Monday, November 30, 2009

Just Who Are the Deniers Now?

It started with leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit suggesting, if not outright stating, that scientists had manipulated data to support the notion of manmade global warming. Global warming skeptics, like yours truly, pointed at the emails as proof of what has been circulating in the scientific community for a decade or so, but had not been widely expressed. Leftist bloggers and commentators have either been silent or extremely vocal (and might I add abrasive) as a response to the news. With two recent events, however, the guilty parties and their defenders are seeing their credibility take more hits.

Recently, the Times Online website posted a story that scientists at the aforementioned Climate Research Unit threw away much of the raw data used in their climate change research. As of this writing, it’s unclear as to when they dumped this information, but the fact that they had to admit this after a Freedom of Information inquiry couldn’t have happened at a worse time. Now, it will become more difficult for their peers to try to recreate their research. This may buy them a little time as they try to figure out when the data in question was scrubbed, but the lasting impact is that the CRU looks like it was trying to hide something after the fact. For them to be mostly cleared of this perception, they are going to have to do a lot of work to show the data dump was either unintentional or inconsequential.

The University has taken the first step on this road by announcing they would drop their opposition to releasing the data once the CRU completes negotiations under some non-publication agreements. Of course, if some of the data has already been tossed, it may become a meaningless gesture. We won’t know until we see all of the data, or at least as much of the data as the CRU is willing to part with.

To make matters worse, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has dug in, saying the recent revelations will not have an impact on that body’s work, as chairman Rajendra Pachauri said there is “virtually no possibility” that the scientists biased the information given to them. The IPCC may be commended in Leftist circles for standing firm against the tide of skepticism being shown these days, but it doesn’t address the issue adequately. Pachauri’s statement comes off as a whitewash of events, not as a serious inquiry into the situation itself. Given how widespread the now-erroneous conventional wisdom of client change is, simply saying “it didn’t happen” isn’t good enough. We need to see if they are the victims of a greater fraud or willing participants in perpetuating the fraud.

For decades, we’ve been told that man is responsible for the planet’s temperature, and when scientific inquiry has cast doubt on the veracity of this conclusion, the scientists responsible for the inquiries have been derided as being “bought and paid for by [insert name of evil industry here].” Now that we’ve seen more information come out that damns this point of view, maybe it’s time those who mocked the skeptics to man up and become skeptics themselves.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Pick Your Battles

Last night, President Barack Obama held his first state dinner, a glitzy affair with dignitaries from across the country, across party lines, and around the world. With the economy still not fully recovered, conservatives took this opportunity to criticize the President.

But I won't be one of them.

To me, state dinners are a function of the Presidency, falling under the auspices of "Diplomat In Chief." Regardless of who is running the country, regardless of the state of the economy, these state dinners are important to establishing or maintaining good relations with foreign countries. I won't begrudge Obama one bit for having a state dinner. Some of the other stuff, like "date nights" using Air Force One and midweek cocktail parties, is a little harder to justify under the "Diplomat In Chief" designation.

There is a real political danger for conservatives if they decide to take Obama to task for the lavishness of his first state dinner: they risk coming off as petty at a time when they need to appear principled. Democrats have pinned Republicans with a "Party of No" tag, and Republicans haven't done much, if anything, to shrug it off. Attacking Obama for the state dinner reinforces the "Party of No" image by making the GOP appear negative.

And let me point out one more thing. The midterm elections are next year, and Republicans don't have everything locked up yet. If they want to get back into power in Congress, they're going to have to learn to find a balance between being silent dissenters and raging lunatics. Republicans need a strategic thinker who is articulate enough to make the right point at the right time. Until then, they need to learn to pick their battles so they don't look like partisan jerks complaining about trifles.

By Special Request

Since the Leftist blogger who hates me and yet links back to just about everything I write complained about my posters, which he claims are "sloppy lying demotivational posters," I decided to address his concerns.

Enjoy this one, Mr. Leftist Blogger.

Correcting the Lies of the Global Warming Denier Deniers

It's amazing to what lengths the people who carried the water for Al Gore for almost 20 years will go to avoid admitting that they were either dupes or liars. A Leftist blogger (who mocks me at every turn while linking back to almost everything I've ever written) claims there was never a debate over global warming.

If you look at the peer reviewed scientific literature, the debate is over. --- Al Gore

Gee. Gore says there was a debate. He's repeated it on several occasions. Of course, he's also claimed in "An Inconvenient Truth" that global warming was going to cause the following:

- melting ice sheets (debunked by actual measurements of the level of ice)
- huge increases in ocean levels (debunked by people who understand the concept of displacement of liquid)
- more frequent, stronger hurricanes (debunked by the past couple of years of fewer and weaker hurricanes)

Ouch, man. Just ouch.

The blogger also claims an article on debunks the emails, claiming that they were taken out of context. Tiny problem: the people "debunking" the emails are some of the same ones who have been accused of ginning up their results. That's like referring to Media Matters (a partisan website supported by George Soros and founded by admitted and proven liar David Brock) to refute something a conservative said. Now, who would be so silly as to refer back to Media Matters on a matter like this?

Oh yeah, the Leftist blogger who claimed Wired "debunked" the hacked emails.

By the way, Mr. Leftist who hates me and can't stop copying me, there actually has been a conspiracy within the scientific community to blackball any scientists who didn't go along with the global warming lie, as has been exposed by the scientists who have been blackballed. A simple Google search pulls up plenty of examples, but why let the truth stand in the way of a good lie when you have the scientific geniuses of Media Matters? Oh, and Mr. Leftist, that was sarcasm, in case you were thinking of pulling a statement out of context like Media Matters has been known to do.

The Leftist blogger in question also seems to miss the point I raised in my previous blog post where I explained global warming cultists set up a false premise in an attempt to get people to stay quiet about their skepticism about global warming being manmade. The fact is that the global warming cult has never wanted a serious debate on the subject because their facts (such as they are) tend to be more alarmist than academic. If you can find a copy floating around at a used book store, pick up a copy of Gore's Earth in the Balance. Throughout the book, Gore makes emotional statements and glosses over the actual science involved, something he's also done in "An Inconvenient Truth." When you resort to emotion rather than reason to back up a weak scientific argument, you've done a grave disservice to the discussion.

Of course the Leftist blogger shows his penchant for strawman arguments by setting up an argument that faith in God means one cannot be scientifically-minded. Two words for you: Gregor Mendel. Mendel, an Augustinian priest, is considered to be the father of genetics for his work with pea plants and different traits they exhibited through the creation of hybrids.

Let's see... the father of genetics...or some Leftist blogger with an axe to grind against Christians...who to believe? Oooooh, sor-ray, Mr. Leftist. Science wins over irrational hate.

Al Gore has spent years telling us that people who showed skepticism at the reality of global warming were akin to Holocaust deniers. Well, now that Gore's entire premise has been turned on its ear, it's time that we turn the tables on him.

Mr. Gore (and Mr. Leftist blogger who has been debunked by real science), you're nothing more than warming denier denier.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Because I Couldn't Resist Piling On...

NOW the Debate Is Over

By now, I'm sure you've heard about the hackers in Britain uncovering proof that advocates of manmade global warming being a scientific certainly have been caught monkeying around with their findings to justify their positions. As someone who has been following the global warming/global climate change since the early 1990s, this came as no shock to me because the debate over man's influence on global climate has never been an honest one, in my opinion.

At the heart of the Left's argument is a two-pronged statement: global warming is happening, and man is causing it. Both statements can be argued on their merits (or lack thereof), but the Left doesn't see it that way. If you deny the first half of their statement, then you are painted as irrational, non-scientific, even, as Al Gore suggested, a person akin to a Holocaust denier. Since we don't want to be seen as such, we tended to go along with the Left and accepted the entire premise as true.

Ah, but there's the rub. Contrary to popular Leftist belief, most science isn't settled. Some parts of it are, but that's only after repeated testing with the same results. Climate science is one part that is always in constant flux because there is conflicting data constantly coming in that can turn an assumed notion on its head. Scientists have a number of options when this happens: retest their hypotheses, determine whether there was an anomaly that caused the result, or ignore the result altogether. As has been evidenced with the aforementioned emails, scientists with a particular conclusion in mind chose the third option overwhelmingly.

Therein lies the problem for the Left. At some point, the truth will come out, no matter how much you try to sweep it under the rug or spin it out of existence. In this case, the truth was out there all along for people to find. Now, with the emails, the "skeptics" have the upper hand in the global climate change debate and it will be hard for the Gore side of the argument to be credible in the new environment.

So, Mr. Gore, the debate really is over...and you seem to be on the losing side of it.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

The Knot Tightens

In my previous post, I noted three possible outcomes of the Khalid Sheik Mohammad trial in New York City, but there is a fourth one I hadn't considered until last night. That outcome is a mistrial. Out of all the outcomes, this poses the greatest threat. Not only does it include the problem of letting accused Muslim terrorists mingle with Muslim converts in general population (which, contrary to Leftist assumptions, may still happen on a daily basis), but it adds a new element: the negative impact if it succeeds.

Commentators who are following this situation have noted that the Obama Administration wants to use the KSM trial to prosecute the Bush Administration by proxy, and this is a valid assumption to make. The issue then becomes what happens if it goes to trial and KSM and his cohorts are acquitted. After statements made by Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama himself, it would be devastating to their public image. After all, the Left says that they wouldn't proceed with the case in a civil court if it wasn't a slam dunk, right?

The thing's not a slam dunk. Not by a longshot. With some of the more controversial elements to the case, a good lawyer could easily get the other terrorist suspects off without a problem, leaving only KSM. Then, after a little more legal wrangling, the lawyer could get KSM off, leaving no convictions in one of the biggest trials in recent history and the ultimate problem still unresolved. And what happens if all of the suspected terrorists suddenly disappear?

We wind up with nothing.

Oh, sure, there will be the obligatory "If only President Bush followed the Geneva Convention" comments from the Left, but that's by design. See, the beauty of this strategy from the Left is that Obama and Holder can deflect criticism to their predecessors without risking any political capital, and the general public would probably go along with that.

What made me think of this possibility were statements made by Holder and Obama expressing confidence that KSM and his fellow terror suspects would be convicted. That reminded me of something Charles Manson attempted to do during his trial after a newspaper headline quoted then-President Richard Nixon making a similar statement about Manson and his followers. What better way for KSM to achieve the same goal than to introduce Holder and Obama's statements into the court as proof he cannot get a fair trial?

This is why it's a bad idea to treat international terrorism as a criminal matter. It's way too easy for those who seek us harm to use our own laws against us.

Monday, November 16, 2009

The Gordian Knot of International Terrorism

The recent announcement that Khalid Sheik Muhammad and four other conspirators in the 9/11 attacks in a federal courtroom shocked and outraged many people, your faithful blogger included. After trying this before with the first World Trade Center bombers, we're going back to the well and hoping this time treating international terrorism as a legal matter actually does something this time.

As you might have guessed, I'm a bit pessimistic about the likelihood of this working any better than the last time.

Since this door has been opened, we should take a minute to review the possible outcomes of such a trial.

The terrorists are convicted and get the death penalty. Let me just say up front that this is the outcome I'm rooting for. The death penalty has always been reserved for the most heinous of crimes, and I'd have to say 9/11 ranks pretty high on the heinousness charts. However, I do have to admit the Left has a point about the use of the death penalty in this particular case. When it comes to Islamic terrorists, nothing is more desirable than to die as a martyr, and executing Khalid Sheik Muhammad and his cohorts would certainly bring up the possibility of them dying as martyrs. This may be one time I'd be in favor of creative sentencing.

The terrorists are convicted and get life. This is the resolution the Left is hoping for because they think it will show the world that we aren't like the terrorists and that our legal system can render a solid verdict. I think I'd be a little more supportive of this outcome were it not for the fact that prisons have become Muslim recruitment centers. Essentially, giving KSM and his buddies life in prison would be giving them access to potential terrorists who could be trained to attack this country. It may take martyrdom off the table, but it doesn't remove the danger.

The terrorists are acquitted. Talk about the worst possible outcome! Even though it's unlikely at this point, it is a possibility and we should discuss it. Where this outcome comes into play is if the evidence against KSM and his conspirators is deemed inadmissible due to the possibility of it being gathered under duress. With the right lawyer, they could all walk, which creates another problem. Once they are freed, they can fade into the background. And since they'll be in jail awaiting the verdict, they may be able to connect with potential recruits on the inside...and the outside. Then, it's only a matter of time before we see more domestic terrorism in our backyards.

As much as I hate to say it, there are no perfect answers in this situation, only variations of tolerable ones. And when you consider this situation was brought on by Attorney General Eric Holder, in spite of the failure of the first time America tried the legal route to combat terrorism, the Gordian Knot gets a lot harder to solve.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Why This Matters

Some big things happening recently, thus another edition of Why This Matters.

- Anita Dunn resigns as White House Communications Director. Supporters of the Administration state it's no big deal because she was serving in an interim position, while critics are cheering, citing another victory for Glenn Beck and Fox News.

Why This Matters: Regardless of where you stand on Dunn's resignation, it was a victory for Beck and Fox News, but it was one that Obama didn't need to give them. The flap over her comments proclaiming Mao Tse Tung as one of her philosophical idols was dying down and the "Fox News isn't real news" mantra was being picked up by the Left. Having her resign now looks awkward and only fuels those who think she was driven out by Beck and Fox News. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad she's gone, but Obama gave the Right a victory without a fight.

- Michelle Obama's popularity has dropped into the 60s.

Why This Matters: The Obama charm offensive isn't working. No matter how many "soft" photo ops she does, no matter how many magazine covers she appears on, Michelle Obama comes off as fake and even mean. That doesn't bode well for her popularity, now or in the future.

- Former Miss California contestant Carrie Prejean admitted on "Hannity" that she made a sex tape. This came in the aftermath of other accusations that she broke the terms of a contract and that she had breast augmentation.

Why This Matters: First, it shows the dangers of premature lionization of anyone before we determine whether he or she is worth it. Prejean certainly won over the hearts and minds of conservatives for standing up for her beliefs at the Miss USA Pageant against the attacks of Perez Hilton. The sex tape...well, let's just say it makes it tougher to portray her as a good Christian woman victimized by the Left. Second, Sean Hannity has staked at least some of his reputation on Prejean, and the sex tape strikes a blow against that reputation. Believe me, the Left is going to have a field day mocking Hannity for this.

- The House of Representatives passed a health care reform bill on Saturday night by a vote of 220-215. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi called it a victory.

Why This Matters: Pelosi might want to rethink her definition of winning, considering she came within 3 votes of failing. And that's after a lot of compromising, arm-twisting, and promises that may or may not come to fruition. She squeaked out a win, but she's strutting around like the vote wasn't even close. And there's still the Senate version of the bill to be considered, one that may cut out what the House version had.

- Former President Bill Clinton rallied the Senate Democrats recently, stating that those who oppose the health care reform initiative are upset because Democrats are winning.

Why This Matters: Obama lost the ability to make the case for his health care reform initiative, so he sent someone who might still have some stroke with Democrats in general, Bill Clinton. If that doesn't show how weak Obama has become, nothing will.

- The Department of Justice asked for member information from, a Left-leaning website, for all posters since June 2008. To date, Indymedia has refused.

Why This Matters: Regardless of their political leanings, Indymedia is being targeted by the Obama DOJ. And before you start blaming the Bush Administration, keep in mind the date of the DOJ's order was...January 23, 2009, three days after President Obama assumed the role of President. If this was an order from the previous Administration, Obama had the power to pull the plug on it. If it was an order from the current Administration, it's a gross abuse of federal power with no discernible reason. Either way, it looks bad for the Obama Administration.


It doesn't seem possible, but it's been 20 years since the Berlin Wall fell, signaling the end of the Soviet Union as we knew it. For decades, the Berlin Wall symbolized the nature of the Cold War. On one side, freedom and prosperity. On the other, oppression and economic strife. Once the wall fell, the world breathed a collective sigh of relief because the prospect of global nuclear war (at least at the time) had been diminished. It was a whole new world.

In that 20 years, we're having to deal with new walls with the former Soviet Union because in many ways neither side has learned much from the fall of the Berlin Wall. Remnants of the former Soviet Union are still evident in Russia, especially in the form of Vladimir Putin. And these former Soviets are still bitter about the way the Cold War ended.

Unfortunately, our foreign policy since the fall of the Berlin Wall has been blissfully ignorant of this fact. Our failure to recognize that the old Soviet Union is still alive and well in the hearts and minds of people like Putin has been a blunder of literally global proportions. As we saw in Georgia, Putin isn't above revisiting the Soviet style of forcing compliance and propaganda to get what he wants, and make no mistake, he wants America to crumble into oblivion.

And what have we done? We've treated Putin like an ally, ignoring his true motives.

The Soviet Union may not exist as anything but an idea among the Russian people, but it exists and it may rear its ugly head again unless we recognize the danger in front of us. The Berlin Wall may be gone, but some walls take a lot longer to tumble.

Saturday, November 7, 2009

This May Come Back to Haunt Them

Democrats are trying to spin the Republican gubernatorial victories on Tuesday as insignificant because Governors don't vote on legislation. They claim that the Democrats scored the real victories because they gained 2 seats in the House (technically, one of those seats was already under Democrat control, so it wasn't really a gain, but that's neither here nor there).

Ah, but there's a bit of a snag. Governors don't vote on legislation, but they can have a say in national issues. Under the Constitution, Governors have the power to appoint Senators if the state legislatures give the Governor the power to do it. On Tuesday, Republicans picked up the governorships of New Jersey and Virginia. A little research shows that the Senate seats in both states are currently held by...Democrats. So, in order for the Republican Governors in these states to exercise their Constitutional duty, the Democrat Senators would need to be in a spot where they could no longer serve. (And for the Leftists out there reading this, I'm not advocating violence against these Senators.)

As of this writing, New Jersey's Senators are Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, and Virginia's Senators are Mark Warner and Jim Webb.

Lautenberg is the second oldest member of the Senate, behind West Virginia's Robert Byrd. That makes age a potential issue.

Robert Menendez was accused of a conflict of interest ethics violation in 2006 when it was discovered that he rented out property to a non-profit organization that receives federal funds. As of this writing, no charges have been brought, but one cannot discount corruption in New Jersey as a potential issue.

Mark Warner seems to be pretty safe. No major scandals and still young enough to be reasonably healthy.

Jim Webb also seems pretty safe. The only controversy surrounding him surrounds an article he wrote in 1979 titled "Women Can't Fight." Given the age of the article, I wouldn't think it would cause a problem for him in the short term.

If something should happen to any of these Senators (which, again, I don't advocate anybody reading this taking action to make that something happen), the Republican Governors might be able to step in and appoint a new Senator. And what party would their replacements most likely be?


Still think Governorships aren't important on a national level?

Friday, November 6, 2009

Why This Matters: The Ft. Hood Shootings

Normally, I’d be covering a number of different topics under one of these Why This Matters blogs, but the Ft. Hood Shootings had a lot of subjects that need to be covered that we haven’t really touched on yet and need to.

- We still haven’t learned anything from 9/11. Regrettably, most Americans have forgotten the lessons we should have learned from September 11th and gone back to thinking like we did on September 10th. The problem is that we no longer have the luxury of making the same mistakes again, not with the stakes being as high as they are. Whether it’s political correctness run amuck, military regulations, or simply government incompetence, the Ft. Hood shooting shouldn’t have happened if we were in a post-9/11 mindset. And the longer we wait to get back into the post-9/11 mindset, the greater the danger that another shooting like this will happen again.

- President Obama telegraphed his fundamental flaws. As a public speaker and a leader, I can tell you that you can’t always control the conditions under which you must perform, but you do need to learn how to adjust on the fly. Obama’s initial response exposed him as someone who can’t do that effectively, even when he has time to adjust. With about an hour before the speech he gave before a Tribal Nations Conference, he had the time to adjust it to make a stronger sentiment at the outset of his speech, and he chose not to. What does this say to America’s enemies? Nothing good for us, I guarantee.

- Criticism of Obama isn’t limited to the Right. Let’s not kid ourselves here. Obama still has a lot of people who are on the Hopeity-Change bandwagon. But the tepid response Obama gave to the Ft. Hood shooting opened the floodgates of criticism from the Right…and the Left. While Obama’s defenders are stuck calling everyone criticizing the response “neocons,” “rednecks,” and other Leftist invectives, the fact remains that even some of Obama’s supporters don’t think he made the right decision, as well they shouldn’t. This was Obama messing up on a grand scale, plain and simple, and no amount of crying “neocon” will change that.

- Political correctness needs to go away and fast. I can understand why some people cling to political correct viewpoints. We’re human beings and we don’t like to offend people if we can help it. Having said that, at what point does not wanting to offend people interfere with basic security? America is a melting pot, and we do our best to accommodate each other’s feelings. When it comes to our right to be secure in our own persons, however, bending over backwards to put on a charade of “sensitivity” only gives people the sense that we’re pushovers.

- This is another opportunity for peaceful Muslims to set the record straight. The Ft. Hood shooter by all appearances is a Muslim, and he has committed a violent act apparently in the name of Islam. So, where are the peaceful Muslims? I know you are out there and I appreciate the pressure you are under, by people in this country and by people of your own faith. But we need to hear your voice now, just as we needed to hear your voice after 9/11. You have to understand that Americans may be a bit on edge after 9/11, and your silence isn’t helping matters any. Tensions will be high again after the Ft. Hood shooting, and there is always the possibility that somebody will take their distrust too far and act on it. I don’t share your faith, but I will stand by you if you’re willing to condemn the violence committed by people of your faith. And, yes, I understand that I’m not exactly clean here as a Christian. I condemn the violence committed in the name of Christianity as barbaric and wrong-headed, and I hope you will do the same for Islam if for no other reason than to help us all get past ill-placed animosity. Your silence will not serve your interests here.

- Gun control laws don’t work. The Ft. Hood shooter is reported to have used two handguns to do his deadly deed. Gun control advocates will point to this as proof that we need stronger gun control laws, but they fail to realize that the laws on the books didn’t stop the shooter in the first place. Adding more laws to the books only makes more laws that the shooter and future shooters will break without remorse.

- We’re not doing enough to help soldiers psychologically. As much as we like to say we support the troops, our words don’t match our actions. No matter how many magnetic ribbons you put on your vehicles, we’re not doing as much as we can to help soldiers readjust to civilian life or deal with the possibility of going to war. We do okay for the most part healing the injuries we see, but we’re failing when it comes to healing the injuries we don’t see. We need to get serious and help the men and women who have served us so that they don’t become like ticking time bombs because we didn’t bother to try.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

What We Learned

I decided to bring this feature back after the special elections last night because there's a lot of analysis that isn't getting the attention it deserves.

- The GOP isn't dead yet. One of the most common refrains from the Left after the 2008 elections was that the Republican Party was on the verge of extinction. Although they did lose a seat in a heavily-Republican Congressional District in New York State, the fact that they were able to take the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial elections is a sign that Republicans are still showing signs of life. And when you consider they've done fairly well in special elections and runoffs since November 2008, it's a sign that reports of the GOP's death have been greatly exaggerated. (With all apologies to the late Mark Twain.)

- A conservative third party may be viable. The aforementioned New York special election debunked a popular myth that third parties guarantee Democrat victories. Check the election results and say that. A member of the Conservative Party in New York gave the Democrat a good race, and that's even with the Democrat getting the support of ACORN and SEIU (which are pretty much the same thing, but you get the idea). That tells me that there are enough conservatives out there who aren't willing to vote Republican just because there isn't a viable alternative. Doug Hoffman proved otherwise, and that's something the RNC needs to really pay attention to for the 2010 elections.

- ACORN may no longer be a major political factor. The special election in New York saw a Democrat and a Republican candidate supported by the same organization under different names. That may have been to stack the deck to guarantee a victory for their organization, but it backfired. Their Republican candidate dropped out days before the election and threw her support behind their Democrat candidate in a closer race than some expected. If I were in ACORN's political arm, I wouldn't be so joyous that the Democrat won because it was much more difficult than expected.

- Newt Gingrich isn't a Republican savior anymore. For many years, Gingrich was seen as the only one who could lead the GOP to victory in future elections, and his conservative credentials were unassailable. Then, yesterday happened. Gingrich surprisingly took the stance that the GOP needed to be more moderate and backed moderate Republican candidates. For anyone who followed Gingrich over his career, it was clear that he wasn't above backing Leftist ideology when it suited him, and in this election cycle, this tendency was evident yet again. If there are any Republicans reading this who still think Newt is the leader the GOP needs, it's time you take a hard look at him and how he acted in this election cycle.

- The special elections were not a referendum on Obama. This was a common misconception from the beginning, but I think it's too early for it to be true. Instead, I offer that what we saw last night was a referendum on Obama's ability to deliver an election for a Democrat. Since the elections were primarily more of state interest than of national interest, the President really didn't need to pay as much attention to them as he did, and it cost him. Even the Democrat running in the Virginia governor's race rejected Obama's help, especially after polling showed Obama cost him a couple of points after just one appearance. Going into the 2010 election cycle, Democrats will have to take a hard look at whether they want the President to campaign for them if they want to win.

- Sarah Palin is still an asset to the GOP. Hidden in the coverage of the election were stories about Palin coming out in favor of more conservative Republicans. This burns many in the Republican hierarchy because they dismissed her as a lightweight, but it seems the candidates she backed won for the most part. Unlike Obama, Palin has very little to lose endorsing candidates, but she has quite a bit to gain. This special election cycle shows just how much Palin still has to offer Republicans who are on the same page as her. Oh, and did I mention she's still smokin' hot?

- Change isn't just a Democrat slogan anymore. In 2006 and 2008, Democrats ran on a platform of change and it worked for them effectively. However, the thing about change is that it's not permanent. You can, and will, change to something different at some point. And with the elections yesterday, we saw change that the Left can't believe in. (With no apologizes to President Obama.)