People from across the spectrum of political pundits have hailed Obama's campaign as efficient par excellence.  While this assertion may well be objectionable, it now underpins this conclusion: Obama will be a pragmatic, nonpartisan, brass-tax executive.  The inference here is questionable; but, let's grant it anyway as there is a larger question at hand, a question that applies to every human: what is his motive?

It's easy enough to imagine that Obama was willing to adhere to the rules put in place by the Two Davids during the campaign.  However, this required discipline.  Discipline requires a reward. Was he willing to subordinate his will to theirs only to subordinate once more to the maxims of pragmatism (if such maxims exist...)?  It seems doubtful. 

 

The point is: at some point down the line, Obama wants a reward for his discipline and work.  Is it enough for him to be a figure-head who does nothing but listen to those around him? No.  At some point on some issue, his ideas will be the shaping force of his policy - this why everyone should be skeptical of looking at him as govern-from-the-center type of guy?

 

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.

 

 

To be sure, we all should be thankful that such businesses as CafePress.com are thriving.  They offer a shirt, bumper-sticker, etc for every position. Yesterday, I found one that has stuck with me: a picture of Obama's face with a red strike through it; alongside read a phrase: "Not My President". 

For any conservative, the idea of an Obama presidency is utterly repulsive in so many ways.  Indeed, I believe the office of the presidency will be degraded should Obama win; but, does that make such a bumper-sticker okay? If so, is it partly a reflection - not only on Obama - but on those who would paste it to their automobile? 

   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

 

   Though the answer may be obvious, it is far from representative of conservatism.  Indeed, both of the reasons are our recent and current standard-bearers.  In the case of Pres. Bush, this was clear from the moment he used the words 'compassionate conservatism' in his 2000 campaign.  Indeed, I doubt anyone could have imagined how 'compassionate' he was going to be with other people's money.

   Similarly, the question on economic literacy was answered years ago for Mccain as well.  Recall Pres. Bush first pushing his tax-cuts: Mccain referred to them as 'class warfare'.  Since then, he's tried to reposition himself as a true conservative in this respect.  Unfortunately, his true beliefs come out when he is even slightly off-script - and sometimes when he's 'on-script'...

   Ofcourse, some may argue that his record on spending supports his free-market credentials.  That's probably true.  But, he hasn't ever given a coherent account of how government spending causes loss of capital, inflation, debt, devaluation of currency, and crowding-out.  If hasn't ever, then it plausible than he can't or even that doesn't really believe in truly free markets.  If either of these possibilities are true, he simply won't be able to muster both the courage and gumption necessary to say 'no'.  Indeed, saying 'no' to so many industries, people, and institutions which are used to quasi-socialism requires a person with true conviction.  Not only will Mccain fail as conservative leader in tough times, he won't be able to convince the electorate why we can't afford Sen. Obama.