists. Combining both posits advances one conclusion.

I’ll let the reader ponder the possibilities for others.

Couple Abandoned Baby To Party, Police Say

Parents Plead Not Guilty To Child Neglect Charges

GLENDALE, Wis. — A Wisconsin couple said they couldn’t afford a baby sitter, so they strapped their 14-month-old son in his stroller at home while they went out, police alleged, according to WISN-TV in Milwaukee.

[snip] …they neglected their son, Gabriel, so badly that his body was covered with diaper rash, his body temperature was 12 degrees below normal and he stopped breathing, requiring 21 minutes of CPR to revive him.

Police said the couple admitted to leaving the boy home alone because they wanted to party.

The couple recently got jobs at Pizza Hut, police said Anderson told them, and they used the money for drinking parties. Police said Anderson told them that she often left Gabriel strapped in his stroller when the couple went out or to work, and that she changed Gabriel’s diaper once per day. Police said Laputka told them that he didn’t do diapers because that was Anderson’s job. [snip]

View their photos and you’ll never enter a Pizza Hut for dining purposes. Why weren’t these two sterilized as a requirement for getting out of grade school.

Fear not, Wisconsin is hell bent on out doing MA and VT for the title of Liberal Capitol of the US. After conviction, this pair will serve a 30-day home confinement, followed by 60 days of probation.

They’re lucky the recipient of neglect wasn’t their dog.

Getting Licensed to Death

The Reason Foundation just issued a state-by-state study on the number of occupations that require a government license.

The regulatory intrusion in the free market is evidenced by the lead paragraph of Reason’s press release:

Do you want to be a fortune teller in Maryland? Your future better include a license from the state. How about being a hair braider in Mississippi? You’ll need 300 to 1,500 hours of training and government permission. Want to sell flowers in Louisiana? Only licensed florists can do that. And almost every state requires certification if you want to move furniture and hang art while calling yourself an interior designer.

These are not licenses, they are fees (taxes) placed on various businesses. Those businesses that truly need certification have licensing boards set up composed of members of the specific profession or trade. Some require specific schooling (college is not specific schooling) such as Medical or Dental apprenticeship, while some require passing an exam. Most are arbitrary, bordering on state sanctioned scams.

Anecdotally, when I had my construction company in NY, the county instituted a licensing program to “protect” the public. What I could competently do on the 31^st of the month, I was unable to do by fiat on the 1^st of the next month. No test, no questions about acumen or duration of the business; pay the $100 and they mailed the license. The license covered banging nails, sheetrocking and taping, etc. Additionally,I held a Master Electrician license presented by a board of electrical inspectors. That required oral and written presentations.

Here are the top hostile states and the number of occupations requiring a license:

1. California (177)

2. Connecticut (155)

3. Maine (134)

4. New Hampshire (130)

5. Arkansas (128)

6. Michigan (116)

7. Rhode Island (116)

8. New Jersey (114)

9. Wisconsin (111)

10.Tennessee (110)

12.Massachusetts (107)

15. Vermont (107)

“Most of these licensing requirements are completely arbitrary,” said Adam B. Summers, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and author of the report. “You see that clearly when examining neighboring states. California has 177 job categories licensed. But if you take one step across the state line into Arizona just 72 careers are licensed. In North Carolina you need a license to do 107 jobs. Next door in South Carolina, only 60 jobs require certification.”

Proponents claim these licensing requirements are needed to protect the public from unscrupulous, incompetent, or dangerous practitioners. However, numerous studies show these laws actually reduce consumer protection and public safety, according to the Reason Foundation report.

“These laws are created under the guise of ‘helping’ consumers,” Summers said. “In reality, the laws are helping existing businesses keep out competition, restricting consumer choice, destroying entrepreneurship, and driving up prices.”

Full Report Online
The full study, Occupational Licensing: Ranking the States and Exploring Alternatives, is available online at www.reason.org/ps361.pdf.

I heard about this last week, couldn’t get info I wanted before.

Vermont wants this more than a pross wants a john; will produce the same results too.

Wall Street Journal, July 24, 2007; Page A14
…So we hope the eyes of America will turn to Wisconsin, and the effort by Madison Democrats to make that “progressive” state a petri dish for government-run health care. This exercise is especially instructive, because it reveals where the “single-payer,” universal coverage folks end up…. And, wow, is “free” health care expensive. The plan would cost an estimated $15.2 billion, or $3 billion more than the state currently collects in all income, sales and corporate income taxes. It represents an average of $510 a month in higher taxes for every Wisconsin worker. Employees and businesses would pay for the plan by sharing the cost of a new 14.5% employment tax on wages. Wisconsin businesses would have to compete with out-of-state businesses and foreign rivals while shouldering a 29.8% combined federal-state payroll tax, nearly double the 15.3% payroll tax paid by non-Wisconsin firms for Social Security and Medicare combined….As if that’s not enough, the health plan includes a tax escalator clause allowing an additional 1.5 percentage point payroll tax to finance higher outlays in the future. This could bring the payroll tax to 16%. One reason to expect costs to soar is that the state may become a mecca for the unemployed, uninsured and sick from all over North America….

See the next post for the blind leading the blind. Socialism is truly a mentally incapacitating condition.

I can’t remember a time when a party’s presidential candidates leveled such strong criticism at their own sitting president.  Some people probably thought they’d accidentally tuned into the Democratic debate.  Here’s a sampling:

“It’s a typical Washington mess,” former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said of the immigration bill Bush wants Congress to approve. 

“I think we were underprepared and underplanned for what came after we knocked down Saddam Hussein,” former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said on the topic of Iraq.

“The president ran as a conservative and governed as a liberal,” said Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado. “That is what has really been the basis, I think, of the distrust that has developed among the Republican base. It’s well founded.” 

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas said: “The president ran on a program of a humble foreign policy, no nation-building and no policing of the world, and he changed his tune.”

“We went to Washington to change Washington, and Washington changed us,” said former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, once a member of Bush’s Cabinet. “If we’re going to spend money like as foolishly and as stupidly as the Democrats, the voters are going to vote for the professional spender _ the Democrat _ not the amateur spender _ the Republican.” 

If this keeps up, President Bush’s Republican Convention speech will be at noon on local cable access channels.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like anybody at the White House is listening.

This article is long. I’ve cut much to get it to this size.

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

Following the U.S. Senate’s vote today on a global warming measure (see today’s 5/15/07 AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. [snip]

The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. [snip]

In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon” )

The media’s climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 article: Not the End of the World as We Know It ) It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. official says it’s ‘completely immoral’ to doubt global warming fears )

Once Believers, Now Skeptics ( Link to pdf version )

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006.[snip]

The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. [snip]

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. [snip]

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. “”Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. [snip]

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. [snip] (Evans bio link )

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. [snip]

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears “poppycock.” According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. [snip]
Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, [snip]

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. [snip] However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem,” Bryson explained in 2005.

Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.” [snip]

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” [snip] I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. [snip] In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics.[snip]

Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. [snip]

“With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies,” [snip]

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. [snip] “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. [snip]

Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario,” [snip]

More to follow…

Related Links:

Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)

Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate

Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven “Consensus’

Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic

Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune’s Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical

MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming ‘Silly’ - Equates Concerns to ‘Little Kids’ Attempting to “Scare Each Other”

Weather Channel TV Host Goes ‘Political’- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S. Government of ‘Criminal Neglect’

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don’t Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes ‘Man-Made Global Warming Hype’

The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics

Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of “Skeptic’s Guide To Debunking Global Warming”

Apparently, Democratic pork is “good” and their campaign promises only apply when they’re out of power:

The U.S. Senate’s version of the fiscal 2007 supplemental appropriations bill that passed yesterday actually includes, among scores of other nonessential items, money for Christmas-tree growers.

Behind all their lofty rhetoric about the Iraq war and bringing home the troops, members of the House and Senate were busy tacking on $20 billion and $18.5 billion respectively in unrelated spending to President Bush’s $103 billion request. (He intends to veto the bill.)

Despite their campaign talk about earmark reform last fall, the new Democratic leadership shamelessly used pork to buy votes - before the vote, Representatives Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Peter DeFazio of Oregon acknowledged that add-ons for their districts would influence their decisions.

The heavyweights also led by example: the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, added $20 million to eradicate Mormon crickets, and David Obey of Wisconsin, the House Appropriations Committee chairman, came away with $283 million for the Milk Income Loss Contract Program.

A link to a more comprehensive list of pork is here. Another Democratic promise bites the dust.

Energy politics is going to get a heavy beating by our politicians:

Last week, Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl and Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter proposed legislation that would increase regulatory scrutiny of Big Oil, which Kohl says “has unquestionably enriched itself during this period of high prices.”

Be afraid.  Be very afraid.  Nothing has more potential to screw things up than politicians running scared during an election year.  This will not be their last stupid scheme either.

The more interesting question in my mind is where did the notion that more bureaucracy makes anything better come from?  I wish this notion was strictly a political phenomenon, but most companies operate under the same premise.  When in doubt, add another layer of management or make the process more complicated because that is sure to make things better.

Optimistic Patriot’s Postulate states that value is inversely proportion to complexity.  (V = 1/C)  Einstein’s genius (E=mc^2) was his ability to take very complex ideas and make them simple.  Ethernet is a great networking technology because it is simple.  Government functions best when it functions less (simple).

Spring is not even a month old but it’s already promising to be a long hot summer for American drivers.

Here is a simple idea.  If Americans are outraged by pump prices, why not trade in the SUVs for more energy efficient cars?  Not one bill needs to be passed for that idea to work.

Gee, I wonder what the leftist media would say if Tom DeLay’s daughter pulled a stunt like this:

But Robin Shellow, the attorney for Sowande A. Omokunde, the son of Democratic U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, said campaign violence had occurred in an “orchestrated way” across the country in the weeks leading up to the presidential election.
Shellow said a group of “national professional operatives” sent to the battleground state of Wisconsin wrongly accused Omokunde and the four others in the tire slashings.

Reporting on this story would force Democrats and their allies in the MSM to acknowledge they have election fraud down to a science.

Some lawmakers are going the price control path:

Hawaii, which often has the highest gasoline prices in the nation, has already gone beyond talk: Lawmakers have mandated a moving cap on the wholesale price of \ gasoline — that is, the price as it leaves in-state refineries.

Swing states such as Missouri and Wisconsin are also proposing such legislation. This would be a huge economic mistake. Liberals loved the line “worst job creation record since Herbert Hoover” last year to attack the President’s economic performance. The truth is, Hoover implemented policies that were anti-trade such as the Smoot Hawley act of 1930. Hawaii’s energy price control could prove liberals wrong and President Bush’s anti-tax policies right.

Rasmussen’s Hillary-meter delivered a bit a bad news for the carpet-bagging Senator from NY. The crucial swing state of Michigan has little love for Hillary:

In Michigan, 48% of Likely Voters believe Senator Clinton is politically liberal while 32% believe she is politically moderate. Ten percent (10%) say the former First Lady is politically conservative.
Forty-two percent (42%) of the state’s voters have a favorable opinion of Clinton. Forty-four percent (44%) have an unfavorable view.
Forty-six percent (46%) of Michigan voters Approve of the way President Bush is performing his role. However, just 29% believe the country is heading in the right direction. Sixty-six percent (66%) believe things have gotten off on the wrong track.

Gore and Kerry both garnered 51% of Michigan in 2000 and 2004, but the President picked up two points, 46% to 48. If 40% of Michigan is against Hillary three years out, she’s going to have an uphill battle in the land of the lakes. I am curious to see what Wisconsin, Minnesota and Illinois voters think about her…..

Despite the enemy having achieved tactical and strategic surprise, it became apparent within days that vast losses had been inflicted upon him. These losses left his bases and supply areas VULNERIBLE to a counter-offensive. So Westmoreland wanted more men to move over to the attack.

More men? This seems bizarre to us today, and it seemed so to many Americans then. How is it possible that a commander with over half a million men under his command, needed yet more troops before going over to a counter-attack. Americans did not know that only about 15% of his overall command were actual combatants, {80,000 men}. The rest were tasked to support those in the field, there were bakers and bartenders, cooks and quartermasters, nurses and doctors, mechanics and machinists. There were plenty of clerks and statisticians too. The Pentagon Whiz Kids required loads of paperwork and numbers before they could work their dubious wizardry.

On February 12th, Westmoreland wrote to the JCS, {Joint Chiefs of Staff} that he wanted “to capitalize on [the enemy’s] losses by seizing the initiative in other areas. Exploiting this OPPORTUNITY could shorten the war,” {my emphasis}. While the media were in an hysterical panic about the Tet offensive and the course of the war, Westmoreland accurately perceived that the enemy had sustained severe losses in a HUGE defeat, and wanted to, in his words, “capitalize” thereon. Specifically, he desired ground operations against the now lightly defended Ho Chi Minh trail. He also wanted to apply pressure against enemy supply bases in Cambodia and Laos by launching raids against them. Finally, he wanted to move NORTH of the DMZ and destroy enemy forces adjacent to the border. In his memoirs, Westmoreland wrote: “If I could execute those moves fairly rapidly following the heavy losses the enemy had incurred in [Tet] I saw the possibility of destroying the enemy’s will to continue the war.” The Chairman of the JCS, General Wheeler, encouraged Westmoreland, “if you need more troops, ask for them.”

But this raised the question of how many troops we had overall, active and reserve. LBJ did not mobilize the reserves during the war. Had he done so, active duty forces could have been available for Southeast Asia, while the mobilized reserve forces were sent to hold the line in Europe. Total ACTIVE forces in reserve stateside were precariously thin, less than one full division to meet ALL emergencies. So to fulfill Westmoreland’s request for more men entailed a call up of the reserves.

While Washington was tabulating how many reservists would need to be called up to meet Westmoreland’s request, Cronkite and the rest of the media were reporting Tet in such a way to make that call up politically risky. In the midst of the media hysteria, a call up of reservists would only add fuel to that hysteria. On March 8th, General Wheeler informed Westmoreland that there would be no additional forces made available.

These high level deliberations were all as secret as you could get. But somebody leaked these intense discussions to the media, which kicked off a new frenzied wave of hysterical media coverage.

Two full days AFTER Wheeler told Westmoreland to forget about additional troops, the New York Times led a story with this headline bombshell: “WESTMORELAND REQUESTS 206,000 MORE MEN, STIRRING DEBATE IN ADMINISTRATION,” {the headline was wrong, he wanted 108,000 men, it was the call up of the reservists to allow the regular army to deploy to ‘Nam that would be over 200,000}. The wording of the story reflected the then regnant hysteria, {hysteria being the only word fitting}. The story was written by Hedrick Smith and Neil Sheehan. It quoted unnamed sources calling the war a “bottomless pit,” and Tet a “body blow,” {it was a “body blow” alright, but to the enemy}. The authors of the story in the DRAFT emphasized the policy fight going on in Washington, but the NY Times editors insisted that the numbers of troops requested be in the headline and in the lead of the story. In short, the editors sensationalized it.

The story was dated since the decision to not send additional troops had already been made, but that did not prevent it from “spreading across the country like a wildfire,” {just like Eddie Adams photo and Peter Arnett’s story}.

It was at this point that THE MEDIA HYSTERIA about Tet and the war begins to spill over with great effect into domestic politics.

Three days after that story broke, Democrat primary voters went to the polls in New Hampshire, and deliverd a message that echoed around the world. Results were 49.5% for LBJ, and 42.4% for Eugene McCarthy. This was a political earthquake because just a few weeks before, in late February, McCarthy was polling around ten percent. So coinciding with the few weeks of the Tet offensive, he soared to rough parity with a sitting, incumbent President of his own party. McCarthy’s dramatic movement was reported as a vote of no confidence in the war itself, while it was probably a no confidence vote in LBJ’s CONDUCT of the war. An NBC exit poll indicated that less than half knew what McCarthy’s position on the war actually was. He was against it.

Nonetheless, the media interpretation of the primary results proved the prevailing one. Four days thereafter, sensing weakness and opportunity, RFK decided to challenge LBJ and threw his hat into the ring. In his memoirs, LBJ recalled: “The thing I feared from the first day of my presidency was coming true, Robert Kennedy had openly announced his intention to reclaim the throne in the memory of his brother.”

Steven Hayward: “Over the next six weeks, LBJ would gradually relent on his resolve over the war, and, facing certain defeat to McCarthy in the April 2 Wisconsin primary, he announced his withdrawal from the race on March 31, a halt to the bombing of North Vietnam, and the willingness to begin negotiations.” At the end of 1967, Time magazine named LBJ “man of the year.” But in the span of about ten weeks, he went from a President with a chance to stand among the great, according to Time, to one so fallen as to be an “ignominious, … reviled lame duck.”

Anti war activists outside the White House were heard to have changed their chanting from: “We shall overcome….” to: “We HAVE overcome…” To this day, one of the leading myths of the anti war movement has been that the combination of Tet and the McCarthy surge in New Hampshire proved decisive in stopping the war. Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote that LBJ “was the first President to be toppled by a mob. No matter that it was a mob of college professors, millionaires, flower children and Radcliffe girls.” Other explanations for LBJ’s actions focus on Clark Clifford’s {Sec. of Defense} determination to force LBJ to capitulate. Others focus on the interior machinations of the “Wise Men,” {former Sec. of State Dean Acheson, Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, Generals Maxwell Taylor and Omar Bradley}. The “Wise Men” told LBJ on March 26th, that the war was lost.
Author Steven Hayward relegates these factors as secondary, behind what he judges THE fundamental reason why Westmoreland’s request for more men was denied, and why the overall war policy then collapsed. “The troop buildup would cost $2.5 billion immediately, and $10 billion in 1969. This cost was intolerable, because the richest nation in the world was staring into the abyss of bankruptcy.”

Economic historian Robert M. Collins wrote that at the same time as the Tet offensive was ongoing, “the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression shook the Western world.” What was the source of the crisis? A near panic over the value of the U.S. dollar. There was a run on the gold reserves of the U.S.A.

Today, the U.S. dollar has been devalued for a variety of reasons, to spur growth, to create an inflationary counteraction against DEflationary forces following 9/11. But whatever the causes, old time paleo-conservatives remember the run on the dollar in the late 60s during ‘Nam. And they can’t help but see an ongoing counter-insurgency in Iraq, with another period of declining valuation of the dollar. Moreover, LBJ began his first term with a projected budget surplus, but by the end there were deficits that were skyrocketing. Likewise President Bush. LBJ had an ambitious domestic agenda known as the “Great Society.” G.W. also has an ambitious domestic agenda termed the “ownership society.” Both LBJ and G.W. Bush hail from Texas. And both men experienced difficulties communicating their policies on the war.

These eerie similarities between the events surrounding Vietnam then, and those that attend our campaign in Iraq today, cause painful flashbacks for people such as Pat Buchanan. But somebody needs to clue in Pat and his ilk, that not always is the past, prologue.

You know, I’ve been thinking…John Kerry, you’re remarks on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day were on the money.

“I nevertheless make it clear that thousands of people were suppressed in the effort to vote. Voting machines were distributed in uneven ways. In Democratic districts, it took people four, five, 11 hours to vote, while Republicans (went) through in 10minutes - same voting machines, same process, our America.”

You must be referring to the Republicans in Milwaukee whose right to vote was suppressed by the sons of prominent Democrats who slashed the tires of 20 vans that the GOP rented to bring voters to the polls on election day, right Senator? They were formally charged today. By the way, what was the margin of your victory in Wisconsin, Senator Kerry? Oh….that’s right. It was about 11,000 votes.

Yes…you’re right Senator Kerry. We owe it to the good people of Wisconsin to take a closer look at those results and determine how widespread these types of “irregularities” were statewide. And while we are at it, lets take another look at all the states that you won by a lesser margin than Bush took Ohio: Iowa , New Hampshire , Minnesota , and Pennsylvania . What sort of chicanery will we find in those states?

Or maybe we could just drop it and you can go back to being an inconsequential Senator. What do you say?

As promised, I now present the THIRD TIER targets for the GOP in 2006. And no, by tramp I am not referring to former President Clinton.

New York: Most conservatives won’t say it out loud, but Hillary is almost guaranteed to win if she runs again in NY. Rudy could likely mount the strongest challenge against her, but that’s even debatable. Pataki’s low popularity doesn’t help the cause and with the MSM gushing over Spitzer, it is likely that there will be a strong Democratic turnout. Meanwhile, Shrillary is gleefully waiting for the GOP to start their attacks so she can play victim to the big blue state’s liberal base.

Vermont: Sen. Jim Jeffords will have to decide in 2006 whether he wants to run as an independent or even run at all. Back in 2001, this stray dog ditched the GOP and President Bush just six months after winning re-election as a Republican. Maybe a few “grass root” supporters could talk the fiery Howard Dean into running against Jeffords? Now, that would be something to scream about.

THE WILD CARDS

Delaware: Sen. Tom Carper knocked off the late Sen. Bill Roth (of Roth IRA fame) by a whopping 12 points in 2000. Since then, he has kept a low and moderate profile and will not be in jeopardy unless GOP Rep. Mike Castle grows a sack and takes him on.

Wisconsin: Sen. Herb Kohl could find a tough opponent in Tommy Thompson if he decided to take run. Also, if Kohl retires, this seat becomes a toss up.

Nebraska: Conservative Sen. Ben Nelson’s job will likely be spared considering his toughest potential opponent took a job in the Bush Administration.

Code Blue Alert: There are several Democrats that may be considering throwing in the towel after years of minority status. Depending on the mood of the nation, the candidates, and current events, these seats could be potential targets for the GOP. The hawkish Joe Lieberman (CT), the very partisan Dianne Feinstein (CA), the aging Daniel Akaka (HI), the left’s favorite Klansman Robert Byrd (WV) and of course the manslaughtering drunk, Ted Kennedy (MA) could decide to retire in ‘06 putting more pressure on the Dems to protect open seats. We can only hope.

Coming Soon - the GOP hit list!

Iowa, Wisconsin and New Mexico have still not been officially called on various networks and all of Maine ended up going to Kerry. If the totals hold, Wisconsin will go to Kerry and Iowa and New Mexico will go to President Bush. That means the Electoral College will come to Bush 286, Kerry 252. Not as good as the 301-237 I had predicted but I will take it. I was only wrong about Wisconsin, Hawaii and the 2nd district of Maine. VodkaPundit, Outside the Beltway, and Priorities & Frivolities all predicted right.