Software has its limitations:

A technical committee that advises the U.S. Election Assistance Commission agreed unanimously that all new voting machines should be able to be audited either via paper trails or some new technology.

It’s a decision I agree with. It reminded me of working an aircraft simulator issue with Military Airlift Command (no longer in existence). Their requirements officer wanted to order a motion simulator for a cargo aircraft that had a range of freedom exceeding the space available in their facilities.

“Just software limit the simulator’s range of motion until we get the buildings modified” he said.

No can do. If the mechanical arm can reach through the ceiling we weren’t going to rely on software to keep it from doing so. The solution was to make sure it was physically impossible to hit the building.

Paper back-up for voting machines is the equivalent concept; we shouldn't have to rely solely on software when we don't have to.

The Swift Boat Veterans ads against John Kerry were devastating - short,sweet,direct,irrefutable. Liberal iconography represents the SBV's as discredited. It's a big lie, but liberals are effective as a swarm. One of them states the lie, another takes it as a given and you need a disciplined effort to assemble the refutation, which you doubt will be accepted since liberals do not argue in good faith to establish how things are. They argue in bad faith to establish that things are as they want them to seem to be. (We need new labels for Conservative and Liberal..Realist and Fabulist? Neocon and Neoconman? Babyhugger and Babycrusher?)

John Hinderaker of Powerline has assembled an efficient refutation in a single post. It's short enough and long enough and relevant enough to show in one place the truth of the SBV campaign and to discredit the meme that it's been discredited. The LSM is a numerous, agile, motivated swarm. If they say black is white and swarm over the shades of gray for imputed inconsistencies in the idea that black is black, then it takes an accurate, elegant mind to shove the big lie back down their throats.

When Karl Rove left the White House, many short-sighted Democrats thought the architect of their hell was gone. I think they would have been better off if he remained - now he he has a free hand with no need for Presidential restraint. In the WSJ he outlines a littany of failures from the Democrat controlled congress:

"Democrats criticized Congress for dragging its feet on the budget and pledged that they would do better. Instead, they did worse. The new fiscal year started Oct. 1--five weeks ago--but Democrats have yet to send the president a single annual appropriations bill."

"...all their talk about "fiscal discipline" is just that--talk. They're proposing to spend $205 billion more than the president has proposed over the next five years."

"Let's also be clear about what it means to roll back the president's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts...
- Every income-tax payer will pay more as all tax rates rise.
- Families will pay $500 more per child as they lose the child tax credit.
- Taxes on small businesses would go up by an average of about $4,000.
- Retirees will pay higher taxes on investment retirement income.
- And now we have the $1 trillion tax increase proposed as "tax reform" by the Democrats' chief tax writer last month."

"Beholden to MoveOn.org and other left-wing groups..."

"After promising on the campaign trail to "support our troops," Democrats tried to cut off funding for our military while our soldiers and Marines are under fire from the enemy."

"Their presidential candidates fell all over each other in a recent debate to pledge an end to the Terrorist Surveillance Program."

They "have launched more than 400 investigations and made more than 675 requests for documents, interviews or testimony"

" refused a bipartisan compromise on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program"

Think Karl Rove is compiling anecdotes for his memoirs?

The Democratic victory in 2006 was narrow. They won the House by 85,961 votes out of over 80 million cast and the Senate by a mere 3,562 out of over 62 million cast. A party that wins control by that narrow margin can quickly see its fortunes reversed when it fails to act responsibly, fails to fulfill its promises, and fails to lead.

Looks more like a battle plan.

No.

The Church does not endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.

*Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Townhall and others have been on this for some time, but now MSM CBS News brings it up--why earmarks are a BAD idea--however admirable the intention, they do not receive the same amount of scrutiny other appropriations do, and they can lead to corruption of public officials. Video here, via the NRCC. In case you missed it, The Pig Book is out for 2008. One more note for the presidential campaign. Hillary one of the top earmarkers in the Senate. Senator John McCain has requested zero. And Barack Obama has a very mixed record, written up by a liberal-leaning columnist from the Chicago Sun Times:

Instead, since I have some reporting history here, I am noting a pattern that has emerged: This is Obama's third ethical conversion of convenience -- taking on a higher standard, but only when it appears to be politically expedient. Obama is making government transparency and ethics a centerpiece of his presidential campaign.

It's a signature issue for McCain, and a winning one.

The votes are still being counted to elect the next Mayor of London. It's between Red Ken and Blonde Boris. Ken can only hang on by virtue of a high turnout of the Islamic block vote. Boris would increase the gaiety of nations and scrape away some of the pc gunge that infects politics.

More reaction to the UK local government elections: