As a conservative republican, its bad enough to know democrats will take over the executive branch.  Its far worse that our side has learned no lessons from this catastrophe.

 

First, many republicans - not necessarily conservatives - are talking-up the possibility that Obama will govern from the 'center'.  One word - What! This is preposterous and isn't supported by his actions as a legislator or his words when he wasn't running for president.  Anytime we can be reasonably sure he wan't politicking, he's spewing leftist rot-gut.

Second, forget the wisdom of certain elements of the party who espoused the virtue of a moderate contender for president.  On this count, Mccain has been seen as moderate par excellence and guess what - moderates from Hagel to Powell turned their backs on him.  What's more, pandering to the middle didn't help Mccain win independents - could it be that these moderates would have been inspired by someone else who would have eloquently spoken of the benefits of conservatism regarding their hope and fears?  By most accounts, Reagan took this very path - the rest is history.

 

Third, republicans far and wide are making public statements suggesting that both sides compromise.  They claims that the people don't want partisans to rule Washington.  Their breath would better be used were it carrying words explaining how this president-elect and majority party have views which are extreme and incommensurable.  Consider abortion, private property, security, and free-markets just for starters.  What room is there for compromise?  Recall what happened when the democrats demanded that house and senate republicans vote in favor of the bail-out bill - those republicans were beat over head with their vote by those same democrats!  This is right out of the playbook: democrats scold republicans for being mean and close-minded; republicans, in fear of what the media will say about them, scurry over to compromise; then, democrats claim republicans have repudiated their own values!  Republicans primary goal should be as watch-dogs, a vocal minority who uses the bully-pulpit on a regular basis.      

 

Fourth, forget the 'historic' nature of Obama's victory.  The word 'historic' in this context is code for reverse-racism.  There is no other historic quality to this person and his candidacy.  Just wait, republicans are talking up this historic moment in our history; soon enough, democrats will accuse republicans of racism for those very words.

 

Fifth, the democrat didn't run a 'great' campaign.  Republicans should stop saying this too.  This year was always a democrat year. This fact coupled with the financial situation should have given the democrat candidate an overwhelming victory purely on the basis that he had a pulse.  Instead, he beats Mccain by 6 points nationally; he gets 349 electoral votes - this is hardly the 525 Reagan garnered against Mondale - that is a landslide!

If anything needs to be said about successes and failures of this campaign, it should be the utter failure of Mccain's campaign to develop a consistent, coherent, unapologetic message in the months leading up to the elections.  Certainly, this began to occur in the last few days, but that isn't nearly enough time to turn the tides working against the republican party.

 

 

   While listening to Obama's closing arguments, one can hear his answer answer to the accusations that he is a socialist: Republicans want to make a virtue of selfishness.  Perhaps it's worth observing that many people who will vote for him pay no federal taxes; indeed, they are and will be further subsidized by an Obama administration.  This in itself seems selfish on their part.  
   In fact, Obama hasn't given nearly as much as he is planning to take for those who have done well in America.  On this point, I'd love to ask him only one question: "On the 1040, assuming that's the tax form you fill out, the IRS allows you to make a 'donation' - have you ever made a donation, since you think the government needs more money?"

   Inasmuch as we can guess his answer, we see that the real indictment of Republicans is clear: that they want to make a virtue of merit, hardwork, and choosing how spend one's own resources. 

Mccain could pull out a win in the PA by this math: I took the RCP's last 5 polls that from10/26 to 10/31.  If you look at the slope of the line it adds 1.6 to Mccains number every day.  1.6 x 4 day = 6.4 - This brings him within 1% of victory.  However, one of the polls I figured was 14 in favor of Obama.  If you take that one out, the slope slope changes in favor of Obama, but still remains close.

To see my numbers: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_mccain_vs_obama-244.html

 

Last night, Hannity and Colmes was graced by the presence of a professor named Caroline Heldman.  Like many of her ilk, she is a lefty who apologizes for Barack Obama.  While this state of affairs isn't anything newsworthy, I realized something as she condescendingly smirked at Michael Steele's comments.  She's coward - her and many of her academic, good-time buddies.

 

Three Observations. 

1: few - if any - of these pinheads have ever lived out their philosophy except their in little academic bubble where results are obscured by tenure.  They hide behind a lectern from which they are safe from almost any consequence of their ideas. 

 

2: If they really believe that America is foundationally unjust because of its economic structure and political institutions, they shouldn't work for any institution that is funded by people who are wealthy because of the existing 'social institutions' and economic 'superstructure'.  Indeed, such well-to-do people are exactly who sends their children to such places as Occidental and other elite, private schools.

 

3: Were she, or any other socialistic academic - to live out their ideas, what would such a life look like?  Enter Billy-boy Ayers.  He lived out his ideas through 'direct-action' against the 'establishment', he tried to bring down his enemies through blood and violence.  Since those days, he's sold-out too.  But, he was one of the few who followed these ideas out to their logical conclusions.  If Caroline and her ilk weren't so busy hiding behind a certificats and podiums, she'd get out there and do what her code commands of her!

Naturally, Rush Limbaugh's hypothesis that Powell endorsed Obama because of racial preference is drawing ire from many corners.  This wouldn't be notable; but, the criticisms have revolved around Rush's character, not his argument.  People are calling Rush a racist, idiot, fringe-right-winger, all the usual nominatives.  Indeed, these sorts of unpleasant names seem to be the extent of the counter-argument.  Call me old-fashioned, but it seems like the way to go about slamming someone's argument is to slam their argument.  So why aren't they doing this?

Could it be that facts support the plausibility of Rush's idea?  For example, 95-6% of blacks will votes for Obama; just by odds alone, it seems unlikely that Powell is part of the 4-5% who won't for Obama.  In addition, it doesn't appear that Powell has ever endorsed a white politician who shares Obama's modestly spoken radical ideas.  Lastly, Powell offered no substanitive reasons for his decision - me merely said that BHO is transformation, of the next generation, etc.  The only meaninful point he made had to do with Supreme Court nominations - which is also dubious since he doesn't seem to have a history of public concern on these matters.  Take these facts as an aggregate, don't they at least confirm Limbaugh's argument?

 

Like many, I began to doubt Mccain's ability to win late last week.  Two things really set this into motion: 1) Mccain's lack-luster performance in the second Presidential debate and 2) Mccain's rebuking of attendees at his rally.  He had opportunities bring William Ayers up in that debate; on this point, his campaign seemed confused and paralyzed.  With regards to correcting rally-goers, there is a much more constructive way to do it.  Think about how funny it would have been:  The woman says "I'm afraid of Barack Obama because he's a Muslim." Mccain says, "I don't know about that, but I'm sure that he'll terrorize small business, declare holy-war on markets, and explode the tax-rate!" 

 

After all of these blunders, Rush still said it wasn't over; he said we must "drag Mccain across the finish-line."  He said that we have to have heart, not be depressed by the polls, and keep talking to people - we had to keep believing.  My God, he was right!

This is the reason that Rush is an icon!  God Bless Him.

The words that may blot-out conservatism came from the mouth of a vibrant, pretty, charismatic rising star in the republican party. Many pundits immediately said that she won or tied Sen. Biden.  That may be true, but the winner is liberal-socialism. the loser - Reagan's legacy.
Tonight the true perpetrators of our current economic trouble will forever be obscured for most people.  This fact stems from Gov. Palin's delcaration: Wall St.'s greed and lack of Government oversight caused our current dilemma.  In case you didn't notice - that's exactly what Obama and Biden are saying!  In case you didn't notice - that's what Mccain is saying!  And in case you didn't notice - it's not true! Say it ain't so Sarah!

Without our party leadership beating the drum against GSE's, against high tax, against regulation that makes all of our products are services more expensive - we will will watch Reagan's phoenix finally burn-out.  That fiery bird lit the path and lead the way out from Ford's republicanism to a period where it coalesced with conservatism.  Tonight, Sarah Palin tossed a cold bucket of water on those dim embers that remained, and lead the way back into the dark.

Indeed, she was in a position to do this, Mccain wasn't.  Mccain has never liked conservatism and conservatives have never liked Mccain; but with her, conservatives have fallen in love with a fiery upstart who is more heat than light.  In this aching desire for someone who has a presence like Reagan, they have embraced someone who doesn't have the same convictions about free-markets. 

This will have major consequences going forward: if free-markets are to blame, then markets shouldn't be free; this defeats the single most important tennant of conservatism.  After all, what is freedom without opportunity?

Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps overreactive, perhaps weary from political bombardment; but if she has done what I suspect, we need to take a moment tonight.  We need to realize that Reagan's vision, work, and legacy have been lost in this present darkness - buried alongside that great man.  The only difference: while I believe that Reagan is looking down on us tonight, there is no heaven for ideas; however, ideas can be revived.

 

 

For better or worse, the American people seem to be very risk-averse at this point.  Indeed, they see a world changing and not in their favor - more things than ever seem unknown. 

If this is really is the public mindset, it suggests a great way to frame the election.  First - frame Mccain as a known, rock-solid character who people can count on to bring clarity, prosperity, and normalcy back to the their lives.  Second - frame Obama as an unknown - a risk too large too take.  Link him to the uncertainty surrounding oil, housing, retirement, banking, and international temsions. 

By doing this Mccain could capitalize on both America's mood of anxiety and the their desire for certainty.

   To focus more clearly on this 'root', recall the poor state of the economy before Alexander Hamilton's national bank. Hamilton believed in, worked for, and finally created our national bank because he knew that ideas like that quoted above were, and are, poppycock. Hamilton understood the need to both bring large amounts of capital together and unlock its potential by extending credit for both public and (mostly) private sector ventures[ii]. What Hamilton so presciently understood can be summed up in an oft-spoken, time-tested maxim: it takes money to make money. It was true then, it is just as true now.

---