Bush fatigue

I noted yesterday in a post on my blog entitled "The Morning After" that I believe Obama's victory on Tuesday was as much a product of the public's "Bush fatigue"as it was any ringing affirmation of the liberal policies that Obama will pursue as president. I argue this because Obama ran primarily as a centrist, coopting the Republican tax-cut mantra by promising his tax reduction for "95% of working Americans" and talking up his desire in general for middle class tax relief. It was a great strategy and proved extremely effective -- particularly given McCain's ineptness in arguing that the Obama plan amounts to another entitlement program. In the end, of course, we all know that with the Democratic robber barons in Congress leading the way, tax increases are coming for everyone -- and not just the "rich" folks making in excess of $250k per year. In my view there is no fundamental "realignment" in this election -- the country remains a center-right nation that wants small government and low taxes. In today's Wall Street Journal, Pat Toomey makes a very compelling argument to this effect:

"A poll commissioned by the Club for Growth in 12 swing congressional districts over the past weekend shows that the voters who made the difference in this election still prefer less government -- lower taxes, less spending and less regulation -- to Sen. Obama's economic liberalism. Turns out, Americans didn't vote for Mr. Obama and Democratic congressional candidates because they support their redistributionist agenda, but because they are fed up with the Republican politicians in office. This was a classic "throw the bums out" election, rather than an embrace of the policy views of those who will replace them."

This is exactly the point I've been making: the 2008 election -- like in 2006 -- was a referendum on George W. Bush and the Republican "bums" that the public associates with failure. It was not a ringing endorsement of "spreading the wealth around" and doesn't amount to an affirmation that wanting to keep more of your hard earned money is "selfish". This was not a realignment toward socialism. It was a rejection of Bush, pure and simple.

The poll results cited by Toomey clearly back up this position:

"Consider the most salient aspects of Mr. Obama's economic agenda: the redistribution of wealth through higher taxes on America's top earners; the revival of the death tax; raising the tax on capital gains and dividend income; increased government spending; increased government involvement in the housing crisis; a restriction on offshore drilling and oil exploration in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); and "card check" legislation stripping workers of their right to a secret ballot in union elections.

On each of these issues, swing voters stand starkly against Mr. Obama. According to the Club's poll, 73% of voters prefer the federal government to focus on "creating economic conditions that give all people opportunities to create wealth through their own efforts" over "spreading wealth from higher income people to middle and lower income people." Two-thirds of respondents prefer to see the permanent elimination of the death tax, and 65% prefer to keep capital gains and dividend tax rates at their current lows."

These results read like a Conservatives dream: a focus on individual effort to create wealth, elimination of the death tax and low tax rates. Unfortunately, the voters -- in rejecting McCain as another vestige of the Bush Administration -- elected someone who stands in opposition to all of these positions. Obama is on record as supporting increases in the death tax, capital gains and dividend taxes, income taxes on the highest tax bracket, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and many other tax increases. One of the poll results that shocked me from Tuesday was that Obama won among tax payers in the $200,000 and above income category -- the very category that he was openly targeting for a tax increase. Voters seem to be against tax increases -- but they didn't vote that way on Tuesday.

This seeming contradiction is tough to explain. It is a given, of course, that many voters don't pay attention to the details, and vote on the basis of emotion and personality. On that score Obama won hands down. Many of the voters in swing states ended up voting against their stated interests and desires, by electing Obama and increasing Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. The emotional wave of "change" -- coupled by an incoherent Republican opposition and a total failure of leadership -- created a Democratic wave. Caveat emptor: they just bought something that was both defective and dangerous.

How long will it take before massive "buyer's remorse" sets in? That depends on how well Obama is able to manage the massive liberal forces that will now be pushing him hard to the left. Whether it be the far-left interest groups that poured massive money into his campaign, or the Democratic leadership in Congress that wants socialism on a grand scale, Obama faces some powerful groups that want precisely what most Americans do not. Whether he can (or will) resist this and govern more to the center is unclear. Nothing in Obama's past indicates a courage of conviction or a willingness to buck his party's power brokers. If Obama is unable (or unwilling) to control these forces, he will quickly find himself with a groundswell of opposition among those who decided (against logic) to vote for him. It won't be pretty.

In the end, this election amounted to a clear signal to conservatives that the issues that fueled the Reagan Revolution -- smaller government, less regulation and low taxes -- still resonate broadly with the American people. George W. Bush was never a leader of this movement, and his prolifigate spending and lack of fiscal discipline helped to ruin the Republican brand. Now, Conservatives need new leadership and new ideas that will take the Reagan-era philosophies and update them for a new generation of Americans. Barack Obama won the presidency but he hasn't changed America.

America needs civility, not uniformity

Barack Obama has pulled off one of the most remarkable achievements in the history of Presidential elections. Starting from a stirring rhetorical triumph at the Democratic National Convention four years ago, this relatively young U.S. Senator has reversed eight years of Republican control of the White House and led a Democratic sweep of all three elective branches. Naturally, his victory has generated immense joy among millions of people, won over by a combination of political savvy, boyish charm and a reassuring manner. Millions of others are not at all pleased at this result.

I am not concerned that Republicans will not accept it. I am more concerned about the Democrats, who have behaved as if they were entitled to this victory and have shown disquieting signs that they will take full advantage of it, not only by ramming through new laws to increase taxes and spending, micro manage the economy and privilege labor unions, but by demonizing their opposition as fascists and worse, bringing back the misnamed "Fairness Doctrine" in radio broadcasting (the "Hush Rush" campaign) and bringing criminal charges against Bush Administration officials for carrying out policies Democrats disapproved of.

This odious Democrat specter threatens not only to make life miserable for Republicans but to generate a hateful and vindictive spirit across the land. For now comes the hard part, the troublesome question of what to do after victory had been achieved.

Over the last two years the nation has seen two Obamas, Mr. Outside and Mr. Inside. The first is full of platitudes, trite phrases, endless repetition of focus group themes and what Obama’s running mate, Joseph Biden, referred to earlier this year when he was competing for the same office,  as his "clean" image.

This exterior image has won the day. Given the massive public rejection of both President Bush and his party, it was just what the doctor ordered, in what by all indications was going to be a Democratic year. Obama knew what role he had to play and he played it as well as any man could have.

If Bill Clinton gave us the "permanent campaign," that is, a governing style that makes no distinction between running for office and executing the office of President, he could not avoid the constitutional requirement that he set forth his goals for the country in an Inaugural Address, his more specific objectives in a State of the Union Address, and his priorities and their price tag in the proposed budget for 2010.

These tasks now face President-elect Obama. He cannot perpetually play the role of the nonthreatening alternative to the dread Mr. Bush. Mr. Inside will have to emerge. He will have to risk the unity he has emphasized by spelling out what the "transformation" of America is about. Those who paid attention to Mr. Inside will more likely to be helpful on this score.

Unless Obama was living in a fog for all of his adult life, his common cause with black nationalist Rev. Jeremiah Wright, terrorist William Ayers and crooked Chicago pol Tony Rezko were indications of his character and his views. While he may not have exhibited the disreputable dispositions and predilections of those men, he evidently did not feel uncomfortable spending many hours and days with them.

It is possible that Obama voted merely "present" in the Illinois legislature and U.S. Senate many times because he is man of weak convictions, but more likely it was because his reputation was more important to him than his voting record. Even so, nonpartisan journals report that his was the most liberal.

Liberals today prefer to be called "progressive," ever since Ronald Reagan won by a landslide over Walter Mondale in 1984. But this is merely old wine in much older bottles, for progressivism was founded more than a century ago by academics and politicians who rejected the U.S. Constitution as outmoded and the Declaration of Independence as a "salad of illusions." The "progress" they seek is toward more government control of commerce and trade, and worse, a loosening the family bonds by removing all restrictions on abortion and gay marriage.

Those who object to such socialistic policies as universal health care, redistribution of income and subsidizing "soft" energy will be vilified as selfish, unpatriotic and mean spirited. This will come as a surprise only to those who somehow failed to notice that that is precisely how conservatives have been vilified for years with those epithets.

The Constitution that established our form of government has survived many shocks, and there is reason to believe that it will survive Democratic party governance. But no Constitution is self enforcing. Good men must uphold the law, outside the government as well as in it.

Coloradans leaned right on ballot issues

While the Colorado losses by Schaffer and McCain are disappointing, we fared better on a number of statewide ballot issues. Amendments 47 and 49 went down to defeat at the hands of union-extorted money.

But Amendment 54 squeaked by 52-48, and it may well be the most efficacious of the three, limiting certain campaign contributions from unions and vendors of sole-sourch serivces to the government.

Amendment 59, which would have gutted TABOR, failed by a comfortable margin. Outgoing Speaker Romanoff completely sold out to this effort, but the artificially-induced budget squeeze will have to be resolved some other way.

Amendment 58, which would have hiked energy taxes going into a recession, likewise suffered the ignominious defeat it deseves.

Referendum O, which would have severely limited the ability of citizens to act as a check on their own legislature's excesses, went down to defeat as well.

And finally, Amendment 46, which would eliminate all racial and gender preferences by state actors, is failing very narrowly with most of the vote counted. That may still change with final returns.

Editor: Meanwhile in Nebraska, an identical civil rights initiative passed yesterday by 58-42%, sustaining some momentum for Ward Connerly's heroic national effort to achieve color-blind law. And Californians passed their Proposition 8, affirming marriage between one man and one woman in contravention of the recent state supreme court mandate for same-sex marriage.

A vote for victimization

I have spent much proverbial ink making the case against Barack Obama, something that hasn't been difficult for me given the clear and compelling character deficiencies he has-- not to mention the horrific policies he will pursue as president. For anyone who has been paying attention and who really understands what Obama represents, opposing the Democrat in this election is a no brainer. Of course, brains are hard to come by in our electorate -- even among the so-called intellectual class among the left, who live in a world of idealism and good intentions. For them, Obama is a "righteous wind" of soaring rhetoric that fulfills their fondest ideals of an America of perfect equality. But these "intellectuals" live in their own world of privilege and money; for them, "equality" is a concept that they preach but don't live. It's easy to be a leftist in a limousine. Just ask anyone in Hollywood. For them, a vote for Obama absolves all manner of guilt and enables them to go on making millions without feeling so badly about it. Wow. Isn't America a great country?   For those of us who don't make millions but run businesses in the real world -- who strive to make enough to retire early and enjoy the fruits of our labor -- John McCain is the only choice in this election. McCain is a man of principle and courage, who understands that America is an exceptional country built on hard work and the promise of reward. It is not a nation of economic redistribution and social welfare, but one of individual liberty. McCain will not forsake those in need for greed; but neither will be forsake those who prosper in favor of those who choose not to make something of their life. Note I use the word "choose" here, because I believe that many in our society have chosen to succumb to the narrative that they are victims, that opportunity doesn't exist, and that they must depend on government to help them.   This is nonsense. Opportunity exists for everyone in this country -- from the poorest whites in West Virginia to the poorest blacks in South Los Angeles. Education is free -- including community colleges, which provide an excellent two-year degree for virtually nothing. It only takes an understanding that as an individual you have only ONE life to live; you can sit and sulk at the injustice of it all, or you can take advantage of the opportunities available and make something of yourself. Is it easy? No. Is it possible? Absolutely.   My father grew up dirt poor during the Great Depression with little material wealth. But he had guts and determination, and decided that he would not let his circumstances control his destiny. He studied hard in school -- while working odd jobs to help his family pay the bills -- and won a national merit scholarship to the University of Chicago at the age of 16. At an age when most kids today are playing video games in their basement, my dad went off to college to study Latin and the humanities. He struggled mightily. But he didn't give up, eventually earning his Ph.D. from UCLA. My dad's odds were long but he knew that no one would help him if he didn't help himself.

That is the promise of America. It is not a story of dependence, but one of courage and determination. It is a story of self reliance and personal responsibility. And it is a story that is being slowly but inexorably lost today. We are fast becoming a nation of children who want to be coddled and excused when we make mistakes. Its always someone else's fault -- from poverty to crime to the housing mess. We are now in the age of victimization.   And a vote for Obama will be a vote for victimization, for this is a man who has spent his entire life working to reinforce the idea that race and class are the prime obstacles in people's lives. He is all about cultivating inequality and using it as a cudgel with which to remake society in the image of his deepest fears of an oppressive white establishment with an exploitative economic system. His view of our country is based on the politics of black and white -- regardless of how he has spun his "hope filled" campaign. Barack Obama has cast himself as a mainstream candidate, but his past and his proclivities are decidedly on the fringe of the Democratic Party.   The impact of an Obama victory will be to dramatically increase the divide in this country on virtually every level. Rather than bringing "hope" and a "stronger America" to the nation, Barack Obama will bring racial and political polarization.

Obama is a man who believes America to be a deeply flawed nation. He is not the man to lead this great country.   Vote John McCain on Tuesday. Our future as a great nation depends on it.

Bait & switch by both parties

Those of us who have been through a few election cycles know that nothing really ever changes. Candidates make feel-good promises that could never really be implemented without some sort of consequence, and yet we buy into it, follow the hype, buddy up to our candidate and hammer in those yard signs. It seems both sides make the move to the center, contrary to how they historically have voted. This year the Democrats have especially done so, but to be fair and objective -- as if there was such a thing, anywhere -- my latest cartoon (posted in right column) lampoons both sides.

Tax cuts, strong defense, limited spending, pro small business, wait a minute, those are Republican talking points! Use the federal government to stop corporate greed? Now my side is sounding like Democrats!

Anecdotally, I occasionally hear individuals talking about how they will support a certain Democrat candidate because they promise to reach across the aisle and be bipartisan. When it was brought to their attention that said candidate was one of the most liberal in the House or Senate and has yet to reach across the aisle, according to readily available congressional records, those people merely replied with, “but now they say they will this time.”

A liberal will always be a liberal and a conservative will always be a conservative and a campaign promise is not worth a whole lot. It amazes me how some people vote based on what a candidate says rather than what a candidate has done.