petardier

Ok, getting Obama re-elected was good. Getting Elizabeth Warren elected to the Senate was good too.

Better still, Elizabeth Warren tells us today that Harry Reid confirms she's on the senate banking committee. I bet the Republican senators wish they'd let her have the Consumer Protection commission now. I bet the bankers wish they'd saved the money they spent trying to stop her.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/12/1169319/-It-just-happened

Yes, I'm gloating just a little bit.

I wasn't too concerned about Romney relatives indirectly owning shares in voting machine manufacturers, but this story does worry me:

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/15/2012/4783

Secret software updates installed in the computers that tabulate the county results in Ohio just before the election? And it's not tested or certified as required by law? I hope they get an injunction in time. I hope someone gets a copy of that update and makes it available for dissection by reputable computer security professionals.

A little thought should make it obvious that if you want to steal an election, fraudulent voters is a stupid plan, subverting individual machines is less stupid, but still potentially leaves many opportunities to be caught. On the other hand, a hack at the level where the votes are tabulated leaves very few machines with evidence of what happened. Such a hack might pass unnoticed unless the audit trail from the individual districts is strong and is kept available.

The Union Leader, New Hampshire's newspaper for conservatives who view metal tools with suspicion, just posted an editorial in favor of Romney releasing more tax info. I hadn't expected they'd be so even-handed.

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120726/OPINION01/707269907/0/SEARCH

If you've been reading this blog for a while, you know I can't stand Jeff Jacoby, a conservative whose columns appear in the Boston Globe. He's pretty much wrong about everything and generally blind to the faults of conservatives. I was astonished to see that his column today criticized Newt Gingrich.

What was Newt's fault? On March 7 (before the US took action in Libya, Gingrich said, "Exercise a no-fly zone this evening... The idea that we're confused about a man who has been an anti-American dictator since 1969 just tells you how inept this administration is... This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with...". Two weeks later, as the UN was voting on a no-fly zone, Newt said, "[The Obama White House] is maybe the most passive and out of touch presidency in modern American history".

After the cruise missile strikes on Libya, Newt bashed Obama for "opportunistic amateurism without planning or professionalism". On March 23, Gingrich claimed, "I would not have intervened... I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Khadafy".

Even Jeff Jacoby sees through Newt Gingrich here. Newt's got nothing. He's just against anything Obama does. Evidently the power-hungry little weasel thinks that being anti-Obama no matter will reward him more than intellectual consistency. Since Jacoby has noticed the hypocrisy and pointed it out, I think there's some hope Newt may be wrong.