Free Republic

Bonds will rally because the bond market knows we will have an economic slowdown with the Dems in charge. The dollar will break because of anticipated Dem inflationary and budget busting policies. The stock market is a coin flip on how it will act as a result of a Dem victory.

The markets that react more clearly to macro events are the bonds/notes and the currencies. What are they saying today about the election? Bonds/note interest rates way down as they predict a economic slowdown from Dem gains.

The dollar way down today also as it predicts Dem. inflationary/budget busting policies to come. The stock mkt. could just be rallying off the end of the uncertainty of the election. The bonds and the dollar are giving the true negative reaction to the feared Dem gains.

Great idea. I used your postal service link to email a suggestion that the Reagan stamp should be reissued for the new 39 cent stamp.

I was at a county party meeting where Harris spoke. I was shocked by how liberal her speech was. She spoke about expanding public housing, new environmental laws, etc. etc. As this is a very conservative county, the reaction was very muted in the room at best. It was like she was using her more "moderate" stump speech, but giving it to her base who would prefer to hear more red meat.

She then immediately left without shaking hands after getting an obviously staged note that she had a "pressing appointment". As a big backer of her, it was quite a disappointment.

I do agree G.H. Bush was a very lame candidate. However, Clinton in the 1992 race was tarred with scandal even then, and viewed by many as not "presidential material". He won with only 43% of the popular vote.

It is hard for me to believe that Perot getting 19% of the popular vote while running on a "conservative", reduce the deficit platform, did not cost Bush the race. Bush may not have deserved to win based on his poor candidacy and position changes, but Perot taking voters who were predominantly white males gave him no shot to beat even the hapless Clinton.

I also think Perot's true intentions to bring down Bush and the Republicans (if there was any doubt) showed later during the 1994-95 Contract With America fight. The Republican Congress put its neck out fighting for the bulk of Perot's platform against the Clinton's and the media. The Republicans begged Perot to speak out in favor of what were essentially his own positions, and he repeatedly refused and even subtly knocked the Republicans actions. I think his behavior during this time (and his running again in 1996), took away all doubts of Perot's intentions of wanting to elect Bill Clinton.

My fear is that if Hillary runs for President she will secretly recruit a third party candidate to run and siphon off Rep. votes. She is not one to take chances and she knows that husband Bill would not have won had it not been for Perot taking 19% of the white vote away.

Trump would be a perfect candidate for her who could afford a third party presidential run in return for "large favors" later from a President Hillary.

I agree that the Club For Growth is the only group to donate to.

They serve two great purposes. First, they scare RINO Republicans to death that they are going to run a Club for Growth sponsored Republican primary opponent against them, and thus "help" them to vote more conservative than they would otherwise.

Secondly, they run great, hard hitting ads in the general elections to support real Republicans that the RNC will never come close to airing.

The article mentions that conservatives are calling on the Club for Growth to challenge these RINOs in their primaries. That is the only real hope. You cannot count on the Republican party to ever discipline or challenge an incumbent Republican. Giving your money to the Club for Growth is the only group I know that puts the fear of God in these RINO incumbents.

I was at a Chic-Fi-La restaurant in a local mall yesterday. The manager came up to my family after we were served and asked if we knew anyone who would be willing to work. He said he would pay $10 hr. + and would give $100 to anyone who recommends anyone he hires. He said he is desperate for workers and needs as many as 20 people. We live in Southwest Florida.

I agree. There is a decent chance we will be very disappointed by Roberts. The decision by Bush to select two S.C. nominees without a clear conservative judicial track record cannot be dismissed as a "mistake". Bush knew the importance of this pick and his promises to his loyal base. This is a betrayal to conservatives who have given everything they have to the Republican party in the hope and promise of the eventual reform of this S.C.

You are correct. The weak dollar policy will continue. I just think it is disappointing that we continue thinking (like many other countries that failed in the past) we can devalue our way to prosperity. Maybe Republicans should quit saving and become like the spendthrift Dems since their leadership desires to devalue the product of their labor.

The Bernanke selection signals to the market that there will be less concern over inflation and over a weakening dollar. As he is famous for his "We have a thing called a printing press" quote, which was in response to how we should fight falling prices. Therefore the dollar and U.S. bonds and notes fell on the news of his selection, as they are the financial instruments most harmed by inflation.

For the many on FR that think a weak dollar is the path to economic growth, they are obviously pleased. There was a time when it was only the Democrats who wanted to devalue our currency because they felt it helped the union manufacturing workers and hurt the wealthy "savers" or Republicans. The weak dollar goal is yet another new Bush doctrine that is against traditional Republican policy.

Great news. Miers is now only 34 bid on Tradesports.com (out of 100) for winning confirmation to the S.C. She has been 60-70% bid for the last couple of weeks. Tradesports has a great forecasting record as informed people put real money on their predictions, versus just spouting off.

This betrayal by Bush of selecting this political hack to the high office of the S.C., might finally be unraveling.

I would not "bet" against Tradesports being right. Miers is now only 34 bid (out of 100). People knowledgeable enough to put money on the line, instead of just spouting off, say that she has only a 34% chance of winning confirmation to the S.C.

Tradesports has consistently been right on predicting close political races and numerous other decisions. That is why the Defense Dept. wanted to have a "betting" web site to predict terrorist acts, etc.

This is great news. The power of the conservatives, blogs, etc. have had their effect. It looks like this political hack selection has a good chance of going down.

I think people should not underestimate how big an error this S.C. selection was by Bush. I know two "Pioneers" for the Republican party here in Florida who say many contributers they deal with are massively disappointed in this Miers pick and feel betrayed. They paraphrase them basically saying "they are going to back away" for awhile as this selection is just one more let down for them.

I personally have sent letters to the Republican party and a group of Rep. Senators I have donated to in the past, that they can forget any financial support from me until they go back to conservative, small government values.

Over the last year I have heard many Rep.'s say that they were through with Bush over some issue or because of some liberal policy he has supported. I have always been against this thinking as I felt it only supported the Dem's, and that Bush's presidency was still so important for the judiciary and the war on terror. This S.C. pick is finally my "last straw" moment. I am exhausted by the Rep. and Bush "disappointments" and I am going to back away at least financially until they return to conservative principles.

I agree. I amazed that so many Republicans and FR's are rationalizing this embarrassing selection. No conservative would have chosen her if they had her bio next to all of the other outstanding choices. I feel she should be embarrassed to be selected by her "friend and client" over such long toiling, exemplary conservative jurists.

What a poor message this sends to these conservative judges who have fought the intellectual battles against the liberals all of these years. This selection is not based on merit. She should resign her nomination to the S.C.

I totally agree that all of the time, money, and passion I have put into Republican politics and supporting Bush seems to me now to be a total waste of time (other than the war on terror). I have sent letters to the DNC and all of the Senate Republicans I have donated to over the years that I will not contribute one cent more until they start following conservative Republican principles. My only contributions from now on will be to groups like the Club for Growth and to a few lone, principled Rep. standouts like Coburn.

Bush knew how impatient conservatives had become with his liberal spending and big government policies when this judicial pick was decided. I feel he knowingly betrayed the core of his conservative supporters by nominating this 60 year old single woman with very little conservative credentials. Regardless of what the media and hand wringers report, the Dem's were on the run on the S.C. voting and most any qualified conservative would have won nomination.

I feel that Bush is just like the Republican gang of 7 that when we finally had the judicial nominating process in our grasp, they blocked us. Bush had the opportunity with these two picks to finally give the conservative base what they have been so unselfishly working toward for 20 years.

I am one former Bush backer who is not ashamed to say I am totally disappointed and disgusted by Bush's leftward veering on nearly all issues (except the war on terror). I have written to the RNC and all of the Senate Republicans I have donated to over the years to say I am taking a hiatus from donating until the Republicans and Bush stop taking their hiatus from clear conservative policies.

I agree. I used to predict that the day Hillary announces there will already be an agreement in place for someone to run as a third party candidate to split the Rep. vote. She knows from experience how pivotal Perot's running was to her husband's election and she will want to have every advantage in place. I think people underestimate how easy it might be for someone as devious as Hillary to arrange for wealthy Dem backers to fund a third party candidate that would hurt the Republicans.