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?

 

When such a man suggests that certain poltical speech is like porn, he is setting a trap for himself.  After all, both his looks and public intellect are like a snuff-film - so I hear... 

But, in the famous of Joe Biden,

God love him!

Two classes of citizens were hailed as the wisest, most virtuous of the nation.

The much vaunted, lauded, and praised middle-classer.  What's funny about this person: he doesn't want to be middle-class.  In fact, no one wants to be middle-class; even though enjoy the hand-job they've gotten recently - 'thank you ma'am'!  But, what they really want - what almost everyone wants - is to be rich!  America wants upward mobility.  Whenever a government sets a floor, they also set a ceiling.  Consequently, it will be harder to become rich should Barack Obama & other libs have their way.

The other type: do I need to say it? the moderate, independent voter.  The keepers of the simple-man's wisdom - the Savior of America...  Really?? Ever heard this perennial maxim: "A man who stands for nothing falls for anything"? Aside from reflecting the truth about moderates, it reveals something else in terms of overall strategy: program them, move them, and don't listen to them.  Of course, you must be nice about it, but: program them, block out their babbling, and program them some more.  Do it early and often.  After all, the reason they are moderates has to with the fact that their brains fall out of their ears on a regular basis.  Therefore: program them -early and often. 

 

Are you feeling programmed yet...?

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

 

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!

Recently, congressional democrats have been looking at a drastic overhaul of the retirement system; in particular, they want to do away with any tax relief for private, retirement investment (401K, IRA, etc).  Proponents claim that the federal government oughtn't 'subsidize' people's private investments.  
This should make every hard-working person as mad as I am for this reason: tax breaks are not a subsidy!  These pinheads claim they are giving investors money because the federal government is taking it from them!  This is the same line of argument used to decry the 'subsidies' to big oil and the like.

But the real fury should be reserved for the premise underpinning this argument: that you only have any money because the government allows you to keep it.  Against this idea, there are too many arguments from principle and pragmatism to list.

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.

   Let's assume that the government had provided better regulation of GSEs: would that have made the difference?  Surely, it would have to some extent; however, it wouldn't have solved the problem altogether.  

   I suggest a deeper problem and it's one that most people won't be too well pleased to hear: willful ignorance on the part of many, many Americans.  Allow me to explain. 

First, many of our neighbors have been complicit in so-called 'no-doc' loans.  These neighbors lied about their income at the behest of mortgage brokers and loan officers.  

   The second issue is a bit more complicated.  It begins with the age-old paradigm of investment: diversify.  Doubtless, this is true; but it misses a very important point.  In order to diversify well, one must know something about that in which they are investing.  Far too many people left the entire savings, 401K, and other holdings in the hands of their financial advisor (with no oversight).  While advisors aren't bad in and of themselves, complete and utter dependence on them is a perilous.  Rather than leaving one's financial future in the hands of someone else, perhaps knowing something about the companies in which one invests and the industies in which these conpanies participate.  Here's a good example: Surely everyone who took basic economics understands leveraging as it applies to banks.  When a bank or investment house has exceeded healthy limits, an investor should be wary of such an institution.  In addition, an investor who has some basic idea of company processes would also be beneficial; for example, a company who orginates or buys 'no-doc' loans or securities based on these loans.  Beyond this sort of first-hand financial information, indepedent analysis is available.  The key here is to investigate all the companies in which you own stock.  Doublessly, this is a lot to ask of most people, but let's be clear - their life savings depends on it!  Who shouldn't guard preciously that for which they've toiled for 30 years or more, that which will allow them age with dignity and relative ease, that which will help their families in the years to come?

This morning while I was driving to work, the sun was creeping over the horizon, beginning to illuminate the sky.  It was the best part of having to wake up early on a Saturday morning; but, not as good others.  I'm sure many people woke up - conservatives especially - today wondering how our world has changed as of yesterday afternoon.  Indeed, it seems almost surreal that two words could have such a profound effect on the future of this country: "It passed."

With those words all the speeches spoken, articles written, and arms twisted resolved into a decisive defeat.  Indeed, the favorite in the battle emerged the clear victor.  Nevertheless, all week I hoped against hope for this bill to fail. Wouldn't it have made a great underdog story? Can you see the headlines: "House Fails Again." Toward this effort, some valiant, courageous men toiled: Neil Cavuto, Mike Huckabee, Mark Sanford (our Governor in SC), and Jim DeMint.  To be sure there are more, but these are the men that argued not only once, but twice.  Not only did they do when it was popular, they did when people were scared after Monday's drop in the market.  What's more, they did it for the right reasons: Regardless of the consequences, free-markets are ultimately better than socialism.  Not only in outcomes, but for the character of every single adult that toils for his keep, strives for those things he values in life, struggles for a little slice of the world that he can claim unequivocally, without fear of force or fraud taking this away from him.

Indeed, it's the ultimate in paradox: that man needs struggle to improve character, but most seek rest whenever possible.  From this paradox, we can see how capitalism necessarily provides that which makes men better.

This is not so in socialism; this is clear from the very benefit one derives under this system - security of outcome.  If you don't have to worry about thow things will shake-out, then there's no real struggle.

What becomes of a country when her people haven't the ability to care for themselves?  How can she expect those people to preserve her in times of distress? These are the most important questions this bail-out has stirred up.  These questions are the ones overlooked by republicans and supposed capitalists who cast away their principles for a trillion-dollar high - a high that will have the hangover of generations.

One final question: Do any of these people regret the incredible peril in which they placed the character of nation and each individual citizen therein?

 

On Brit Hume's all-star panel last night Fred Barnes suggested that Alexander Hamilton would be in favor of the bail-out.  Perhaps Mr. Barnes needs a cigarette, mixed drink, and a late-night-audience.  After all, he's clearly trying his luck as a stand-up comic: this attempt fell flat on its face, not to mention it seems to be incorrect.
In my readings of Hamilton, I see no way he would support this measure.  At best, he would be for some government intervention, not this intervention.  Indeed, Hamilton was much more in favor of long-term solutions - the mess on which the House is voting today isn't a long-term solution.  More likely, it will have a negative impact in at least two ways: inflation/ devaluation of currency and setting a horrific precedent.

I haven't touched on the most ridiculous part of this assertion is the underlying premise: That Hamilton could have envisioned this current state of affairs in the federal government!  Hamilton was clear about needing a national bank to centralize capital.  But this was a measure that brought cohesion to a failing republic; indeed, these were steps necessary only at the beginning of the republic.  He said as much himself.  Also, he clearly stated that such moves wouldn't be necessary beyond the national bank.

This statement by Barnes is another illustration between a pundit and a political thinker.  A pundit is a booster of a certain party, they have some good ideas about how to win; but, most of them have never taken the time to truly understand the political philosophy that underpins the values which lie beneath the symbols.  Clearly, Barnes is a pundit.