Radioactive Communist Zombies

Raising Cain

Here's a new Herman Cain video:

Worry's me slightly: the last presidential contender I supported with a fondness for hats was Fred Thompson.

Can You Be . . .

Random thought for the day:

1) Can you be anti-Israel without being anti-Semitic?  (I'm neither.)

2) Can you be anti-Mitt Romney without being anti-Mormon?  (I'm both.)

3) Can you be anti-Barack Obama without being anti-Black (i.e, racist)? 

I believe the answers are:

1) Yes.

2) Yes.

3) Yes.  And I am.

Romney Has Tenuous Lead in New Hampshire

According to polling, as reported by John Fund in the Wall Street Journal, Mitt Romney has the lead in New Hampshire:

The survey, conducted by Manchester TV station WMUR and CNN showed [Romney] with 32% of the vote, with his closest challenger being Rep. Ron Paul at 9%. Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani trailed with 6% each, followed by Sarah Palin at 5% and Michele Bachmann at 4%.

(Eeek, Ron Paul at second?  That's scary.)  But, as Fund points out, it's way early:

When voters were asked if they were sure who they intended to vote for, an astonishing 87% said no. Only 4% said they had definitely decided and 9% were leaning.

Which means as more people decide, Romney's lead could vanish (I bet Paul's numbers stay pretty close to the same).  Romney does have the advantage in New Hampshire of being a neighbor (sort of) and his name recognition from 2008.  There's a whole lot of campaigning to go on between now and when New Hampshire votes (some time in January 2012, I believe).  And some folks (such as Palin) aren't even for sure running and others may jump in.

Of course, it drives me nuts that voters in New Hampshire get this big of say in our presidential election system. But for now, this is the reality we have to live with.

May Nanny of the Month

It's time once again for Reason TV's "Nanny of the Month."

Greens (Still) Against Green Energy

I've often said that green meanies (a/k/a environmentalists) won't be happy until you're living by the buzz of a single compact fluorescent light bulb (see here, here, here and here, for example).  They aren't against fossil fuels; they aren't against greenhouse gasses.  They are against prosperity.

California's Governor Moonbeam (Jerry Brown 2.0) has signed a law requring the state formerly known as "The Golden State" to get one-third of its power from renewable energy in a decade.  That means lots of windmills and solar plants.  Or does it.  As the New Times reports (Hat tip: The Corner), environmentalists are suing to stop a solar project in California:

Environmental groups and activists have filed a lawsuit in an attempt to stop a proposed solar-power project from covering the Carrizo Plains.

“This is a case about the threat to one of the last remaining wild grassland areas in California,” reads the first line of the lawsuit, filed by Carrizo Commons, North County Watch, and local farmer Michael Strobridge. “… The darkness and quietness of the area and its unusually pristine night sky provide an exceptionally rare and increasingly unique opportunity for humans to enjoy and reflect upon a natural state of repose and beauty.”

Well, ya know, you have to build windmills and solar plants someplace. And wind and solar energy projects take up huge amounts of land:

Such sentiments dogged the myriad county meetings devoted to SunPower’s California Valley Solar Ranch project, a 250-megawatt network of photovoltaic panels spread across 25 properties and 4,685 acres in the sparsely populated California Valley area east of San Luis Obispo.

As Steven Hayward points out:

A typical 750 megawatt coal- or natural-gas-fired power plant would require about 40 acres or less. In other words, [for solar energy] you’d need roughly 20 square miles of land to equal the power output of one typical fossil fuel plant that could fit inside a modern football stadium.

And where is the land going to come from?  Even deserts have some animals that could conceivably be harmed by green energy projects.

I hope you like the green, buzzy light from that CFL you'll be allowed in the green energy future.

Lest We Forget

Today is Memorial Day.  And over at The Corner they are posing about those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms.  Check it out.

More Reasons Not to Support Romney

On my list of potential GOP presidential nominees, Mitt Romney is somewhere below Michele Bachmann (but above Ron Paul).  Why?  Well, for one, I think he is the candidate who is the biggest politician.  He has flip-flopped on issues such as 2nd Amendment rights and abortion depending on where or what he's running for.  I don't think he utters a word unless it's been focus-grouped.  And he supports ethanol subsidies (and you know how I feel about ethanol). From "The Primary Event" blog:

Talking to an Iowa voter, Romney said, “I support the subsidy of ethanol. I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.”

(Yes, I know Ron Paul doesn't support ethanol subsidies, but his Libertarian foreign policy and his thinking the Federal Reserve is the root of all evil trumps that.)

I'm still leaning toward Herman Cain.

Presidential Thoughts

I watched an interview with Herman Cain last night on Fox News Sunday.  It must have been a rerun of Fox News Sunday because a) it wasn't shown on Sunday, b) it was on Fox News channel, and c) it referred to Cain having just announced he was running, which he did about a week ago. Cain was pretty good except he totally blew a question on "Right of Return" in the Israel/Palestinian conflict.  You could tell he didn't know what it was so he was making it up as he went along.  But, you know, it's difficult to know everything about everything.  Also Cain said he is for the "Fair Tax."  That is the proposal to replace all income and payroll taxes with a 23% sales tax ("The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 13) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax  administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities").  I can see lots of upsides to this but I shudder at a 23% sales tax on everything.  But that's not a deal breaker with me.

I'm also liking Pawlenty.  One negative I found about him is in 2006 he was "open to" an individual mandate in health reform (i.e., the unconstitutional requirement that you buy health insurance).  He's apparently since changed his mind (although he says he never supported an individual mandate).  Oh, but there's this that I just found which sows some (a lot) of doubt in my mind.

And finally, if RIck Perry pulls the trigger, I might have to decide if I'm going to support him.  So far I know of no negatives.  Of course, I once said that of Jon Huntsman.  But Perry has a solid reputation as a conservative governor of what is one of if not the fastest economically growing state.

Rick Perry May Jump In

Texas governor Rick Perry has said he might run for president.  This can only be good news.  Perry is a solid conservative.  I know of no negatives about him.  If he jumped in I'd have to think about him or Cain, and think hard.  Perry may be more "electable" due to having held office before (I know Cain has an answer to that). And maybe Perry can weaken Romney's base by being another more traditional candidate rather than a fringe candidate like so many others in the primary.

It's still early and I won't be voting for over a year (and by then probably all but two or three will have dropped out).  There's time to decide. 

The Stimulus: Bigger Than Advertised

Paul Krugman gets his wish: the stimulus is bigger. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) the stimulus has actually cost $830 billion, not the original $787 billion.  To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, a $43 billion here or a $43 billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

Also according to the CBO, the Stimulus "saved or created" 4.6 million jobs at a cost of $180,434 per job.  A bargain, right.  Hell, if we'd only spent $2.4 trillion we could have put everybody back to work, right?

Unfortunately, other studies not using Keynesian models (garbage in-garbage out) but rather empirical data have found the stimulus cost us some half-million jobs.

One thing is certain, our children and grandchildren will be paying off the stimulus for years to come.  And that's unlikely to stimulate their economies.