Oregon

Where do Republicans Go From Here? A Grassroots Perspective.

Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey wrote in his book, Armey's Axioms, “When we act like them, we lose. When we act like us, we win.” Such words seem appropo after the 2008 general election. However, there is so much more to those words today than when they were written.

I cannot tell you how many times during the Bush Administration, political staffers at the state and federal level would seemingly say the same thing, 'I didn't sign up for this.' From the ill-executed war in Iraq to the prescription drug plan to the recent government bailout, many Republicans – both grassroots and professionals alike were caught off-guard by the brand of conservatism and, thus, the brand of Republicanism being executed at the highest levels of our government. And, worse yet, it was for the world to see. But, in his defense, President Bush didn't do it alone. He had a lot of help.

President Bush's proclamation of “compassionate conservatism” when he ran for office in 2000 was great rhetoric and a wonderful mission statement. However, Republicans failed to understand that it actually meant something. Compassionate conservatism meant spending – a lot of spending on government programs. It meant deficits and increased debt. It meant a foreign policy that focused on American exceptionalism and a Wilsonian offense spreading democracy around the world rather than a peace through strength national defense policy. In short, it was a brand of conservatism with which many Republicans were uncomfortable. It was not the brand of conservatism that built a center right America. However, he was “our guy” and they kept their lips sealed.

Now, in the wake of the recent elections, both grassroots and professional Republicans are asking, “where do we go from here?” Pundits have been busy today arguing whether Republicans and conservatives should revert back to their principles and become more partisan, thus, playing the role of loyal opposition? Or, should they acquiesce and work with the increased majorities of the House, Senate and new President-Elect Obama. Oddly, the answer can be and should be - both.

For years, conservatives have tried to indicate their political leanings by expressing themselves as Paleo-conservatives and Neo-conservatives. These designations spoke to the type of conservatism they believed in. As described by Wikipedia, Neo-Conservatives were/are, “a modern form of conservatism that supports a more assertive foreign policy, aimed at supporting American business interests abroad.” Paleo-Conservatives were/ are described as, “arising in the 1980s in reaction to neoconservatism, stresses tradition, especially Christian tradition and the importance to society of the traditional family.”

But, as President-elect Obama plainly put it, “Change has come to America.” This must be with the Republican Party and conservative movement, too. We can revert back to our most fundamental traditions, principles and philosophies; be a loyal opposition when warranted and work with the new majorities in the House and Senate at the same time. How? It won't be because of re-branding an image or reinventing the wheel. It will be by returning to our roots; a center right roots of thinkers and philosophers that ushered us into a time of peace and prosperity. We need to look to the past writings of Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke, Richard Weaver, Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises.

In these writings we will find a stark contrast with modern conservatism most recently on display. We will find a place in the very first chapter of Russell Kirk's book, The Politics of Prudence, a proclamation that conservatism is, in fact, the lack of ideology. It is not partisan but reasoned. It is not argumentative or “gotcha” but measured. It is a far cry from the conservatism contemporaries have come to know. Further, we will find a reason for a just and moral order in our society for the sake of shared interest and partnership toward a shared future – not to force dogmatic practices on an unwilling citizenry.

In other writings from Hayek and Mises we will find a proven direction to build prosperity without taking from the rich and giving to the poor. In Burke, we will find a role for regulation without over-regulating to the point where we choke a small business' or individual's opportunity to make a profit. In Weaver, we find that ideas have consequences. Every decision carries with it levels of impact. But, as Weaver notes, “All work is a bringing of the ideal from potentiality into actuality.” We work together.

As a collection, we find a place where minorities have a home through public policies that directly benefit them and a place where they are not only welcome but are relied upon. We find a proper role for government while not intruding into peoples' personal lives or asking them to give up their liberties in the name of national security. We find a place for achieving peace through strength without active nation building or misdirecting aggression; not confusing offense with defense . We find a place for a limited social safety net while still relying on the hard work and individual responsibility of every able citizen because the greater we limit the fall, conversely, the greater we must limit the success. And, we find a place where we are truly “our brother's keeper” but a keeper by choice – not by government force.

In this time, we can begin anew to read and understand and share what traditional conservatism is and what it was meant to be. We need our state and federal leaders to do the same and be able to practice and articulate it. In this, we will be able to work with a President Obama when he has it right and serve as a loyal opposition when he has it wrong. Rather than a partisan approach – we show what a reasoned, measured and prudent approach to public policy looks like. More importantly, we will show our citizens and the rest of the world what we were supposed to be; what our movement was built to be and what our Party quit trying to be. At the very least, we will most certainly find a brand of conservatism that most of America agrees with – they just haven't seen it in a quite a while.

Why I Prefer to Be a Bad Sport for Now


<!--[if gte mso 9]>

Normal
0




false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE













MicrosoftInternetExplorer4













<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]>
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>


















UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>

UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>

UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>

UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>



<![endif]-->

<!--[if gte mso 10]>

<![endif]-->

On November 5 John Kasich wrote: “We must figure out how to reorganize and restructure ourselves so that we can once again command the confidence and respect of not only the members of our own party, but voters of all stripes.”  I certainly agree that conservatism must be redefined, and I will offer my suggestions in a moment.  But I submit that none of us is ready for the task just yet.

 

In her 1969 groundbreaker On Death and Dying, Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, M.D., introduced a model known as the Five Stages of Grief: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance.  While not every process entails all five stages, the good doctor stated categorically that everyone experiences at least two.  But it appears that virtually every conservative commentator has tossed the model out and substituted his own single-phase paradigm: Submission.  No sooner had Senator McCain delivered his concession speech than some of my favorite radio talk show hosts – who had been breathing fire just hours earlier – blandly appealed to my optimism as though the proponents of capitalism and self-determination had merely lost a preseason football game.  Perhaps they don’t want to appear sore losers.  Perhaps they want to come across as “high-roaders.”  But in whose eyes?  I guarantee you the liberals are so drunk with victory that they don’t care whether we lost sportingly or otherwise.  Besides, it is a bit late for conservatives to worry about image.  We have been drubbed.  We have been bulldozed, hoodwinked, ground into the muck.  We fought fair while they pulled every dirty trick in the playbook, and they clobbered us silly.

 

Where is the outrage, ladies and gentlemen?  Do liberals hold a patent on passion?  Did someone outlaw indignation while I wasn’t looking?  The liberals seem to wield it freely enough.  History instructs that we can not move forward until we fully appreciate where we are.  Permit me to remind all of those blasé “we’ll-gettum-next-timers” a few facts I can recall off the top of my head about the man who just gave conservatism a bloody nose.  Barack Hussein Obama: (1) exhibited blatant sexism during the primaries, then thumbed his nose at feminism by snubbing Senator Clinton in favor of “Conehead” Biden; (2) showed the “common man” his true elitist colors when he rejected public campaign financing and outspent Senator McCain by a factor of 7 to 1; (3) would turn our courts into tools for “redistributive justice”; (4) used government computers and databases to find dirt that would discredit Joe the Plumber; (5) has bragged about the fact that he wants to increase the tax burden on the producers of this country so that he can guarantee a better living for the 30-40% who are freeloaders; (6) was endorsed by both Hugo Chavez and Iran’s parliament; and (7) has little patience for the notion of individual rights.

 

And another thing.  Let us not forget that, despite his silken demeanor, the man is an empty suit when it comes to concrete solutions.  I know attorneys because I am one.  The first lesson they teach in law school is how to use as many of the biggest words available to say as little as possible.  Our new chief executive took that lesson to heart.  People are weeping and screaming and dancing in the streets because “we” made history on November 4 by electing the first African American in U.S. history.  Unfortunately, a majority of the voters got so caught up in making history that they forgot to ask what kind of person lay beneath the fashionable skin they were about to vote for.  Let’s face it.  Obama didn’t have to make sense.  He needed no substance.  And he didn’t need to curry favor with moderates.  All he needed was to be a good looking, well-spoken black man who hung out with “cool” people like Madonna and Bruce Springsteen.  And he knew it from day one.  When I was a boy I was taught that the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s would someday stamp out racism.  I’m sorry to report that racism is still with us; it has merely switched sides.

 

This is the America our complacency has nurtured.  So spare me the silver-lining pablum.  I want to hear some emotionally healthy yelling and desk-pounding out there.  I’m not talking about rioting or bullying.  Those of you with an established forum in the media know exactly what to do.  I only hope you’ll find the motivation to do it.  As for the rest of you, try this as an example.  When I moved to a college town some years back, I confess that I allowed my vitriolic liberal brother-in-law to temper my philosophies.  Whenever he would rant about the evils he perceived Bush to have perpetrated, I was quick to remind him that the common enemy wasn’t Bush – it was career politicians and elitists in general.  When he simmered down I patted myself on the back for "remaining above the fray."  But one evening my 9-year-old nephew bragged to me that he had browbeaten a schoolmate of his into “voting” for a liberal in an important race.  With the glassy-eyed exuberance of a Hitler youth, he recited the mantra he had heard night after night from his father.  I decided I had placated the brother-in-law for the last time.  Though I don’t hang out as much with my sister’s family as a result, I can rest assured that my nephew now knows his father’s way of thinking is not the only way.

 

So conservatism as we know it has been pulverized.  It lies dead in the gutter.  How do we resurrect it?  The first thing we do is reintroduce ourselves to some fundamental principles many of us have forgotten: lower taxes; limited government intervention; disciplined government spending; individualism.  All variations of the concepts of tradition and convention must be eliminated from our lexicon.  Who do we attract?  On the count of three, let’s all scratch our heads.  One … two … three … and there is our answer: Real People.  But just what is a real person?  As a rule of thumb, real people don’t toe the party line or wear the homogenous blue blazer.  Take me, for instance.  I’m into The Who, Pearl Jam and the Black Keys, but I refuse to buy a suit that is anything but double-breasted.  I have tattoos, but I believe shoelaces should be tied, belt loops should be belted and undershorts should be covered in public.  I am licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and I will not hesitate to go for the kill shot if someone breaks into my home.  On the other hand, I have never understood, and will never understand, the attraction of game hunting.  I am an agnostic.  I detest abortion, but I think an outright ban ignores reality.  Though I am a heterosexual, I don’t understand how letting gays get married diminishes the institution for straights.  By the same token, I don’t understand why gays feel the need to impose an archaic religious ritual on an otherwise fulfilling relationship.  I don’t indulge in illegal recreational drugs; just the same, I don’t see the harm in legalizing marijuana or cocaine – people bent on destroying themselves will do it one way or another, so there’s no reason to spoil the party for responsible users.  Blah, blah, enough about me.

 

The point is that today’s conservative is not as easy to peg as was the little twerp Michael J. Fox played on prime time television in the 1980s.  That is why there were so many so-called Independents out there for Obama and his string-pullers to swoop up this time around.  The key to redefining conservatism is to refrain from overdefining it.  Agree on a very limited number of core principles, leave the rest of the slate clean and welcome the deluge of fresh new faces with bold ideas who will inevitably flock to your doorstep.

 

-R. Thomas Risk

 

 

Advice for Obama Press Corps: Keep Your 'Chute Handy

As confirmed by Politico.com's Ben Smith in his corroboration of the story that broke on the Drudge Report last night, the Obama campaign did indeed bump three major newspapers from the press group traveling aboard the candidate's plane.  Although press accounts are not specific, it is assumed that their removal was conducted while the plane was still on the ground.

The Obama campaign indicated that they will try to find seats on campaign buses for the disenfranchised Dallas Morning News, Washington Times and New York Post staff, and that they are encouraging them to travel with Joe Biden. 

(Two major right-leaning newspapers, who now have an axe to grind, riding along with the king of the gaffes?  One would think that Team Obama would be better served in the final days of the election by giving them daily interview sessions with Barack than by placing them within earshot of gaffemaster Joe.)

While it is true that in a similar move, Senator McCain barred Maureen Dowd and Joe Klein from his campaign plane, there is a subtle but important distinction between that punishment and the kind of retribution Obama is meting out. 

Dowd and Klein are columnists.  They write commentary and analysis in their own voice and the result is mainly the opinion of the writer as an individual.  When a columnist gleefully pounds away at a politician, it doesn't seem at all out of bounds for the politician to shut down that one person's access.  Even if the lex talionis - eye for an eye - mode of justice may be harsh, at least it observes some semblance of symmetry.

A newspaper's endorsement of a candidate is a decision more often made by the ownership of the paper, in consultation with the editorial staff, but it is never made by reporters.  The reporting done thus far by the ejected journalists has not been harmful to Obama.  On the contrary, most campaign trail reporting tips toward positive coverage of a candidate as reporters develop a relationship with the candidate they are covering.  Label it human nature or the Helsinki Syndrome, depending on your perspective.

There is no balance in Obama's retaliatory strike and it could say something larger about how he will apply power to other problems that arise.  In international terms, we assign a particular label to people and causes that consider innocents as appropriate tools for conveying political messages.  In domestic terms it is political thuggery and the penchant the Obama camp has for silencing dissent should at least give us a reason to retain skepticism, whether you color yourself red, blue or purple.

The Chicago-style politics of making war on anyone a politician classifies as 'enemies' by hitting their proxies is something that we, as a nation, have been trying to extinguish for more than one hundred years, but the Obama machine is reviving those tactics of naked power and proving that they still work.  He is giving us a sample, a sneak peak of his wilder side.

With the prospect of single-party rule of the federal government, and intimidation of media who are perceived as 'unfriendly' to an Obama administration, more than ever it seems clear that a vote for Obama is a vote for change.  When we realize what the word 'change' really means in Obamaspeak, I only hope that we will be able to change back.

Save the Filibuster

If you're a conservative looking at the odds, what should really scare you is not the 80 to 90 percent chance that Barack Obama is the next President. It's the very real chance that Democrats could get to 60 or tantalizingly close to it in the Senate. President Barack Obama is unfortunate. President Barack Obama with 60 votes in the Senate means a socialist America.

If the Presidential race manages to get tighter than it is, it won't matter in the end. A loss is a loss, just as a win is a win. Obama will claim -- and the media will grant -- a mandate regardless of the margin. Bush was pretty darned influential in his first term having won by 537 votes. The margin of victory in Presidential races is academic.

But marginal gains will matter in the Senate. Losing by a little or losing by a lot makes a big difference -- dictating targeting decisions for one, possibly two six year terms to come.

There a group of seats we should not lose that are teetering on the brink -- North Carolina, Oregon, Minnesota, and now, quite possibly Georgia.

The NRSC and the NRCC, like the McCain campaign at the national level, are being buried by the Democrats' massive financial advantage. In 2006, the RNC was able to come to the rescue of these committees. In one case, I believe one of their independent expenditures tipped the outcome with their humorous, effective, and perfectly legitimate ad against Harold Ford in Tennessee.

This time, no such help has been forthcoming in Senate races. The RNC IE unit has targeted one and only one candidate: Barack Obama, with $15 million.

Extraordinary circumstances compel us to begin considering different strategies, including a break with the RNC's tradition as the Presidential committee in Presidential years.

The RNC's IE unit should drop at least $15 million on 4 or 5 key Senate races that are salvageable in the last three weeks.

And the decision for Victory to stay in or pull out of states should be heavily influenced by the presence of key Senate and House contests.

And McCain should start explicitly making the argument for divided government, with him as the only hope of preserving it. This is unlikely to be a voting issue at the Presidential level, but we need to get the idea percolating that we are about to elect Obama with unchecked, unlimited power. Power corrupts... absolute power corrupts absolutely, etc.

Obama at 56 seats makes life hard, but a lot more bearable than Obama at 60 seats. The death of the filibuster would be like losing the White House all over again.

And while we all to some extent will continue to fixate on the Presidential race, we need to understand the very real consequences if the Senate is irredeemably lost, and if our bench in the House is wiped out. You may not know it, but conservative icons like John Shadegg (AZ-3) and Tom McClintock (CA-4) could lose.

And all the punditing in the beyond-the-margin Presidential race is going to matter a whole lot less than having at least something to fight the Obama agenda with next year.

What a Night!

Last night, both the Democrat and Republican nominees for President of the United States, Barack Obama and John McCain, met face-to-face in a debate forum for the very first time. Both appeared energetic and prepared to engage in this rhetorical battle in front of thousands who were there and millions watching at home.

Both of these two met and exceeded expectations set forth by their respective campaigns. For Barack Obama, long term, this might be where the good news for him ends.

I say “long term” because of the raw transcript of the debate. There were a number of instances where Obama looked as if he was trying to be all things to all people. There were also moments where he showed his youth and inexperience in other areas.

First, when the moderator Jim Lehrer asked the candidates about scaling back the federal budget as to what each of the candidates would do as president, Obama never mentioned one area where he would freeze or reduce spending. Instead, he mentioned his support for increased funding for early childhood education. All told, the combination of the Paulson bailout plan combined with Obama’s four-year spending proposals would add an additional $1.5 trillion to the federal budget alone. He needed to show where his cuts were going to be, but he showed an instance where he was going to increase spending.

Meanwhile, McCain gave areas where he would reduce spending starting with his least favorite items on the budget, earmarks. Next, McCain went to eliminating the ethanol subsidies and by tighting the screws on defense contracts so that defense spending is more efficient.

Obama supporters might be fast to point out that he will eliminate $10 billion a month ($480 billion over four years) by ending the war in Iraq and eliminating the Bush tax cuts for those making $250,000 or more a year. For the 48 months that he would be president which would not even come close to covering the costs for his spending proposals, tax cut for the bottom 95% of wage earners, covering a projected $600 billion deficit in his first budget, and the Paulson bailout plan. Sacrifices will have to be made and they might most likely start with the proposed tax cut (a la Bill Clinton).

The second mistake by Obama was a reversal of his position on so-called dirty energy. John McCain has made the construction of 45 new nuclear power plants to provide energy and combat climate change along with support for clean coal and offshore drilling parts of his energy plan along with renewable energy, flex-fuel vehicles, and better fuel economy.

Prior to last night, Obama had previously expressed his desire to tax coal, natural gas, and place a windfall profits tax on the oil companies which even he admits would not produce another drop of oil. However, last night Obama got in to the mode of being all things to all people by advocating his support for drilling, clean coal technology, and nuclear energy. The Sierra Club cannot be happy about this.

Third, Obama was clearly on the defensive about unconditional negotiations with Iranian President Mahmoud “Adolph, Jr.” Ahmadinejad. A major mistake made here was the citation of former Secretary of State and McCain’s friend and advisor Dr. Henry Kissinger. Obama cited Kissinger as one of five former Secretaries of State who had advocated Presidential-level talks with Iran. The five include both of Bill Clinton’s (Warren Christopher and Madeline Albright) and James Baker, who served under Bush-41. McCain had said that Kissinger was not one of the five though Obama insisted he was. 

After the debate last night, Kissinger said the following: “Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level.  My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.” Oops!

Fourth, there was a moment in the debate where John McCain and Barack Obama were comparing the bracelets they received from mothers who had lost their sons in Operation Iraqi Freedom. McCain gave the name of the soldier who was on his bracelet instantly without having to look. The same cannot be said of Obama who had to look at his to get the name. It might have been better for Obama to have not mentioned the name if it required him to take a look.

However, the biggest missteps by Senator Obama went under the radar because they were sprinkled throughout the debate. In all, there were eight instances where Obama expressed his agreement with Senator McCain. Within minutes, McCain’s campaign released a web ad (potentially a television ad in the future) showing where Obama agreed with McCain on responsibility and accountability, the earmarks process, and that business taxes are high. More could be made against Obama on the issues of spending cuts, the success of the troop surge strategy in Iraq, and that the world cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran.

Writing in the National Review, Byron York stated a prediction: “The next time McCain and Obama meet in debate, on October 7 in Nashville, start a drinking game in which you take a big swig every time Obama says, ‘John is absolutely right.’ I’ll bet you get to the end of the debate without ever lifting a glass.”

In all, Senator McCain won this round despite the curtailing of national security issues (the original topic of the debate) for three questions on economic issues. The night was largely on McCain’s turf thanks to national security, talks about government spending more than anything else, and the aforementioned missteps of Senator Obama. However, for McCain, thanks to Obama’s energy and exceeding expectations, the win was not by as wide a margin as some anticipated.

Has it Come to This? Unions Striking Against Unions?

in

Unions in America have finally arrived at farce. Yes, they have become a parody of themselves because now we have an example of a union being formed so that it can strike against... its own union. Confused? Don't blame you.

From the Associated Press we get this tale of high comedy, this story of brother fighting brother and sister cat fighting with sister: Union employees form their own union, then strike.

The workers who help the Oregon Education Association file grievances and negotiate new contracts went on strike Monday against the union they represent.

Isn't this a little bit like an army turning on itself because, well, they are armed, too?

Apparently, the "Oregon Education Association Professional Staff Organization" has organized its 42 members so that they can strike against the OEA that was offering them a new contract, one that featured rollbacks in some benefits.

Let's face it, none of us here care much about the particulars. Couldn't care less whether this spin off union wins loses or draws here. It's just a darn funny story that a union has split off from a union in order to strike against itself!

Seriously. You can't write comedy this funny.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Today's Poll Report

New round of polls out, ignoring irrelvant CNN/Time polls with poor sampling, we have:

  • Virginia: Public Policy Polling: Obama by 2, CNU Virginia: McCain +9. The CNU poll uses a "registered voter" rather than likely voter sample, so I don't give it much weight, even though they came out with the same 24 point lead for Mark Warner in the Senate. Polls out of Virginia continue to be all over the place. Toss-Up.
  • Oregon: Rasmussen: Obama +4. A State that was basically a purple state in 2000, went Blue in 2004. As much as I'd like to turn my anti-blogger's state Red, I'm thinking Washington's a better bet as the incumbent Republican Senator has run ads touting his work with Senator Obama.  Still, I'll watch for more polling.
  • Wisconsin: Rasmussen: Obama +2. The last poll showed Obama +3. For a while, this was thought t0 be a state Obama would run away with. It's looking to be as tight as the last two elections.
  • New Mexico: Survey USA: Obama +8 . Huge lead for Obama in this poll, but this is an outlier in recent likely voter polling, so I really would need to see some more confirmation.

 

The State of the Race: Ohio Leans McCain

It’s time to update the Presidential maps. First, the all important map with “Leaning States” included:

  • The latest Ohio Rasmussen Poll shows McCain up by 7. The last 3 Rasmussen polls show McCain up by 7, 5, and 10 points. There have been polls indicating Obama leads but CNN poll was a nearly useless “Registered Voter” poll instead of a likely voter poll and the Quinnipiac Poll had a bizarre 7 day polling period.  Leans McCain.
  • Both the Democratic Public Policy Polling and Republican Strategic Vision polls show Obama with a narrow 1 point lead. Three state polls show Obama’s lead within the margin. Let’s call it a toss up.

Based on these changes, here’s my new electoral map with leaners, giving McCain a 247-243 lead.

However, it’s not all good news for McCain:

  • Even after the Convention bounce, the latest Rasmussen Poll showed Florida tied, and a Strategic Vision poll shows McCain up 5.  Can I really say that Florida is not in play. At this point, I have to conced it’s in play, leaving Obama with an edge in states that are certain to go one way or another 190-174:

Other notes that while not changing the map (genrally because they’re single polls) are plenty intriguing:

  • Treasure State Dreams Dashed? Based on reports from family members in Montana, I was quite nervous about Montana. Senator Biden was in my old home town of Kalispell today and Obama has been there several times. In addition, while in most states, Ron Paul is not on the ballot, he is in Montana as the Montana Constitution Party withdrew Chuck Baldwin to place Ron Paul on the ticket. The latest Rasmussen Poll puts McCain up 11. While this doesn’t include 3rd party candidates, Camp Obama cannot be happy with this given the effort they’ve poured into turning the Treasure State blue.
  • A Northwest Advantage? The Montana poll, coupled with a poll from Washington raises an intriguing question. Survey USA shows Obama up by only 4. Could Palin be helping McCain in the Northwest. She’s the first major Presidential or Vice-President nominee from the Northwest (yes, I know there have been candidates.) Washington will be a tough state to flip as Kerry won by 9.5% Oregon may be easier as it went to John Kerry by only 4.5% in 2004 and in 2000, it was only 0.44% for Al Gore. Turning Oregon red would be great, if nothing else than to annoy Radical Russ.
  • Sweet Carolina: Another state that Obama hoped to capture was North Carolina. That effort may be in some trouble. The average poll had been showing John McCain up by 4 in the Tarheel state. The latest Survey USA poll shows McCain up 20. If this holds up in future polling, it’ll be a bitter disappointment for Team Obama which sems to be looking like a Fall version of the Mitt Romney campaign which put millions into states that they ended up losing.
  • Ignore New Jersey: New Jersey is a state that loves to sing a siren song to Republican Presidential nominees by indicating a strong possibility of victory. The latest Fairleigh-Dickinson poll shows Obama up only 6.  Hopefully, won’t expend resources here. There’s simply no way he wins New Jersey. Please ignore the siren.
  • Bad News: The polls across the country while not conclusive indicate Obama has some major weaknesses. Fox News/Rasmussen has Obama up only 2 in Pennsylvania, and Strategic Vision has Obama’s once mighty lead in Wisconsin at only 3.
  • On Obama’s Bright Side: The Obama campaign can take comfort in two states. In Colorado, the latest Fox/Rasmussen Poll has Obama up 3. Not great, but given the positive attention the GOP ticket has gotten, Obama will take it. Meanwhile, in the swing state of Virginia, even after the GOP’s successful convention, two Virginia polls put McCain up by only 2 points. The salvation of the Obama campaign this Fall could be the transformation of Virginia into a state dominated by federal employees in Northern Virginia, partially as a result of George W. Bush’s “big government” conservatism.
  • False Hope: To amend Barack Obama, “In the unlikely story that is America, there’s never been anything false about hope (unless it’s depended on young voters.)” The one hope that many liberals have to have is that pollsters are missing younger voters who use cellphones only and can’t be polled. The problem, as Ed Morrissey writes, “If this concern had merit, we should have seen Obama overperforming against polling during the primaries against Hillary Clinton.  He had a solid grip on the youth vote throughout all of the polling, after all, while Hillary appealed to older voters.  Yet in state after state, Obama underperformed against polling predictions.”

 

Obama's Letter Promoting Elimination of Democracy

in

Any speculation that Barack Obama will suddenly find it in his heart to accept ages old democratic practices can be put to rest with a letter he recently wrote urging a company to eliminate the secret ballot of workers being solicited for union membership.

The Baker City Herald has the story of Beef Northwest, a food service company, that is undergoing union agitation. Employees of Beef Northwest are being urged to join the United Farm Workers union and Obama sent a letter in support of that initiative.

Some of the employees that want the union openly signed cards saying they want the union and want to eschew a secret ballot. Beef Northwest is maintaining that the "card check" vote is not legitimate and wants a secret ballot taken. For his part, Obama sent a letter against the ages old democratic process of the secret ballot.

Obama's letter is dated Aug. 4, two days after the Oregon Farm Worker Ministry group, picketed a Whole Foods Market in the Portland area to put pressure on Beef Northwest owners to accept the cards collected by union organizers and to negotiate a union contract.

...Davies said he sees the Obama letter as an important document revealing the candidate's willingness to substitute union cards for a secret ballot vote.

Obama stands against one of the oldest democratic practices in history; the secret ballot.

We are in for major anti-democratic actions by government if this dangerous man becomes president.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

GOP Youth Convention

GOPYOUTHCONVENTION.org

What are you doing to effect the upcoming election?  Are you a young member of society and you feel like you cannot do anything because you are inexperienced in the political relam or that you do not know where to start.  Well how about you get trained by some of the best grassroots political organizers in the country so that you can go out and truely make a difference in the upcoming election. 

For just $50 you will be able to get this training without missing any school all while in Minneapolis at the Republican National Convention.  That is right just e-mail info@gopyouthconvention.org and join young members of the Republican party from around America as they come together to be trained to be the future grassroots organizers for the GOP. 

I hope that you will all inquire about this wonderful opportunity to help share not just this important election but you to help our wonderful party for years to come.

Thanks, and I hope to see you in Minneapolis.

Syndicate content