Certainly, election results one year out cannot portend future election results. A year is an eternity in politics, but unlike poll results, election results do mark the time in a firm way.

There are some basic facts that cannot be ignored. Barack Obama campaigned heavily for Jon Corzine in New Jersey, the incumbent Democrat governor and former senator. The president also campaigned for Creigh Deeds in Virginia. Both lost, and in Virginia, the Democrats lost all the way down the ticket. The only place the Democrats won on Tuesday was where Barack Obama did not campaign, New York’s 23rd congressional district.  Even there, if the vote of the Republican and Conservative Party had been combined, and the Republican nominee had not thrown her support behind the Democrat, it would have been a sweeping loss for the Democrats all around.

To be fair in New Jersey, Corzine appeared to be his own worst enemy. Usually reliable Democrat counties did not turn out due to Corzine’s lack of popularity within his own base. That lack of popularity spilled over into the independent vote as well and fueled voters’ turn toward Chris Christie, his Republican challenger. Corzine failed to attract the independent vote and the black vote.  In Newark, Corzine received one-third fewer votes than Senator Frank Lautenberg did last year. Both Lautenberg’s Republican challenger and Christie got about the same number of votes. Even worse, Obama stumped for Corzine in Newark on Sunday before the election ( for more on the New Jersey election, go here).

In Virginia, the White House was less committed though Obama did make appearances for the Democrat candidate; however, Obama won the commonwealth by six points in 2008, again largely because of a high turnout in new and independent voters and black voters. None of these groups that made the Obama presidency possible came out for either Democrat gubernatorial candidate, and neither of the other two statewide races that were on the ballot in Virginia.  In fact, the Virginia results were an old-school drubbing and much less interesting than New Jersey.

The White House plainly thought they could make a difference in both New Jersey and Virginia, and did not figure they had a shot at New York 23, which had been in GOP hands since the War Between the States  (Joe Biden was sent apparently because the White House could not spare the gardener).  To top that off, the Democrat National Committee poured $10 million into the two governor races. This was not done without White House approval.

The results may mean less for 2010 generally than it does internally for the Obama campaign/administration.  They realize now more than anyone that the president’s political power is limited, and that what happened in 2008 may be an isolated incident, a strike of political lightning, where a bad Republican candidate and a coalition primed by platitudinal rhetoric made for the perfect electoral storm.  Clearly, Obama’s popularity could not bring victory to a lame candidate in a state he won by 18 points a mere year ago. Perhaps Corzine was too far gone, but the groups Obama so brilliantly motivated to the polls in 2008 acted as if no one told them there was an election going on in 2009.  It wasn’t as if the New Jersey election was entirely local, either – over half of those  exit polled said the direction of the national economy concerned them greatly, and 61% of those voted for Christie.  Also, 75% of those who voted for Corzine approved of the job Obama was doing, while 88% of the those who voted for Christie viewed Obama disapprovingly. In short, the approval rating for Obama in New Jersey based on the exit polls and poll results between Christie and Corzine works out to about 41%.  As in, this is Obama’s approval rating among those who vote in elections where Obama is not the candidate on the ballot in heavily Democrat states.

So, we may not be able to say that New Jersey and Virginia will predict any sort of results in 2010, but the New Jersey exit polls evidence the lack of political clout Barack Obama now possesses and how irrelevant he was in the voters’ minds in New Jersey on Tuesday.  Based on the exit poll results, he very much was a negative factor to Corzine’s reelection bid, neutral at best. That his agenda is completely bogged down in his own party in Washington, DC, shouldn’t surprise anyone.

The term “saved or created” in relation to jobs in the American economy is already wryly looked upon by many professional observers. Well, the savvy ones, anyway. It ought to be the string that unravels the whole fairy tail surround the White House’s economic policy.  Caroline Baum nicely dissects the ridiculousness that is the Obama economic plan.

But let’s get back to the phrase “saved or created”, which will eventually go down as the most hackneyed, disingenuous, silly political phrase ever concocted. One cannot measure the former, and because we are losing jobs, it is impossible to attribute any metric to the latter. Adding absurdity to fantasy, the White House has been caught fudging even the imaginary job numbers. Depending on the day, they have “saved or created” [snicker] 1.5 million jobs.  However, the proverbial political hand has been caught in reality’s cookie jar: the estimates have been made of whole cloth, and it is the president’s own bureaucracy that is calling the administration out.

The White House seized on an initial report from a government oversight board weeks ago that claimed federal contracts awarded to businesses under the recovery plan already had helped pay for more than 30,000 jobs. The administration said the number was evidence that the stimulus program had exceeded early expectations toward reaching the president’s promise of creating or saving 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year.

But the 30,000 figure is overstated by thousands — at the very least by nearly 5,000, or one in six, based on AP’s limited review of some of the contracts — because some federal agencies and recipients of the money provided incorrect job counts. The review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of jobs; some jobs were credited to stimulus spending when, in fact, none were produced.

Not so fast, Lee Harvey.

Anyone with half a firing neuron could have predicted the “stimulus” was a going to be a very expensive joke.  The reports are confirming the punch line.  If the stimulus was thought and planned out, the administration would have no need to oversell it. Until the currency is strengthened and the financial system is completely stabilized, it is all a charade anyway.   Tax cuts for those who actually create jobs is the only fiscal answer to the economy’s woes.

Gee, now I”M being delusional.

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Getting it right politically is always harder than it looks. But something that worked in the past is likely to work again, especially in light of recent overreaching by the Democrats on health care and the failure to comprehend that ending America’s involvement in the Middle East is simply unrealistic and irresponsible  in the manner they fancifully propose.

Republicans stand with a grand opportunity, if they can seize it. In both 1980 and 1994 the ruling Democrats were the purveyors of the bloated, advocates of a bureaucratic nightmares that no one could rationally defend. In 1980, the Republicans were thought dead – no one figured Nixon fatigue would be overcome a mere four years after the president who pardoned him, and subsequently lost, had left office.  In 1994, a similar scenario to what we are seeing in 2009 played out. A new Democrat president overreaches on an intrusive, personal issue, and couples that with the stigma of incompetence (gays in the military and the stimulus have more than a little in common).  Bill Clinton’s approval numbers in mid to late 1993 were  higher than Barack Obama’s are now.

As before, the GOP stands in a position to capitalize once again on the other side’s incompetence and overreaching  with freedom fueled issues, an area the Democrats haven’t played in for decades, and which resulted in both of the previously mentioned victories and Democrat collapses.  It always works when it’s tried, and only ceases to work when the Republicans abandon it.  On issues of limited government, lower taxes and the deficit, the GOP used to rule with an iron fist.  Learning quickly after 1994,  Clinton was able to triangulate and claim credibility on erstwhile conservative issues: welfare reform and balancing the budget being the two majors one.  The subsequent spending spree of the Bush years further eroded Republican credibility on fiscal issues, and the cooperating GOP Congress and its eventual decimation in both houses was the fait accompli.

Fast forward to 2009 and Barack Obama has given it all  back. With an $800 billion stimulus bill passed that, by all accounts, is being spent poorly, a projected deficit of $9 trillion over ten years, and the rolling of the dice on a government health care takeover (which the administration has been caught misleading the public as to its revenue neutrality), and you have a political environment scripted for a change. However, John Boehner is no Dick Armey, and Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan. The opportunity is definitely there to be had. The real question is whether the Republicans have the capacity right now to seize it.

see, if we look at the map, I’m leaving to go over here

First off, I want to say I get it. We conservatives, much less Republicans, are in exile. The Democrats have a stranglehold on the House, the Senate became filibuster proof with a hack comic, and the party of Pelosi now occupies the White House.  I am frustrated and I am mad; however, the focus of my ire is not on the Democrats but on the fools that have run our great party into the ground. To paraphrase and adapt the words of the great charlatan, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, “We want out the Bushes!”.

And in our frustration, and desperation, we yearn for a guiding light. As in all aspects of life, desperation clouds judgment. Because of our predicament and present complete failure as a party, we reach. And reach. And reach.

What we have found is an initially charismatic individual, a governor from a small yet strategically important state, who generated buzz around a party nominee who otherwise made us ponder fondly the excitement surrounding Bob Dole’s 1996 campaign.

Then, as in all things Republican, you get out the Ronald Reagan ruler, the gold standard by which all pols residing on the right side of things are rightly measured.  Comparisons have abounded in recent days about how Sarah Palin is conservative “just like Ronald Reagan”, that the media elite sneer at her like they did Reagan. Or, that she is being shunned because she is not of the “establishment”.  Former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan says it well in the Wall Street Journal

“Turning to others means the media won!” No, it means they lose. What the mainstream media wants is not to kill her but to keep her story going forever. She hurts, as they say, the Republican brand, with her mess and her rhetorical jabberwocky and her careless causing of division. Really, she is the most careless sower of discord since George W. Bush, who fractured the party and the movement that made him. Why wouldn’t the media want to keep that going?

(there’s more – read through the link). As a Republican who very much wants to win and regain our rightful place as the governing party of this great nation, I shudder that my compatriots are with great gusto throwing every ideological egg they own into the skipping movement that is Palinade.  It’s going to skip us right off the cliff, waving that conservative flag all the way down to the canyon floor.

The Reagan/Palin comparisons need to be debunked for many reasons, but primarily they are an insult to the fortieth president and a recipe for forty additional years in the wilderness. Through a lifetime, Ronald Reagan amassed a record of great achievement. From the near-beginning when he headed the Screen Actors Guild and established a strong anti-communist, tough managerial stance, to his years as the highest paid, most well-known speaker in the world, to his two terms as governor of the nation’s largest state, Reagan’s credentials were unmatched. Perhaps because our country just elected a man with less experience than the soon-to-be former governor of Alaska, our party politic seems to have forgotten there are two aspects to one’s political resume – one’s ideological positions and the beef one brings to the table. Neither is expendable, and just because we have witnessed an anomaly in the process with the election of our current president, we ought not be so eager to set the beef bar so low.

It should bother everyone that Sarah Palin could not finish even one term as governor of Alaska, a position of public trust she treats as if she got through Randstad.  Yes, she was facing ethical accusations. Yes, she would have had to technically finance her own defense if it came to that (believe that one if you want).  So, instead of serving the state by confronting and ridding the people of the irresponsible politicians making baseless accusations against her, she does what any movement leader ought to do in her first term in a constitutional position: she quits. It is not a noble path, to be sure, but it’s the standard we as a party seem willing and eager to accept.

Let us also not forget she could not answer the most basic policy questions in any of her interviews, or cite any authors of substance when asked. Neither is very Reaganesque of her, whose knowledge of foreign policy and history was extensive and unquestionable. When Reagan faced adversity in California, he defeated it. When Palin faced adversity in a state smaller than San Jose, she took out the white flag, a couple crayons, and tried to shade it in like the Stars and Stripes.

And we as a party are supposed to rally around that? I don’t think so.

I was initially assuming Obama would propose lowering the corporate tax rate across the board, dissuading overseas wealth creation and keeping it here.

Then, I awoke.

It seems instead he is bent on ending a variety of international operating deductions and adding 800 IRS agents to make it harder for American businesses to operate internationally.  What he intends to do is open the door to double-taxation, making American companies less competitive globally. Or else, American businesses will be forced to operate more extensively domestically, subjecting them to higher costs of operation. This should not come as a surprise – the president has routinely expressed his preference for protectionism over free trade.

Central to this is that a distinction must be made between “tax evasion” and “tax avoidance”. It is an inconvenient concept, to be sure, when waxing populist.  Operating outside the confines of the geographic United States does not constitute “tax evasion”. This tidbit is largely irrelevant, however, as the most green of economics students can tell you that any increase in business taxes is passed through to the consumer. This kind of thing makes for a good Democrat soundbite, but it stems from a flat earth, pre-Copernican understanding of economics.  Businesses are not evil – they are good. If you are reading this right now, thank a business. If you’re not hungry, thank a business. If you live in a house, thank a business.

If you want to pay more for all of it, thank President Obama.

The sick, funny part of this proposed effort is that it is supposed to garner approximately $21 billion more per year in tax revenues. That’s up there with the $100 million savings the president demanded of his cabinet. As in, it is a massive joke. You cannot support a budget that ensures a $1 trillion deficit and then offer a 2% solution and expect to engage in a serious debate.  I guess he just knows there are enough people out there who will simply swallow it.

I have an impeccable legal background

The Left has rumbled here and there with consternation that Barack Obama has not moved quickly enough in their direction since ascending the presidency. The replacement of retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter is not one where that “tolerance” is likely to continue.

Noted liberal blogger Oliver Willis surmised as much Friday at Huffington Post

It is to our everlasting detriment that George W. Bush was able to appoint the relatively young Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the court, and while Souter is on the left of the court and the overall balance is unlikely to seriously shift, the president must realize (and I think he does) the value on his legacy and the history of the nation over a liberal appointment. We need a justice in the mold of Thurgood Marshall, and not someone squishy enough to be the “swing” justice in the archetype the media loves so much.

Of course, the problem with Thurgood Marshall is that he wasn’t much of a constitutional scholar and generally approved law clerk written opinions that appeared to be written in the same style as As I Lay Dying

, but hey – we know that constitutional scholarship is merely one qualification of several. Outside of constitutional knowledge and the will to follow what one believes to be an accurate interpretation, the rest should be considered completely irrelevant. Unsurprisingly, the president disagrees. We should instead also seek a Supreme Court justice who has empathy

On Friday, Obama promised to name a Supreme Court justice who combines “empathy and understanding” with an impeccable legal background. Obama pointedly referred to his plan to have “him or her” on the bench in time for the Supreme Court’s session that begins the first Monday in October.

How empathy interacts with the requirements of the law and Constitution is a mystery even Obama won’t anytime soon explain. A matter is either legal and constitutional or it is not. Infusing empathy into the equation seems to imply that sometimes it is okay to not follow the Constitution or statutory law because of the way it might affect a group of people.  This sort of justice should face impeachment, not praise, but it is just the kind of justice the president is seeking. The truth of course is that empathy is code for “activist” – if you feel something is right, you should do it. That is hardly the stuff anyone should want on the bench, but it is exactly what we are going to get.

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Ah, the exciting and completely arbitrary 100-day mark of the Obama administration. Since everyone else is talking about this landmark, at least when they are not discussing the pig flu that is sweeping the globe faster than the macarena, I thought I would reflect for a moment as well.

I must admit, I’m a bit stumped. What exactly has he accomplished? What do his supporters point to and say, “See … that’s why I voted for this guy!”? Yes, I know he has sparkly approval numbers. That’s lovely for him. But, what has he DONE? I’ve come up with my own list.

1. Break campaign promises. President Obama promised while a candidate for his current office that he would place any non-emergency legislation before the American public in an online format for five days before signing the bill. He’s one for eleven so far on that count. Were all of these laws considered to be “emergency” needs for the country? Not really. Don’t forget his extended weekend to Chicago to celebrate Valentine’s Day while the stimulus bill waited for his signature.

2. Gift neat little gadgets without proofreading. What an impressive diplomatic move on our part! Take a popular television commercial for Circuit City and incorporate into our foreign policy with Russia! Darn … if only the guys at the State Department would have made sure that the button said “Reset” instead of “Overcharge.” That would have been a totally brilliant move in geopolitics. Historians would have written books about it!

3. Appoint someone who doesn’t pay his taxes to supervise our tax collection. I know that Secretary Geitner is not the only Cabinet appointee who failed to pay Uncle Sam, but his omission is certainly the most offensive. The man who is now in charge of tax policy cannot even be trusted to follow the laws himself. But, I guess we can make exceptions for Obama’s chosen ones.

4. Treat a REAL federal responsibility like a silly matter of semantics. While President Obama is all excited about the idea of running private companies, inflating our tires, hiring our teachers, buying our refrigerators, and tracking us all with GPS devices supposedly intended for tax collection purposes, he is failing to take seriously the most important duty of the federal government, which is to protect the homeland. We now have someone in charge of this crucial responsibility who thinks that the 9/11 terrorists came from Canada and that acts of terrorism should be referred to as “man-made disasters.”

5. Pass the buck. When Harry Truman was president, he kept a sign on his desk that read, “The Buck Stops Here.” President Obama should have a sign that reads, “Looking for Someone to Blame.” In his first press conference, he deferred to Secretary Geitner to share “clear and specific plans” instead of explaining his proposals for economic recovery and their potential effects. Later, when asked about prosecuting members of the Bush administration , he said that he would leave it up to Attorney General Holder. These men work for you, sir. Ultimately, everything lies at your feet. Kind of scary, huh? Stop protecting yourself by associating the tough stuff with others.

6. Pass the buck, part two. President Obama doesn’t just make his administration’s decisions the responsibility of others before they happen, but also after the fact. At the end of the day, it is the president’s problem if a federal agency decides that Air Force One needs some Glamour Shots over lower Manhattan at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the taxpayers and with a known chance of panic among the area’s residents and workers. Don’t get all pissy about it. Take responsibility for it! You found out that one of your planes was taken for some publicity photos at the same time as we did? That’s comforting … and not quite believable.

7. Make up languages. While speaking in Europe, President Obama uttered the phrase, “I don’t know what the term is in Austrian.” I thought he was the most brilliant, sophisticated, cosmopolitan president that we’ve ever had?

8. Ignore your role as head of your party. As the sitting president, you are considered the head of your party. Every high school textbook teaches this as one of the eight roles of the presidency. As soon as Senator Specter announced he was jumping ship and joining the Democratic Party to save his political hide, President Obama offered his full support . His press secretary, Robert Gibbs, indicated that this will include campaign stops and fund raising. It seems more than a bit inappropriate to be playing favorites amongst your party’s candidates. If no other Democrats appear on the primary ballot, then go for it. Otherwise, this promise is simply unprofessional and unfair.

So, of which of these accomplishments should we be most proud as a nation? So many wonderful choices!

let me start by stating that I acknowledge the limited effectiveness of a day of rallies. Protests in and of themselves have proven to do very little. However, I continue to hope that maybe … just maybe … enough momentum can be gained by these efforts that a real awakening can occur.

OK, that being said, those of you who are labeling the tea parties as being comprised of a bunch of racist neo-Nazis who left the tea party to head straight to a cross burning are completely asinine. (I doubt most Klan morons couldn’t even spell Atlas Shrugged

, let alone read it or even bother to crack the cover. And, before you respond, I know that a lot of people attending the tea parties today haven’t read it, either.) Most of the men and women who took part in the rallies/protests today had never taken part in such a demonstration before. A great majority of them were the working-class Americans for which liberals have such great pity because they aren’t smart enough to vote in their own economic interests. They were not Republican or Democrat. Were almost all of the protesters white? Yes. Were almost all of the protesters who took to the National Mall time and again to protest the Iraq War white? Again, yes. Does that automatically make either cause wrong? No. What else have you got as evidence of supposedly racist intentions other than the fact that most of the people who showed up today were pale faces?

Please don’t give me that garbage that today was really a protest against a black president. There were more comments and signs targeted at the likes of Pelosi, Reid, and Dodd than President Obama. I think it’s no more complicated than the fact that years of disgust with the spending of both Democrats AND Republicans have finally reached a boiling point. The Democrats just have been particularly good at it for the past two plus years (counting when they took over Congress) without taking any responsibility or blame for the problem (yeah, Barney Frank’s hands are really clean when it comes to the Freddie and Fannie debacle).

Second, the “teabagging” jokes are so juvenile. Guess what? We get the reference. You aren’t pulling one over on the naive conservatives. “Ha, ha … Sean Hannity likes to teabag in public!” “Giggle, giggle … Newt Gingrich is a teabagger!” Come on! Are you all twelve-year-olds who have been watching too many reruns of Beavis and Butthead?

Two days ago, A.C. Kleinheider over at the Nashville Post posted an entry entitled “Libertarian Republicanism the Wave of the Future?” We certainly need at least to trend in this direction, and away from the in-your-personal-business, big government actions of late. Steps towards a reduction in government intrusion would be a return to real conservatism.

If you call yourself a conservative of the Reagan or Roosevelt (T, not FD) model, I hope you would agree with me that any imposition on freedom of the individual is a step in the wrong direction. As I have stated many times in the past, I consider my political philosophy to be “individual freedom coupled with individual responsibility.” If you are an adult who has no plans to harm others through your actions, why should the government be able to tell you what to do? For this reason, I am opposed to:

1. seat belt laws for adults
2. motorcycle helmet laws for adults
3. most drug-possession related laws for adults

and many other restrictions on our freedoms. Again, I am referring to grown-ups who can make their own decisions! Do you want to speed your two-wheeled death machine at 100mph and splatter your brains all over the interstate? Go for it. You want to sit in your basement and fry your brain with chemicals while watching old zombie movies? Why not?

I also do not get how some conservatives can LEGITIMATELY argue that their efforts to interfere with gay relationships is consistent with an ideology that, at its roots, embraces freedom. I am frustrated time and again with people who are concerned about two (or ten) adults of the same sex who want to be together when there are much more pressing problems that should be concerning us.

President Obama has lied about many of the campaign promises he made to middle-class voters (transparency in government, taxes, job creation, Iraq, etc). He has proposed programs that will bankrupt us for generations to come. He is making us look weak and apologizing for our country during his grand European tour (I won’t call on Americans during the town hall meeting, I won’t visit the cemetery of our fallen WWII heroes, etc). Still, there are some Americans who find it a good use of their time to hold up signs outside of a court house in Iowa or actually list gay marriage as one of their top policy concerns. Please!!! Can we focus on a real problem??

Your religious convictions state that homosexuality is a sin and that those who participate in such an act are going to hell. I get that. However, it is not the role of the government to codify the tenets of the Bible. Also, it is not your job to judge. I am a Christian who has spent a lot of time reading the Bible and I am pretty sure there is Someone a lot more important than you who will issue judgment.

Conservatives don’t want government running our health care or our schools. I agree on both counts. I want as much privatization as possible. So, why do you want government dictating marriage? If marriage truly is one of the most important relationships that our world offers (which I believe it is), why do you want government making the decisions?

Let’s get back to reading the Constitution and going after our government when it works to tear down the founding principles of our great country. Otherwise … leave people alone.

I will not be arrogant enough to assume that people have noticed and taken to the streets with “Missing” flyers to post on every available tree and telephone pole, but I have not been on the blog in a while. It’s certainly not due to a lack of material about which to write. Allow me to summarize:

On the state level, just a couple of quick points –

1. Vasectomy notification? There’s a misguided attempt at a political statement. Let’s equate the snipping of a man’s plumbing to the decision as to whether or not a woman should end the life of her unborn child. Even if we want to disagree on when life actually begins, I don’t think anyone would argue it takes place before the sperm has exited the urethra. Not the same thing. Should a husband let his wife know if he is getting cut? Of course. But that’s not the government’s problem. You want to equate a vasectomy to a woman getting her tubes tied and maybe we’ll be up for a legitimate debate.

2. Should unwed couples be allowed to adopt children in Tennessee? Absolutely! Is it the ideal arrangement? No. But, living with two parents who love you is infinitely better than being moved around to various foster homes or being abandoned in a long-term hospital due to mental or physical illness.

On the federal level, I am just disgusted. I really feel like our country is being run by children who are over their heads.

Let’s hand over billions of dollars with no strings attached to a company that has provided us with generous campaign contributions over the years and then whine because they didn’t spend it the way we wanted. Oops! This looks really bad. I suppose we should act all irate and like we care about defending everyday Americans.

Let’s laugh our way through an in-depth interview about the poor condition of our nation’s economy. Come on! It’s really funny if you just think about it for a minute! Besides, my charm and winning smile is what got me elected in the first place, right? I’ll just keep doing that and hopefully you will forget what you were asking me.

Ooh … ooh … here’s another idea. Let’s try to convince everyone that the economy is going to completely collapse tomorrow if Congress does not pass the stimulus bill. Milk will evaporate from babies’ bottles, livestock will keel over and die before the next sun sets, and millions of people will lose their jobs every day. That way, we can break a touted campaign promise to put all proposed legislation on the internet for five days before a vote is taken. There’s just no time to read the bill!! Then, once the stimulus package is passed, we’ll change our minds and let everyone know that things are really OK and the fundamentals of the American economy are strong. I wonder if Senator McCain will mind us stealing his line?

We can break another campaign promise, that of eliminating earmarks, by letting people know that we feel really, really bad about the 9000 earmarks that were included in our legislation. The use of a stern face and at least an attempt at a tone of voice that indicates you really mean it will help in this situation.

Oh, and to those members of President Obama’s A/V Club, don’t ever, ever forget to bring the teleprompter and always make sure it is working correctly! I will admit, though, I am impressed with the president’s ability to read and speak Irish! Who knew?

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

A person’s a person, no matter how small…

From disgraced former New York governor Elliot Spitzer moments ago on CNN

We had libertarianism masquerading as capitalism for the past several years, and that didn’t work.

Definitions of political ideologies are apparently not the (former) John’s strong suit.  It is as if they just say things, and interviewers are expected to offer an obligatory nod.

Oh wait, there is precedent for that.

If inflation starts to do more than creep, and unemployment continues to trend upward (despite the protestations of the hyperbolator-in-chief), we may start seeing more of this

At its most basic level, time banking is simply spending an hour of your day doing something for somebody else. In turn, that hour is deposited into a Time Bank and earns you a Time Dollar which can then be spent having somebody do something for you. This powerful paradigm is similar to the adage “pay it forward” from the movie of the same name.

Each Time Bank maintains a website where you list what you would like to do for other members of your community. Others do the same. Both the giver and the borrower gain from having their overlooked tasks taken care of, and are rewarded by doing the things they like to do best. For example, if I dislike grocery shopping, but have a passion for a sport, I could use my time dollars to have someone shop for me while I teach their son to play ball.

Quasi-barter. Of course, similar things have been happening on Craigslist for some time now, but there may be more concerted efforts like actual time banks like that described above.

Classical Values nails it with a recap of New York TImes commentary from 1999.

Prescient? Yes. Government’s fault? Yes, yes.

Well, unless you want to blame the consumer. What’s an ARM again?

I have realized that my posts have largely been negative in nature as of late. I hate that – there just is not much going on politically that makes me smile nowadays (or lately, really). The current president is blah and anti-capitalistic, and the Republican Party has been mired in pseudo-leadership for approximately the last five years.

But…

Senator Bob Corker is making me proud. The Tennessean published a great article

yesterday describing Corker’s recent activities on the Hill, to include his hard core approaches to the auto and financial industries

Corker has quickly become a go-to guy for people involved in some of the biggest issues in Washington, whether it be bailouts of the auto industry and financial institutions, the economic stimulus plan or energy.

After Corker’s opposition to the auto bailout, where his piercing questions of auto executives before the Senate Banking Committee gained attention, one assertion from the United Auto Workers was that Corker was just trying to make a name for himself. The fact is, agree with him or not, Corker has indeed made a name for himself. He is “a household name in Michigan,” by Corker’s own admission, knowing it’s not exactly complimentary status. But he has become a sage voice with an insight to issues that is sought by national news organizations. Corker has quickly become a player in Washington.

It’s nice to see intelligence and principle still play in the nation’s capital (and Capitol, if one wishes to exclude the executive and judicial branches).

I wondered how he would adapt to a legislative role having been an executive all his life. I guess the answer is that he is approaching his legislative duties with an executive mindset. I like it, and it is working.

In the midst of a deepening recession, not only do Democrats want to drown us in Treasury debt (which 6 in 10 people worry about

, for those Clintonian Democrats who cling to polls like we Republicans cling to our guns), but also want to increase taxes – on everybody.

One cannot buy the assertion that it is only those making $250,000 or more a year getting the treatment unless a blind eye is turned to the additional costs of regulation. The greenhouse gas regulation proposals are a tax, pure and simple

But the Treasury secretary acknowledged that consumers could face higher electric bills because Obama would impose fees on greenhouse gas producers, including power plants that burn fossil fuels, by auctioning off carbon pollution permits. The goal is to reduce the emissions blamed for global warming while raising a projected $646 billion over 10 years.

“Now, if people don’t change how they use energy, then they will face higher costs for energy,” Geithner said.

The administration apparently believes households negatively affected by the economy are currently wasting energy. Don’t forget the eventual affects of inflation, as well. As production falls or remains low, and government spending increases, there will be more dollars chasing fewer goods and services.  Inflation is a regressive flat consumption tax on the citizenry.

All this is not to gloss over the fact that increasing taxes on those who employ people is a bad idea in any economic time. Unless, of course, the government is content to simply employ the citizenry itself. The plan to increase the capital gains tax is equally foolish (when Reagan cut the tax in 1986, government revenues soared).

The conclusion then is that Obama’s plan for recovery – it is a legitimate query to wonder whether that is even his goal – involves making energy consumption, investment, and asset liquidation more expensive, and employment less likely.

Uh, great?

Birthday wishes to Texas are in order. On March 2, 1836 Texas declared its independence from Mexico. Indeed, I bring this up for a couple of reasons. First, as a Republican, you gotta love Texas. Second, feeling my home state roots, it is nice to remind people that the independence and formation of Texas relied on Tennessee leadership.

Tennessean George Childress drafted the document that declared Texas an independent Republic, modeling the declaration largely on the sentiments and words of Thomas Jefferson. Sam Houston spent signficant time in Tennessee before going to Texas, opening a law office in Lebanon, Tennessee, serving as the district attorney for Nashville, as congressman, and eventually as Tennessee’s governor for one year after being elected in 1827. And, everyone knows where former Tennessee congressman Davy Crockett made his last stand.

With only a wry smile, I say happy birthday, Texas – and you’re welcome!

Now that Kirsten Gillebrand has been promoted to New York’s second Senate seat, her congressional district is in play, and set for a special election March 31st.  The district itself is mostly rural, consisting of parts of Delaware, Dutchess, Essex, Otsego, Rensselaer, and Saratoga counties, and all of Columbia, Greene, Warren, and Washington counties.

The good news for Republicans is that this could be a winnable seat. Before Gillibrand was elected in the GOP bleeding year of 2006, 3 out of 4 of the prior individuals to hold this seat were Republicans. In 2006, Gillibrand beat embattled and scandal-ridden Republican incumbent John Sweeney by 6.2 points.

The 2008 presidential election results by whole county in 2008 were close (Obama in blue, McCain in red)

Warren County (50.5 / 47.9)

Washington County (49.5 / 48.7)

Columbia County (55.9 / 42.4)

Greene County (43.8 / 54.6)

Even better, a recent poll from the Sienna Research Institute shows Republican candidate and Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedesco leading Democrat nominee and Warren County businessman Scott Murphy by 12 points, 46%-34%. Key to maintaining his lead, Tedesco has a 45%-31% lead with self-described independent voters. Tedesco leads Murphy on all six issues polled, although the economy is a close call with a mere 4 point margin, and since 61% of those polled said the economy was their main voting issue (health care was a very distant second at 11%), and 20% are still undecided, Tedesco’s present lead is not an insurmountable one. Also, Tedesco has also not yet made a clear stand one way or the other on Obama’s stimulus bill, and since a Barack Obama endorsement for his opponent would play favorably in the 20th with 35% of the voters and unfavorably with only 14%, we may be getting a more moderate Republican if we are to get one at all.

At least, though, there is some political light shining for the GOP in what otherwise has been an exceedingly dark time. This is the first of three special elections to come. Going up 1 in a 3 game series would be a nice start, considering we cannot bank on the other two (Illinois’ 5th CD, which should remain in Democrat hands, and California’s 32nd CD, which has not seen a GOP opponent since 2002, are the others).

UPDATE More on the NY20

The conservative Our Country Deserves Better Committee, an independent PAC, announced Tuesday that it will be buying hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of television and radio airtime in Albany and New York City over the next few weeks. The group will launch its first radio and television spots on Thursday.

In the first series of ads, the group attacked Democratic candidate Scott Murphy for supporting the economic stimulus bill and said he has a “shameful record of attacking our military.”

“Tedisco’s opponent, Democrat Scott Murphy, is the taxpayers’ worst enemy,” Lew Uhler, Chairman of the National Tax Limitation Committee PAC, said in one of the ads, accusing the Democrat of failing to pay taxes and to vote in several elections. The group also takes aim at Murphy over his support for President Obama’s stimulus plan.

We need this win (RT Instapundit).

Quick Democrats! Pick the Constitutional amendment you hate the most. If you need it, I’ll give you a Second

At this moment, Barack Obama, our neophyte trillion-dollar president, includes as one of his stated policy goals the reinstatement of the laughably ineffective Assault Weapons Ban amid other policies that are not only offensive to gun owners, but also threaten the lives of police officers.

Bob Owens goes on to detail a horrific bill proposed by what can only be described in polite company as a misguided Illinois state representative

An Illinois state representative by the name of Kenneth Dunkin is introducing an even more draconian proposal than Obama’s policies, attempting to make it all but impossible for Illinois citizens to own firearms. It’s an insidious scheme which would force citizens to carry at least $1 million in insurance to own a gun. The plan is being all but ignored in the media, the same media that would be verbally ripping Dunkin’s proposed legislation apart if he proposed that journalists have a million-dollar libel insurance policy before writing a story.

Having bought it, a million dollar liability insurance policy for public event promoters can run several hundred dollars a year. The insurance Dunkin is proposing requiring does not exist.

Fortunately in Tennessee, we have smarter legislators. Democrat House member Eddie Bass has proposed that gun permit holder records be sealed from public view

The new bill would make unauthorized publication of the information a misdemeanor that could be punished with a maximum fine of $2,500.

Bass, who represents Giles and Marshall counties in southern Middle Tennessee, said letting the public see the gun permit database is an invasion of privacy and empowers criminals, making permit holders easy targets for burglaries and endangering women protecting themselves from their abusers.

Privacy matters, no matter what the issue. You would think more Democrats would be interested in supporting such legislation. I bet if someone proposed posting a database of abortion providers on Tennessee’s government website there would be a tad more hell to pay.

UPDATE Bass’ bill has emerged from subcommittee.

This is the kind of bipartisanship

I like to see

At the National Governors Association meetings in Washington, D.C., Gov. Phil Bredesen said this week that he might turn down relief for unemployed workers worth an estimated $143 million because of conditions placed on the money by Congress.

…

“We are evaluating this piece of money, whether it makes sense for us to take it,” Bredesen said in an interview Monday with the Chattanooga Times Free Press. “We’re in the position of going back to our legislature this year for changes in our tax structure just to keep our fund whole, and taking it to a new level may be too much of a lift for the legislature this spring.”

This yet again demonstrates the ongoing assault on federalism I discussed earlier this week, where federal money comes with requirements that monkey with state policy.

So, both Democrat and Republican governors are now publicly reserved at the prospect of changing state law because they know, in addition to it being bad policy all around, that the federal money will eventually run out, which means a certain future press for a tax increase among the states who changed their laws and accepted the funds. I admire the political savvy underlying the procedural catch-22 the president has laid out, but it needs to be called for what it is. Accepting the federal money is one thing. Readily changing one’s laws to create additional future unfunded burdens is quite another, and those states who do so deserve the budgetary problems they will eventually get.

Are you following us on Twitter yet? http://www.twitter.com/moorethoughts