Liberally Conservative's blog

I thought I'd make a post about what Obama is and is not doing well; it seems to be in fashion at the moment, and I thought I'd give it a try.

First off, a little about myself, so you can see my biases easier. I am a moderate conservative who voted for Obama and Bush. I agree with most conservative ideas, but I can understand why liberals think differently, and I respect most of those differences. I voted for Obama because I would rather have competent liberal governance than incompetent conservative governance, and I did not believe McCain would be a responsible choice as President for many reasons, not least of which is his choice of running mate. If these two candidates were in an election for House or Senate, I would have likely voted differently.

So, here is what I believed Obama promised, and what he gave.

1. Change. Obvious and imprecise. I will take his to mean that he would bring change in Washington, not just from an R to a D, but also in the way that he conducts his business.Overall here, not too much. He's doing podcasts, but he's also still doing signing statements, using executive privilege, etc. He hasn't politicized government departments as Bush did, but he promised to do a bit more than that. I didn't expect the moon, but I did expect some effort, given that this was his campaign's slogan for a year.

Score: 3/10

2. Better Foreign Relations. That isn't a hard job, given his predecessor. He hasn't had much of a chance to do anything major. His recent trip to Europe was not terribly eventful. People are making much ado about nothing with the whole Chavez business (also, Michelle touched the Queen. Everybody panic!). His policy of talking to Iran and North Korea has been, I think, unfairly maligned, since Obama obviously knows better than to think we can get Iran to disarm by asking them nicely. Diplomacy is both threats and incentives, after all. Obama's articulation of a multipolar world is a bit worrisome, since the other poles are probably the EU and China, respectively milquetoast and Machiavellian, but considering we screwed the pooch with our banking crisis, some humility might be in order.

Score: 6/10

3. Social Issues. There isn't that much noise about this, probably due to the fact that the economy is not at 100%. I think the conservative reaction, of stockpiling guns, is completely unwarranted, and the overturn of the stem cell ban was predictable.

Since this section is short, I'll add torture to this part. Obama said he would close Gitmo, and he is, he said that the US would stop torture, i.e. waterboarding, and he seems genuine on that front. Regardless of whether torture belongs in our arsenal or it doesn't, Obama said he was against it, and he is following through.

Score: 8/10

4. Economic Issues. Obama promised a middle-class tax cut, a stimulus bill, health care reform, and banking reform. 2/4 so far, and the other two aren't that far behind. Whether you think that his economic plans are sound or not, he has said during the campaign what he would do, and now he's doing it.

Score: 9/10

Overall. I think Obama's being effective given his adverse situation. The socialism charge seems unwarranted, since he has said he would be doing most of what he is during the campaign. Also, they keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means. I am frustrated, since the Republican leadership is more focused on Obama's daily minutiae and slip-ups than it is on trying to present an alternate plan, and I know that they can do better.

Score: 7/10

The political discourse in this country is dominated by two contrasting groups; we have the Democrats, represented by Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, and Reid, and the Republicans, represented by Bush, Palin, Huckabee, and Jindal. The reason I picked these individuals is because they, for the most part, agree with all the planks of their parties.

Another trait that they have in common is that most of these political figures, with the exceptions of Obama and Huckabee, are generally disliked. Not hated, not despised, disliked. Few of them have positive approval ratings, even though virtually every person polled had never met these people. While professions can be disliked, asking people what they thought of Bob, a used car salesman, would give you wildly different results than asking people what they thought of Bob, their local car salesman who goes to church with them and has a son who is on the school football team. The reason that these answers are different is that one is asking people what they think of a idea and the other is asking people what they think of a person. One of the main reasons that I believe that the politicians in the first paragraph are so disliked is that people know them as ideas and concepts, not as people. Nancy Pelosi may be a great person to talk to, but I know her as the representative of San Francisco liberalism in the same sense that I know Sarah Palin as the representative of uneducated social conservatism.

The second part of my point is that a district or state will generally elect people closer to the middle of their political balance. In other words, Vermont will elect a flaming liberal, while Mississippi will elect a rabid conservative, because they are near the middle of that state's political balance. Personality plays a big part as well, and many politicians get elected while being much more liberal or conservative than their average constituent, based on their charisma. Examples of this are Sebelius in Kansas or (I hate to use this ubiquitous example) Reagan in California. However, generally speaking, a right-of-center district will elect a right-of-center candidate, and vice-versa. Nate Silver shows a typical way that a region votes, based on how primaries end up, and how liberal/conservative the region is, here

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/land-of-thousand-liebermans.html

What this article says, for those who are loath of reading, is that each person is a number on the liberal-conservative scale, and they vote for the candidate that is closest to them; "If there's a liberal Democrat at space 10 and a conservative one at space 50, we assume that the voter at space 20 will pick the candidate at 10, who is slightly closer to her ideological preferences". This happens once in the primaries, and once in the general election, and in a 60-40 district, the dominant party wins 75% of the time, which seems logical.

The main development of the past 3 years, as my title implies, is that Democrats have been playing this system more deliberately. Ideally, according to the model, a district that is evenly divided should elect a Democrat at 25 on the scale, and a Republican at 75, and the two would split the vote evenly. However, if the Democrats push to nominate a more conservative member, say at 40 on the scale, that Democrat would win 55-45. I know that there are dozens of intangibles in this situation, such as liberal Democrats staying home or voting Green. However, I think that a lot of progress that the Democrats have made electorally is because they are biting the bullet and choosing more conservative Democrats, while Republicans are talking about doing the opposite.

The other major development, besides picking "conservadems", is the Democrats' adoption of, for lack of a better word, Rovian tactics in terms of branding. Our guy is your neighbor, the guy you buy nails and lumber from (is a small business owner), the guy who keeps you safe at night (is an attorney general), or the guy who is an elder at your church (loves family values). Their guy is the idea, the concept. Kerry is the concept of Vietnam protests and Massachusetts liberalism, while Bush is the local police chief who has had to make the tough decisions necessary to keep your family safe.

To see how both these trends played out today, one needs to look no further than the NY-20 special election. Despite being the worse candidate and starting at a large disadvantage, Murphy won because he was a conservative democrat (as opposed to a typical republican), and because he was successful in branding himself as a small-business entrepreneur, as opposed to Tedisco, who he tied with the Republican establishment.

The applications of this are twofold. One is to ease the pressure on Republicans in liberal and moderate states. The Democrats have let their Blue Dogs vote against the party on some important proposals, and that is a key reason why many of them are still in office. Secondly, allow Republican candidates to distance themselves from prominent members of their party.

Personal disclaimer: I am a moderate conservative who voted for both Bush and Obama, obviously for different reasons. I know the latter would get me banned from other sites (*cough* RedState *cough*), but I appreciate reading debate from liberals and conservatives...as long as it's good ^_^.

Once, a father had two sons, who he both loved dearly. When the younger one grew up, he asked his father for his share of the inheritance. So, the father divided up his property and gave his younger son half. The father was proud of his younger son since he was financially astute, and he was happy at seeing him be independent.

The younger son travelled to a distant land and invested his money. He became a successful and esteemed member of his community, and he raised his children without making them do the kind of farm work that he had to do while growing up. However, as time passed, he made some bad investments and found himself heavily in debt. His colleagues and neighbors were unhelpful and angry at him, since he had lost their money. So, without any further options available to him, he went home to ask for any help that his father could give him.

When his father saw him coming, he ran out to meet his son, and offered him a roof for his family for as long as they needed.

"But father," the son said, "my family and myself are accustomed to a certain standard of living. I was wondering if you could help me pay off my debts instead"

"My son," replied the father, "I gave you the money that you asked for and deserved earlier. If I pay off your debts now, then that would take away from your brother's inheritance, and that wouldn't be fair to him"

"Father," said the son, "I used your farm as collateral on some of my loans. If I default on them, then both your family's livelihoods and mine will be precarious."

"How could you do that? If you were responsible for the well-being of many other people, why did you make so many bad investments? Don't you feel responsible for them?"

"With all due respect, father," said the son, "you yourself said that I was better at finances than you or my brother when I was younger. I also made many good financial decisions in my life, and these just happened to be bad. It wasn't my fault, you know. Nobody could have seen the disaster that befell me coming. However, if you don't mind, my children have lessons tomorrow, and I am meeting some associates for a new business venture. Could I have the money now?"

"Can't you at least cut back on how much you spend? I'm not paying for you to live better than I am"

"We have been cutting back. My daughter didn't get a horse last year, and we've laid off some of our household help. In either case, I'm not a child anymore, you really shouldn't be telling me how I should live my life, it's not proper."

Many people smarter than myself have written about the causes of the bailout, and enough debate is going on at this site about who is to blame. What does make me angry are our financial professionals not admitting that they made mistakes, not wanting to make changes or sacrifices, and acting as if they were smarter and better financially than everyone else, even as they drove the firms that were built on generations of safe investing towards banruptcy and insolvency. If nothing else, I'd like my tax dollars to buy the bankers some humility.

Promoted. -Patrick

In 2004, the Republican Party gained 4 Senate seats in the election. There were 34 senate elections, and we won, 19-15. In the midterm elections, 2010, we will have the opportunity to either make up our deficit, or let the Democrats have a supermajority. Here is a breakdown of Senate seats up for re-election, and the margin of victory of the winning party in 2004:

• Alabama, (R) Shelby won by 36%
• Alaska , (R) Murkowski won by 3%
• Arkansas, (D) Lincoln won by 12%
• Arizona, (R) McCain won by 56%
• California, (D) Boxer won by 20%
• Connecticut, (D) Dodd won by 34%
• Colorado, (D) Salazar won by 4%
• Florida, (R) Martinez won by 1%
• Georgia, (R) Isakson won by 18%
• Hawaii, (D) Inouye won by 56%
• Idaho, (R) Crapo won unopposed
• Illinois, (D) Obama won by 43%
• Indiana, (D) Bayh won by 25%
• Iowa, (R) Grassly won by 43%
• Kansas, (R) Brownback won by 42%
• Kentucky, (R) Bunning won by 2%
• Louisiana, (R) Vitter won by 22%
• Maryland, (D) Mikulski won by 31%
• Missouri, (R) Bond won by 13%
• Nevada, (D) Reid won by 26%
• New Hampshire, (R) Gregg won by 32%
• New York, (D) Schumer won by 47%
• North Carolina, (R) Burr won by 5%
• North Dakota, (D) Dorgan won by 36%
• Ohio, (R) Voinovich won by 28%
• Oklahoma, (R) Coburn won by 12%
• Oregon, (D) Wyden won by 31%
• Pennsylvania, (R) Specter won by 9%
• South Carolina, (R) DeMint won by 10%
• South Dakota, (R) Thune won by 2%
• Utah, (R) Bennett won by 41%
• Vermont, (D) Leahy won by 46%
• Washington, (D) Murray won by 12%
• Wisconsin, (D) Feingold won by 11%

Here is a list of those won by 10% or less

• Alaska, (R), 3%
• Colorado, (D), 4%
• Florida, (R), 1%
• Kentucky, (R), 2%
• North Carolina, (R), 5%
• South Dakota, (R) 2%

This doesn't seem like very good news, especially considering three of those seats are in states Obama flipped from red to blue, by about 10%. Naturally, we can wait and hope that Obama will govern in a liberal fashion that would alienate voters from his party and result in poor showings in 2010, and historically that's been the case. However, the 2004 elections were very successful for the Republicans, so Obama's midterm inadequacies would probably have a similar adjustment to the Rove-designed superior Republican ground game in 2004. I also don't want to wait until the Democrats foul things up before getting our party back into office; we can have success with that if we run conservative candidates that reflect their district.

I'll admit that I don't know much of what goes on state-to-state, such as who will be the likely matchups, or if there are going to be any renowned opposition candidates in 2010, such as if, for example, Napolitano is going to campaign in AZ or not.

What I do propose is that we identify a seat that we have to hold or flip, we can discuss the merits of that selection, and once we decide on a candidate, we can put together some sort of fundraising package if it comes to that. Considering that many here are concerned about Obama raising their taxes, we should be easily able to raise a few thousand to make a small difference in a Senate seat.

 Edit: Front page, awesome, thanks : ).

As for some of the comments, yes, I forgot Illinois and Delaware. I'm from Illinois, and our Republican party is anemic. After George Ryan, the last Republican governor, left office under investigation (he was later convincted and sent to jail), Illinois elected Rod Blagojevic on a "reform" platform. Blago is incompetent, combative, and has an ongoing feud with the State Congress. His approval rating right now is 4. Yes, 4, you read that correctly. However, despite all that, Illinois re-elected him in 2006 because the Republican brand is so damaged, and because there are no compelling Republicans in Illinois. Blago will nominate a replacement, and Obama's (first) term would be up by 2010, so that would fall in the regular schedule, anyway.

Delaware has a better shot. Its only Congressman is Mike Castle, who is more moderate than most Republicans. He might not be the best "new face" of conservatism, since he is old and not that conservative, but he's probably much more conservative than Biden or his Democratic replacement.

My first impressions are that our better choices would be Castle, Martinez in Florida, since he seems to be the "conservative on social issues, moderate on immigration"-type of candidate that would work for the state, and maybe another shot at Colorado. I'd suggest Colorado, since we have a solid base there in CO Springs, and, as Chuck Todd said, Republicans need to find a message to communicate to Mountain time-zone voters, or more states will go the way of Montana. I'd like Shays to win, but I wonder if Connecticut is too liberal for him.