"The Devalued Prime Minister of a Devalued Government"

MEP David Hannan shows some serious backbone against PM Gordon Brown. I wish an American politician would have the backbone to take Obama to task for his fiscal policies, which are just the same as Brown's.

Briefly...

While I'm waiting for my brother to be done with the Robin Hood and Omnibus books so I can finish my homework, I thought I should mention something I saw yesterday that surprised and gratified me. For at least two weeks now I've been telling everyone who will listen that the Obama bailout is completely unrealistic and irresponsible because it has $2 trillion in new spending with no real rise in taxes and a large deficit already--I assumed the government was spending money it didn't have. 

However, according to the invaluable CNN Political Ticker, Obama has "identified" $2 trillion in government budget cuts. 

"In this budget, we will end education programs that don't work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them," Obama said. "We'll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq, and reform our defense budget so that we're not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use." 

For a politician, this is incredibly specific, and I applaud Obama for even trying. 

Conclusion? Barack Obama isn't a complete idiot. Even he recognizes that we won't get out of this economic crisis by pledging $2 trillion we don't have to fight a crisis--without taking that $2 trillion from somewhere else...like the massive, bloated federal budget! 

As a commenter on CNN noticed: "1 month into his administration and he's already found $2 trillion to cut...I think this illustrates how pathetic the Bush administration really was." He has a point. 

Since all government budget cuts are good, and this is a government budget cut, therefore this $2 trillion budget cut is good! 

Just some simple logic there. 

In other news, there was a rather absurd article on CNN entitled "Galaxy May be Full of 'Earth-like Planets'". Some of the evolutionist bilge out there defies belief. People throw around huge figures as if they pulled them from the air and expect total agreement. The Milky Way is 13 billion years old, really? How'd they figure that out, by carbon-dating cosmically-enabled mouse turds? 38,000 intelligent civilizations may have formed in the Milky Way! Wow! You'd think one of them might have moseyed on over to little ol' Earth in those 13 billion years. 

Extra-terrestrial life is, I admit, quite appealing to me as a science-fiction buff. I don't know what the Bible says about it, but I think it would be a HUGE affirmation of God's power is there were "aliens." The chances that something will be created out of nothing...which is what the Big Bang was, are already so infinitesimal that they defy logical belief. However, add to that it happening more than once and the odds are approximately ten times infinity to none. Perhaps if it did happen, some of those chronically cynic scientists would acknowledge a Supreme Being. 

But Abe's done with the recitation...now I can try and wade through it. I swear our homework level has been through the roof for the whole of February. It's crazy! 

Mosings on Bush

My last post was devestatingly critical of our 43rd president. While much of that was accurate, I believe I failed to illustrate the positive aspects of our much-maligned leader. Perhaps I was just angry that night, perhaps I bought into virtual lynching he has received from the liberal media. Either way, W's good deeds as well as the not-so-good ones deserve to be told. 

1. He cut taxes. All tax cuts are good tax cuts, so the Bush tax cuts must be too. 

2. His response to the 9/11 attacks was spot-on. If for no other reason, Bush's response to 9/11 will be his reconciling factor in the history books. He was prompt, he was honest, he got things done. Afghanistan and Iraq were pulled of (initially) without a hitch. Post-invasion, he stumbled. Rumsfeld was the wrong man for the job; Gates is much better. But the Surge worked in Iraq, there's no reason to think that dealing thusly with the Taliban in Afghanistan won't. Bush led on 9/11. He led the American people through a time of great sorrow, but also great unity. However, under his watch that unity also crumbled into petty squabbling. 

3. He has been consistently pro-life. As Dad remarked to me today, "Eight years of a pro-life president, even if he is a big-government pro-life president, is worth it." And so it was. 

4. He wasn't Al Gore. All criticism of Bush should be qualified with, "Well, it would have been ten times worse under Gore." Or Kerry. 

All in all, I think that Bush will be another Hoover of history. Only, however, because historians are almost entirely liberal revisionists with no real interest in facts, only spin. In any just portrait of the Bush era, he would be a largely sympathetic figure. He tried, and sometimes succeeded. But that can't fix the fact that he never had Reagan's, or even Clinton's tie with the American people--and that is what it takes to be a great president. 

In other news, R.I.P. Andrew Wyeth. A great painter. 

Mosings44

Thoughts on President Obama and the aftermath of Election 2008.

The Republicans suffered a searing electoral defeat in November; Barack Obama was swept into office by a substantial margin, and Republicans lost ground in both the House and the Senate. Though a bleak picture overall for conservatives, the election did yield some rather unexpected bright spots. 

1. The people of American's most populous (and most liberal) state affirmed, by a surprisingly broad margin, the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. The people of California passed Proposition 8, which provoked the fury of diseased sybarites throughout the state. The sweet and fluffy LGBT community yelled racial epithets at African-American people because...you guessed it...they don't support gay marriage. In Colorado, they burned a Mormon Bible outside of a Mormon church because many Mormons also do not support gay marriage. So life is back to normal out west; but the sanctity of marriage has won a small victory. 

2. McCain-Palin didn't win. Frankly, the ticket was a bit of a disaster. I respect Senator McCain greatly, but his campaign was a shambles and his team's handling of Sarah Palin; the whole vapid "Drill, Baby, Drill" and "bulldog with lipstick" routines were probably more shocking than anything to sane Americans. I don't blame this on Palin; I read a recent article written by an Alaskan who said that, back home in the Yukon, Palin wasn't a hard-charging, mindless partisan, but a sincere, canny leader, unafraid to stand up to the Republican machine and compromise with her erstwhile opponents. Much as I respect her, however, she does not inspire confidence. I am sure she does a capable job as Alaska's governor. However, as Alaska goes so the lower 49 do not. Alaska has always danced to its own tune, and this case is no different. Sarah Palin is and will remain an oddity out of the north; maligned through no fault of her own. McCain simply is not a man I would trust to lead this country through the troubled waters it now faces. Where Obama exudes assurance and icy calm, McCain is inflammatory and, in a gravelly way, shrill. 

3. I have always believed that the Republican party is more effective as a minority party. Fighting a heroic rear-guard defense against the forces of big-government liberalism. The Democratic party is, after all the party of government; it's their natural habitat. The Republicans are the minority party, then, going into an administration that seems so far determined to run an accountable and, at least on the surface, bipartisan White House. Whether that will be the case in the long run remains to be seen, but perhaps given competent Republican leadership, the party can regain control of itself and perhaps make gains in, if not 2010, then 2012. 

Notice that I was positive about McCain's loss, not Obama's win. There is a strong distaste for Obama among conservatives, which I can certainly understand. His power over the electorate is unbelievably strong, almost unnerving. I am not, however, greatly dismayed about the course of this country as we move into the 44th presidency. Barack Obama has picked Republicans for his cabinet; he chose conservative mega-pastor Rick Warren to deliver his inaugural dedication; he supports the sanctity of marriage; and last but not least, he plans to cut taxes by $310 billion. 

Barack Obama's cabinet picks so far have been startlingly reminiscent of Clinton's. In fact, I have not seen any yet that didn't serve in some capacity in the Clinton administration. This is both a good and a bad thing. It is good because these people presumably have experience, and Clinton's Third Way policies are certainly not the worst Democratic tradition Obama could choose to emulate. It's bad because the Clinton administration was corrupt; it's biggest achievement the perjurous defense of Clinton from legitimate impeachment charges. 

Barack Obama exudes leadership, like Master Yoda's aura in the force. He is icy calm at all times. His voice is deep and soothing. I'm trying not to make him sound like a Hindu god here, but you've all seen his unbreakable composure. Most of my political life has been during the Bush administration, watching a man who is either viciously cunning or a complete dolt make mercurial decisions in which men have died. Bush's famous actions on 9/11 notwithstanding, his presidency has been insular; he has been almost as distant and removed from the people, and they from him and the real process of governing this country, as an ancient, implacable Chinese dynastic emperor. Obama promises to involve the people in the legislative process once again. If Obama is the man he promised this country, then this country is in good hands--regardless of his policies. If Obama is the reasonable man of sense I expect him to be, he will see the stupidity of withdrawing our troops from the Middle East as so many Democrats have called for; and hopefully find a better course. 

I have not joined the Obama bandwagon. He could be dangerous if he uses his unshakeable charisma to guide the American people down the wrong road; like a master leading a trusting horse to the knacker's yard. If he leads this country astray, America will break him. But I hope that God will bless his presidency, and that he will be the true leader that Bush was not. 

Predictions: The Obama Presidency + 2012

Obama Presidency Predictions

Obama's staff picks so far have been astonishingly Clinton-era; nary a new face. Clinton-ite, and pusher behind the NAFTA Free Trade Agreement that most people point to when they talk about Clinton's "centrist" policies, Rahm Emanuel, as previously mentioned, will be chief-of-staff. John Podesta, another rabid liberal partisan will be head of Obama's so called "Transition Project," which appears to be a way that Obama can lead before he's actually sworn in.

For the Cabinet, the odiously liberal HuffPo has a Dem-insider post about likely Cabinet picks.

Attorney General: The HuffPo says that former Bush AG Alberto Gonzales brought "controversy" to this post, but seems to have forgotten Janet Reno's bloody attack on religious nuts in the early nineties...ever heard of Waco? Arizona governor Janet Napolitano is reportedly in line for this post. Young, Black governor Deval Patrick is also being considered for this post in young, Black president Obama's cabinet.

Treasury Secretary: Tim Geithner, Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve, and a protege of Clinton-era TS Robert Rubin, is being considered, as well as another Clinton-era TS, the former president of Harvard, Larry Summers. Summers was fired from his (tenured) post at Harvard when he suggested that there may be inherent differences between men and women in the fields of science and engineering....Amazing. Both of these men are Clinton "centrists."

Secretary of Defense: Robert Gates, the current secretary, is probably going to stay for a while. After that, Colin Powell's name is being bandied around, but he's already served in the post under two presidents and has shown no interest. Richard Danzig, former Navy Secretary, is also being considered.

Secretary of State: The laughable John Kerry is reportedly angling hard for this job; other candidates are, surprisingly, a Republican; RINO Chuck Hagel of Nebraska; and three boring Obama policy advisors. Although, if Robert Gates is kept on as Defense Secretary, another high-ranking Republican cabinet secretary is unlikely. (Although, as Glenn Beck noted on Monday, Gates is not a registered Republican.)

Other posts:

Sec. of Agriculture: Former governor Tom Vilsack, of (you guessed it) Iowa--although he was a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton (where is she in these discussions, by the way? Obama seems to have totally ignored her.) We Wisconsinites are much better at agriculture than the poor sappy Iowans, so may I humbly suggest to President Obama that you rid us of...err, I mean, appoint WI governor Jim Doyle to the job? Word around here is that Doyle would accept a post if it were offered to him, but it might lose the Wisconsin governorship to the Democrats.

Energy: Many people, from PA governor Ed Rendell to CA governor and Republican Ah-nold Schwarzanegger are being considered.

Education: Joel Klein or Caroline Kennedy.

Policy-wise, Obama seems to be following in Clinton's footsteps, with many old Clinton names and policies. He seems committed to ending the war in Iraq, and possibly Afghanistan as well, although he may renege on that promise if as president, he is made aware of the blow to US image it would be and the other reasons against pulling out. He would have to weigh whether upsetting the anti-war wing of the party with a phased withdrawal (like Bush's plan) would lose him more votes than the possible awful consequences to our image abroad, not to mention middle-eastern policy and politics and the possibility that emboldened terrorists would

Predictions for the 2012 Election

This all depends on Obama's presidency. Will he be Carter or Clinton? He is certainly angling to be the next Clinton, but if the economy heads even farther south, that would reflect badly on him as it did on Carter, and if he withdraws from Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a serious possibility of war in the Middle-East, possibly between Pakistan and Afghanistan, or Iran and Iraq (2.0). If Obama is a weak brand for re-election in 2012, the challenger is all the more important. If Obama seems strong or moderate, as Clinton was in '96, the LAST thing we want to do is nominate another Dole (like McCain would be then.)

Mitt Romney (who would be the first Mormon president) is already gearing up for 2012, and barring anything unexpected, he is the frontrunner: his strong economic experience would be a huge asset. Conservatives are likely to support Louisiana Republican success story Bobby Jindal, who would be the first Indian-American president, who has governed post-Katrina LA with grace and aplomb, or Sarah Palin. We will see in 2012 if Palin's image has been permanently dented by the McCain camp's mishandling of her: the whole "bulldog in lipstick" thing, I've heard, is very different than the image she cultivated as Alaska governor, and probably boiled up by the McCain people. If she put that behind her, she would be strong in 2012. If not, she would be a goof on the Dan Quayle scale. Mike Huckabee is not to be ruled out. All of these candidates seem good for 2012, just as none of them seemed particularly good for 2008. Ideally, I would pick Jindal-Huckabee, but they are so publically Christian that it might be hard. Romney-Palin could be worse, as could Romney-Huckabee or Huckabee-Romney. Romney-Jindal would be a strong ticket, but anything with Palin on the top might not fly.

Enjoy four years of the Obamaniac!

Four Years of Obama-Biden...Saints Preserve US

Well, Obama won convincingly. I'm glad, in a way. His victory brings closure. McCain can take his rightful place as respected elder statesman of the Republican Party, and Palin can return to Alaska and continue her good works there, and get excited for 2012. The Republican party is struck down but not destroyed, and will rise again; hopefully better and stronger.

I remember reading a TIME article after Obama's watershed speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and having a positive impression of Barack Obama. Four years later, I still don't hate him. That's a little scary, considering that I loathe both John Kerry and Al Gore, the previous Democratic candidates. Frankly, the guy is just likable. As I've said before, it's unfortunate that he's a liberal Democrat.

His appointment of partisan Democrat Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff throws his campaign promises of country-before-party out the window. Emanuel, an Orthodox Jew, does underline Obama's support of Isreal however. In the four days since his election, Obama has made more gaffes than in the entire previous campaign combined: he made a insensitive, factually wrong remark about Nancy Reagan, and got into a bit of unpleasantness over a European missile shield. That makes two in four days. His previous record? 1, in the year since his campaign started: the so-called "Bittergate" comments about Pennsylvanians clinging to God and guns; which cost him Pennsylvania and delayed his win in the Democratic primary.

What kind of president will Barack Obama be? There are two options: he doesn't have the guts or the charisma to be the next JFK, but he could very well be the next Jimmy Carter. Republicans, obviously would hope for this, since Carter was so inept that he managed to lose a landslide election to the formerly-disgraced, only four years post-Watergate Republicans and a former actor named Ronald Reagan. He could also be the next FDR. I shudder at this, because the more I find out about FDR, the less I like him. Obama would, thank God, be banned from running for more than two terms, but he could have the same socializing influence; a second New Deal, perhaps--and after six and a half decades of Republicans trying to undo the first one.

I am not exceedingly sorry that the Republicans lost. Why not? The fact is, Democrats are the party of government and Republicans are not; they're preternaturally comfortable there, Republicans squirm. And then when Republicans get into power and office, they don't have the guts to do what they got in there for: reduce, cut, prune government.

And it's also true, conversely, that Republicans are a better minority party than the Democrats. How effective has the Democratic congress been since the 2006 midterms? The answer is, not at all. Reid and Pelosi have a lower approval rating than President Bush. When Republicans have a strong, focused minority, they can effectively block some of the more egregious Democratic policies, and yet still enjoy the inclusiveness of not having to appeal to voters outside the base, making for a stronger, more orthodoz party.

We shall see what the next four years hold. Safe to say, though, they will be nothing like the Bush years. What remains to be seen is whether that's a good or a bad thing.

The Anti-Palin Conspiracy

Since Senator McCain's nomination of Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his Vice-president, a move that many on the Right viewed with jubilant celebration and the Left viewed with unanimous despairing horror, the news media has quite frankly gone beyond belief in attacking her. Even Barack Obama made a questionable reference to her--he may have called her a pig--but more on that later.

Briefly, they claimed that her Downs-Syndrome son Trig, born in April, was actually a sham, and that the baby was really her grandson by her 17-year-old daughter (who did, as it happens, become pregnant--and decided to keep the baby and marry the father). How incredibly absurd. Unless she resorted to a fake pregnancy belly and kept the First Daughter of an American state out of photographich surveillance for months and months, it would be utterly impossible. What am I talking about, it IS utterly impossible. What a disgusting lie.

Then, they said, she fired her cop ex-brother-in-law, and his immediate supervisor who refused to fire him. (Innapropriately.) She did fire both of them, but in fact the cop in question was a known idiot, who shot animals illegally and used a taser on his stepson without legitimate reason; and his supervisor was obviously fired for standing in Palin's way over it. Frankly, I can see where the controversy comes from. However, she did the right thing. She knew the man was a moron, and she didn't want him as a cop in her state. So she fired him and his kvetching supervisor.

And there are far more:

• Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she increased funding and signed a bill that will triple per-pupil funding over three years for special needs students with high-cost requirements.

• She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.
  

• She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982.
  
  
• Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a "courtesy" when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.
  
  
• Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

This from factcheck.org.

Even The Obambi himself has made veiled insults, and some of the idiotic media sniffing around is certainly at his campaign's behest.



The story behind this video: In her acceptance speech at the convention, Palin told a joke about the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull. The answer was lipstick. Here Barack Obama makes a completely un-subtle attack on Palin, referring her to a pig. He insisted he wasn't talking about her personally, but watch the crowd's reaction: THEY thought he was talking about her.

And Obama's step down of late hasn't been limited to Palin. Oh, no. In a recent ad, Obama accuses McCain of being out of touch and incapable of leading the nation because he can't use a computer. That would certainly be bad under normal circumstances. But John McCain was a prisoner of war for years, and in the course of that sustained lasting injuries, one of which prevents him from being accomplishing complicated hand-motor skills, like typing on a computer. So McCain can't use a computer, but only because he suffered bravely under Vietnamese torture for years while Obama was in Muslim school in Jakarta. Quite a contrast, eh?

In conclusion, this media blitz like never before has highlighted the truly breathtaking bias in the news media. They hate Republicans, and Palin registers like a bogie on their radars. Attack her with everything we've got, they say, playing fast and loose with the truth along the way. An incredibly low and scary attack on a strong, principled woman, who deserves to be the next Vice President of the United States of America.

Will Hill Stay?

Barack Obama probably is now being called by respectable media outlets the presumptive nominee. He has surpassed the number of delegates needed, and it has been increasingly clear in the past months that he is the leader in this campaign. Now the question is: what will Hill do? She hasn't as yet conceded defeat, but most reports say she's angling for the VP spot, which Obama might just give her. Personal feelings between the aside, polls show that if Obama is the nominee, a substantial portion of HRC's hardliners won't vote for him. Depending on how much of that is dependent on racism or sexism, picking HRC as his VP would be a smart move--and bad for John McCain.

Was Barack Obama born in the United States? He says he was, in Hawaii, but the State of Hawaii refuses to release his birth certificate and is now no longer paying them any attention. It hasn't mattered up till now because, as a Senator, he is allowed to have been born outside this country, but as President, he can't. So, this is important. Chances are he is American-born, but this is a serious issue, and how much coverage of it have you seen in the We-love-you-B.-Hussein-Obama media? Zilch. Zero. Nada.

McCain's VP pick becomes all the more important if Hillary is Obama's Veep. Why? Because they would have a historic ticket. If I was McCain, I would choose someone young, preferably a woman or a minority. That seems a little cynical, but it's the way to win. Voters, starstruck by a black president and a female VP, would vote for Obama-Clinton on that alone.

Therefore, my two nominees:

Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. The first female governor of Alaska is also a fairly Conservative, pro-life, pro-marriage female, who became the first person to give birth while a governor. She gave birth to her son Trig on April 18th of this year. She's a woman, she's conservative, and in a recent poll she beat out everyone except the Huck as possible VP picks.

Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. Governor Jindal is thirty-six years old, and of Indian descent. He was, however, born in the United States, making him eligible to be Vice-President. He has bullied the reluctant and corrupt Louisiana legislature into passing sweeping ethics-reform bills in a state ravaged by Katrina and corruption. He's charming and personable, rather like a younger, Indian, Christian, pro-life Barack Obama.

So...You decide. Well, actually McCain does, but I'd like your input as well.

Summer!

For those of you who are as yet unaware of this beautiful new phenomenon, SUMMER is here. That's right, ladies and gentlemen. School. Is. Over. And I love it. The last weeks of May and the first weeks of June are really the most beautiful time here in Baldwin. After the cold and the mud, but before the oppressive, insect-ravaged heat. Early Fall, too, is beautiful, but in that season the glory of summer is declining, instead of growing as it is right now. This is my second official day of summer vacation, and I enjoyed it immensely, not least because we had the Renz over, and listened to some great muzak and played some great rounds of Halo 3 and Ghost Recon.

The political scene, my usual forte, has been abnormally quiet these last few days. Obama is now the presumptive nominee, but the CW is that Clinton won't bow out gracefully--her only reason to do so would be if she had a reasonable chance of becoming Obama's VP pick, which I and most pundits and Nancy Pelosi don't see as a real possibility--but will stick it to the bitter end, no matter what the cost to the Democrat's seemingly stellar chances in November.

Reading National Review on Monday, I found a rather profound statement regarding Obama's election by the establishment. If, or when, Obama becomes the nominee, he will be the only nominee from any party in the history of the United States to have lost California, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, and Texas--the biggest states in the Union, with the exception of their mutual home state and Obama's constituent state Illinois. When you think about it, that's rather stunning. Equally so are the several polls I've read indication that a substantial portion of Clinton's supporters will NOT vote for Obama. I think I remember 15%. That, too, is a staggering number, and could tip the balance in McCain's favor.

What else? Good question. I'm trying to think about ways to snazz up the blog. I think tonight or tomorrow I'm going to have a brainstorming session about topics, so look for more at Mosings in the future. Until then, my friends, live long and prosper.

HRC Slowly losing ground, End-of-the-year blues

First things first. Hillary Clinton scraped a two-point win in Indiana, but lost by a huge margin in North Carolina; the two states which held their primaries yesterday. This is probably the beginning of the end for the Clinton campaign: she's been a long-shot since Super Tuesday, but held on. This result was probably not the shut-out Obama was expecting, but does her already-faltering campaign a good deal of damage.

Robert Novak's Political Report said that we shouldn't be surprised if she drops our before the end of the primaries in June. I think he's underestimating the Clinton ambition; if I know her, she'll stay in as long as she has a mathematical chance--neither candidate can get the number of delegates needed for an outright win, so it could still get down to quibbling.

If Hillary sticks it to the convention, she does have a card up her sleeve: The Michigan and Florida primaries, which didn't actually count because of Democratic shenanigans, both went to her. We're talking about two of the largest states in the Union. With those delegates counted, she's considerably closer to Barack Obama. A contested convention would be a dream for Republicans, and make the odds much more even for McCain.

Besides that, the political scene has been quiet: no real scandals or even news since Eliot Spitzer.

I'm getting something I get every year: the blues. Every spring, it seems, I have melancholy periods. Tonight I had one because it was the last night of youth group. What a blessing that's been for me! It's a great group of people, and some of them are of course going off to college and other things. However, everything happens because God willed it, so I shouldn't really be melancholy. Life goes on, and it's my duty to show the Spirit in it. I really, really can't wait for finals and graduation to be over. School seems to be unraveling at the seams, yet the homework load is still oppressive. Now more than ever, I don't have the urge to do it. It pains me to admit it, but I did actually leave some assignments from Monday till the VERY last minute--and trust me, it showed. Why do I do that? Good question. My inborn procrastination, in my opinion my very worst fault, rears its ugly head again. I can't imagine becoming a respectable member of society with the almost fearful aversion I have to actually getting work done. Why, oh why, oh why? *Sigh*

How the Republican Party can win in 2008

Common knowledge has it that this year's elections, representative and presidential, are for the most part an easy win for the Democrats. This, presumably, you already know; if for no other reason than having read my earlier post, "Can the Dems Fumble the Ball?" So, here's a point-by-point analysis of the GOP's chances, and what it can do to win.

1) The Economy: I was perversely satisfied when polls showed that most voters believe the economy is the most important issue facing them this election, rather than what I would have expected: the war. The economy is taking a definite down-turn, and that's bad for all of us. This is an advantage for the liberals because a bad economic situation makes people yearn for New Deal-like government intervention. However, the refund-thing-check that many taxpayers will be getting this year is a good thing: it's putting more money back in the pocket of the consumer, rather than the government. This is a sure-fire, old-fashioned way to stimulate the economy, and will probably be popular. So, my analysis is that this issue could go either way, but still leans left. What that means is that voters who think the economy is the greatest concern will probably go Democratic.

2) The War: It was on everyone's minds in 2006, and the liberal media forecasted that it would be the deciding factor in 2008. That doesn't look like it will happen, but it's certainly a nearly-top priority. Many Americans see our presence in the Middle East as a greedy intrusion, only to safeguard our oil. Frankly, they might be right about the oil part. I mean, think about it. Darfur and North Korea and other places have more or equally tyrannical governments than Iraq or Afghanistan. However, we leave them pretty much alone. Why? Because, in my opinion, they don't have oil. Black gold. I don't see much wrong with this actually. We secured a needed resource and liberated two peoples in the process. I don't think that's a problem. It's as defensible as a nation invading its' corrupt, evil food-producing neighbor with two motives in mind, (1) liberate the people, and (2) safeguard our access to a vital resource. Which brings me back to my central view on the war: we can't lose, we can't leave, so we might as well win. Losing would end America as a world power. Leaving would abandon Iraq to the dogs--the very tyrants who had power before we invaded. Winning, however, would bring one more functioning democracy into the world, give us another ally in the middle east, and make quite certain that our oil supplies are not impeded. This, I think, should be clear to most people--even the voting ones--and thus although at first glance it seems like a cert for the Democrats, I think that we can convince voters of this view. Conclusion: This issue tends Right.

(3) Health Care: HillaryCare, the debacle that sounded the end of President Clinton's honeymoon back in 1994, has been resurrected by Hillary Clinton as one of her campaign promises. What is HillaryCare? Quite simply, it's a complete socialization of the health care system, making it a government program instead of a private sector enterprise. At first glance, that seems ideal. Something about health-care-for-profit does tickles a deep, Robin Hood bone in me, but I have to suppress it. The government would ruin health care like it has ruined public education, and like every other wealthy, industrialized nation has ruined health care. Our health care system is the best in the world, and getting better. Canada, for example, instituted socialized health care and now many citizens are calling for the old system. I won't go into it here, but for an in-depth analysis of the subject, I suggest David Gratzer's "The Cure." His conclusions are interesting, not necessarily a good way, but his data on socialized health care is eye-opening. Not wanting to be left of the band-wagon, Mr. Originality Barack Obama has also started trumpeting a version of socialized health care. However, if the issue gets accurate reporting, the Right has the advantage: if socialized health care gets the stigma it deserves, this issue is a cert for the Right. Conclusion: Right-Leaning.

4) Abortion & Euthanasia: The country has mixed messages about Abortion: polls indicate that a majority of Americans strongly support Roe, but are in favor of restricting Abortion. This is an interesting side-effect of the deification of Roe, and an interesting cultural phenomenon. The partial-birth abortion debate turned the country right-ward on Abortion, and that trend continues. Informed-consent laws, a dearth of government funding for abortions, and a general skittishness about the whole issue have turned the tide against the so-called "Pro-Choice Majority." Re-reading Ponnurru's "Party of Death," I'm confident that Abortion will one day be seen as a national nightmare--on the scale of slavery. Euthanasia, brought into the headlines with the Terri Schiavo debacle, is another issue the Democrats have embraced. Ponnurru reports that a Democratic operative reported, in the wake of the controversy, that "We can't just be the party of death all the time." Which brings me to my conclusion: the Republicans can win this year. We can win by exploiting these issues, and by pulling no punches on anything.

In conclusion, liberals make up a smaller portion of the electorate than conservatives. Hypothetically, that means that they must work harder every election. Forty-five years ago, this was opposite. What changed? The Democrats became the party of death. Although the tide is against us this election year in many ways, we can win.

This man scares the heck out of me.

Let's face it: the Barack Obama presidency now seems inevitable. I admire McCain for trying, and Hillary for not giving in, but it's inevitable. As Darth Vader, a close personal friend of Senator Obama would say, "It is your dessssstiny."

This video (here) shows the futility of all resistance to the Obama machine. Not only does the intransigence of his "hope" message crap, etc., but he can successfully mock Hillary for attacking him on the lack of substance in his campaign. Pretty good acting.

For a manikin.

No, I'm not insulting his intelligence. But it's the truth. Barack Obama is really a plastic facsimile created by the Borg Collective to influence human politics. He is controlled remotely, and he will influence America in the interests of the Borg Collective. For those of you who read this before the Borg assimilate me and take down this site, good luck. At all costs, the Barack Oborg menace must. Be. Stopped.

An duranium curtain has fallen across the free galaxy. Only John McCain and Hillary Clinton stand between it and your freedoms.

Run for your lives.

The Weekender

Among other things, this week brought Mitt Romney's endorsement of John McCain in the presidential race. This was a foregone conclusion, but the question remains: how many of Romney's delegates will consent to support McCain? If most of them go over to McCain, Huckabee's campaign will lose what little vigor it has left. If most of them go over to Huckabee, he will still be the longest of shots, but will still be very much in the race. That, at least, should be good. Although nothing really can derail McCain at this point, short of a heart attack, competition in the race is probably good for him. I think that if he stopped campaigning against Huckabee now, and entered general-election mode and attacked the Democrats this far ahead in the race, voters would quickly grow tired of it. On the other hand, he has a head start on Obama and Clinton, who still need to show each other who's boss in the Democratic race.

Another college shooting, this one at Norther Illinois University. Paradoxically, the shooter was a well-adjusted white male, outgoing and a decent student, as opposed to the V-Tech killer, an Asian with an inferiority complex and mental problems. This rampage was thankfully less deadly. So, why did this man suddenly crack? Easy, he went off his prescription meds. Just think about that for a second.

I've started a great book called "The Cure," written by a Canadian doctor, about health care in America. For those of you unaware, Mrs. Clinton advocates a socialized health care system, saying it would lead to "fair and equal care." This book, however, shoots that down in the first three chapters. Capitalism is good for the soul.

Well, I'll bid you adieu for now. Enjoy your Lenten season!

Is It Too Late for Hillary - TIME

Time Magazine, not known for insightful reporting in my opinion, has a decent piece about Obama's post-Super Tuesday murder of Clinton, with eight straight primaries or caucuses under his belt since.

I suggest you check it out, here.

Clinton has concentrated on late-primary states Texas and Ohio, who will vote on March 4, while leaving potential general election swing-states, such as late-primary Wisconsin in Obama's tender grasp. This could be a fatal move, but then again if she takes Texas and Ohio, she will be almost irretrievably ahead of Obama, so it could pan out.

I find myself backing Clinton in the Democratic race, for some reason. It could be just a cynical thing, based on the fact that Obama has a better chance of winning in the general election, but then again it could be a subconscious resentment of Obama's unspecific, "End pain and suffering" campaign. I think that might be it. Whatever can be said of Clinton, she really does have a plan as opposed to Obama's newspeak over everything from Abortion to immigration.

As the Time article says, "The battle has been joined; the question for the Clintons, however, is whether it is already too late."

A Post-Super Tuesday Race Analysis

The most surprising thing during an otherwise lackluster Super Tuesday week was Mitt Romney's surprise termination of his campaign the day afterwards. Although he was handily beaten in many states by John McCain, he still had a fighting chance, and many Conservatives who refused to support McCain or Huckabee, like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and other hard-liners, had endorsed him after the exit of other, more Conservative candidates such as Fred Thompson. Mitt Romney, the slick, corporate campaigner may have had the credentials, but he didn't connect with voters like Huckabee or even McCain. I wasn't really surprised that he dropped out, but that he did so not on Super Tuesday-night, after McCain's large victory was clear, but late the next day, after he made the customary, I-don't-have-a-chance "We will keep fighting" speeches the night before.

That leaves Huck and McCain. What a race it's been for both of them! John McCain, who started as one of the three frontrunners, was dead by July but came back, his turning point being the NH primary, where he smoked Romney and Huck. From there, he went up and Romney went down, aided by a mainstream media barrage in his favor. Huckabee, the surprise winner of the Iowa caucus, failed to win anything else until Super Tuesday, where he did surprisingly well. These two candidates are both mavericks in some way; Huckabee with his overtly religious down-home campaigning style and non-conformist stance on many issues, and McCain, 70-0dd years old and always a little liberal.

On the Republican side, at least, the voters threw out the establishmentarians like Romney and Thompson, and now Huck is fighting an almost vertical battle to keep the nomination away from the almost-certain winner McCain. It's an interesting race, and I fully expect McCain to win, but Huckabee has the charm and the votes to make it close. Good luck to him.

The Democratic race is in a little bit of a deadlock, with Obama beating Clinton during Super Tuesday with a minuscule two delegates. Obama cleaned up handily in the primaries after Super Tuesday, but if Hillary can keep the race close, the decision will go to the so-called "Superdelegates"--Dem bigwigs who, according to DNC policy, can make whoever the heck they want as the nominee, and to heck with the Democratic process. If it comes to that, Clinton will almost certainly get the nomination, but I'm hoping she won't escape unscathed. She has undeniable baggage, and my bet is that the Obama-Dems will raise heck if she's the nom--they can't afford to lose this election, and Obama has a much better chance of beating McCain.

So, the most likely outcome in my opinion: McCain v. Obama. McCain v. Hillary is a serious possibility, and after Super Tuesday it would have been my definite choice, but Obama is a serious force in the liberal, educated late-primary states--such as Wisconsin.

Either Hillary or Obama will have to trounce the GOPer, most likely McCain in the election. If so, they'll call it "historic," and a "triumph over the forces of darkness," and so on. If it's close, though, like a Dewey-Truman affair, then it would be seriously bad for the Dems. They could still give their, "This election shows us that America wants CHANGE!" spiel, but it won't be as enthusiastic. If McCain wins, I think it could be the death of the Democratic party as we know it. If I were the Democrats, I'd lock Obama into the nomination, because if Clinton loses, the country will have a Republican for twelve years running, something that didn't happen in the 20th century.

An interesting side-note: the hate among Conservatives towards McCain is so rabid that Ann Coulter has said she would vote for Hillary (!!!) over McCain. Typical Ann. I think this shows a serious disconnect with Conservative America. To hate a REPUBLICAN candidate more than a Dem, and especially HILLARY, of all people, is to show that Ann doesn't care so much about the issues as she does about keeping libs out of the Republican party. And while it may not be true that the worst Republican is better than the best Dem, A decent if under-achieving Republican, Gerald Ford for example, is much, much, MUCH better than his Dem equivalent, like Carter. Frankly, I think Ann is dead wrong. We CANNOT elect a Democrat. While we may survive it in the short term, it may be talked about in the history books as a turning point: where America went wrong.

Iowa Caucus Results

Although it appears that no one reads this blog anymore, I decided to post the results anyway.

Republicans:

With 25 percent of the results in, Huckabee was the clear winner, with 35 percent. Romney was second, with only 24 percent. Thompson placed third with 14 percent, and McCain ran fourth with 12 percent.

My Take:

This is almost unbelievable good for Huckabee. He went from the "top of the second tier" as I characterized it earlier in the campaign to running first in many polls. And now, he's won Iowa. I'm wondering if he can keep it up through New Hampshire and the other early primaries.

Obviously not so good for Romney. To lose by that much to Huckabee is certainly rather embarrassing, but he can recover and I can see him winning New Hampshire.

Third is good for Thompson, it will give him much-needed momentum.

Fourth for McCain is disappointing. Many analysts thought he would take third. Fred Thompson obviously still has the fire to beat him.

The Democrats:

Barack Obama took the Iowa Democratic Caucus, with 34 percent. Clinton and Edwards are in a dead heat for second, each with 32 percent.

My take:

This is good, but not unexpected news for Obama. He's been polling ahead of Hillary in Iowa for a while now, and I think he can keep up the momentum.

Bad, but also not unexpected for Hillary. She still has a lot of campaigning oomph and better connections than Obama.

This is very good for Edwards. If he places second, which Bob Novak predicted, it would be phenomenal and probably vice-president material. He's too annoying to beat Obama, however.

My predictions: McCain, who finished disapointingly in Iowa, has been campaigning hard in New Hampshire and is currently ahead according to the latest RCP poll. He swept the New Hampshire newspaper endorsements, and has rocketed up in the polls because of it. Romney is biting at his heels, with Giuliani, Huckabee, and Paul in a tight race for third. Thompson is barely above the margin of error. He's hoping his Iowa momentum will last him until South Carolina.

The Democrats are more widely spaced in New Hampshire, with Clinton ahead by a decent margin, and Edwards ten points behind Obama. If Obama can manage a win in NH, he will be unstoppable, but if Clinton wins, they will be neck-and-neck going into Michigan. I haven't seen numbers, but I tend to think Michigan would favor Obama. Edwards, although he finished well in Iowa, is not really a contender in my view. He's probably going for VP again.

My Predictions for the Nominee: Democrats: Easy. Obama. Barring anything unforeseen, his defeat of Clinton in Iowa was a major upset, even if most people saw it coming. It's possible he'd go for Hillary for his VP, but I think Edwards is a more likely choice. In the event that Hillary gets the nomination, I think she might get Richardson. He has the credentials of Biden without being old. Plus he's Hispanic.

Republicans: This is harder to call. I can see it going to Romney, Huckabee, McCain, and even Thompson at a stretch. My dream P/VP match would be Thompson-Huckabee, but Huckabee-Thompson might actually happen. Romney-McCain would be a nightmare.

Well, there you are! Hope you enjoyed it.

The Candidates: Where are they now?

It's been several weeks since my last post, and several months since I really went into detail about the Presidential candidates. I deeply apologize.

The election, of course, is closer than ever, and in that time period, the campaigns have really got off the ground.

So, let's begin.

THE DEMOCRATS
They are heavily favored, but one scandal could drag them all down.

HILLARY CLINTON
She continues to lead in the polls, with a fairly substantial margin over B. Obama. So far, her campaigning has been relatively flawless, as one would suspect. Especially since she's been planning it for decades.

BARACK OBAMA
He is still a force to be reckoned with, and I can easily see the nomination going to him. He's "inexperienced," but compared to Hillary's record, that's definitely a good thing. Especially if he's running as an outsider; someone who says he wants to turn Washington upside down.

JOHN EDWARDS
He's a long-shot, but he's played all his cards in Iowa, and that could get him almost onto the same level as Obama and Clinton. Even more than Obama, he's running a populist campaign. He was on the cover of Esquire, for crying out loud. Honestly, though, for an unprincipled former trial lawyer, Edwards has made it far. Too far. I almost hope he'll get the VP ticket again--he lost his own state in 2004.

THE OTHER DEMOCRATS
No one really stands out, but I think that's because the Democratic Party has two dream candidates in Obama and Clinton, and a third one for the racist bigots "yellow dog" 'crats who won't vote for the other two--Edwards. Biden continues his straight talk, but it's getting him nowhere fast. The others: zilch.

THE REPUBLICANS
Even though they are a long-shot for the presidency, we have a reasonably strong field, with something for just about everybody.

RUDY GIULIANI
...Is fighting for his life in the polls. Fred Thompson, who has only JUST started campaigning, is already close to him in the polls, and that combined with his liberal views makes me very doubtful of his chances.

JOHN MCCAIN
Is dead. Not literally. He'll probably still get about six or seven votes; all old Texan men with big belt buckles.

MITT ROMNEY
It's hard to categorize Romney. He flip-flopped on Abortion, and he has a liberal spending record, but who knows? He's running third in the polls and leading a flawless campaign. Still though, he seems lackluster.

FRED THOMPSON
He finally announced his candidacy, and none too soon. He'll have to play a strong game, especially as he is seen as an establishmentarian candidate. Not a good thing for a candidate campaigning as an outsider. He was a Washington lobbyist too, which is a yellow card. I think he has wide appeal, and he's probably my pick for nominee.

MIKE HUCKABEE
Has made a serious play, and is now in the top of the second tier, or the bottom of the first tier, and upwardly mobile. A bass-guitar-playing former Baptist minister from Arkansas? Every liberal's worst fear. He's even slime and mildly photogenic. Go Mike!

THE OTHER REPUBLICANS
Are preeety sad. We'll see though.

Sorry for all the time I've been gone. School's started and put me in a bit of a time-bind. I'm going to try to be more regular in the future. Believe me, I have lots of ideas.

The second round of Debates

Yesterday evening, I watched parts of the Democratic debate in New Hampshire. I have to say, I was impressed with both Barack Obama and Joe Biden. They seem like nice people. Too bad they're dead wrong on just about everything.

Anyway, there's a Republican debate at the same place tomorrow, so I hope I'll be able to watch the whole thing and comment on it. As far as I know, Fred Thompson wil not be in it, as he has just barely formed an "exploratory committee," the first step to running. I wish he was, though. It'll be interesting to see how he does against the other candidates. My impression of him so far is that he is as clear-spoken as Joe Biden except more Reagan-ish and right.

The Party of Lust, Candidate #2

So: on to Candidate #2

Barack Hussein Obama

Obama is a long shot for two reasons: He doesn't have the influence or the fundraising sources that Hillary has, although they're neck and neck in the fundraising right now with about 25 million for him and 26 for her, and I think she'll pull away from him in the polls. The second reason is that he has charisma. No bad thing, right? Wrong. He's all charisma and not enough issues, much like Segolene Royale, the French socialist candidate for Premier, which I believe is the equivalent of president .

It seems to me that Republicans are giving Obama an easy ride, instead of lambasting every move he makes like they do with Hillary. Even the notoriously soft-spoken, insightful, and humble Rush Limbaugh, in his Limbaugh Letter, did not antagonize Obama himself, but ridiculed what he calls "Obama-Worship" by Hollywood and the media. This light-fingering is probably caused partly by Obama's lack of a stand on issues, which, as we said earlier, might backfire rather badly on him, and the fact that Obama has leftist "Defenders of Equality" like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who are ready to paint anyone who disagrees with Obama as a "racist fascist Nazi capitalist pig" if they're in a good mood, and such is their influence that many people would believe them. What a wonderful world we live in.

Next up, John Edwards.