Nathan Benefield's blog

Following John McCain's loss, conservatives and pundits will start looking to offer an explanation. To keep it simple, let me say this: The financial bailout killed whatever chance McCain's had. McCain's lead in the polls evaporated when the bailout became the lead story.

Certainly some pundits, and some McCain staffers, particularly those angling to work on Romney 2012, will try to put the onus on Sarah Palin for "going rogue," being "far right wing", too experienced to be VP, or something of that nature. This is nonsense - if Scrappleface's satire isn't convincing enough, consider that McCain was well behind in the polls, enthusiasm gap, and fund raising when he selected Palin. Things quickly turned around in all three areas. Furthermore, this was no referendum on Palin as VP, but a repudiation of the Bush administration and a referendum on the economy.

McCain flubbed on the bailout. As a candidate he insisted that he represented real leadership, opposed wasteful spending, and would shake up Washington. In the bailout debate, he offered no solutions, supported a bill that includes billions in wasteful spending, and took a half-hearted stance in support simply to go along with the flow.

If McCain had stood with Sen. DeMint for free-market reforms, put the blame on government intervention, and challenged the Bush administration, we might be calling him Mr. President. (Note: I wrote this sentence before I read this from Sen. DeMint: "If McCain loses the election, he will have lost it because of the bailout.”)

McCain's calling Obama a socialist for his views on spreading the wealth would have been far more effective had he not supported socialist plans himself - and his mortgage plan was every bit as socialist as Obama's tax proposals.

McCain's loss can largely be blamed on Bush's failure. McCain should have quickly listing how he is different than Bush - not a pawn of Wall Street, voted against pork repeatedly, no on Medicare part D, no on transportation bill, no on farm bill, no on torture, fire Rumsfeld, et. al. - and blasting Bush but he didn't (not wanting to upset the GOP consulting industry and the CPAC conservatives) until it was far too late. Consider this:

"We both disagree with President Bush on economic policies," McCain said. "My approach is to get spending under control. The difference between us is he thinks taxes have been too low, and I think that spending has been too high."

That sounds great, but it would have sounded better if it had come before McCain voted for a $700 billion bailout. 

It is hardly worth noting that Bush was no limited-government conservative, except that is exactly what the mainstream media and Obama - and even some Big Government Conservatives and those calling for "reform" in the Republican party - want you to believe. Thus, the mortgage crisis and bailout represent a failure of free market capitalism, rather than government intervention and Bush's corporatism. And the Bush administration only added to these narrative (and adding to McCain's woes), by going around saying another "great depression is looming" unless there is a massive expansion of government. Bush's big government agenda is one thing, but the fear-mongering demagoguery used to support their agenda, eroded any credibility a Republican could have had - at lease one that supported the bailout while claiming to be a limited-government conservative.

But I am not disappointed by the election results. Two candidates who mistrust free markets and want an expanded powers for government competed, and one of them won. Conservatives lost nothing, as Peter Wehner wrote before the election:

But it is a mistake to assume that significant GOP losses, should they occur, are a referendum on conservatism.

In part, the GOP's problems stem from being seen as having become less conservative and less principled (think "Bridge to Nowhere"). ...

A Fox News poll taken at the start of October found that 76 percent of respondents believe lower taxes and smaller government are preferable to higher taxes and larger government.

And an Obama victory would not signal an ideological pivot.

So what now for conservatives? I will start with Tom Delay's piece, arguing that conservatives need to worker harder to build "infrastructure", he also argues that America remains a center-right nation. I agree on both counts. However, I disagree that we need to work harder to win elections. The problem with the Conservative movement is that too much focus is on winning elections, not on championing ideas. We spent too much time and money on politics, and even if McCain (and some Congressional Republicans won, or even in the state house in PA), it wouldn't translate into conservative policies being enacted.

Jeff Flake's op-ed, on the other hand, is a masterpiece, pointing to the need to return to principles, and celebrating the end of Bush's Big Government Conservatism as the marching orders for the GOP.

The Conservative Movement should forget about simply trying to help Republicans beat Democrats, and thinking that winning elections is our end game, but championing  the principles of Conservatism and convincing both Republicans and Democrats to be Conservatives. As I wrote in my pre-election commentary - ideas are what provide real change.

Jack Murtha, along with many pundits and Obama supporters have suggested that, should Barack Obama lose the presidential election, it will be because racist whites—who would vote for a white candidate with Obama’s record and policy stances—won’t support a black man.  However, the truth of the matter that Obama is the nominee, in part, because he is black, and should he be the next president, his race would be an asset.

To be sure, there are some voters who will never vote for a black candidate—but the election will hardly hinge on these voters. Ryan Shafik effectively debunked the idea that Pennsylvania "racist white conservatives" will offer a big election swing he noted that Lynn Swann (a black Republican challenger) outperformed Rick Santorum (a white Republican incumbent) in the supposedly redneck, cracker parts of the state. 

Rather, the question is whether Obama can attract enough voters (including new voters) to support him because of his race, in spite of his record, rather than vice versa. During the primary election season, exits polls indicate that while splitting the white vote with Hillary Clinton, Obama captured 90% or more of the Black vote in key states like Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and over 75% in South Carolina (when John Edwards, from neighboring NC, was still running), California, and Georgia. Political analysts would be hard pressed to point to the policy differences with Sen. Clinton that made Obama more appealing to black voters. 

His fundraising team includes 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government, records show.

Those lawyers, including 10 former federal lobbyists, have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million for the Illinois senator's presidential race. Employees of their firms have given Obama's campaign $2.26 million. 

While some pundits and media, such as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, point to the proposed bailout as demonstration of the failure of the free market, in fact it is a failure of government.

Part of the failure lies with the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, by attempting to increase home ownership by encouraging subprime loans, as discussed in the Wall Street Journal today. In fact, even the New York Times - hardly the defenders of the free market - cautioned against Fannie and Freddie's actions, given their taxpayer backing, back in 1999 (HT to Carpe Diem), writing:

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s.

Here is a photo of signs post all around downtown Harrisburg, advertising for "Community Organizers": 

That's right, working as a "community organizer" is essentially the same as working to elect Obama. Here is the job description, from a Marxist group called Citizens for a Progressive Future.
 

Of course, this should surprise no one.  Despite the faux outrage from liberals that Republicans have mocked Barack Obama's background as a "community organizer," this is the kind of thing community organizers - at least the variety that Obama worked for and with in Chicago - actually do.

Steven Malanga writes how these community organizers rely on taxpayer fund to essentially advocate for more taxpayer funding:

Meanwhile, groups like the radical ACORN have used government funding to run voter-registration drives that are supposed to be nonpartisan efforts but that have concentrated in signing up voters in heavily Democratic districts to elect politicians who advance ACORN's political goals and protect funding for community activists.

Michelle Malkin notes the same reliance on taxpayer funding of political activity, as well as the voter fraud and illegal activity frequently done by groups like ACORN:

Last week, Milwaukee's top election official announced plans to seek criminal investigations of 37 ACORN employees accused of offering gifts to sign up voters (including prepaid gas cards and restaurant cards) or falsifying driver's license numbers, Social Security numbers or other information on voter registration cards. 

Last month, a New Mexico TV station reported on the child rapists, drug offenders and forgery convicts on ACORN's payroll. In July, Pennsylvania investigators asked the public for help in locating a fugitive named Luis R. Torres-Serrano, who is accused "of submitting more than 100 fraudulent voter registration forms he collected on behalf of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now to county election officials." Also in July, a massive, nearly $1 million embezzlement scheme by top ACORN officials was exposed.

ACORN's political arm endorsed Obama in February and has ramped up efforts to register voters across the country. In the meantime, completely ignored by the mainstream commentariat and clean-election crusaders, the Obama campaign admitted failing to report $800,000 in campaign payments to ACORN. They were disguised as payments to a front group called "Citizen Services, Inc." for "advance work."

 And Capital Research Center has a good discussion of the background of Obama/Alinsky community organizing, and its background in Marxist ideology.

Pentecostalism obscured in Palin biography

 

Yet John McCain's running mate has deep roots in Pentecostalism, a spirit-filled Christian tradition that is one of the fastest growing in the world. It's often derided by outsiders and Bible-believers alike.

 The left and mainstream media first tried attacked Palin because her daughter was pregnant, thinking the Christian right would brand her with a scarlet letter ala the Puritans.  Then they launch attacks that she is a bad mother, assuming that conservatives are all sexist misogynists. Now they are appealing to religious bigotry.  (Note how they disguise their attack, not "we are deriding Pentecostals," but "some people do").

• This Wall Street Journal article details Sarah Palin's accomplishments and willingness to take on the establishment. 
• The Financial Times has more on Palin taking on corruption in her own party.
• City Journal has a profile on Palin and why she is a great nominee for VP.
• Here is a good piece on why libertarians should love Palin. 
• RedState has the tale of the tape - Obama vs. Palin.
• Tony Phyrillas thinks Pennsylvania needs a governor like Palin.
• NRO online and on why the left hates Sarah Palin and about the facts about McCain's vetting. Real Clear Politics has more on the left's fear of Palin.
• Beliefnet blog highlights how pro-lifers/evangelicals should and do respond to revelations about Bristol Palin's pregnancy.

On that final topic, I have made a Facebook group "Rally to Palin" because I am outraged of the vicious attacks by the radical left, and the mindless repetition by the mainstream media.  Here is the description of the group:

The extremist left and the mainstream media think Conservatives - particularly Christian Conservatives - will abandon Sarah Palin because her seventeen-year old daughter is pregnant. 

Once again, the left demonstrates their failure to understand Conservatives and Christians. Instead, we will rally to defend Palin and family because: 

- We believe “he who is without sin should cast the first stone.”

- When one of our family, friends, neighbors, or congregation faces similar trials, conservatives and Christians offer our support.

- When someone invades the privacy and launches vicious attacks of children, we come to their defense. 

Let's show the left what they fail to understand about Conservative and Christian values. 

The Wall Street Journal has a great article about Sarah Palin's accomplishments. In particularly, they look at how she took on corruption in the culture of Alaska politics, including among the establishment Republicans.

Palin, in fact, has a record of the type of change Barack Obama merely talks about - though in fact he relies on the Chicago and Cook County Democratic machine, worked to get his challengers thrown of the ballot to win his first election, has close ties to lots of corrupt figures who rely in government handouts (including Rezco), has lots of lobbyists working for him, and is tied to the ethanol lobby.

Sounds like "change we can believe in" vs. change we have actually seen.

In contrast, Democratic party hack New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd quotes Palin saying,  "I wish they’d stick with the issues instead of discussing my black go-go boots." So Dowd ... ignores the issues, and discusses Palin's clothing and appearances, claiming she is only a beauty pageant contestant, "Miss Congengiality".  What horrible drivel.

 And you wonder why the Times keeps losing readers.

Books about Barack Obama are in vogue this month, topping the New York Times and Amazon.com best seller. The most talked about of these books has been Obama Nation. Unfortunately, it appears Obama Nation includes every case of hearsay, internet rumor, and urban legend about Obama—many of those unsubstantiated and some even disproven. Works like these give conservatives a bad name, giving the impression we would do (or say) anything to win an election (indeed, this is true of many Republicans). 

On the other hand, The Case against Barack Obama by David Freddoso, which I am currently reading, is well-researched, and heavily documented using reputable sources. Freddoso quickly dismissed some of the more absurd claims about Obama (e.g. "he won't salute the flag", "he was sworn in on the Koran"), which he properly notes were circulated by Obama's Democratic opponents, and it hurt rather than helped them. 

Freddoso does a fine job of chronicling how Obama won his first election to the state senate in 1996 by getting his opponents thrown off the ballot, his connections to the Chicago political machine, his votes against reform in the US Senate, his support of ethanol special interests, and his stances on abortion. 

While I didn't need any convincing that Obama wasn't my kind of candidate, I know enough people who do believe Obama (if not a messiah) is at least a different type of candidate, and a true reformer who will clean up Washington. The Case against Barack Obama refutes any idea that Obama will "change" America, and exposes him as a typical politician guilty of the same dirty tricks and old-school politics. I will be sharing this book – and the website with more updates – with my more naïve friends and colleagues.

In the past, I've been critical of the GOP running on the "lesser of two evils" platform.  Yet, though I feel McCain's positives outweigh his negatives, I am less a great fan of McCain than fearful of an Obama presidency.  Obama would undoubtedly be the most liberal US president ever.  Without much ado, here is a rundown of links and articles that actual address Obama on the issues (not the issues of "hope" and "change").

Abortion: Obama is the most pro-abortion nominee in history. Obama's support for the "born alive" legislation that would protect babies that survived attempted abortions from being put to death, is just mind boggling.

Taxes and Social Security: While Obama has attempted to move to the middle on taxes (claiming he wouldn't raise taxes too much, i.e. a return to the rates under Bill Clinton), his plan doesn't just call taxing "on the rich", and combined with his Social Security proposal, represents a dramatic increase in taxes and redistribution mechanism. 

Indeed, it is his plan to "save Social Security" that will prove most destructive - he proposes no Social Security tax on income between $102,000 and $250,000, but a "windfall" rate above that.  This flies in the face of how Social Security is supposed to work - i.e. you get back roughly what you pay in - and makes it purely a redistribution scheme.   

Ethanol While Obama decries not taxing "big oil" enough he does support mandates and taxpayer subsidies (not to mention tax breaks) for Big Ethanol. Coincidentally, the New York Times notes the political connections between the Obama camp and big ethanol.

Lobbyists: Obama claims to be the candidate to clean up Washington, most notably highlighting his refusal to take money from lobbyists.  But USA Today found this was a complete deception:

His fundraising team includes 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government, records show.

Those lawyers, including 10 former federal lobbyists, have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million for the Illinois senator's presidential race. Employees of their firms have given Obama's campaign $2.26 million, a USA TODAY analysis of campaign finance data shows.

Political deception:  John Lott runs down a number of "flip-flops" by Obama, but a number of these - most notably his change in rhetoric on NAFTA - were clearly attempts to pander to the left during the primary and pander to the middle now.   In fact, Obama even warned Canadians that his NAFTA demagoguery was just campaign bluster.

School Choice: Obama opposes school choice - for your kids.  Like most wealthy politicians, he prefers school choice for his own.

Voting against his own platform: How bad are Obama's campaign promises?  So bad that when Senator Allard of Colorado introduced $300 billion/year worth of Obama's promises, instead of enacting them into law, every single senator voted against them - including Obama himself.

This is your messiah?

Michael Gerson, the architect of all that "Compassionate Conservative" nonsense, had a column in the Washington Post claiming Jesus was not a libertarian (or even a fiscal conservative with "socially conservative" views).

Gerson's rationale goes like this: Jesus and his followers opposed slavery, therefore they would also support Medicaid.

I've written on why that logic (used by Governor Rendell) is both poor policy and poor theology, and revisited the topic of charity and markets vs. the "compassion" of taxation. But since this type of rhetoric makes me angry (I'll give you fair warning before my eyes turn green and my shirt rips off), I'll refer to the Acton Institute's reponse to Gerson:

Here’s the key assumption in Michael Gerson’s piece from last week, “The Libertarian Jesus”:

Private compassion cannot replace Medicaid or provide AIDS drugs to millions of people in Africa for the rest of their lives. In these cases, a role for government is necessary and compassionate -- the expression of conservative commitments to the general welfare and the value of every human life.

Private compassion certainly could do this, and much more. Private giving generally dwarfs government programs in both real dollars and effectiveness.

Does this mean that there is no role or never a role for government? No. But that role is one of last and temporary resort. The dichotomy that Gerson draws from one side (and many libertarians draw from another) is false.

 Gerson also misunderstands the import of Coburn’s claims that compassion cannot be coerced, “that true giving and compassion require sacrifice by the giver.” The divide between government programs and individual charity isn’t a public/private distinction, but rather a political/moral distinction, where the moral element may sometimes but not always necessitate political action. Poverty is simply not morally equatable with slavery or abortion.

I will note that Gerson missed the obvious point that libertarians and classical liberals (dating back to John Locke) were strong opponents of slavery - believing that the role of government was to protect our natural rights (endowed by the Creator), including the rights to the fruits of our labor (i.e. property).

Obviously libertarians, classical liberals, and fiscal conservatives believe there is a role for government. But forcibly taking our property (taxes) to redistribute through ineffective government programs - and undermining private charity and the free market in the process - is not such a role.