Basic Training

November 4th, 2015 by Mitch Berg

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

The child’s book “If you give a mouse a cookie” is held up as an illustration of federal welfare policy, but it’s missing an essential component: the threat.

Mother gives birth but can’t afford to feed Child. What should happen?

Mother gives Child up for adoption? No, Mother threatens to let Child starve to death – unless federal government pays up.

So, to save Child’s life, federal government takes money away from Stranger to give to Mother to purchase food Child.

But Child needs more than food, Child needs shelter. Mother threatens to let Child freeze to death, so Fed takes Stranger’s money to pay for Mother’s rent.

A sick Child needs medical treatment. Mother threatens to let Child die, so Fed takes . . . .

The threat is never explicit; it doesn’t need to be. We know Child will die if we don’t pay up if we don’t meet this ransom demand, and the next, and the next.

It’s not actually like giving a mouse a cookie, it’s more like The Spanish Prisoner. And everybody knows that’s an unconscionable scam.

Joe Doakes

That, of course, is one of the things progressivism does these days; makes things that used to be unconscionable into kids stories.

SITD Saint Paul Voter Guide

November 3rd, 2015 by Mitch Berg

There are two main elections in Saint Paul today – for City Council, and to fill four seats on the School Board.

I’ll address them both today.

City Council

  • Ward 1:  DFLer Dai Thao is running against another cookie-cutter DFLer Tahern Crews, a Green Party candidate (h/t Fred Melo for the correction).  Tomayto tomahto.
  • Ward 2:  A bunch of cookie-cutter DFLers – no, I mean a bunch.  A gaggle.  if they were crows, they’d be a “Murder”, and they could actually divide into two Murders.  And Bob Hosko, who’s a fairly conservative Democrat and a Saint Paul businessman, but has no money.  If you live in 2, for Hosko.  Since Saint Paul uses Instant Runoff voting, if enough people got out and voted Hosko, there’d actually be a chance to make a difference.
  • Ward 3:  DFLer Chris Tolbert is running without opposition.   It should tell you something that Tolbert is probably one of the least awful members of the council.
  • Ward 4:  Incumbent DFL extremist Russ Stark is running against challenger DFL extremist Tom Goldstein.  This is my ward. I will be writing in my senior cat, Nosemarie Berg.  I urge you to do the same, as there will be absolutely no tangible difference between Goldstein and Stark if you’re a Saint Paul taxpayer; they’ll be functionally identical.
  • Ward 5:  Incumbent DFLer Amy Brendemoen’s only mistake was that she used her position to muscle David Glass – a fellow DFL activist – out of his lease at Black Bear Crossing.   Glass – an utterly conventional DFLer in every way – is challenging.  Potayto Potahto.  There’s an independence party candidate in the race too, and like everything to do with the Independence Party I’m already bored writing about it, but I urge you to vote for the IP person, whoever it is.
  • Ward 6:  Dan Bostrom – probably the closest thing to “moderate” on the City Council, which pisses the orthodox wing of the DFL off to no end – is running against a couple of people who will be forgotten to history in about 24 hours.  Vote for the moon for all it matters.
  • Ward 7:  Jane Prince – a DFLer most famous as former Senator Ellen Anderson’s legislative assistant – is running unopposed.   While Prince, like Anderson, if far enough to the left to make the ghost of Paul Wellstone sit up in his grave and say “dial it back a notch, Janie”, she was actually superb at customer service when she was Anderson’s LA.  Since she’s unopposed, what the hell.  Vote for her.  Once.
  • Ward 8:  There is technically no Ward 8 in Saint Paul.  It is kept in reserve, against a hypothetical future threat to DFL hegemony, when the ward and its thousands of DFL votes will be pulled out of a file box in a warehouse on Plato Boulevard.

Saint Paul School Board

Back in the eighties, Carl Sagan – who was sort of the Neil DeGrasse Tyson of the 1980s – referred to the nuclear arms race between the USA and USSR as “two bald men fighting over a comb”.  While Sagan was no more sage a political commentator than DeGrasse Tyson, the analogy is apt in this “race”.

This race will fill four open seats on the at-large school board.  While there are quite a few candidates, the actual race boils down to a donnybrook between…:

  • Four formerly-DFL-and-Teachers Union endorsed candidates who have sided with current Superintendent Valeria Silva, and who have helped preside over the last five years of the wheels coming off in the Saint Paul Schools, versus:
  • Four people now endorsed by the DFL and Teachers union, who want to change superintendents but otherwise keep the status quo.  A vote for the “challenger” is, in fact, a vote for complete, unfettered union control of the district and its money.

The outcome of the battle between last cycle’s DFLers and this cycle’s DFLers will mean precisely as much to the students and families of Saint Paul as the battle between Al Capone and Bugsy Moran meant to the poor immigrants of Chicago.

So in this election, I’ll be voting:

  1. Aaron Benner – the one, single solitary person on the ballot who proposes any meaningful, worthwhile change.  He’s run an underfunded campaign, and I’m not even sure he’s more than a warm body on the ballot at the moment – but I’ll be voting for him.
  2. Clu Berg, my golden retriever
  3. Puff Berg, my junior cat
  4. Greg Copeland

And I’m pretty convinced my votes will do more to further kids’ education than either of the major slates.

UPDATE:  Yep, Jane Prince worked for former St. Paul City councilman Jay Benanav, not former State Senator Ellen Anderson.

DFL pols in Saint Paul all sort of run together after a while.

Who Knew?

November 3rd, 2015 by Mitch Berg

Some European countries aren’t having epochal refugee crises:

Other countries without an extensive welfare state don’t seem to have Sweden’s problem. Reuters reported that Lithuania “is throwing its doors open to refugees fleeing war and hardship in the Middle East, but is finding few takers.” Rimantas Vaitkus, deputy chancellor of the Lithuanian government, told the news agency: “We are prepared to accept refugees immediately, but there are no refugees in Italy or Greece who agreed to resettle in Lithuania. . . . It seems that refugees know about Sweden, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, which either have generous social security or have been actively attracting immigrants.”

Huh.

There simply must be some mistake.

Woodbury: Time To Get Off The Clown Car

November 2nd, 2015 by Mitch Berg

South Washington Citizens for Change, as well as District 833 school board candidate Andrea Mayer-Bruestle – have released a couple of videos that voters should think about, both for their school board vote and their vote on the bonding referendum this Tuesday.

First: Don’t think all that half-a-billion dollars is going to go toward more spending beyond the means, and District 833 will be bellying up to the taxpayer bar again in a couple years? Don’t bet on it:

And here’s a digest of headlines from the past few years that should show the Woodbury voter what kind of hands their district, and tax dollars, are in:

If you live in Woodbury/District 833, you’ve witnessed a pretty venal and ugly little campaign to try to separate you and your tax dollars. Pass these vids around, and let’s try not to reward this sort of thing any more.

Best Practices

November 2nd, 2015 by Mitch Berg

In recent weeks, this blog, as well as the rest of the media, I’ve noted a bit of an uptick in publicized violence in the St. Paul public schools.

The Minneapolis public schools seem to of
been paying attention – and turn their best minds on to the problem of school violence.

We know this, because they have solve the problem.

The Minneapolis public schools are now a “violence free zone“.

Freedom Of Speech For We, But Not For Ye

November 2nd, 2015 by Mitch Berg

There’s a school bonding referendum on the ballot this Tuesday; the district wants $250 million, on top of the huge bond they got two years ago, on top of all their state money.

There are campaigns, both against the bill and, naturally, for it.

Over the weekend, the Washington County Watchdog facebook page tripped upon a couple of giggly north-Suburban bobbleheads chuckling about stealing “Vote No” campaign signs – or, in one case, having her kids do it.

Vote Yes people in Forest Lake are dumb enough to share they are stealing Vote No (Forest Lake Schools Bond) campaign…

Posted by Washington County Watchdog on Friday, October 30, 2015

The Watchdog confirmed that one of the women is affiliated with/employed by the “Vote Yes” campaign.

The Watchdog has confirmed that Nicole _____, the self-proclaimed sign thief in Forest Lake was in fact a part of the…

Posted by Washington County Watchdog on Sunday, November 1, 2015

I’m not going to post the womens’ full names; they incriminated themselves plenty over on their various Facebook pages.

Now, stealing campaign signs is a crime that should be investigated – no, actually investigated – by the Forest Lake cops and the Washington County attorney’s office; campaign signs ain’t cheap.  It’s also a suppression of other’s freedom of speech.  And since one of the principals in the story is involved with the “Hand Over The Money, Peasants!” campaign, I see no reason this shouldn’t be a matter for state elections officials.

But I have another question.

Double Standards:  I interviewed Andrew Mayer-Bruestle and Sue Richardson, from a similar “Vote No” campaign in Woodbury.  They report that the “Vote Yes” crowd, which is seeking a half billion dollars from the people and businesses of South WashCo – sicced WCCO on them for making “misleading statements” in their campaign literature.  And WCCO leapt into action, going all Mike Wallace on some of the “Vote No” supporters, with ambush interviews and grave (and erroneous) reporting that gave off that agenda-driven stench; I’m gonna guess one of the suburban grandees involved in the Vote Yes campaign has a friend, or spouse, on the WCCO staff.  Just a hunch.

So WCCO and the Pioneer Press scrambled a Defcon Five Media Deployment over a piece of campaign literature in Woodbury.

Duly noted.

So, WCCO – any interest in a story about a group of suburban hockey moms, including a member of a competing campaign,  conspiring and acting to steal money, stifle free speech, and violate election laws?  Y’know – actual crimes?

What say, Star Tribune?  Lori Sturdevant must surely be getting the victorian vapours about this bit of incivility, no?

MPR?  I mean, you have a big, well-staffed newsroom full of news eagles ready to swoop upon public malfeasance.  Imagine that someone had brought you first-hand evidence that people – bigots! – were kyping pro-“marriage equality” signs; does not warrant similar scrutiny?

And that other newspaper in the east metro, whatever it was?

For that matter – Forest Lake has a newspaper, right?

Update:  According to the WashDog, some of the signs were replaced, and some were returned.  While the WashDog doesn’t go into details, we presume they were returned by those who stole them; hopefully they didn’t fob that job of on their kids, the way one joked about doing with the actual theft.

Everyone keep your eyes peeled; there will be a lot more of this coming up in the next year.

The Next Book To Emerge From The Pages Of SITD?

November 2nd, 2015 by Mitch Berg

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

I’ve often thought about writing a book.  I started one in college – the draft has long since disappeared.  I write blog posts that could be expanded into a book.  And I know a couple of people who’ve written books, I could get tips and advice from them.  But every time I start, it turns into a lot of work and I am not known for my patience.

Maybe a book of short stories centered around a common theme, like “The Martian Chronicles,” self-publish on Amazon and retire on the royalties? Still too much work.  What if I crowd-sourced it?  What if Shot In The Dark readers each took one story idea and ran with it?

Story One: Chad is a 20-something White male who suffers from mental illness but won’t take his meds because he doesn’t like the way they make him feel.  When the voices in his head get too loud, he does crazy stuff that gets him arrested.  But by the time of his commitment hearing after the 72-hour hold, he’s back on his meds and coherent, his parents swear he’s gentle and kind, his ACLU lawyer argues he’s not a threat to himself or others, and the judge releases him.  Until one day when he’s off his meds, a girl in a coffee shop snubs him as a “nobody” and moments later he sees CNN talking about somebody who shot up a school who’s now famous.  The voices convince him to pursue fame by committing his own massacre.  How he plans and executes the crime . . .

Story Two:  Patricia, the mother of one of the people Chad killed, is media-savvy and politically connected.  Her incessant television appearances produce a groundswell of Right-Thinking people who convince the President to issue an Executive Order repealing the Second Amendment and appointing her Gun Czar with authority to rid the United States of privately held firearms.   How she plans and executes the seizure . . . .

Story Three: Charlie, a farmer near St. Cloud, who owns shotguns for bird hunting and rifles for deer hunting, hears about Patricia while eating breakfast at the local diner but thinks little of it until Deputy John pulls his squad car up to the farmhouse saying “I’ve gotta take your guns, Charlie, it’s the law.”  What happens next . . . .

Story Four: Dante, the owner of a recreational pharmaceuticals distribution franchise in Frogtown, sees Patricia on the television while eating lunch at White Castle and frowns.  How will he defend his territory from poachers and his profits from thieves?  How he circumvents the law . . . .

Story Five, Six, Seven – you get the idea.

Joe Doakes

Hmmm.

Writing a book via semi-crowdsourced blog posts?

It’s almost crazy enough to work…

I Heard It On The NARN

November 1st, 2015 by Mitch Berg

Here’s the Washington County Watchdog, which has the Facebook thread with the Forest Lake women stealing “Vote No” signs – which is theft, suppression of free speech, and – since one of the women is involved in the “Vote Yes” campaign – must be some kind of violation of campaign laws.

Lately NARN’s Been Overheard In Mayfair

November 1st, 2015 by Mitch Berg

Today, the Northern Alliance Radio Network – America’s first grass-roots talk radio show – is on the air! I will be filling in for Brad Carlson live from 1-3PM today!

Today on the show, I’ll be talking two solid hours of updates from the culture war.

Don’t forget – King Banaian is on from 9-11AM on AM1570, and Brad Carlson has “The Closer” edition of the NARN Sundays from 1-3PM.

So tune in the Northern Alliance! You have so many options:

Join us!

I Heard It On The NARN

October 31st, 2015 by Mitch Berg

John Howe is running to replace John Kline in MNCD2.  Learn more here.

Here’s the site for South Washington County Citizens for Progress, and the Vote No initiative for Distict 833.

Finally,   ♫

You Best Stay Away From NARN; He’ll Rip Your Lungs Out, Jim

October 31st, 2015 by Mitch Berg

Today, the Northern Alliance Radio Network – America’s first grass-roots talk radio show – is on the air! I will be on live from 1-3PM today!

Today on the show, I’ll be talking about the stupid debate, and the Wetterling case.  Also:

  • I’ll be talking with John Howe, candidate to replace Rep John Kline in the 2nd CD
  • I’ll be talking with Andrea Mayer-Bruestle and Sue Robinson about the deeper shenanigans going on in the Woodbury school bonding referendum.

Don’t forget – King Banaian is on from 9-11AM on AM1570, and Brad Carlson has “The Closer” edition of the NARN Sundays from 1-3PM.

So tune in the Northern Alliance! You have so many options:

Join us!

Not Invented Here

October 30th, 2015 by Mitch Berg

While the “World War 2 – Fact and Myth” series of pieces tied to anniversaries of under-covered events of the war officially ended on VJ Day, First Ringer and I both found that the crush of events around actual life led to us missing deadlines to a few stories we really, really wanted to write.

So we’ll be filling in a few in coming months, on the way to a completely different project.  More on that, later. 


World War 2 was not only the greatest conflagration in human history – it also led to the greatest advance in industry since the Industrial Revolution, and some of the greatest relative leaps of science, and especially technology, ever.

And leading the way, naturally, were the major powers; the elitist craftsmanship and ingenuity of the British, the innovatory engineering prowess of the Germans, and the relatively nimble manufacturing brawn of the United States.

But along the way, a few other nations contributed lesser-known, but vital, advances to techology, on both sides of the war.

There were plenty of them, of course.  For all their ingenuity at building planes and tanks and submarines, the Germans never did design a workable aerial torpedo; they had to buy theirs from the Italians, and eventually pillage them from the Norwegians, who built an excellent aerial torpedo before the war:

A torpedo – a direct copy of the Norwegian “Horten” air-dropped torpedo – being loaded onto a German HE115 torpedo bomber.

And of course, the biggest, baddest example; the lowly Poles, whose intelligence service was credited since the sixties with doing the groundwork that led to the breaking of the German “Enigma” code – and, as we discovered since the Cold War, did more than that.

Here’s one of those stories.

Hit ‘Em Where They Ain’t…Yet:  The fact that air power became a decisive arena of conflict surprised nobody at the beginning of the war; since the end of World War I, air power theorists like the American Colonel Jimmy Doolittle and the British Air Marshal “Boom” Trenchard, among many others, had grabbed their various nations’ high commands’ attention and held onto it during the years leading up to the war.  Even the most humble, minor nations invested heavily, albeit not always wisely, in air power.

And the world’s armies and navies in turn invested heavily in the means to attempt to defend against aircraft.

The anti-aircraft gun was invented during World War I.  Anti-Aircraft Artillery – henceforth “AAA” – followed two basic patterns:

  • “Heavy” AAA attempted to calculate where an enemy aircraft was going to be at the time it took to fire a cannon shell with a timer to somewhere close to that point, where it’d explode, hopefully riddling the target aircraft with enough holes to disable it or scare it off, if not destroy it outright.  Until the advent of radar, this involved complex listening and angle-measurement devices to calculate the target’s speed, altitude and heading, and a lot of complex math to try to make sure the planes, shells and explosions intersected.
  • “Light” AAA was basically skeet shooting with heavy – very, very heavy – machine guns.  The goal was to put up a lot of bullets or light cannon shells, and try to physically hit the target.  It sounds simpler – but it’s not; hitting a more or less fast-moving target whose distance, speed and course aren’t precisely known, and which is maneuvering in three dimensions, is a complex undertaking.

Now – both of those cases assume one constant; the location of the guns that are doing the shooting, as would be the case with anti-aircraft guns on land.  On land, AAA guns sit in one, known spot to do their shooting.  Which makes the complex math just a little simpler.

Now – put an AAA gun on a ship, with not only it’s own speed and bearing to track, but the roll and pitch and yaw of wave action and the other forces acting on the vessel to compensate for – and the job of making a bullet or shell intersect with a plane, with its own elevation, angle, range, speed, heading and altitude – and the job just got intellectually herculean.

Think about it:  try skeet-shooting at ac clay pigeon whose launcher you can’t see and whose path you don’t know in advance – from a moving vehicle.

The US created a system that addressed the first, “Heavy” shipboard AAA scenario most effectively; we deployed the “Mark 37 Fire Director”.

Mark 34 Fire Direction system concept drawing.

It linked optical sensers, and eventually radar, to an analog, electromechanical fire control computer that digested all the inputs – target elevation/bearing/altitude/heading/speed, ship speed/heading/roll/pitch/yaw, as well as temperature and humidity – and spit out the bearing and elevation for the guns, and settings for the guns’ fuses and precise firing cues for the guns, allowing the whole process to end in a plane-shattering kaboom somewhere close to the moving target.

It worked well; it’s was still in service, with updated radars and electronics, until very recently in the US Navy.

But for the problem of making light AAA – guns of 40mm or less, basically large machine guns – hit the target, the solution was more byzantine.

The first half came from Sweden.  Bofors Weapon Works invented a 40mm heavy machine gun that fired two two-pound shells a second to a range of about a mile.

A 40m Bofors gun – in this case, in Finland, although interchangeable with guns that served in the US, the UK, all of their allied powers, and even Germany.

It became the iconic anti-aircraft gun of the war; it’s still in service in some parts of the world; it’s immediate descendent is still one of the most popular guns of its type.   I its original, land-based form, it fired from a trailer that sat on jacks on the ground; its’ “fire control system” was a couple of optical sights and a pair of hand cranks to control vertical and horizontal training.

It’d take some work to make it a usable naval system.

It was a Dutch inventor, Walter Hazemeyer, who first developed a mounting that could fight effectively on shipboard.  He fitted a gyroscope and a set of servos to a twin-gun mounting, which effected “triaxial stabilization”; the gun would automatically be kept steady against side-to-side roll, lateral pitch, and horizontal yaw. And it was revolutionary; the Hazemeyer mountings serviced on Dutch naval vessels in the years before the war, and gave a fairly excellent account (which has been largely forgotten, given the speed with which the Dutch fleet collapsed).

A Hazemeyer mounting, with an early British radar, demonstrating stabilization with a pretty fair roll.

And the timing couldn’t have been better.  British ships – lacking the radar-guided heavy AAA of the American Mark 37 and a light AAA gun that had anything other than manual compensation to stabilize it – suffered terribly from close range air attack in the first year of the war.  The standard British light AAA gun, the “Pom-Pom”, had been invented nearly 40 years earlier, and was showing its age.  The alternative – the .50 caliber machine gun – was even worse; a lethal shredder in ground and air-to-air combat, it was useless as an anti-aircraft gun.

An octuple “pom-pom”, found on most British battleships and aircraft carriers, especially earlier in the war. The guns themselves dated from before 1910, and it was optically-trained, and threw itstwo-pound shell at relatively low velocity to a range of a little less than a mile. Still – this mounting would throw out sixteen shots a second, which was nothing to sneeze at in a torpedo bomber that was flying in a straight line at 150 knots…

In the immediate aftermath of the fall of Holland, a Dutch minesweeper, the Willem Van Der Zaan, limped into a British port with one of the few Hazemeyer mounts to survive in the European theater.  British (and, shortly, American) engineers swarmed over the mounting, reverse-engineering it and getting it into mass-production in record time.  The Brits teamed the gun with a “Type 282” radar – one of the first attempts at a fire control radar for light AAA.

The results were astounding.  Stabilized Hazemeyer mounts were 2-3 times as effective as the British “Pom Pom”, and similarly superior to the American gun of the day.  And as air threats ramped up later in the war, culminating in the Japanese Kamikaze offensive later in the war, there’s a fair case to be made that the Hazemeyer (and the improvements made on it in the US later in the war), installed in numbers that would have made pre-war naval architects blanche, along with the Mark 37 Heavy AAA controller, allowed the US and British fleets to survive.

An American quadruple 40mm mount. The product of both endless American tinkering with the original Hazemeyer concept, and of the desperate need to increase the amount of light AAA against the rapidly expanding air threat by 1944, this gun mount survived in US service well into the 1980s.

Including, I’ll add, my ex-father-in-law, who was the gun captain of what was essentially a second-generation Hazemeyer mounted-twin Bofors gun in the Pacific – a Swedish gun with Dutch fire control system and British-designed radar – and who bagged a couple of Japanese planes himself.

The New Book-Burners

October 30th, 2015 by Mitch Berg

The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) is stumping for the University of St. Thomas to get rid of Theresa Collett,  an outspoken pro life law professor and former congressional candidate.

In case you missed that in the first paragraph; NARAL is plumping it’s well-heeled legions of social justice warriors to get rid of a a pro-life professor…

… at a Catholic University.

Remember first, last and always: conservatives think progressives are wrong; progressives think conservatives are evil.

Be The Change You Want To See. Or Else.

October 30th, 2015 by Mitch Berg

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

The Oregon college shooter left messages suggesting he would die a virgin because attractive women rejected him.
In 2014, a young man shot 14 people near UC Santa Barbara, starting with a sorority house, again because attractive women rejected him.
One of the Columbine shooters asked a girl to prom, and she rejected him.
The Aurora theater shooter’s ex-girlfriend testified why she rejected him, shortly before his rampage.
The Sandy Hook school shooter’s girlfriend fled to New Jersey just before the shooting, rejecting him.
The Charleston church shooter went over the edge when the girl he was sweet on rejected him, deciding to date a Black man instead.
It seems obvious: the problem isn’t guns, the problem is women engaging in blatant elitist, lookist and classist discrimination by rejecting ugly dweebs.
Common sense says we should require hot women to spend more time dating losers. I suggest a quota system enforced by strict penalties. I call on President Obama to enact it by Executive Order today.
joe doakes

Debateable Impressions: Let Me Be The Two Millionth To Say…

October 29th, 2015 by Mitch Berg

Finally:  the evening’s host, CNBC

What the conservative pundocracy says:  The performance of the CNBC panel –  the smirky, mugging Carl Quintanilla, the smug and snarky Becky “Not Very” Quick, and Mike “Where Have You Gone, Candy Crowley?” Harwood, with an appearance by Jim Cramer (who sounded like he’d just lost a UFC match) was a laughingstock – even when mentioned in the same breath as CNN’s loathsome performance four years ago.

What I say:  The conservative pundocracy was too kind.  I got the impression that the media has settled onto a “strategy” of turning debates (well, the GOP ones, anyway) into political reality shows.  Part of me expected Flavor Flav or Khlamidia Khardashian to show up to ask a question [1].  It was clearly a goldmine for CNN last month – to me, it looked like CNBC wanted to make their panel the stars of the debate.  Here’s hoping that the rumors of the backfire on CNN aren’t exaggerated.

Verdict:  News flash: anyone who expects anything from the MSM but sniping and hackery is deluded.  And you can tell Reince Preibus I said so.

[1] Khlamidia is one of the sisters – right?

Debateable Conclusions: Populosity

October 29th, 2015 by Mitch Berg

Up next:  Mike Huckabee.

What the conservative pundocracy says:  He did well.

What I say:   I didn’t see it.  Granted, I missed half the debate – but my signal impression of Huckabee was his resounding rejection of…means testing.

I get it – he’s a “Southern” conservative; socially conservative, but not especially afraid of big government or spending.

It was just an odd moment at a debate for the support of a party that’s getting more hawkish on budgets and spending.

Verdict:   Back to talk radio, Mike.

Debateable Impressions: Walter Rising

October 29th, 2015 by Mitch Berg

Up next:  John Kasich.

What the conservative pundocracy says:  Kasich kept himself in the running with a strong, if cranky, performance.  Others point to his fairly bald-faced, McCainish up-sucking to the media.

What I say:  My short list, two months ago, was Walker, Jindal, Kasich.  With Walker gone and Jindal mired in the undercard and barely running a campaign, it looks like Kasich is the last man standing.  He gave a strong showing last night.  But am I the only one who saw his cranky demeanor and though about Jeff Dunham’s puppet-character “Walter”?

Verdict:   Let’s hope he can morph into something other than the campaign’s resident senior scold.

Debateable Impressions: Punching At His Weight

October 29th, 2015 by Mitch Berg

Next up:  Marco Rubio.

What the conservative pundocracy says:   Rubio came back from what could have been a very tough night, and did it with style.

What I say:  His take-down of the moderators’ harping on the Orlando Sun-Sentinel’s loathsome hatchet-job editoral call for his resignation (for missing about half as many votes as President Obama or Secretary of State Kerry, both of whom the Orlando SS endorsed) was sharp-eyed and surgical; his turn back to his actual policy – against the moderators’ wishes, natch – was smooth and authoritative.

Verdict:   I’ve been trying to figure out who’d replace Scott Walker on my short list.  Rubio might be it.

Maybe.

Debateable Impressions: Speaker Points

October 29th, 2015 by Mitch Berg

Up next:  Ben Carson.

What the conservative pundocracy says:  He held steady.

What I say:   While I respect virtually everything Carson stands for (he’s pretty hopeless on the Second Amendment), I’m always amazed when I see him at debates; quiet, unprepossessing, like an amiable professor who dropped into a WWE match.

Verdict:  He did well.  Not much more to say.

Debateable Impressions: Howling Into The Void

October 29th, 2015 by Mitch Berg

Up next:  Rand Paul

What the conservative pundocracy says:  He’s a dead issue, and should start focusing on holding his Senate seat forthwith.

What I say:   I’ve been a Rand Paul fan for a long time now.   But I sensed that his support was similar to his father’s in Minnesota during the last convention season; a mile deep and twenty feet wide.   Not to say he’s done poorly in any debate – he’s stated his case just fine.  But at no point has he gotten anyone to say “he’s the man” who wasn’t saying it two years ago.

Verdict:  I think the party needs Rand Paul in the race for the same reasons it needs Christie.  I’m just not sure how much longer he can justify it.

Debateable Impressions: Smooth As His Combover

October 29th, 2015 by Mitch Berg

Next on the agenda:  Donald Trump.

What the conservative pundocracy says:  He did well, repairing some previous gaffes and not harming himself – at a time when some polls show him slipping and needing to not screw up.

What I say:  Major points for fixing his Mexican gaffe from the Reagan Center debate by noting that the President of Mexico was a smarter, better executive than Barack Obama -which would seem to be the truth.  I think he made fewer mistakes than in the second debate.

Verdict: He didn’t hurt himself, and left himself in a good position to try to duke it out for Carson and Rubio for the lead.

Debateable Impressions: You Talkin’ To Me?

October 29th, 2015 by Mitch Berg

Up next:  Chris Christie.

What the conservative pundocracy says:  Solid performance – but not enough to vault him onto the short list.

What I say:  By all rights, Christie shouldn’t have gotten this far.  He’s not the darling of the establishment, and conservatives fear him because he’s a “northeast” conservative; strong on business and security, adequate on entitlement and fiscal policy (and hampered by both a Democrat power stranglehold and a fairly inept New Jersey GOP), weak on civil liberties.   Heck – I go back and forth on Christie.

Verdict:  I think the party needs him on the short list, just to keep the short-listers on their toes.

Debateable Impressions: Ebb Bush

October 29th, 2015 by Mitch Berg

Up next:  Jeb Bush.

What the conservative pundocracy says:  He’s toast.

What I say:  After last night – especially his woefully ill-timed attack against Rubio – I’d be hard-pressed to disagree.

Verdict:  If he’s the standard-bearer for “the Establishment”, then Karl Rove’s gonna need to get to work fast.

Debateable Impressions: The Lady’s Not For Turning Away

October 29th, 2015 by Mitch Berg

Up next:  Carly Fiorina.

What the conservative pundocracy says:   She does well in debates, but is having a hard time keeping excitement going – and last night’s performance was good enough for no more than holding steady.

What I say: Every time I see Carly Fiorina talk, I get more impressed.  Trump and Carson are sucking all of the “anti-establishment” air out of the room – and it’s a shame, because I think Fiorina has the best potential as a chief executive among the three “antis” on the list (along with Trump and Carson).

Verdict:   The debate didn’t give her a huge boost, but in a just world she’ll remain a contender.

Debateable Impressions: Cruz Missile

October 29th, 2015 by Mitch Berg

As i noted earlier, I only watched perhaps 90 minutes of last night’s cage match.

I’m going to give my impressions anyway  – one candidate at a time.  I’m going to start with Ted Cruz.


What the conservative pundocracy says:  It was the performance he needed to stay on the short list.

What I say:  And how.  His jeremiad against the media was a watershed, both within the debate and (I can dream), within the party; it’s restarted the discussion about getting the GOP out of the major-media “debate” / reality show racket.  If he serves no other purposes in this campaign, last night’s contribution could turn out to be a fantastic thing.

Verdict:  Excellent.

 

--> Site Meter -->