McCainiac

McCainiac is now IKEonic

2008-12-10T22:30:00.001-08:00

McCainiac is now IKEonic, the home for REAL Eisenhower Republicans, who like Ike but did not and will never vote for Obama or any other liberal Democrat selling centrist snake oil to gullible independents and RINOs.

Please update your links to ikeonic.blogspot.com

This will be my last post at McCainiac and all archived posts can be found at IKEonic, where's it always safe and sound just like in good ole 1955.

Come sit a spell with me at IKEonic as we explore what values are worth retaining and fighting for from the era of Eisenhower and where we have and can continue to "progress" towards perfecting Ike's blueprint for republican self governance.

I genuinely like Ike, the "forgotten conservative", and I think if more Americans were in touch with Eisenhower's real views on republican self governance and what it really means to be American citizens, this country would be a whole lot better off for it.

In order for us to get "back to the future", first we're going to have to learn all we can from the wisdom of long ago. I hope you'll join me.

Ciao!

Thank you, Illinois!

2008-12-10T07:06:00.000-08:00

Illinois is now on its way to having FOUR recent governors in forty years go to prison.

The people of LoUiSiAna thank you. It's about time the world knew we aren't the most corrupt state in the Union. Illinois is definitely now the BCS champions of crooked, corrupt governors.

Everyone now knows about Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich.

How about the other Illinois governors who went to the pokey?

George Ryan, Republican
Blagojevich succeeded George Ryan, a Republican, who was also prosecuted and convicted by Patrick Fitzgerald (the same prosecutor in the Blagojevich case and the Scooter Libby trial). Ryan is currently serving his sentence in an Indiana prison.

Daniel Walker, Democrat
Ryan's departure from the Governor's Mansion ended 25 years of Republican governors in Illinois. That reign began in 1977 when James R. Thompson was sworn in after successfully prosecuting Otto Kerner (read more about him below) in 1973 and 1974. The outgoing Democratic governor, Daniel Walker, was convicted in 1987 for misdeeds related to the S&L crisis in the 1980s and served 18 months in a Minnesota prison. Walker's crimes were committed many years after he left the Governor's Mansion but still brought shame upon his state. Thompson was a federal prosecutor who also convincted many of Mayor Daley's top aides and even prosecuted some prominent Republicans. Thompson served as Illinois' governor from 1977 to 1991 and was the longest serving Governor of the state.

Otto Kerner, Democrat
Governor Kerner resigned in 1968 to become a federal appeals judge. In 1969, he was accused of accepting bribes as Governor to give concessions to a Chicago area racetrack. In 1973, he was prosecuted by fellow Democrat (and aforementioned convict) James Thompson and was convicted. He resigned from the federal bench in 1974, was released from prison early due to terminal cancer and died in 1976.

One thing Louisiana and Illinois do have in common... most of the corrupt politicians going to the pokey are DEMOCRATS.

One reason why Eisenhower swept into office in 1953 was because the outgoing Truman administration had been rocked not just by the war in Korea but also by a corruption scandal in 1950. Truman himself was embarassed by allegations that his wife and other senior administration officials had received fur coats and deep freezers for favors. How serious all this corruption and influence peddling in the Truman administration was isn't really relevant... the public perception was influenced and Eisenhower was able to capitalize by running as a reformer, a reformer who was the General who led the D-Day invasion force.

Today's Republicans would do well to learn from history and run as reformers, first and foremost. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald (who probably has his own aspirations of running for Governor of Illinois) just said that old Abe Lincoln would be "spinning in his grave" if he saw what Blagojevich had done.

One has to wonder if Fitzgerald isn't just prosecuting Blagojevich but setting the stage for his own run for higher office as a Republican. Fitzgerald's brother, Peter, served one term as a Republican US Senator from Illinois and was succeeded by none other than Barack Obama, the very Senate seat that is now vacant and the same seat that Blagojevich is accused of trying to sell.

So it wouldn't be too big of a leap to think that Patrick Fitzgerald is after either the Governor's Mansion or the US Senate. He wouldn't be the first Illinois Republican to prosecute and convict Democrats and Republicans as a federal prosecutor and subsequently use it as a launching pad to higher office.

Oregon foreclosure and mortgage deliquency rates

2008-12-09T15:51:00.000-08:00

From Ryan Frank at the Oregonian and the Mortgage Bankers Association... here's national and Oregon level data from 1979 forward... current data is on the left so you have to read right to left for the proper historical prospective...

Ike-onic

2008-12-09T08:52:00.000-08:00

I just parked Ikeonic.blogspot.com and I am thinking of moving to this new address.

Quite simply, I spend a lot more time talking about Eisenhower's legacy than I do about McCain's. I think McCain still has a big role to play in the Senate and with the new Obama administration. But clearly, McCain had his run at the Presidency and won't be running again.

So, I, along with other Eisenhower republicans (little "r", not big "R") lie in wait for Republicans to find that next champion of true republican, conservative values. Someone who can sell themselves to the nation and isn't shy about talking about what they believe in and persuading others to join with them.

McCain was clearly not that man, though like Ike, I believe he is a quite, humble man who needs someone else who can articulate and sell their beliefs. The message and the values are right and timeless, now it's just a matter of finding that gifted speaker.

I still believe, until proven otherwise, that Louisiana's Bobby Jindal can be that leader. We shall see. Until then, my blog will probably be living safe and sound in good ole 1955.

Prop 8: Do blacks hate gays?

2008-12-09T07:36:00.000-08:00

Whoopi Goldberg made headlines when she joined the protest against the Mormon church for their opposition to California's Proposition 8. Their knee-jerk slogan was "Make love, not H8". Cute.

But perhaps Whoopi would do better to address her outrage at African Americans. If she is so certain that Mormons hate gays, perhaps she look at the way black people voted and things they had to say about Prop 8.

From the LA Times:

"I was born black. I can't change that," said Culver City resident Bilson Davis, 57, who voted for Proposition 8. "They weren't born gay; they chose it," he added, reflecting a commonly held belief that many researchers dispute.

Although many of the state's black political leaders spoke out against Proposition 8, an exit poll of California voters showed that black voters favored the measure by a ratio of more than 2 to 1. Not only was the black vote weighted heavily in favor of Proposition 8, but black turnout -- spurred by Barack Obama's historic campaign for president -- was unusually large, with African Americans making up roughly 10% of the state electorate.

Why don't liberals go after blacks who defend traditional marriage? I'll bet Whoopi wouldn't dare call out other blacks for refusing to defeat Prop. 8.

Personally, if gay people want to have the same rights as married people, I'm fine with that. State sanctioned marriage or civil marriage as it is known by Catholics is not the same as the type of covenant marriage sanctioned by the church. I would have a serious problem if the state forced the Catholic Church to sanction and officiate the marriages of homosexuals in the church.

But civil marriage has always been and should always be a state issue, not a federal one. The federal courts have already made birth control and abortion federally protected "rights" within the penumbra of the Constitution. Don't be surprised if Obama packs the court with justices who eventually see fit to recognize marriage between (man/man, woman/woman, man/goat, man/woman,woman,woman, man/boy, man/toddler) should be legal. The more the federal courts "reinvent" the Constitution as it goes, the less power states like California have to self-determine these moral issues for themselves.

Corrupt Chicago machine politics

2008-12-09T07:06:00.000-08:00

Huge news this morning... Illinois' Democrat governor has been arrested on federal corruption charges.

Illinois Republicans have just been given a huge gift. Let's see if they capitalize and use this news as an impetus to reclaim the Land of Lincoln.

Blagojevich was taken into custody hours after the Tribune reported that the investigation into allegations of pay-to-play politics within his administration had been expanded to include his pending choice of a Senate replacement for Obama. The Democratic governor has said he expects to make a decision on the state's next senator in weeks.

Blagojevich, of course, is a Chicago machine DEMOCRAT with ties to Tony Rezko.

Read more at the now bankrupt Chicago Tribune

I just heard Matt Lauer say that Blagojevich even threatened the Tribune that he would withhold aid from the state if editors didn't pull the plug on negative opinion pieces and stories about the governor.

Folks, I'm from Louisiana and I've seen crooked politicians. Edwin Edwards, former Democratic governor, currently sits in federal prison. William Jefferson, soon to be former Democratic Congressman, is all but convicted of taking bribes for favors and keeping $100k of bribe money in his freezer.

But this Illinois governor, again a DEMOCRAT, may just take the cake. Corruption is rampant in both political parties, but if Republicans can't make hay over this in Illinois and take back the governor's mansion, they aren't worthy of living in the Land of Lincoln.

A Clintonian moment

2008-12-09T06:46:00.000-08:00

That dialogue I posted the other day from the Sopranos was taken out of context. Upon further review, I rediscovered that it included a discussion of B.J. "Slick Willie" Clinton's affair with "that woman, Miss Lewinsky". A proud moment in our nation's history.

From the 1999 episode "Nobody Knows Anything", here's the full conversation:

Meadow Soprano: This country's light-years behind the rest of the world. Most civilized countries have legalized prostitution.
Tony Soprano: Don't you got somewhere to be?
Meadow Soprano: I mean, it's a joke. Look what they're putting the President through.
Carmela Soprano: He deserved what he got.
Anthony 'A.J.' Soprano, Jr.: He got Monica Kaczynski and the broad with the long nose.
Meadow Soprano: I just don't think sex should be a punishable offense.
Tony Soprano: You know honey, that's where I agree with you. I don't think sex should be a punishable offense either. But I do think talking about sex at the breakfast table is a punishable offense. So no more sex talk, OK?
Meadow Soprano: It's the 90s. Parents are supposed to discuss sex with their children.
Tony Soprano: Yeah, but that's where you're wrong. You see out there it's the 1990s but in this house it's 1954.
[points to the window]
Tony Soprano: 1990s.
[points to the floor]
Tony Soprano: 1954. So now and forever, I don't want to hear any more sex talk, OK?

Here a video clip but you'll have to fast forward to the 2:06 mark to see the scene above in its entirety... though I recommend watching the whole clip.

I sure do miss The Sopranos. I'm sure HBO does too because they had a lot more subscribers back then!

More on 1950s America

2008-12-08T15:05:00.000-08:00

This movie from 1948 was posted on Victoria Taft's blog yesterday.

Now for the obligatory disclaimer necessary when celebrating anything from America's glorious past... yes, the movie neglected to mention racism and acted as though everything was hunky-dorey if you were a minority in America in 1948. Whatever the failings of capitalism are, the cure for racism is not socialism, communism, totalitarianism or any other -ism. The fix for racism is to change hearts and minds through education and empower every individual to use their God-given talents and freedom. That is what it means to have truly free enterprise.

If you enjoyed the movie, check out the cartoon version of "The Road to Serfdom"...

Ironically, GM paid for the "Road to Serfdom" cartoon... the same General Motors that is now insisting that the federal government needs to bail them out. Methinks GM's management from 1948 would be horrified that today's management is going hat in hand to Congress.

Eisenhower's America vindicated

2008-12-08T11:45:00.000-08:00

I love reading Bill Fleckenstein on Moneycentral at MSN.

Bill has a good piece today on why China will weather this recession better than all the Western countries that have gone on a credit binge.

People [in China] pay cash for most things, though they do use debit cards. From a credit standpoint, it seems similar to how life in America was back when "Leave It to Beaver" ruled the airwaves.

In other words, back when Eisenhower was in the White House, Americans saved, lived within their means and exercised personal responsibility.

They didn't rack up huge debts and demand the government bail them out of their poor decision making. Lenders were conservative and individuals were conservative. Most folks only dined out on Sunday after church or on special occasions if they dined out at all. Back then, kids would invite their friends over and ask Mom to set aside an extra plate at the dinner table. Nowadays, the average family orders a pizza or goes out to the neighborhood strip mall to eat at Chili's. Small wonder that 3 times as many people are considered obese today than in the 1950s.

Why? Quite simply, Americans in the 1950s benefited from the lessons of the Great Depression (caused by the credit binge and poor decisions of the 1920s) and learned how important it was to save and prepare for rainy days that might lie ahead.

No wonder Tony Soprano had this conversation with his teenage daughter... (yes, I know the irony is rich on so many levels):

Meadow Soprano: It's the 90s. Parents are supposed to discuss sex with their children.
Tony Soprano: Yeah, but that's where you're wrong. You see out there it's the 1990s but in this house it's 1954.
[points to the window]
Tony Soprano: 1990s.
[points to the floor]
Tony Soprano: 1954. So now and forever, I don't want to hear any more sex talk, OK?

The knee-jerk liberal reaction anytime anyone mentions anything good about the 1950s is to respond with "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever..." There were a lot of things that were outright wrong about life in the 1950s and I pray that the struggle for civil rights was not in vain and those rights will never again be trampled. But just because some things in the 1950s were grievously wrong doesn't mean we can't learn from what was right about that time in America.

You can bet your bottom dollar that after this recession is over, Americans will have once again learned the hard way the importance of saving and living within their means. You can also bet that Republicans will fail to win the White House back from the Democrats unless they follow Ike's model of preaching personal responsibility, hard work, saving and investing.

We heard rumblings of this kind of rhetoric from McCain and Palin out on the stump and in the debates but they failed to make a cohesive, salient argument. The public no longer believes Republicans (especially George W. Bush) are credible when it comes to fiscal conservatism. Quite simply, they failed to sell the public.

Ike was a strong fiscal conservative. It's no accident that Jim Lehrer opened one of this year's Presidential debates with a quote by Ike: "We must achieve both security and solvency, in fact the foundation of military strength is economic strength."

Indeed, America may have been much more economically secure in 1932 than we are in 2008. Today, 40% of the world's supply of crude oil passes thru the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has threatened to cut off completely if the West attacks it. Contrast that with the 1930s, when America produced enough crude for its own needs and exported the excess to countries like oil-poor Japan.

A major reason why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor was in retaliation for FDR cutting off oil exports and Japan's need to aggresively seize new supplies in Southeast Asia. In order to do this, they had to first cripple the US Pacific fleet. Imagine if a world war broke out today and OPEC refused to export crude to the West as they did in the 1970s in retaliation for Western support of Israel.

Further, America manufactured for itself most everything it needed prior to World War II. Certainly, that is not the case today. What will happen if China suddenly turns hostile to America and joins with Russia, Iran and the OPEC nations and forms a new "Axis Powers" alliance in opposition to the West?

Hard working Americans who save and live within their means are the silent majority and they're waiting for a leader who speaks to them and will be a champion for those values. They're waiting for the next Eisenhower. The only question for the Republicans is: will they give it to them? Or will they keep pretending it's still 1980?

Oregon weathering the housing collapse better than most states

2008-12-08T11:42:00.000-08:00

From Saturday's Oregonian:

Even with mortgage troubles increasing, Oregon would have to fall even deeper to catch the depths of the 1980s recession. Oregon also still ranks among the best performing states in the housing collapse. Among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, Oregon's rate of delinquencies and foreclosures ranks 45th.

Nationally, a record one in 10 homeowners with a mortgage was at least a month behind on payments or in foreclosure at the end of September. The Mortgage Bankers Association's data cover about 85 percent of the outstanding first mortgages in the country.

California and Florida accounted for nearly one-third of all new foreclosures in the third quarter.

Read the full article here

West Coast home prices

2008-12-03T12:47:00.000-08:00

20 year chart using S&P Case Shiller data:

Portland prices are falling, but since they didn't rise as far as California cities did, our prices don't have as far to fall. I didn't include Seattle, Las Vegas and Phoenix simply because S&P didn't track those cities in 1987 and I wanted as complete a picture as possible. You can clearly see the effect of the credit and liquidity bubble beginning in the mid to late 1990s and bursting in 2006.

I lived in Honolulu from 1988 to 1991 and remember well the effect that bubble bursting had on real estate. Honolulu's market is nearly a mirror image of Southern California. People who bought homes in 1990 had to wait until the late 90s to get out from underwater on their mortgages. It could be more than 10 years, maybe even 20 years, before those who bought at the peak of this market can get back above water.

At last report, real estate inventory in Portland was in excess of 11 months. That compares to 8 months a year ago this month and around 3-4 months a few short years ago. Less than 5-6 months is a seller's market and over 6 months is a buyer's market. This is definitely NOT a seller's market. If the yard signs in my neighborhood are any indication, there's not a lot of selling going on... largely because selllers refuse to drop their prices low enough to lure in the buyers.

UPDATE:
Per the Census Bureau, Oregon has gained 45,000 new residents each year since 2000. Of these, 21,547 have settled in the Portland Metro's three counties: Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas. Washington County accounted for half of these residents, attracted to the high tech industries and suburban living on Portland's West side. This bodes well for me since I live and work in Washington County. Combined with the urban growth boundary that limits new construction and props up real estate prices, I don't expect Washington County will experience the same degree of spiraling downward prices California is dealing with. Our prices will continue to fall, probably back to 2004 levels and then will begin to stabilize. Of course, a lot of the inmigration to Oregon comes from California so it remains to be seen if the supply train of new residents to Oregon will stop as California's economy gets worse and worse along with our own.

A question from a 10 year old

2008-12-03T07:00:00.000-08:00

During the Thanksgiving holiday, my 10 year old nephew found out I was becoming a Catholic and asked me (as only a 10 year old can)... "Why?". Only he asked "Why" about 20 times because I didn't have a good answer on the tip of my tongue.

I realized I should have a good answer for that question at the ready. I know why but it's often difficult to verbalize.

So... concisely as I can, here goes:

I believe that God is Love and Jesus was the greatest teacher of how to love ourselves and one another. I am certain that my marriage ended in divorce not because we weren't meant to be together but because we failed to execute, mostly out of ignorance of how to love one another. We were both good people who fell in love but didn't really understand how to love one another. I'm no longer ignorant but I have a lot to learn and very little practice.

So why Catholicism? I enjoy the Catholic Mass, especially the homily, and feel it is a perfect reinforcement of the teachings contained in the Bible of how to love ourselves and one another. I appreciate that Pope Benedict stresses both faith and reason as equally important. As someone with family roots in southern Germany, I'm really like that the Pope is a Bavarian.

I don't accept every teaching of the Church as the last word, but I believe that whatever flaws the Catholic Church may have are far outweighed by the greater good the church does and the core, immutable beliefs they proclaim.

Okay... maybe not the most concise answer but it's as concise an answer as I have for now!

Obama: Please fleece me

2008-12-02T17:20:00.000-08:00

Can't wait until next year to be fleeced by Obama???

Don't delay... get fleeced TODAY!

Click here to get fleeced TODAY!

How capitalism saved the Pilgrims

2008-12-02T15:44:00.000-08:00

Yeah.. I know... Rush reads this story every year at Thanksgiving.

I happen to like the Austrian School's (mises.org) version of the story better than Rush's version.

But here's the relevant piece from Rush's version:

Here now, in its entirety, the William Bradford journal, what he wrote about the social experiment after abandoning what essentially was socialism shortly after the Pilgrims had arrived in the United States or in the new world:

"'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote. 'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice.'

Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They un-harnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property. Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products.'"

Not just use themselves and not just send to a common store but they could market. They could grow as much, they could sell it for what they could get for it, and the incentive was clear to do as much as possible on both sides. "And what was the result? 'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.'

Bradford doesn't sound like much of a Clintonite, does he? Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? Yes. Read the story of Joseph and Pharaoh in Genesis 41. Following Joseph's suggestion (Gen 41:34), Pharaoh reduced the tax on Egyptians to 20% during the 'seven years of plenty' and the 'Earth brought forth in heaps.' (Gen. 41:47)

In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves. So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.'

Now, let me ask you: Have you read this history before? Is this lesson being taught to your children today? If not, why not? Can you think of a more important lesson one could derive from the Pilgrim experience?

The relevant lesson is that the Pilgrims learned that God intended us to live as free individuals, giving freely of ourselves by our own free choice. If communal living and communal sharing was forced on the population, it would breed resentment.

As Rush correctly concludes, this is exactly why socialism fails, as idealistic and as rosy as it sounds. Certainly, it is well intentioned and seems fair that there should be a safety net for all... a right to housing, food, health care, etc. But won't some be resentful and conspire to produce less? Rather than finding new ways to coax people to produce more, the Pilgrims instituted a far simpler and more effective solution... give each citizen their own land and let them keep their surplus production rather than forcibly confiscating it and redistributing the surplus. Encourage charity and acts of service but don't force it upon anyone.

Perhaps this is why the Apostle Paul was so clear:

“Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor 9:6-7)

Taxation is compulsion. Building a welfare state through taxation is not in keeping with God's plan for humanity and erodes the freedom Americans cherish so dearly and fought fiercely to obtain and preserve. The freedom to be a cheerful giver free from compulsion by an all powerful, confiscatory central government.

Today's quotables

2008-12-02T10:55:00.000-08:00

Today's theme... freedom

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." - Abraham Lincoln

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

"My faith in the future rests squarely on the belief that man, if he doesn't first destroy himself, will find new answers in the universe, new technologies, new disciplines, which will contribute to a vastly different and better world in the twenty-first century. Recalling what has happened in my short lifetime in the fields of communication and transportation and the life sciences, I marvel at the pessimists who tell us that we have reached the end of our productive capacity, who project a future of primarily dividing up what we now have and making do with less. To my mind the single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." - Barry Goldwater

"You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down — up to a man's age-old dream; the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order — or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers." - Ronald Reagan's "A Time for Choosing" speech in support of Goldwater's 1964 campaign

"Our adversaries are weaker than us in arms and men, but weaker still in causes. They fight to express a hatred for all that is good in humanity. We fight for love of freedom and justice, a love that is invincible. Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong. Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will. - John McCain

Stealing Lincoln back from Obama

2008-12-02T08:26:00.000-08:00

C-SPAN is playing back a November 20th Gettysburg College tribute to Abraham Lincoln right now. The tribute is in honor of the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birth on Feburary 12, 1809.

As noted on this blog and as several others noted at Gettysburg last month, Obama skillfully invoked Lincoln throughout his campaign, concluding with his victory speech in Chicago:

"Let us remember that it was a man from this state [Lincoln] who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House – a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share..."

At the Gettysburg tribute, Jack Kemp (Bob Dole's running mate in 1996), made a great introduction where he reference an open letter he wrote to his grandchildren after the election of Obama.

Kemp says in his letter:

The party of Lincoln, (i.e., the GOP), needs to rethink and revisit its historic roots as a party of emancipation, liberation, civil rights and equality of opportunity for all.
...
Let me end with an equally great historical irony of this election. Next year, as Obama is sworn in as our 44th president, we will celebrate the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth. I'm serving, along with former Rep. Bill Gray of Pennsylvania, on the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Board to help raise funds for this historic occasion. President-elect Obama's honoring of Lincoln in many of his speeches reminds us of how vital it is to elevate these ideas and ideals to our nation's consciousness and inculcate his principles at a time of such great challenges and even greater opportunities.

Indeed, we should have a long discussion about Lincoln in 2009. It is time for Republicans to reach back and truly understand the values of republicanism (little "r" not Big "R") that Lincoln stood for and that Eisenhower stood for. Oh, there I go again, talking about Eisenhower, right? Ike is the most Lincoln like President the GOP has had in the last 100 years. Ike even lived out his last days at Gettysburg.

The reason Ike was most Lincoln-like is because Ike understood the proper role and purpose of the federal government and federalism. Lincoln opposed the Dred Scott decision because it forced free states like Illinois to permit slaveholders to bring their slaves with them wherever they pleased. Lincoln did not seek to end slavery in slave holding states so much as he fought for the right of each state to freely choose for itself to be free or slave. Ike similarly understood that local governments and citizens would have to freely choose for themselves to embrace civil rights in order for the change to be successful.

Ike, like Lincoln, was a proponent of changing hearts and minds at the local level and greatly feared an all powerful central government imposing its will on local governments and citizens. Something the party that promoted reaching into Terri Schiavo's bedroom would do well to reflect on.

I challenge Republicans to rekindle those republican values, the values of Lincoln and Eisenhower. That doesn't mean becoming liberal or moving to the left. It means returning to a proper understanding of federalism, the role of states, legislatures and Congress and most importantly the Supreme Court.

It was the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision that gave Lincoln the platform he needed to make his case. Perhaps Roe v. Wade or other controversial decisions from the Supreme Court will be the platform for the next Lincoln-like figure to argue to the American people what the proper roles of government are.

Lincoln is deservedly remembered for freeing the slaves, but it's time Republicans started to remember his clear understanding and promotion of federalism and the Constitution. To my mind, Eisenhower is the only 20th century Republican who truly got it and Republicans would do well to study both men and learn from them.

Where have you gone, Bo Pelini?

2008-12-01T13:25:00.000-08:00

Tiger Nation turns its weary eyes to you.

With Pelini, LSU's defense ranked No. 3 in the nation in total defense each of the three years Pelini was defensive coordinator. Let me say that again. Three years in a row, LSU had the 3rd best defense in all of college football.

Without Pellini, LSU's total defense ranking in 2008 was 37th in the country, 9th best in the SEC.

Granted, Nebraska's total defense ranking in 2008 was 67th in the country and 6th best in the Big 12. But last year Nebraska was dead last in the Big 12, right after Baylor, and 112th in the nation.

With Pelini as head coach at Nebraska, they finished the regular season 8-4 (5-3 Big 12). LSU finished 7-5 (3-5 SEC).

Pelini's last stint at Nebraska in 2003 resulted in a #11 national total defense ranking. LSU was #1 nationally in total defense that year as Saban led the Tigers to a national title over Bob Stoops' Sooners, the #3 ranked defense that year.

Does anyone need more evidence? It's crystal clear. LSU needs a real defensive coordinator.

Defense wins championships, especially in the SEC. LSU's defense is ailing and ailing badly.

In other news, the Oregon State Beavers give up 700 yards including nearly 400 yards on the ground. The Beavers had the 13th ranked defense prior to the game but fell to #33 after the woodshed whooping by the Ducks. It was not pretty.

I would have given anything to have LSU's defense in Corvallis on Saturday. They couldn't have fared any worse than the Beavers did.

Paul Volcker

2008-11-26T08:39:00.000-08:00

I'm pleased to hear that Obama has selected Volcker to head his economic team.

To find out why, read Bill Fleckenstein's post from April 2005 entitled "If only Greenspan could be Volcker" by clicking here. I have no doubt Fleck is excited by Volcker's prominent role in the new administration.

If the great Paul Volcker were Fed boss again, he'd attack our economic challenges forcefully, no matter the pain. Sadly, Alan Greenspan is no Volcker.

[Volcker] starts off [in a 2005 Washington Post column entitled "An Economy on Thin Ice"] by saying that although everything looks OK superficially (from an economic standpoint), "under the placid surface, there are disturbing trends: huge imbalances, disequilibria, risks -- call them what you will. Altogether the circumstances seem to me as dangerous and intractable as any I can remember, and I can remember quite a lot. What really concerns me is that there seems to be so little willingness or capacity to do much about it."
...
After describing how we've been bailed out by foreigners, he says: "I don't know whether change will come with a bang or a whimper, whether sooner or later. But as things stand, it is more likely than not that it will be financial crises rather than policy foresight that will force the change."

3 1/2 years later, everything Volcker and Fleckenstein warned us about has come to pass.

When the history books are written, they will not speak kindly of Alan Greenspan stewardship of the Federal Reserve throughout the 1990s and 2000s.

Quotables

2008-11-26T08:17:00.000-08:00

Barry Goldwater:

On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.

I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

Speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981)

Subaru and snowboarding

2008-11-25T16:00:00.000-08:00

Here in Oregon, Subarus are the official vehicle of winter.

One of my Subaru driving friends sent me this video of a Subaru ripping up the snow at New Zealand's Snow Park.

Click here to view the video.

It'll get you psyched for the slopes.

Why Obama won

2008-11-25T12:28:00.000-08:00

Now that the election is over and I don't have to be a partisan cheerleader for McCain anymore, I'll give an honest, concise reason why Obama won...

Obama is a far better salesman than McCain.

Overly simplistic? Perhaps.

I started out 2008 as a Rudy supporter because I thought he was a far more persuasive speaker than McCain. McCain had a great product and a great story but it was obvious his sales skills were lacking. As a salesman, McCain isn't even in the same league with Obama.

Obama's product may not be the best (a matter I'm sure every single Democrat would debate me on) but he could sell ice cream to Eskimos on a record cold day. Obama could sell habanero peppers to the damned in Hell.

If I were a used car dealer, I'd hire Obama over McCain in a heartbeat. I know Obama could push the product no matter how inferior it might actually be. Ditto for Slick Willie.

So, if this is true, how did Bush win twice? Am I implying that Bush is a great salesperson because he won? No. Bush was an adequate salesperson living off the legacy of Reagan's hard work to sell America on conservatism and solidify America as a center-right nation. Reagan was so persuasive that Republicans have been living off his legacy since 1980.

Simply speaking, voters viewed Bush's product to be better and weren't sufficiently persuaded by either Gore or Kerry. In other words, Gore and Kerry couldn't close the deal and couldn't sell American votes on their product. Obama did. Bill Clinton did.

Obama was such a smart salesperson he outright stole ideas straight from Clinton's 1992 campaign. "Change vs. more of the same" and "hope" aren't new slogans...

From the Jed Report:

Over the next few months, Clinton campaigned on a simple message, developed by James Carville. George Stephanopoulos called it a haiku, and it stayed on the campaign's white board, pictured here, for the duration of the contest.

Change versus more of the same

It's the economy, stupid

Don't forget health care

Love him or hate him, you've got to give Obama credit for his sales skills. He heavily borrowed ideas from the Kennedy and Clinton campaigns but he may be in a league of his own as a campaigner and salesman.

I'm still not buying his product and he'll never persuade me to join his team. But I can recognize the skills without becoming a fan and shortchanging support for my own beliefs and my own team.

The challenge to the GOP is to find that next great salesperson to champion republican (small "r") values the way that Ronald Reagan did. The product may need repackaging and tweaking, but every product needs a great salesperson to pitch it and that is what is sorely lacking in today's GOP. We've gotten all the mileage we can get from Reagan's legacy. It's time to find the next great salesperson.

I do believe Bobby Jindal is that salesperson until I hear of a better one. He has my full support in 2012, 2016, 2020 or whenever he decides to run for the White House. I believe has a great product, a great story and the ability to sell, sell, sell like no one since Reagan has been able to.

Beavers bound for California?

2008-11-25T08:21:00.000-08:00

Don't count your roses before they bloom...

The Corvallis Gazette-Times has a good breakdown of the bowl picture for the Beavers.

Holiday Bowl: Lose the Civil War, and then it’s a pick for the Holiday Bowl between OSU and Oregon. A Holiday Bowl guy told me they really like the Beavers because they are hot and never been to San Diego. There’s a good chance the Beavers are picked over the Ducks, even in the loss.

Looks like Holiday Bowl is likely if they lose to the Ducks but they could slip as far as the Las Vegas Bowl. One thing is for sure... nobody wants to go back to El Paso. No disrespect to El Paso but I think Beaver fans are ready for a new destination.

Sunny San Diego or Pasadena sure does sound nice on such a Oregon winter's day.

California dreamin', indeed...

Financial year in review

2008-11-24T12:43:00.000-08:00

It's easy to feel like a sucker. I've worked hard the last ten years to save and invest. My only debt is my mortgage and I aggressively invested in my 401(k) at work. This year I've watched the value of my home and my portfolio plummet. So why do I feel like an idiot for working hard and playing by the rules?

As Liz Pulliam Weston puts it:

Bailouts are going to reckless Wall Street bankers, to homeowners over their heads and now maybe even to Americans hooked on credit cards. Where's the reward in doing the right thing?

If you feel like you're being played, you're not alone.

The financial crisis has deepened many people's suspicions that doing the right thing hasn't paid off. Instead, they feel it's made them chumps.

My portfolio has taken a beating this year. Prior to this year, I used to keep a much tighter eye on my portfolio, but this year I've had way too much turmoil going on in my personal life to care about stocks so I took a very laissez faire attitude and left it alone.

Big mistake. The one year I really should have been paying attention is the year the market tanks 50%. My gut tells me that it's headed much, much lower yet I haven't really cashed out yet even though my gut tells me I should.

Look at this graph of the 1920s bubble that led to the Great Depression:

From the peak in 1929 in the summer of 381.17, the Dow fell to 198.69 after the crash in October 1929. This was a 47.8% decline, almost identical to the decline from the peak of this market, a 46.7% decline of from the peak of 14,164.53 to 7553.56.

But the Dow fell even more, much more in 1930, 1931 and 1932 before finally hitting bottom at 41.22 in mid 1932. My gut tells me November 2008 is November 1929 all over again. Just as we think we've seen the worst, it's going to get a lot, lot worse.

If this plays out again, and it very well could when you consider the economy is still in relatively good shape considering we don't yet have double digit unemployment, the Dow could drop to as low as 1500. Sounds a bit extreme, doesn't it?

Well, consider that this bubble really began in 1994 or 1995 (as the next graph makes painfully obvious) and is largely a credit bubble (as many also say the 1920s stock bubble was). I believe this bubble is largely a result of long term cheap credit. Blame the banks for shoddy lending if you want, but low, low loan rates encourage greed, speculation, overinvestment and waste. Low interest rates discourage saving and encourage overconsumption. We have hit the end of our limit for debt.

So where was the Dow in 1994?

The Dow was at 4000 back in 1994 and that's exactly where I expect it will end up by the time this bear market hits bottom. That is what it will take to completely unwind the credit bubble caused by "Easy Al" Greenspan.

I'm a big fan of Bill Fleckenstein on MSN's Moneycentral. Fleckenstein is a well respected contrarian and he's guessed right and correctly predicted the fallout of the credit bubble. Fleckenstein called Greenspan "the worst Fed chief ever" back in January 2006. Nearly three years later, it would appear the rest of the world is slowly coming to the same conclusion.

I wish I'd taken Fleckenstein's advice and sheltered my money from the coming storm. But money is just money and I can afford to wait 30 years for the market to come back. Right now, it's more important for me to focus on goings on in my personal life and under my own roof.

I plan on continue living well below my means, saving and being frugal. I enjoy giving to others and picking up a check when I'm out with friends and family. I enjoy doing for others far more than I enjoy indulging my own selfish wants. I don't feel the need to buy more house, more car, more stuff than I really need. It adds nothing to my happiness and only drains my bank account.

I'd rather invest $10000 in remodeling my house to make it feel more like a home than in a new car or more stuff I don't need. I'd rather go out to dinner with someone I care about or do something fun with them than be self indulgent and buy myself more things that rarely get used and aren't good investments.

I think one of the reason people like pets so much is because they can be so happy with so little. Most of what they have is what their birthday suit. Give a dog a bone, a bowl of water, food and lots of play and love and you've got a very happy dog. Perhaps people should learn to be more happy staying home, dining in and finding fun, inexpensive ways to socialize and entertain one another. Libraries provide free books, CDs and DVDs, radio and television broadcasts are free and pets are always ready to play and be social. Yesterday, I took the dog for a short 30 minute run around the neighborhood. I thought little of it, but it was probably one of the highlights of the dog's day. He never fails to get excited about venturing outside.

So I'm not terribly worried about the value of my home or my portfolio. I have much to be thankful for and more than enough to satisfy my needs. Especially if I learn to listen to the dog and appreciate that less is often more, much more than we realize.

The best things in life are free or at worst, inexpensive. Just ask a dog.

Random thoughts for today

2008-11-24T11:48:00.000-08:00

"The perfect is the enemy of the good" - Voltaire
Reportedly, this was one of Dwight D. Eisenhower's favorite quotes.

"He who hesitates has already lost" - unknown, military origin
This was one of my paternal grandfather's favorite quotes. Probably learned it while serving his country during World War II.

"Sh*t or get off the pot" or "Fish or cut bait"
One of my favorite sayings I learned as a boy growing up in Louisiana.

These sayings and quotables are pretty much are in the same vein. I chose them today to voice my frustration about participating in silly meetings where little is decided, little is accomplished and we end up right back where we started.

I'm sure everyone who has ever worked in corporate America can identify and empathize. They must, or else Scott Adams and Dilbert wouldn't be immensely successful.

Of course, I have to be far more civil and polite at the office, but in the comfort of my own home, I'm free to speak far more bluntly and insert any of the above sayings where appropriate.

I suppose paralysis analysis is the proper business speak for the condition I'm musing on, but I prefer to think of it as people sitting on the pot for hours on end waiting, indeed hoping, for the perfect turd to sprout forth. Meanwhile, the competition is off the pot and eating your lunch. But the time you get off the pot, the cupboard will be bare and they'll be nothing left in the pantry for you to eat.

Well, that's enough random thinking for today. Best get back to... work.

Obama's kids too good for public schools

2008-11-22T10:29:00.000-08:00

Just yesterday, I said:

Universal, public healthcare is coming and private insurance and private care will one day be like private schools. Since limousine liberals rarely send their kids to the public schools, I doubt they'll be using the public health plan either.

Case in point, Barack Obama... who just yesterday announced his kids will be attending the same elite private school that Chelsea Clinton did.

Where's the Change??? The Obamas are filling their staff with Clinton people, even Hillary herself, and now they're even sending their kids to the same schools.

Lelyveld said that while public schools were considered, the Obamas felt that a private school was in the best interest of their children. The two girls currently attend a private school in Chicago.

"Mrs. Obama is the product of public education on the South Side of Chicago and she believes strongly in the importance of good public schools for all kids," Lelyveld said.

In other words, they can afford better for their kids and choose to give their kids a better education. But poor children should be happy with the public schools just as poor children will learn to be happy with publicly provided health care.

Want a voucher to get a better education? Not from Barack Obama. Be happy with publicly provided schools and shut your trap. Pay no attention to the man in the White House with his children in elite schools. He enrolls his children in private schools strictly for security reasons, not because he and his wife think the DC public schools are a joke. Nope, it's only for security reasons.

Cowboy Mouth

2008-11-22T10:21:00.000-08:00

My best friend just texted me to let me know that Cowboy Mouth is playing Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here" across the street from LSU's Tiger Stadium as part of the warmup for the Ole Miss game. Very cool indeed.

GEAUX TO HELL, OLE MISS!

So I decided to post this video of Cowboy Mouth playing "The Avenue" on the Ellen Degeneres show. I think even Louis Armstrong would be proud of the way Cowboy Mouth captured what it really means to miss New Orleans.

The Obama Health Care Plan

2008-11-21T17:26:00.000-08:00

Change!

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal has an excellent piece on Obama's plans for health care.

I work for a health insurance company so Michael Moore probably has me pegged as one of the most evil people on the planet.

Mr. Moore will love Obama's plan!

"Universal" government-run health care proved too ambitious even for FDR, who stripped it out of the Social Security Act of 1935. Lyndon Johnson settled for Medicare and Medicaid. Now liberals think the political moment has finally arrived to achieve what has eluded every other Democratic President from Harry Truman to Bill Clinton.
...
...because federal officials will run not only the new plan but also the "market" in which it "competes" with private programs -- like playing both umpire and one of the teams on the field -- they will crowd out private alternatives and gradually assume a health-care monopoly.

Many proponents of plans similar to Mr. Baucus's openly cite this as one of their goals. Eventually, the public option will import Medicare's price controls into the private sector as it tries to manage the inevitable cost overruns. When that doesn't work, Congress will deal with the problem by capping overall spending and rationing care through politics (instead of prices) -- like Canada does today.

Either Senator Baucus and President-elect Obama are making promises that can't possibly be kept. Or they're not being honest about their plans for U.S. health care.

It won't happen right away, but in the long run it will happen. Universal, public healthcare is coming and private insurance and private care will one day be like private schools. Since limousine liberals rarely send their kids to the public schools, I doubt they'll be using the public health plan either.

Of course, I could just be very cynical and don't have enough "hope" moderate Democrats like Oregon's Ron Wyden will prevail with his bipartisan, market based approach that seeks to empower consumers and promote choice amongst private health care plans and abolish the silly employer based model.

Under Wyden's plan, government would play umpire as it should and encourage insurers to go out and play ball and compete for every individual just as insurers do for individuals seeking home, life and auto insurance. Subsidies could be given to those who couldn't afford insurance, but unlike Obama's plan, Wyden's plan would strengthen the private market by reforming it and making it better, while Obama's plan would slowly erode and ruin the private market.

But alas, at least one other blogger thinks Wyden's plan still has legs and could get serious consideration.

He feels, as I do, that McCain would be supportive of Wyden's plan and if Obama is serious about reaching out to the GOP, especially McCain, maybe there's a chance of a real solution:

But [Wyden's plan] also takes on some tough issues. While it has been modified to allow employer plans to continue, it does change the tax system to make health care more of an individual responsibility. This is very much the vision of Republicans, including John McCain's.

I encourage everyone who cares about healthcare to read more about Wyden's plan. It really is the best common sense, bipartisan approach being proposed by anyone in Congress.

Scrap the BCS? Obama's got my vote for that

2008-11-19T07:03:00.000-08:00

People who know me well will be shocked that I agree with both Obama and Pete Carroll on anything. It isn't easy to say this but I totally agree with Obama and Pete Carroll on this one: it's time to scrap the BCS and replace it with an eight team playoff.

When asked Tuesday if he still supported a playoff, Carroll never missed a beat. "I agree with Senator Obama," he said, referring to the presidential candidate's sports-related interview during ESPN's Monday Night Football [just prior to the election].

"I'm fed up with these computer rankings and this and that and the other," Obama said. "Get eight teams - the top eight teams right at the end. You got a playoff. Decide on a national champion."

Carroll agreed.

"I've always been for the playoffs," he said. "Just being a competitor, I don't see any other way it should be done, and I would never be influenced to think other than you just keep playing until you find out who the best team is at the end of the season."

Read more here

I've advocated for an eight team playoff for years. Some might say eight isn't enough, but it's a heck of a lot better than computers picking two. It would be more exciting than the NFL playoffs and I guarantee it would be watched by far more people than the NFL is. A real NCAA championship game could eclipse the Super Bowl. The NCAA has to be stupid not to realize that the Final Four in basketball draws just a fraction of the audience that a real playoff in college football would.

Obama can't actually force the NCAA to institute a playoff, he can only offer his opinion when asked. I would be opposed to the government sticking its nose into this, but I appreciate that someone influential finally said what most college football fans already think and feel. Maybe, just maybe, the NCAA will take notice and get serious about considering a playoff. Instead, they've been busy counting the tons of money the bowls provide while neglecting the fans desire for a playoff and the potential for even more money with a playoff.

Now, confession time... I came to be an advocate for a playoff after longtime playoff supporter Steve Spurrier convinced me in the 1990s. Spurrier, then coach of the perennial contending Florida Gators, felt like the tough SEC schedule made it difficult for his team to run the table but if there was a playoff he'd have a much better chance of winning when it really counted. I'm sure Pete Carroll has come to a similar conclusion for different reasons... their weak Pac 10 schedule means that any in-conference loss for USC puts them out of contention. I hate Florida and USC but Spurrier and Carroll are right... playoffs are the right way to settle the score.

Irony of ironies... the LA Times ran a story earlier this week entitled "Never mind the BCS: Florida is No. 1" in recognition that the Gators are destroying every team in sight despite their setback against Ole Miss. Nobody wants to play Florida right now. But wouldn't it be awesome to know that Florida, USC, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama would be meeting in a playoff to find out who really is the best team? Instead of following these silly rankings to see who #1 and #2 are and debating it for weeks on end?

We could discuss this ad nauseum but I think the point is we're all tired of talking about who the best teams in college football are. It should be decided on the field of play. That's the American way and it's time college football fell in line with every other sport and had a playoff system. Bowls are nice if you like pageantry and a reason for alumni to get together and celebrate over the holidays but they're a lousy way to decide a champion.

Quizz is da Shizz

2008-11-18T06:54:00.000-08:00

I went to the Oregon State-Cal game and it rocked.

Cal has the lamest on-field mascot I've ever seen. It looks the byproduct of a California gay marriage between Mickey Mouse and Al from Happy Days. Send that mascot to Disneyland, it has no business anywhere near a football field.

Does a Cal student sh*t in the woods? Nope... they'd have to get down out of their trees first.

The Beavs have a SEC style defense and running game. The Rodgers boys are the best tandem in the entire NCAA. If you haven't heard of Jacquizz and James Rodgers, you will. Quizz is da Shizz. Mike Riley is one heck of a coach.

Most impressive was late in the game when Cal had the ball deep in their own territory and the Beavs were clinging to a six point lead. The crowd turned up the volume full blast and Cal's QB threw a interception which was promptly returned for a TD. The crowd went nuts. Game over, right? Nope... refs called a false start penalty that wiped it out. Guess we yelled so loud we caused their line to flinch. So the crowd gets even LOUDER and Cal's QB throws another INT returned for yet another TD. All this happened right in front of my end zone seats right above the Beaver band. The Beaver defense did the same thing in our end zone to USC and returned a INT all the way back to the 2 yard line to end that game.

I'm telling you... the Beavs are a damn strong football team. I just hope they don't get too full of themselves and screw up down in Tucson this weekend.

A lot of people in Corvallis are smelling roses but there's still two tough games left: Zona and the Civil War.

Don't count your roses until they bloom...

It's been a long time since the Beavers were smelling roses...

California, here we come!

Brave Helios, wake up your steeds

2008-11-14T07:25:00.000-08:00

Living in Oregon has given me a whole new perspective on the sun.

If Phoenix is in the Valley of the Sun, then Portland is in the Valley of the Gray Sky. But this morning, the rain stopped, the clouds parted and sun gloriously returned to Oregon and it's time to celebrate.

Cold hearted orb that rules the night,
Removes the colours from our sight
Red is grey, and yellow white
But we decide which is right.
And which is an illusion.
Pinprick holes in a colourless sky,
Let incipient figures of light pass by,
The mighty light of ten thousand suns,
Challanges infinity and is soon gone.

Night time, to some, a brief interlude,
To others, the fear of solititude.
Brave Helios, wake up your steeds,
Bring us the warmth the countryside needs.

Mt. Hood and the view I'm rapidly losing due to annual tree growth

Snow is all GONE!

2008-11-13T10:33:00.000-08:00

Mt. Hood Meadows is bare after the deluge of tropical rain.
Pray for snow!

A Little Good News

2008-11-13T05:27:00.000-08:00

The other day I posted about two songs from 1983, one by Lee Greenwood and the other by Anne Murray.

Anne Murray was one of my mother's favorite artists. She bought many of her albums at a time when she bought few albums at all.

My mother was 34 years old in 1983, the same age I am this year. So when I hear the song, "A Little Good News", I think of Mom because I know it was one of her favorite songs.

I rolled out this morning
Kids had the mornin' news show on
Bryant Gumbel was talkin' 'bout the fighting in Lebanon
Some senator was squawkin' 'bout the bad economy
It's gonna get worse you see, we need a change in policy

There's a local paper rolled up in a rubber band
One more sad story's one more than I can stand
Just once how I'd like to see the headline say
"Not much to print today, can't find nothin' bad to say", because

Nobody robbed a liquor store on the lower part of town
Nobody OD'ed, nobody burned a single buildin' down
Nobody fired a shot in anger, nobody had to die in vain
We sure could use a little good news today

I'm just a little sad that 25 years later the song seems to paint a perfect picture of the world today. But I guess that's the difference between being 34 years old as I am today instead of 9 years old as I was in 1983. Ignorance is bliss, after all... no wonder kids, dogs and cats are always so content with life!

Sadly, Mom's no longer living... she had a similar fate to Barack Obama's mother and passed away much too young... in her 50s on Oahu, an island that she loved and lived on for over 15 years. My brother and I scattered some of her remains near some of her favorite beaches on Oahu just as Barack and his sister did. So I can't call or write to her anymore, I can only remember her, write it down and hope that she knows I miss her and love her.

Mom worked most of her adult life serving others in the public sector. She was a Midwestern farmer's daughter who constantly reminded her lazy, television-addicted children that she used to get up at 5 am to milk cows and do other chores before school as a child. My brother and I knew that living in the suburbs far from cows, hogs and corn we would never live up to the standards set by our grandparents.

When it came to politics, Mom frowned on "bleeding hearts" though she was a bit of one herself. She rarely spoke politics or about politicians to me. But there's one story about a certain politician that she loved to retell. I think it succinctly sums up her political views.

At a campaign stop for Ford/Dole in 1976, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller was heckled by protesters telling him what they thought of his Vietnam war policy by casting their middle finger votes. Never one to back down, Rockefeller just flipped it right back. Rockefeller was chastised in the press and by his own party for his boorish behavior.

My mother would tell me she thought it was the perfect response to those hippies. They probably wouldn't last 15 minutes on an Iowa farm.

Portland school kids hope school changes name to Obama Elementary

2008-11-12T13:05:00.000-08:00

You can't make this stuff up...

From Willamette Week:

...the day after the Nov. 4 election students at Clark [a K-8 school in Portland, Oregon] were chanting "O-ba-ma" in the school cafeteria and filling out forms requesting that their school be renamed for the president-elect.

Change you can believe in! Don't hope... make it happen! Get in their faces, kids!

Sittin' on the Dock of the Bay

2008-11-12T10:52:00.000-08:00

Just heard "Sittin' on the Dock of the Bay" on the radio. One of my all time favorite songs and a big reason why I moved to the West Coast. I believe Northern California is one of the most beautiful places in the world. It's hard to visit the Bay Area and not think of Otis' most recognizable song. There's no telling how many people were moved to visit the Bay Area just because of Otis.

Otis Redding recorded one heck of a song but died tragically in a plane crash just before the song became a huge hit.

One of these days, I want to set all my landscape photos of NorCal to Otis' song, but until then here's a fitting tribute to Otis and his timeless, soulful, deeply emotional and autobiographical song. It's a classic for the ages.

Bishops to release statement on abortion, politics

2008-11-12T09:09:00.000-08:00

Apparently, Faithful Citizenship, the bishops' 2007 document on political responsibility, wasn't persuasive enough.

American Papist: Breaking: Bishops to present concerns on abortion, other issues to politicians

Not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, it's amusing to see Biden publicly villified by a bishop. On the other hand, I have serious reservations about the Church continuing to press for the criminalization of abortion instead of doing more to press for the promotion of adoption and making adoption easier for both birthmothers and prospective adoptive parents.

I don't think the Church is well served or Christ-like when it continues to press for criminalization of sin in the secular legal system. Adoption or responsible parenting in a two parent home with a mother and father should always be promoted and supported. By being so overwhelmingly vocal in their advocation for the criminalization of abortion, the Church is drowning out its efforts to be pro-family and pro-adoption.

But I'm very curious to see what the bishops' statement will say...

Dreaming of nicer weather

2008-11-12T08:19:00.000-08:00

We're being battered by tropical Pineapple Express rains today so I thought I post a couple pics of sunnier fall days to remind me how much nicer it will be this weekend when the sun returns to Ory-gun.

Crown Point and fall colors

Old Columbia River Highway, Columbia River Gorge from Crown Point

UPDATED: Planned Parenthood discouraging adoption?

2008-11-12T07:37:00.000-08:00

A visit to Planned Parenthood's website shows a blurb about November being National Adoption Month and includes a link to their adoption page.

On the page, women are advised:

"Millions of women face unplanned pregnancies every year. If you are deciding what to do about an unplanned pregnancy, you have a lot to think about. You have three options — abortion, adoption, and parenting."

True enough, but in practice Planned Parenthood doesn't seem to be doing much promotion of adoption as an alternative to abortion.

From their own annual report (H/T to lifenews.com):
Planned Parenthood did 289,750 abortions, an increase over the 264,943 abortions it did during the 2005-2006 fiscal year.

The previous annual report showed a scant 2,413 referrals [for adoption] and the abortion business made three less in the last fiscal year.

Planned Parenthood performs 120 times more abortions than the number of referrals for adoption they generate.

Planned Parenthood accounts for 25 percent of all abortions performed in America but about 5 percent of the 50,000 adoptions each year.

UPDATED: Planned Parenthood just sent out a self-congratulatory post-Obama victory email. Not one word about adoption or promoting parenting. They are just as obsessed with abortion as the "anti-choice hardliners" they detest. Are both sides just giving lip service to adoption?

So just what should be done about this?

I think a lot of time is wasted trying to run Planned Parenthood out of town. The fact is Planned Parenthood is a comforting place many women turn to at a very difficult stage in their lives. As unhappy as it may make the pro-life movement, that's the truth. Even without Planned Parenthood, women would still need somewhere or someone to turn to for advice and help.

So if you accept that Planned Parenthood is a valuable resource for women, wouldn't it be better to work with them to promote and encourage adoption and to make it easier for women to choose this route by making the adoption process better? Confront Planned Parenthood with the troubling data on their adoption referrals and work with them to increase adoption going forward. That sounds like a win-win for all involved.

Just my two cents...

What it means to be a conservative

2008-11-11T23:27:00.000-08:00

In the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower:

"The older I grow, the more certain I am that only by education can we really save our form of government."

We must educate as many people as possible that conservative values of self governance and individual liberty endowed to us by our Creator are timeless American values that must be defended and preserved.

As Eisenhower said:

"...problems do exist in health, education, welfare, and other things. They must be solved. But the closer you can bring the action to the local level -- that is the best way to do these things."

There is no more local level than the individual and the family unit.

One last closing comment from Ike:

"What we have to do in America is generate a great belief in democracy. One of the things it demands is respect for law and order. If we can achieve this self-discipline, this self-government, then all the rest of our problems will take care of themselves."

Truer words were never spoken.. spoken by a man who confronted Hitler in Europe, communists around the world and socialists and racists in America.

Veterans Day

2008-11-11T22:11:00.000-08:00

Twice today, I heard Lee Greenwood belting out "God Bless the USA" on the radio. Greenwood wrote the song in 1983, a year when America was still recovering from the hangover of Vietnam, the highest unemployment since the Great Depression, Watergate, the Iranian hostage crisis, oil shocks and the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon. The same year fellow country artist Anne Murray put out a song entitled "A Little Good News" that captured just how little good news was reported on television in 1983.

Just like today, they were a lot of reasons not to be upbeat about America. Thankfully, Mr. Greenwood (and President Reagan) took the opportunity to remind us all why we should be proud and thankful to call ourselves Americans. For all our missteps and fumbles, Americans have so much to be thankful for.

Hearing his song today brought memories of November 10, 2001, when I saw Lee Greenwood at Tiger Stadium as part of a Veterans Day halftime extravaganza. It was a day I'll never forget.

I think this article from Red Shtick Magazine captures the mood of those of us in attendance that day:

Remember 2001? New York had been bombed, people were staying home instead of going to the games, and LSU needed something to revive the team for its run for an SEC title. Organizers then made what is easily the greatest administrative decision in the history of mankind: they booked Lee Greenwood.

Indeed. It was such a emotional experience for all involved that Greenwood came back in Novemember 2007 to honor our veterans again.

God Bless LoUiSiAna and the USA. God Bless our veterans and the sacrifices they have made to benefit all of us.

Unemployment headed much, much higher

2008-11-11T15:53:00.000-08:00

Oregon's unemployment topped out in January 1983 at 12%, the highest rate in the post World War II era. During the 2001-2003 recession, unemployment peaked at 8.5% in June 2003.

Unemployment is Oregon today is only 6.4%. I think we're headed to 10% by year end 2009 if not higher.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics

Hope for the world

2008-11-11T15:41:00.000-08:00

No, not the "Messiah", Barack Obama...

Largely overshadowed by Obama's victory was a meeting in Rome last week between Catholics and Muslims hosted by Pope Benedict.

The commandments of love of God and love of neighbor are at "the heart of Islam and Christianity alike" and always go together, the pope told members of the Catholic-Muslim Forum.

The pope met forum members -- 28 Catholic and 28 Muslim representatives -- at the end of their Nov. 4-6 meeting at the Vatican.

After 138 Muslim scholars from around the world wrote to Pope Benedict and other Christian leaders in October 2007 proposing a new level of Christian-Muslim dialogue, the Vatican and the scholars established the Catholic-Muslim Forum.
...
"The Christian tradition proclaims that God is love," the pope told them. God created the universe out of love, and motivated by love he became human in Jesus Christ, handing himself over to death "in order to restore full dignity to each person and to bring us salvation."

As people who recognize the one God, he said, "together we must show, by our mutual respect and solidarity, that we consider ourselves members of one family: the family that God has loved and gathered together from the creation of the world to the end of human history."

Read the full article here

There is hope for peace between Christians, Jews and Muslims. Let's pray they keep talking to one another. Now if only we could get the mullahs from Iran to visit the Vatican...

Real Men of Genius: Mr. KKK Initiation Ritual Participant

2008-11-11T15:08:00.000-08:00

This story doesn't reflect well on my home state but I've learned from living in Oregon that every state has its share of ignorant trash...

Eight Klu Klux Klan members from the Bogalusa area were arrested Tuesday after allegedly killing a Tulsa, Okla., woman during an initiation ritual in a remote northern St. Tammany Parish campsite, St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office officials said.
...
In an effort to conceal the crime, several of the group's members burned the victim's personal items, including a purse, and tried to clean up the crime scene before they split up.

Sheriff Jack Strain, speaking at a press conference Tuesday, said Foster [accused of murder] even pulled the bullet, shot from a .40 caliber hand gun from the woman's body.

"What was odd about [the murder] was the extent they went to cover it up," [St. Tammany Parish Sheriff Jack Strain] said. "To the degree they scrubbed the area was pretty impressive for a group with such a small IQ."

Strain said the crime was discovered after two people went into the Circle K store on Louisiana Highway 21 near Bogalusa about 4 a.m. Monday and asked how to get blood out of clothing. The clerk called the Washington Parish Sheriff's Office, and that department initiated an investigation.

Hey... y'all got any club soda to get this blood outta my wife beater? I can't go home drunk and covered in blood again or my wife is gonna KILL ME!

Sheer GENIUS!

Who walks into a Circle K at 4 am in the morning and asks the clerk how to get blood out of clothing?

Anybody that stupid would surely be stupid enough to join the Klan and deserves whatever punishment Johnny Law hands down.

This isn't the first time a KKK initiation ritual has gone south... three years ago an idiot in Tennessee fired a bullet in the air during an initiation. The bullet came down and struck a fellow participant in the head and critically injured him.

GENIUS!

Prager prays for Obama

2008-11-11T12:34:00.000-08:00

Dennis Prager, one of my favorite writers and columnists, has a great post-mortem on the election.

Prager closes his article with some kind words and advice for our incoming President:

"The treatment of President George W. Bush by liberals has been despicable, undeserved and unprecedented. We who oppose Barack Obamas policies will, hopefully, act in accordance with conservative values of decency. Hence my simple announcement on the day after the election: I did not vote for him. I did not want him to be president. But as of January 20, 2009, Barack Obama will be my president."

"Barack Obama may have a successful presidency or a failed one. If he allows the left wing of the Democratic Party to set his agenda, it will be the latter. In the meantime, however, we can celebrate the aforementioned good of Barack Obamas election and pray for him and for our beloved country."

I feel bad for not having spoken any congratulations to Barack Obama on his victory as the first ethnic minority ever elected President of the United States of America. The White House was constructed in part by slaves and while Obama is not the descendant of American slaves, his wife and his children are.

Obama's victory speaks volumes about how far America has come as a nation in the last 200 years. I hope Obama lives up to his rhetoric and governs for all the people and not just the loony liberal left.

So I join Dennis Prager in praying for Barack Obama and our country. Now, more than ever, we need a leader in the White House to lead us through the difficult economic times and to confront the dangerous forces opposed to free, democratic societies such as ours. Now is a time for Americans to unite for the common tasks and common goals that we need to accomplish to secure the future for generations yet to be born.

Epic snow this winter?

2008-11-11T10:40:00.000-08:00

If the climatologists are right...

we could be in for another epic ski season in the Cascades...

But this week, Mt. Hood Meadows only has a 6 inch base and it's pouring down rain everywhere and the snow level is way, way too high (8000 feet). What little snow remains at the ski resorts will be washed away this week and we're getting sunny, beautiful weather this weekend and early next week.

So I'm going to head to the Coast on Sunday to enjoy the bright, sunny weather currently forecasted. The Oregon Coast is beautiful and I'm blessed to be able to enjoy it when opportunity knocks. But first, I'm heading down to Corvallis on Saturday to see the Beavs kick Cal's butt and hopefully inch one step closer to the Rose Bowl or the Holiday Bowl.

Kind of bums me out when we get warm rainstorms that do nothing to build the base in the mountains and just wash out everyone's day down here in the valley. If it's going to rain in the valley (as it often does), can't we at least get some fluffy, white stuff for me to ride or ski on?

Thanksgiving Day skiing is looking unlikely unless we get some big storms in the next 2 weeks. But rest assured this will be another big ski season... just not as early as some would like. Good things come to those who wait...

Mt. Hood majesty

2008-11-11T08:00:00.000-08:00

One fall morning a few years ago, I got up before sunrise and took this photo.

Oregon is for dreamers...

P.J. O'Rourke's prescription for the GOP

2008-11-10T15:30:00.000-08:00

Okay.. I lied... I'm weaning myself off politics but it's a slow withdrawal... O'Rourke correct identifies that the GOP failed to be financially responsible stewards and seem to be far more concerned with abortion and gay marriage than having the federal government perform the functions it should (and nothing more) and perform them well.

P.J. nails it:

Take just one example of our unconserved tendency to poke our noses into other people's business: abortion. Democracy--be it howsoever conservative--is a manifestation of the will of the people. We may argue with the people as a man may argue with his wife, but in the end we must submit to the fact of being married. Get a pro-life friend drunk to the truth-telling stage and ask him what happens if his 14-year-old gets knocked up. What if it's rape? Some people truly have the courage of their convictions. I don't know if I'm one of them. I might kill the baby. I will kill the boy.

The real message of the conservative pro-life position is that we're in favor of living. We consider people--with a few obvious exceptions--to be assets. Liberals consider people to be nuisances. People are always needing more government resources to feed, house, and clothe them and to pick up the trash around their FEMA trailers and to make sure their self-esteem is high enough to join community organizers lobbying for more government resources.

If the citizenry insists that abortion remain legal--and, in a passive and conflicted way, the citizenry seems to be doing so--then give the issue a rest. Meanwhile we can, with the public's blessing, refuse to spend taxpayers' money on killing, circumscribe the timing and method of taking a human life, make sure parental consent is obtained when underage girls are involved, and tar and feather teenage boys and run them out of town on a rail. The law cannot be made identical with morality. Scan the list of the Ten Commandments and see how many could be enforced even by Rudy Giuliani.

Read the full article here... it's BRILLIANT!

It's the economy, STUPID!

2008-11-10T09:22:00.000-08:00

Bill Fleckenstein at MoneyCentral has some good non-partisan thoughts on the economic malaise. Fleckenstein is a huge critic (as am I) of "Easy Al" Greenspan and the massive credit bubble he created.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the Republicans did not pursue any of the policies I felt would be beneficial. Nor do I expect the Democrats to. Nor will they force the Federal Reserve to return to the gold standard (or target money-supply growth, the next-best choice) -- which is another imperative that I would add to my prior three wishes.

The only policy option I expect they'll implement -- which could be quite important -- will be to allocate spending on infrastructure projects, though I fear mountains of money will be wasted. (We also ought to spend a serious amount of money on making our country a nuclear-power-based economy, like France.)

Read the full article here

I agree with Bill... if anything good comes out of having the Democrats in power, it could be the next TVA type project that rapidly expands domestic energy production and the electric power grid. The power grid we have today is little better than the early US Highway system in the 1920s... we need an Interstate Highway system for electrical power as T. Boone Pickens has been advocating for.

Just the other day, I read an article on KATU about how the growth in wind farms coupled with the lack of outlets (or storage) for surplus energy produced during peak wind days has forced wind farm operators to asks dams and other power plants in the Northwest to produce less electricity. We need to either store the surplus or move it to where it's needed. Plentiful electricity coupled with an increase in fuel taxes on imported energy will drive demand for plug in hybrids and other fuel efficient technologies. We need to produce our own domestic, sustainable energy. One of the main reasons the US was able to win World War II was because we had our own secure supplies of energy and other vital resources to fuel our war machine. We are much, much more vulnerable today if a worldwide war were to break out again, especially after the strain of fighting two wars for the last six years.

The TVA and other hydro projects from the 1930s (such as Bonneville and Grand Coulee dams) that supply electric power here in the Northwest still exist today and are needed more than ever. I'd like to think that 70 years from now, future generations will look back and be thankful for the investment in energy and infrastructure made today. We have that opportunity and while I'm sure Bill is right and the government will waste a lot of money in the process, it's a necessary investment that will provide secure, plentiful energy for this nation for many, many decades to come.

If you need to sell your house, do it NOW!

2008-11-10T08:45:00.000-08:00

Mortgage interest rates are still historically low and first time buyers who were priced out by the real estate boom are taking advantage of the recent price slide.

My brother just sold his home in South Carolina after moving to Washington State. He sold it by dropping the price until he got an offer. There are buyers out there now if you drop your price enough to lure them in. Buyers are ready to make a deal with willing sellers. But the current enthusiasm among first time buyers won't last... it's being driven by falling home prices and low mortgage interest rates and is unsustainable in a contracting economy.

So why sell now? Unemployment is still relatively low, about 6%. Depending on the forecasts you look at, we're look at a jump to 8, 9 maybe 10% by the end of next year. Any way you look at it, the economic malaise has only just begun. People without jobs don't buy houses and aren't good tenants for that matter. If you have a house you can't sell or can't rent, you've got a real problem on your hands.

Also, mortgage rates are likely to go higher, maybe not as high as during the last severe recession (1980-1982), but at least above 7 or 8 percent, if not 9 percent. High mortgage rates will dry up the buyer market and price many people out of the market unless home prices come down even further. Either way, it's bad for sellers.

If you plan on living in your home for the next five to ten years, it's a great time to stay put, remodel and enjoy your home. A home is still a great investment, but you need to look at it as a long term investment in this economy. This recession will pass and home prices will recover one day but it will be long time coming. If you need to sell in the next five years, do it NOW... don't wait or you may be stuck with an asset that is very difficult to unload. If you can't commit to living in your home for the next five years or more, sell it and become a renter.

Whatever you lose on paper, you can always make back so long as you have a job and income coming in. Without income, you'll lose your house anyway. Jobs will become the issue in America in 2009. Don't ruin your credit or your net worth by gambling on real estate unless you have the stomach and commitment to stick it out for the next five years. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.

Your best weapon is common sense... you don't need an economics degree to see the handwriting on the wall. Remember, real estate agents and lenders are out to make a buck and aren't much different than stock brokers in that regard. They make their money off the transaction, not whether or not your home rises or falls in value. Only you can be a good steward of your family's assets... don't count on the realtor or lender for advice when it comes to safeguarding your financial future.

Suckers for easy credit

2008-11-10T08:41:00.000-08:00

For some good, non-partisan analysis of economic and financial issues, I've been turning to MSN's MoneyCentral for the last decade.

Liz Pulliam Weston has a terrific article discussing the outrage many savers and fiscal conservatives feel towards those getting bailed out...

The financial crisis has deepened many people's suspicions that doing the right thing hasn't paid off. Instead, they feel it's made them chumps.

You see it in the "Where's my @#$%ing bailout?" T-shirts, the despair about plummeting retirement accounts and the hostile comments that greet every news story about mortgage restructuring or credit card forgiveness.

One reader put it this way:

"Doesn't keeping your promises mean anything? Most if not all of the people who snagged these (mortgages) were well aware of the risk and the responsibility. It kills me that I'm playing by the rules and bailing out those who were greedy, stupid or both."

Read the full article here

No Party for Pro-Choice Conservatives

2008-11-10T06:03:00.000-08:00

By McCainiac

Let's say you have two candidates, Candidate X and Candidate Y. Candidate X has a very poor track record as a fiscal conservative but is a rabid social conservative whose is solidly pro-life. Candidate Y has a reputation and record as a very fiscal conservative but has a slightly different opinion on abortion than the pro-life party line. Which candidate would win the Republican nomination for President?

I think any honest Republican knows the answer to that hypothetical scenario. Candidate X could be George W. Bush. Candidate Y could be Barry Goldwater.

When it comes to the Presidency, there is an unofficial litmus test for abortion in the GOP. You could be an advocate for all the bedrock values of the GOP but if you don't toe the party line to a T on abortion, you are unelectable and persona non grata.

You must be a social conservative first and foremost. No exceptions. Fiscal conservatism is a nice bonus and must be talked about, but deviation on abortion is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

Take for instance, Rudy Guiliani, who is personally opposed to abortion and would appoint strict constructionist judges, but is not sufficiently anti-abortion to please to moral purists who insist that you must agree that abortion should be a criminal act equal with murder.

Rudy's campaign failed for other reasons, primarily poor campaign strategy, but it's clear he never would have been acceptable to social conservatives and might have caused a walkout at the convention if he had been the nominee, even as VP. The reaction by social conservatives to talk of McCain selecting a pro-choice VP, led most vocally by Rush Limbaugh, was loud and clear.

Said Mr. Limbaugh just weeks ago:

"The minute you say that conservatism includes people who are pro-choice, you've destroyed conservatism because conservatism stands for "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness." Without life, there is nothing else here, and if we're going to sit around indiscriminately deciding who lives and who dies based on our own convenience, that's not conservative. Individual liberty. The essence of innocence is a child in the womb who has no choice over what happens to it. Sorry. If we don't stand up for that person, if the government doesn't, then nobody will."

According to the Limbaugh definition of a conservative, Barry Goldwater was not a conservative after all. Goldwater, Mr. Conservative, was pro-choice on the basis of personal freedom and individual liberty and became increasingly frustrated by the rise of the Religious Right in the 1980s. Goldwater made no secret of his distaste for Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, whom McCain once called "an agent of intolerance."

Gerald Ford, the first to feel the wrath of the Religious Right, came out of the closet as pro-choice after he left the White House and said some very revealing things to Larry King back in 1998:

KING: At the Republican convention in Houston [in 1992], you guested with us. You sat there and watched Pat Buchanan make a speak -- went on after it, and you turned to me and said, what's happening to my party?

What happened to your party?

FORD: We did not conduct ourselves really wanting to win. You cannot win a national election, neither Democrat or Republican, if your candidate and your philosophy is on the extreme right on the one hand, or extreme left on the other. The Democrats lost the presidential election with McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, because they were to the left of center. The Republicans will not win if they pick a candidate who was identified as an extreme right candidate.

KING: Didn't they [the pro-lifers] take over your party, though?

FORD: They hadn't better, if they want to win. I think we've got to have, in the Republican Party, a big umbrella, so that people on the right, people on the left and people in the middle can work together. Now, that doesn't mean they agree on every issue, and abortion is one where there is significant difference. Betty and I are pro-choice, but we can work with people who are pro-life on the broader issues involving Republican philosophy.

KING: But when they say, Mr. President, that's a moral issue; it's not discussible and we have those -- we've had them on this program, might be called on the religious right who say, we're not going to be in your party, that's how big an issue this is?

FORD: Well, if that's the attitude they take and they have their own party, they won't win, and their impact in the political arena will be negligible.

KING: In other words, pragmatically, they'd elected Democratic?

FORD: That's right. No question about it. Now, I've been criticized by, I've forgotten who it was, on the basis that I don't have the proper family values. Well, Larry, let me be very frank with you. I think Betty and Gerry Ford have good family values.

KING: Why were they criticizing you?

FORD: Because we're pro-life -- I mean, pro-choice.

KING: Just for that reason, they...

FORD: Yes. They say, we don't have the right moral values. We don't understand the issue. Well, my point is: we've had 50 years of healthy, wonderful married life, raised four fine children. I think our family values are pretty good.

Now, I'm probably going to take a lot of heat for raising this topic. But it must be talked about.

For as eager as the social conservatives are to celebrate the defeat of gay marriage in California (which was expected), they sweep under the rug the fact that South Dakota just voted down a statewide ban on abortion. If even South Dakota doesn't have a majority of voters who oppose abortion, aren't we guaranteeing defeat in national elections if we insist that abortion is the foundational issue on which there can be no disagreement? Do we want to be a party that only wins states like Mississippi and my home state of Louisiana (where it remains to be seen if an abortion ban will be enacted)?

I'm not saying social conservatism isn't important. It is. But shouldn't our first test of a candidate be to verify that they are a solid fiscal conservative? Fiscal conservatism shouldn't be a nice bonus, it should be a non-negotiable principle of the Republican Party along with promoting self-reliance, individual freedom and local governance wherever possible.

The reason Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 is because we failed to live up to our own principles of fiscal conservatism and federalism. On this much, McCain was spot on. Instead of reining in government spending, we added a new entitlement and went on a spending binge. George W. Bush is a fine social conservative and did an adequate job on national security (after listening to McCain on the surge), but was a trainwreck as a fiscal conservative. When voters wanted the GOP to rein in spending, they were instead trying to rein in Terri Schiavo's husband.

I am proud to be Republican, the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Goldwater, Reagan and McCain. I disagree with social conservatives not because I'm a RINO or liberal but because I have a genuine difference of opinion just as Goldwater, Ford and Guiliani. The next person who calls me a RINO will get a mountain of Goldwater quotes in return.

I personally belief that abortion should not be criminalized because it won't stop abortion and it isn't an act of love to punish a woman for what I believe is a poor choice, but a choice nonetheless. I think Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision on Constitutional grounds and should be overturned and the issue should returned to the states. It's a moral issue that should be decided by the democratic process just as we do with gay marriage, polygamy, incest and number of other moral issues. Abortion was never, ever a federal issue prior to 1973 when the Supreme Court made it a federal issue. I would like the people to have a chance to proclaim the legal status of abortion (as the people of South Dakota just did) rather than 9 people in robes in D.C.

There is going to be a great discussion about this in the weeks and months ahead. It's already started on Little Green Footballs.

Des Moines, da Saints

2008-11-06T20:49:00.000-08:00

I went to Iowa last weekend for my cousin's wedding. I'd been through Des Moines once on the Interstate but had never had time to explore it before. I took occasion to run from my cousin's house near Drake University to the Iowa State Capitol. I ascended the steps of the State Capitol (there are a lot of steps!) just like Rocky Balboa and then stepped inside to use the facilities and check out the very impressive dome. It was well worth checking out... I only wish I'd had more time but I had to hurry back as I was way overdue on when I told my cousin I'd be back from my run.

Iowa State Capitol (not my photo)

Along the way, I "found" the Basilica of St. John near Drake and went to mass the next day for All Saints' Day. All Saints' Day is coincidentally the day in 1966 that the Saints NFL franchise was awarded to the city of New Orleans.

Basilica of St. John in Des Moines (photo from Wikipedia)

Anyway, the wedding was a blast and it's always great to get back to Iowa to visit my relatives.

The vineyard where the wedding was... yeah, they have vineyards in Iowa...

Fall Colors

2008-11-06T20:33:00.000-08:00

It was a most beautiful autumn season this year in Oregon. We had about 2 weeks of really nice Indian summer before the winter rains returned. Most of the leaves have now fallen but there's still some nice color in patches. The change in seasons isn't quite as beautiful here as I'm told it is in the Northeast but it amazes me nonetheless.

My sabbatical from politics

2008-11-06T20:27:00.000-08:00

I've decided I've said all I have to say politically speaking for this year.

I will keep blogging at McCainiac but I'm staying away from politics. There is a great battle being waged within the GOP between fiscal and social conservatives and it's going to happen whether I chime in or not. For now, I'm content to let others have that debate.

I'm dedicating my personal life to my conversion to Catholicism. If all goes well, I will become a member of the Church next Easter. The leader I'm most interested in listening to right now isn't McCain or Obama, it's Pope Benedict. I'm committed to my own journey of forming my own conscience "in accord with human reason, enlightened by the teaching of Christ."

There is a time for everything under the sun and at this time I feel called to focus on that which matters most to me: God and the love of neighbors, friends and family. As Benedict says, God is love.

I'll still be posting to my blog but it will probably be mostly pictures and stories about whatever is going on in my personal life. I'm not trying to convert anyone or convince you of anything when it comes to religion. My focus is on self discovery and living my life more fully and with greater purpose. Quite simply, I'm going to live, laugh and love.

LIVE - Life is a gift from God. To not live life to its fullest is to deny the gift. Word to Steve Prefontaine.

LAUGH - Life is meant to be enjoyed. Have fun!

LOVE - God is Love. Something I never fully appreciated until this year.

So in that spirit of living... here's a favorite photo of mine from right here in Ory-gun. I'm very blessed to live in such a beautiful part of the world. We've already got 18 inches of snow at Mt. Hood Meadows. Time to get my skis and snowboard waxed and ready to go. I LOVE SNOW!

Sucker born every minute

2008-11-06T12:39:00.000-08:00

Thanks for nothing, Rush.

Now that the election is over, Mr. Limbaugh finally makes the argument I made quite clear 2 weeks ago. Gee, Rush... a little late to be making the best argument against Obama there was to make.

If you voted for Obama because he promised you a tax cut, you are a fool.

Source: Rushlimbaugh.com

McCain never once made this argument. Nobody in the GOP did. If Obama fails to deliver on this promise (which he likely will come January when we know the full horror of the economic apocalypse we find ourselves in), the GOP needs to be ready to remind every voter of this in 2010 and 2012.

If you voted for Obama for other reasons, I respect that. There are arguments to be made for Obama and against McCain. But if you made your decision based on the promise of a tax cut, you are a fool.

Have a lollipop, sucker.

Sarah, please stay in Alaska

2008-11-06T07:22:00.000-08:00

If Palin tries to run in 2012, she won't survive the primaries.

She belongs on "Jaywalking" with Jay Leno, not in the White House.

Didn't know that Africa was a continent? Had to be told South Africa is a country? Didn't know that NAFTA includes the US, Canada and Mexico and that those countries are considered North America?

One would like to think a VP candidate wouldn't need to be tutored on such basic knowledge of the world. Then again, she got a journalism degree so I guess she's about as knowledgeable as every other bubblehead on the nightly local news.

Finally.. the GOP acknowledges Eisenhower...

2008-11-05T17:22:00.000-08:00

too little, too late... and rich in irony...

RNC chairman Mike Duncan simultaneously praised and insulted Dwight D. Eisenhower:

"[The] facts do repudiate absolutely the preposterous idea that this election represents a mandate for another New Deal or the death rattle of Republican conservatism," Duncan said.

Duncan, half jokingly went on to point out that Obama ran on platforms of tax cuts, accountability for teachers, health care reforms to address spiraling health care costs, cutting wasteful budget earmarks and increasing offshore drilling and domestic nuclear power supplies.

"Put simply, Barack Obama just ran the most successful moderate Republican presidential campaign since Dwight Eisenhower," Duncan said.

...and Obama duped Colin Powell, Paul Volcker, Warren Buffett and Susan Eisenhower into voting for him...

The sad truth is John McCain is the real Eisenhower Republican and Obama just posed as one to get elected the same way that Jack Kennedy did in 1960 when he edged out Nixon. If we're lucky, Obama will try to govern like JFK and not like Hugo Chavez.

I encourage everyone to read up on the real Dwight D. Eisenhower. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised to find out how sensible and conservative he really was.

It's time we all started liking Ike. There's a lot to like if people only understood what a great President he really was. It's about damn time the GOP starts to rediscover the truth about Ike.

The backlash against social conservatives

2008-11-05T15:52:00.000-08:00

Quite a lively discussion at LGF today...

If the GOP decides to go in the Bobby Jindal direction (fundamental Christianity, creationism, hard-line anti-abortionism, aggressively anti-gay rights), it will be committing political suicide. As much as anything else, this election was a referendum on the social conservative agenda, and the social conservatives did not win.

I think Charles is a little harsh on Jindal. Jindal is a Roman Catholic who converted from Hinduism. If all Catholics are hard line fundamentalists, then that's news to me.

However, the points is well taken regarding social conservatives forcing their abortion and gay marriage agenda to the exclusion of fiscal conservatism. I've been makely this point quite loudly myself lately.

Bush failed as a fiscal conservative. McCain opposed Bush's tax cuts because they weren't matched by spending cuts. McCain opposed Bush's prescription drug boondoggle because it was a huge unfunded entitlement. McCain has opposed wasteful spending his entire career in the Senate. McCain stood up to the runaway spenders in the GOP who were more concerned about reaching into Terri Schiavo's hospital room than they were about being good stewards of our money. Trent Lott, Bill Frist, Tom Delay and George W. Bush failed us by failing to rein in runaway spending.

You can read my comments at LGF here

The election is over...

2008-11-04T21:36:00.000-08:00

...now the Reformation begins...

In Obama's victory speech, he extended an olive branch to Republicans and did a better job explaining what the GOP stands for than McCain/Palin did on the stump.

"Let us remember that it was a man from this state [Lincoln] who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House – a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, 'We are not enemies, but friends...though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.'"

When the GOP reforms itself as it will in the weeks and months ahead, I hope they pay attention to those values of self-reliance and individual liberty that are the rock of the GOP. That pioneer spirit is what built this country and it is that pioneer spirit of fiscal conservatism (being good stewards of resources), self-reliance and individual liberty and freedom that is what the GOP needs to return to. The values are timeless because they are the values endowed to us by our Creator.

I, for one, am tired of social conservatives who use abortion and other social issues as their litmus test in rejecting fine Republicans like Rudy Guiliani. They hold up abortion as the only issue that matters but are all too willing to sacrifice fiscal conservatism and individual liberties.

It's time for a Republican reformation. John McCain is the Barry Goldwater of that movement. He is a great reformer but like Goldwater, it was the wrong time and he just couldn't give a great stump speech to persuade the masses. Time will tell who will be the Great Communicator to lead the Reform movement forward and be that next great leader the way Ronald Reagan did.

The non-repentant McCain sign stealer

2008-11-04T13:45:00.000-08:00

...got his come-uppance when he was forced to resign from his job.

but what's really funny is that in his famous "Confessions of a Lawn Sign Stealer" on HuffPo he boasted:

"I even ran for mayor of Portland, Oregon once myself."

To the jackass that stole my McCain yard sign from my home in the Portland suburbs, you can never steal my vote and I just put up another yard sign to replace the one you stole. If you steal that one, I'll just put up another one. The inconvenience of putting up another sign is nothing compared to the sacrifice that has been made on my behalf to secure my right to free speech and to vote. The Viet Cong couldn't silence John McCain and you'll never silence me.

Here's to real mayors of Portland like Bud Clark, a real Oregonian and not a sign stealing moonbat.

Why it's better to vote in Oregon

2008-11-04T10:03:00.000-08:00

Voting is Oregon is so easy a caveman could do it.

Oregon is 100% vote by mail. I reviewed my ballot on the plane ride home from Iowa on Sunday night and filled it out at home yesterday. On my lunch hour, I dropped it off at the drive thru ballot drop off site in the K-mart parking lot. It was quicker than the quickest trip through the McDonald's drive thru.

Best of all... no voting machine breakdowns and no voter intimidation as reported in Pennsylvania already today.

From Fox News:

Rick Leventhal: i do not even know where to begin, but we have reached a polling place in the city of philadelphia. one of the two black panthers who was allegedly blocking the door is standing right over here, with an accused us of intimidating voters because we were here with a camera and microphone. he did not answer questions, other people here have confirmed that another person in black panther attire was holding a night stick and apparently the concern was that they were intimidating people who were trying to go inside to vote.

Video is below:

I don't know if my vote will be counted here in Oregon and I have no way to confirm it (same as the other 49 states). They say our vote by mail is subject to more fraud and misuse. That may be true, but it is certainly the most user-friendly, easy and intuitive way to vote. An intimidation free secret ballot in the privacy of my own home. This caveman approves wholeheartedly.

Now if we could just get Oregon to swing back to the right side of the voting pendelum...

Centrists and Hillary Supporters, Listen Up!

2008-11-04T07:47:00.000-08:00

Centrist Democrats and Clinton supporters... this is your last chance. Don't waste your vote on Barack Obama and have that vote on your conscience the next four years.

If you won't listen to me, listen to this:

Now go VOTE!

2008-11-04T07:27:00.000-08:00

Polls today make it look like McCain is going to lose and lose big.

No matter... get out and vote. You owe it to everyone who bled and paid the ultimate sacrifice to secure your right to vote. Voting is the least you can do as an American citizen. The very least.

If you must vote Democrat, vote for Hillary

2008-11-03T14:03:00.000-08:00

This is my last plea to Democrats, in particular the centrist Democrats.

You've got a lot of reasons to not like George W. Bush. So do I.

You've got a lot of reasons to like the Clintons. Even I have to concede I did pretty well for myself with Bill and Hill in the White House.

You've got a lot of reason to question Sarah Palin's qualifications. So do I. Thankfully, she's at the bottom of her party's ticket. I'm not voting for her and if she were at the top of the ticket it would be a very bitter pill to swallow just as it was when I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. I'm voting for and I support John McCain.

John McCain is not George W. Bush. I wish McCain had won in 2000. I think our country would be better off for it if McCain had won.

I believe McCain has made it abundantly clear that he and Bush do not see eye to eye on many things and had McCain been Commander-in-Chief we would have gone into Iraq full throttle with guns blazing or we would have never gone at all.

By the same token, Barack Obama is not Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton or even Harold Ford. Obama would be the most liberal politician ever elected President. Hillary is far more to the center than Barack Obama. As a Republican, it pains me to admit it... but it's the truth.

So my plea to you is this... if you can't vote for John McCain and you still have serious reservations about Barack Obama, write in a vote for Hillary. You can have a clear conscience knowing that you neither gave your vote to a Republican nor did you vote for Obama.

If you need sufficient proof that Obama isn't Hillary, look no further than Hillary's own comments during the primary campaign:

“I think that since we now know Sen. McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington. “I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she said.

Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a “distinguished man with a great history of service to our country,” Clinton said, “Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold."

More proof that Obama isn't Hillary? Check out Hillary's response to whether she'd meet with Iran without preconditions versus Obama's answer to the same question. The difference in their viewpoints in troubling and startling. It was clear Obama was out of his league that night.

If enough Hillary supporters write in her name, it will be a clear message to the Democratic Party that there quite a few centrist Democrats and independents who don't approve of the much more liberal tack their party will take with Pelosi, Obama and Reid in charge.

Pelosi
Obama
Oppressive Taxation
Reid

I've talked to many Democratic friends and neighbors who all tell me in private that they would gladly vote for Hillary this year over any Republican. When I ask about Obama, most of them remain unenthusiastic and worried about what he might do after he's elected. I'm sure some will dismiss this as closet racism but I believe the doubts about Obama are based mostly on things he has said, the people he has befriended and his actions. The cause for concern about Obama is legitimate and real and has nothing to do with his race and everything to do with the content of his character and what he believes.

If you can't side with former DLC chairman Joe Lieberman and support John McCain, then I urge you to write in a vote for Hillary. Either way, you'll send a message to the Democrats that not all change is good change and there is still a strong centrist, moderate tradition in this nation. I believe the center in America is center-right, not far to the left as Obama's past reveals him to be.

Whatever you do, go out and vote. Too many American have paid and continue to pay the ultimate sacrifice to guarantee our right to vote and free speech for us to squander that freedom by staying home and not voting. Even if you're voting for Ralph Nader, let your voice be heard.

But if you must vote for a Democrat, give your vote to Hillary. Don't have a vote for Obama on your conscience for the next four years.

Huey P. Obama: Oui, on peut!

2008-11-03T09:22:00.000-08:00

Share our wealth, spread the wealth... what's the difference, cher?

I've got a news flash for Mr. Oh-BAMA and those who support him in Louisiana.

This LSU alumnus believes it's going to be a very bad week to be in Baton Rouge if you're a fan of anything that ends in B-A-M-A.

McCain will beat Oh-BAMA soundly in Louisiana tomorrow. Bobby Jindal, the hope and future of the Republican Party is the ever popular governor of Louisiana. The party of reform, prosperity and peace has the reins of power in Louisiana and the future has never looked brighter.

God willing, that other vastly overrated and hyperinflated ego with a name ending in B-A-M-A will go down in flames on Saturday in Tiger Stadium.

GEAUX TIGERS!

Obama's Slim Fast energy plan

2008-11-03T07:17:00.000-08:00

The coming Reform Revolution

2008-10-28T13:40:00.000-07:00

I just watched pollster Peter Hart's Ohio voter focus group on C-SPAN. Good stuff... raw opinions by undecided voters.

I left feeling very good about McCain as a person and as a candidate. But it was obvious that the selection of Sarah Palin has tied an anchor around McCain's candidacy that is only overshadowed by the huge anchor that is George W. Bush.

From WaPo:

McCain might have had even more support had he not picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. The Alaska governor drew poor reviews in this group. Several described her as "out of her league." [The first voter to say Palin was "out of her league" voted for Dole and Dubya twice.] Steven Topoly, a maintenance technician, said McCain "should have done better."

I am firmly convinced that had McCain picked Pawlenty instead of Palin, McCain's VP selection would be a non-issue. Even the women in the group had trouble defending Palin. Perception matters and it's clear that McCain efforts to elevate Sarah Palin's resume haven't changed the perception of her. One can't help but wonder how McCain's poll numbers would look right now if he had picked anyone but Palin. McCain could have done better and it's clear that more than a few voters who wanted to support McCain feel queasy about the Palin pick.

I think there's a very good chance McCain has become Barry Goldwater in a way he never foresaw or wanted. Win or lose, he will become the spark for the coming Reformist Revolution in the GOP. Goldwater lost the battle, but Reagan won the war. McCain may lose the battle, but he has laid the groundwork for the Reform wing of the GOP to win the war.

If the focus group in Ohio convinced me of anything, it's that McCain's championing of reform is the right message and will be a winning message when we find someone who can eloquently state the case. The message is right... now we just need the right messenger.

Reformers like Bobby Jindal and Tim Pawlenty are the future of the GOP. It's time to throw Ted Stevens and Tom Delay under the bus and reclaim the GOP as the party of fiscal conservatism first and foremost. Strength through peace. Compassion for social issues but fiscal restraint and respect for individual freedom and liberty. Federalism and promotion of self governance rather than a strong, central government in Washington.

Don't take my word for it... listen to the Wall Street Journal:

Even if Gov. Pawlenty doesn't wind up on Sen. McCain's ticket, some believe the Minnesota governor represents the party's future, along with a handful of other relatively young governors, including Louisiana's Bobby Jindal. Sen. McCain himself last month said that the two governors are "the future of the Republican party, the next generation of leadership."

They [Jindal and Pawlenty] have become the public face of what is seen as the party's reformist wing. This group believes the Republican Party should have focused on economic issues sooner, in response to voter discontent over stagnant wages, rising gas and food costs and uncertainty over jobs and retirement. Their proposed solution: apply conservative, market-based principles, without ruling out government intervention in certain circumstances.

As I said back in August (before the Palin selection):

"If McCain doesn't win this year, don't be suprised if there's a Pawlenty/Jindal ticket in 2012. These two are the future of the Republican party and give me hope for the future of our country. Straight talking, clear thinking, younger, business-minded conservatives who understand markets -- competition balanced with a recognition that the marketplace needs rules to be fair and free to all."

Pawlenty's term as governor ends in January 2011. Jindal's term is over in January 2012. We'll have a few years yet to assess their mettle and let them test the political waters. Who knows... perhaps another young reformer will step up to the plate? If Obama wins, they'll have plenty to reform come 2012.

Obama's America: Caesar shall render unto YOU

2008-10-27T14:52:00.000-07:00

Jack Kennedy is famous for saying "Ask NOT what your country can do for you..."

I think Barack Obama will be best remembered for asking "What has your country done for YOU lately?" or in the words of his wife, "What has your country done to make YOU proud lately?"

Or since Obama is so in love with Matthew 25, I'll use my favorite chapter from the Gospel, Matthew 22:15-22, and turn it on its head.

Obama's message is simply and best stated as:

"Let the rich people render unto Caesar and Caesar shall render redistributive wealth unto YOU."

Caesar shall render unto YOU a living wage, affordable housing, ample food and drink, all the education you desire and free healthcare.

You need not lift a finger. Caesar shall provide all.

Don't take my word for it... just look at Obama's own words from a 2001 radio interview:

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay."
"But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth [but Obama sure wishes they had] and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical. [In other words, it didn't go far enough] It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties [instead as positive rights as Obama would prefer]. It says what the states can't do to you, it says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that."

Obama's Bible is not one of negative liberties, instead it is one of positive rights.

Obama has figured out that the courts are a lost cause for the change he seeks. Instead, he's going to use this election as a mandate from the voters to implement his vision of change.

But first, Obama must become Caesar. All Caesar requires is your vote.

Vote for change. Vote for Barack Obama. Just do it. Don't think about it. Be a good comrade. Just go vote.

Rush Limbaugh does NOT speak for the GOP

2008-10-24T12:41:00.000-07:00

Somewhere in Arizona, Barry Goldwater is spinning in his grave.

On his radio show today, Limbaugh threw under the bus all Republicans who don't tow the pro-life party line and said that he'll take their votes, but they're not real conservatives.

Here's the actual quote:

"The minute you say that conservatism includes people who are pro-choice, you've destroyed conservatism because conservatism stands for "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness." Without life, there is nothing else here, and if we're going to sit around indiscriminately deciding who lives and who dies based on our own convenience, that's not conservative. Individual liberty. The essence of innocence is a child in the womb who has no choice over what happens to it. Sorry. If we don't stand up for that person, if the government doesn't, then nobody will."

Well, I guess that means neither I nor Barry Goldwater would be welcome in today's GOP. The founding fathers probably wouldn't be welcome either since they were perfectly okay with letting the states regulate abortion.

Thankfully, I don't think the GOP is stupid enough to agree with Rush and Limbaugh does not speak for the GOP.

If the GOP is going to make a federal ban on abortion a requirement to be in the party, then Rush can have the party all to himself. I don't think that will ever happen, but if it does I will re-register as an independent or Libertarian in protest.

I'm done with Rush for now. He may be right about a lot of issues, but this is one issue where I strongly disagree with him. His litmus test approach to the abortion issue and intolerance for anyone with a differing opinion has completely turned me off to anything else he has to say.

To clarify, I oppose abortion personally but I don't think the federal government has any business either legislating for or against abortion any more than they had any business sticking their big noses in the Terri Schiavo case. Abortion is nowhere to be found in the Constitution and it should have remained a state issue as it always had been prior to 1973.

I am pro-democracy and abortion is an issue that should be settled by democratic processes, not by nine people in robes inventing legislation from the penumbra of the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment does not guarantee you a right to privacy or a right to an abortion. I am opposed to banning abortion or criminalizing it because I don't believe it is an act of love to remove choice and punish people for that choice. But I grant that I could be wrong and welcome a debate and the democratic process to settle this as a matter of law. All law comes from the people, not from judges in robes creating it from thin air.

You know, Barry Goldwater once said "Every good Christian ought to kick Jerry Falwell in the ass." The same Jerry Falwell that John McCain called an "agent of intolerance." With Falwell's passing, perhaps it is Limbaugh that would most be in need of an ass kicking in Goldwater's eyes.

I'm sure McCain would like to kick his ass after Limbaugh said McCain and Huckabee would "destroy the GOP" if nominated. More likely it is Rush and intolerant pro-lifers like him who are unopen to any dissent from their viewpoint that will destroy the GOP.

The Phantom Obama Tax Cut

2008-10-23T21:19:00.000-07:00

Obama has a tax cut calculator on his web site in a not so veiled attempt to buy the votes of everyone making less than $250,000. I actually saw an ad for it on Drudge (see below).

Remember Bill Clinton's tax cut for the middle class?

The tax cut he promised the middle class on the campaign trail in 1992?

The tax cut that I and everyone else in the middle class never received during Clinton's eight years as President?

Remember this... George W. Bush cut taxes for ALL taxpaying Americans. Maybe you don't feel you deserved a tax cut, but you got one.

Question: Who was the last Democrat President to cut income tax rates for the middle class?

Answer: John F. Kennedy

Just like Bush, JFK cut taxes for ALL taxpaying Americans. But as McCain pointed out, Bush did NOT pay for his tax cuts with a decrease in spending, something a McCain administration would insist on.

So believe Obama when he says the rich will pay more taxes. They will.

When Obama promises the middle class a tax cut, remember that the man who wasn't sure of the meaning of the word "is" broke that promise and so will Obama.

Just like Clinton, you can count on "targeted tax cuts" for good behavior as defined by the federal government. But if you're counting on a cut on your marginal rate, you're making a fool's bet by betting on Obama.

Obama is no Jack Kennedy. Not even close.

Bashing Palin over LNG exports

2008-10-22T13:13:00.000-07:00

Updating a previous story, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) is in the news again beating up Sarah Palin over LNG exports from Alaska. This time, Time magazine picked up the story and regurgitated the Democrat talking points. Hook, line and sinker.

Your faithful correspondent, me, was cited as the lone "some critics" by the Oregonian:

And some critics are accusing Wyden of hypocrisy since he wants to give the state of Oregon the ability to block a proposed LNG site on the Columbia River.

To the Oregonian's credit, at least they noted that someone had a differing opinion from Mr. Wyden. Time couldn't even be bothered to opine that anyone disagreed with Wyden other than Palin.

So yes, Jeff Mapes, I am calling Mr. Wyden a hypocrite. Now let me tell you why.

FACT: Alaska has been exporting LNG to Japan since 1969. That's nearly 40 years for the mathematically challenged. 40 years. In fact, the LNG export facility in Alaska pioneered LNG marine transport when it was still an unproven concept.

FACT: Just this August, a LNG terminal opened in Baja California. This is the first LNG terminal on the entire West Coast of North America. It just opened. Alaska has been shipping LNG to Japan for the last 40 years because they weren't any LNG terminals on the West Coast to ship LNG to.

FACT: There are multiple proposals for LNG terminals to be built in Oregon that could receive Alaska's LNG exports. Wyden, Gov. Kulongowski (D) and a bunch of NIMBYist climate alarmists have fought the LNG terminals every step of the way.

FACT: Alaska has been producing oil and natural gas for America and has committed to producing even more in the future. 80% of the crude oil that gets refined into Oregon's transportation fuels comes from Alaska's North Slope oil fields. That's a fact straight from the state of Oregon's own web site.

Those are some inconvenient truths for Ron Wyden.

Now Wyden has the nerve to complain that for two more years the LNG will be shipped to Japan.

Now, I like some of Sen. Ron Wyden's common sense, bipartisan ideas on health care. But he is way, way off base for attacking Palin on LNG exports when he has done nothing, absolutely nothing to assist in getting a LNG terminal built in Oregon.

Sen. Ron Wyden should be sending Sarah Palin a thank you note and an apology.

A thank you on behalf of all Oregonians for her state's exports of crude oil that gets refined into the motor fuels that enable this state's economy to flourish and gives Oregon residents the freedom to travel on demand.

An apology for not doing everything in his power to get a LNG terminal built here in Oregon as quickly as possible to provide a market for Alaskan natural gas.

Oregon is an energy welfare state. Oregon imports 99% of our natural gas from other states and Canadian provinces.

How dare Ron Wyden whine and complain about the bounty provided by the good people of Alaska? Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

Conscience of a Catholic Conservative

2008-10-21T22:21:00.000-07:00

Should Catholics vote for Obama or McCain?
By McCainiac

There's been a lot of discussion about the Catholic vote, which many consider to be the most important swing vote of all. Catholics make up 25% of the electorate and narrowly supported Bush in 2004. Recent polling data suggests Catholics are favoring Obama over McCain. If true, this is troubling news for the McCain campaign.

How should a Catholic vote? The Catholic vote is roughly 50/50 between Republicans and Democrats. It's a question a lot of Catholics wrestle with. On the conservative side, there are Catholics like Ed Morrisey at Hot Air. On the liberal side, you've got Catholics like Pelosi and Biden. Both Obama and McCain have been courting the Catholic vote and some prominent Catholics have come out in support of both candidates.

But the question is not how should a conservative Catholic vote or how should a liberal Catholic vote but how should I as a Catholic vote? Catholics should form their consciences based on moral convictions and the teachings of Christ and not because of party affiliation or political persuasion.

To attempt to answer this question, the U.S. Bishops in 2007 produced an official statement entitled "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship". This is of intense interest to me both as a conservative and as a Catholic "in training". I officially began my personal journey to become a Catholic just last month and am now taking classes to learn the catechism of the Church.

I believe the catechism is important, but it is also important (as the bishops advise in the previously referenced statement) to "form one's conscience in accord with human reason, enlightened by the teaching of Christ". The written Word of God is meant to be read contextually according to the Church and each of us must seek out the true meaning of the Word using our God-given reasoning skills. Each of us is free to reason out for ourselves what the scripture means.

Therefore, I take issue (as a freely thinking and reasoning creation of God) with some of the Church's interpretations and implied instruction about the role the federal government (Caesar) should have in our lives. Let me stress this is my conscience speaking and I'm not telling you how to think or what you should believe. You are free to form your own conscience as surely as I am.

Abortion and the right to life

I do not believe it is the role of the federal government to coerce women by removing the choice to terminate a pregnancy. I believe God intended for us to make these choices on our own and that we as individuals have to bear the consequences and answer for the decisions we make. Abortion is sinful just as murder is sinful but making a sin a crime will not eliminate abortion any more than we have eliminated murder by making it a capital crime.

It is only through love that hearts and minds can be changed. Jesus did not petition Rome (Caesar, if you will) to punish prostitutes for their sinful behavior. Instead, Jesus preached directly to the prostitutes and told the Pharisees that the repentant prostitutes would enter the kingdom of God before them. Hate the sin, love the sinner, so the saying goes.

I believe it would serve all Christians well to spend more time showering love and compassion towards a pregnant woman considering abortion rather than focusing on pressing for legislation to make the sin a crime. Banning abortion is inconsistent with the life and teachings of Jesus. God loves us enough to make us free to make choices for ourselves and freely come to Him. This is the ultimate sign of love. Why do we as Christians believe we must ban abortion rather than give a pregnant woman the same benefit of free will and choice that God has given each of us?

With all of the above, I'm sure I'll probably get some nasty responses from those with a pro-life position. Understand that I am personally pro-life and I do believe that abortion is wrong and a sin.

Where I differ is that I do not believe it is the role of the federal government to criminalize that sin. As a federalist, I believe Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision (no basis whatsoever in the Constitution) and should be overturned. Once overturned, the matter should be decided on a state-by-state basis or on the federal level as a Constitutional amendment as was done with alcohol through Prohibition. I am more than happy to let the democratic process determine the legal status of abortion. I wish the majority of Americans agreed with me that abortion should be an individual decision but I am willing to accept that my view may end up being the minority view.

With my views on abortion, you might think I'm an Obama supporter. Nothing could be further from the truth. Read on...

Social responsibilities

Much of the bishops' statement focuses on the social teaching of the Church. Again, I take issue with the role that the federal government should take in advancing the social teachings of Catholicism. Should Catholics do everything possible for the common good, especially the poor and vulnerable? Undeniably, the answer is YES! Should Catholics shirk their personal responsibility and transfer this responsibility to all citizens of their nation by using the federal government to implement the social teachings of the Church? That is an entirely different matter. It should be clear where I stand on that question.

But my challenge as a new Catholic in training is to base my decisions on the Word of God using my reason. Simply stated, my favorite verse in the entire Bible is "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's". This one verse has sparked a lot of controversy throughout the ages. In fact, "Render Unto Caesar" is the title of a new book by Archbishop Chaput of Denver.

Jesus spent very little time speaking about government. To say the least, government was the problem, but it was a problem he spent little time on because he was far more focused on the greatest problem of all: winning the hearts and minds of each individual he encountered by using the love and grace of God.

I don't believe it is an act of love to use Caesar (in this case the federal government) to compel by force (taxation) my fellow Americans to be compassionate, be charitable and to serve one another. I believe being charitable and serving others is most loving when it is an act of free will and not forced upon us by the federal government. I believe this is in keeping with the way God loves us and expects us to love each other. In fact, I believe it is with this in mind that our founding fathers created the form of government that they did. They believed strongly in liberty given to us by our Creator.

It is through my lifelong education on the founding principles of this nation that I finally came to terms with God's true message of love. As Sting said, "If you love someone, set them free." No one loves us more than God and He has made us completely and totally free to make choices for ourselves. Man (Caesar) can interfere in our lives but ultimately the choices we make are ours and ours alone. Each and every day we can choose to sin or to love God. We have until our dying breath (or the rapture) to see our wickedness for what it is, reconcile and seek God's forgiveness. His patience and his ability to forgive is complete and beyond our comprehension. No law of Caesar's will ever change the relationship between God and His creation.

My Conclusions

So as you may have guessed, my education thus far has led me to a primarily libertarian point of view. I disagree with libertarians as to the amount of regulation the federal government should engage in. I believe government has a role in establishing rules for the free market and capitalism, playing referee on the field of play. Regulation of commerce is a clear Constitutional repsonsibility of the federal government. Government's goal should be that of an NBA referee: to ensure fair play but avoid affecting the outcome of the game. Competition and consumer choice (aided by information such as nutrition labels, fuel economy guides, etc.) should always be the goal. Informed consumers with lots of competing choices can maximize the use of their own freely formed consciences to make decisions for themselves free of coercion.

I can not in good faith support Barack Obama for two reasons. First, his support for abortion is based upon a poorly decided decision, Roe v. Wade. I agree with John McCain that abortion is not a federal issue in the Constitution's current form and it should be a state issue as it always was prior to 1973. Second, Obama has a complete misunderstanding of the role of the federal government and wants to vastly increase its power and reach.

Ideologically, I draw a line of succession from Lincoln (our most spiritual President) to TR to Eisenhower to Reagan and finally to John McCain. Obviously, I find myself in disagreement with many social conservatives in the Republican party. The Republican party certainly isn't as strong a supporter of federalism and states' rights as I wish they were and as they once were. I find myself most in agreement with the opinions of Dwight D. Eisenhower, who I consider the greatest President next only to Abraham Lincoln.

Eisenhower's greatest fear was that Americans would cede their self-governance and personal responsibility to an all powerful central government in Washington. Ike saw firsthand in Europe during World War II what happens when a free people cede too much of their freedom to Caesar. I believe this is why men like Ike and Lincoln chose to be Republicans. If it to have any relevance, the Republican party must continue to advocate for freedom from an ever more intrusive federal government.

I don't expect many Catholics to agree with all of my positions. In fact, you don't have to agree with any of my positions. But I encourage each of you, as Pope Benedict does, to form your own conscience in accordance with human reason, enlightened by the teaching of Christ. We should act in a way that maximizes love, however differently we may interpret what those actions should be.

But as Ed Morrisey says, the worst thing that you could do is not to vote at all. Form your conscience and go vote. Just make sure you've formed your conscience first!

J-O-B-S: Biden's three letter word

2008-10-16T16:10:00.000-07:00

"Look, John’s last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S," the Democratic veep nominee said at a morning rally in Athens.

Not so fast says the Heritage Foundation... it's actually McCain who will create far more jobs than Obama:

More from Heritage.org:

Job growth over the 10-year forecast horizon is more than twice as high under McCain's plan than under Obama's.

Senator McCain's plan yields consistently higher forecasts of economic output than does Senator Obama's. Increases in gross domestic product (GDP) under McCain are, on average, nearly three times higher than under Obama.

No wonder Joe Biden thinks jobs (J-O-B-S) is a three letter word.

Jobs will be the most important thing for our economy the next five to ten years. If predictions of a severe recession or depression are true (and I believe they are), then the most important thing is keeping as many people as possible employed. People with jobs pay bills, buy goods and pay rent or a mortgage.

People with jobs also pay taxes to fund all that government spending. When millions are out of work and unemployment is over ten percent (or 25 percent during the last depression), that's a lot of people with little purchasing power, let alone any sense of any financial security.

Of course, this is all assuming Senator Obama has any intention of keeping his promises on taxes. The last Democrat to promise the middle class a tax cut was Bill Clinton. Slick Willie reneged on that promise not even a month after taking the oath of office.

It was George W. Bush who finally cut marginal tax rates not just for the middle class but for ALL taxpaying Americans. But in order to pay taxes, you've got to have a J-O-B. Something fewer Americans will have under Obama's economic policies...

The miseducation of Barack Obama

2008-10-10T21:19:00.000-07:00

Senator Obama, are you a Socialist?
That's the question that needs to be asked.

I accept that Obama rejects the terrorist acts of Bill Ayers. What worries me far more is that no one has asked him yet if he rejects Ayers' socialist views. Obama was forced to throw Reverend Wright and his radical views under the bus. Will he do the same with Bill Ayers? What is he waiting for?

When confronted with the truth about Ayers' socialist views, will he merely say "that's not the Bill Ayers I knew" or will he clearly and loudly denounce socialism and Ayers' support for Hugo Chavez? We deserve to know the answer to that question before we vote to turn the keys of our economy and our military over to a new President during these most dangerous times. Do we want a closet socialist as our next President as the economy continues to spiral out of control?

Now remember, Obama and Ayers worked together on The Annenberg Challenge to distribute money for education. Obama was the chairman, Ayers worked to get the grant money and they worked together on the by laws.

Now... go read what Bill Ayers had to say about education (education was the focus of the Annenberg Challenge that he and Obama worked on together) when he was in Caracas and not in Chicago. Obama needs to address this... and soon. What did he know about Ayers' real views and when did he know it? Does he agree with any of Ayers' views about capitalism? Does he repudiate these views? We need to know these things. We need to know just how far left Obama's views really are.

If you have any doubt that Ayers is still an unrepentant socialist, look no further than his own blog and the speech he gave in Caracas just two years ago:

"I look forward to seeing how he and all of you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane."

"We can’t have education without revolution. We have tried peace education for 1,900 years and it has failed. Let us try revolution and see what it will do now."

"La educacion es revolucion!"
I taught at first in something like a Simoncito—called Head Start—and eventually taught at every level in barrios and prisons and insurgent projects across the United States. I learned then that education is never neutral. It always has a value, a position, a politics. Education either reinforces or challenges the existing social order, and school is always a contested space – what should be taught? In what way? Toward what end? By and for whom? At bottom, it involves a struggle over the essential questions: what does it mean to be a human being living in a human society?

Totalitarianism demands obedience and conformity, hierarchy, command and control. Royalty requires allegiance. Capitalism promotes racism and militarism – turning people into consumers, not citizens. Participatory democracy, by contrast, requires free people coming together voluntarily as equals who are capable of both self-realization and, at the same time, full participation in a shared political and economic life.

Venezuelans have shown the world that with full participation, full inclusion, and popular empowerment, the failings of capitalist schooling can be resisted and overcome. Venezuela is a beacon to the world in its accomplishment of eliminating illiteracy in record time, and engaging virtually the entire population in the ongoing project of education.

Why Hillary scares me a lot less than Obama

2008-10-09T16:12:00.000-07:00

Hillary was a Goldwater girl in her youth who had "Conscience of a Conservative" on her bookshelf in her dorm as a freshman at Wellesley. She still kept a toe in the Republican Party as late as the 1968 convention in Miami, which she said was the last straw for her.

From the NY Times:

“I’m done with [the Republican Party], absolutely,” Mrs. Clinton recalled thinking upon hearing Mr. Nixon’s acceptance speech [in Miami in 1968]. She characterized the Republicanism of her youth as one of fiscal conservatism and social moderation, and at odds with what she viewed as the intolerance of Miami.

Read more about Hillary's transformation from Goldwater Girl to bleeding heart Democrat here.

Now, call me crazy... but if a Democrat is going to occupy the White House in 2009, I feel a lot better about a former Goldwater Girl and disillusioned Eisenhower Republican than I do about a community organizer with ties to socialism. But, unfortunately for America the Democratic Party didn't do a very good job vetting Barack Obama and the far left radicals in their party drowned out the centrists this year. Hillary didn't take the threat seriously enough and now it's much too late for anyone in the Democrat party to stop Obama. She tried to expose him in the primaries, but didn't go far enough. Now that the primaries are over, their zeal for reclaiming the White House will force the Democrats to cover up Obama's past and bury the truth.

So, however ill the prospect of John McCain as President may make some people, consider the alternative that Obama presents. I still believe that John McCain is far and away the best person for the job but it's clear that far too many people are being lulled to sleep by Obama's siren song of socialism.

I'll bet what little remains of Hillary's conservative leanings, her inner Goldwater if you will, tells her that Barry Obama is a bad prescription for what ails America. I'm sure a lot of centrist, fiscally conservative Democrats feel the same way.

You could have had Hillary. Instead, you've got Obama. That's one bitter pill to swallow.

Obama's ties to socialism

2008-10-09T14:07:00.000-07:00

Al Gore, thank you for inventing the Internet! It makes it so easy to expose lying liars! I have long suspected that Barack Obama is to socialism what David Duke is to the KKK... the slick sounding salesman who beguiles the gullible and plays the role of the wolf in sheep's clothing. Baaahhhhh-rack Obama.

(H/T to Newsbusters)

Obama was a member of the New Party according to the New Party's own online newsletters:

From The Columbus Free Press, New Party Online News:

Illinois: The first NP member heads to Congress, as Danny Davis wins an overwhelming 85% victory yesterday (he got a higher percentage of the vote in that district than the President). NP member and State Senate candidate Barack Obama won uncontested. Interestingly, it appears that the local Democratic machine is trying to distance itself from our folks. At a "Democratic Unity" march on Chicago's West Side, a flyer invited community members to join with a host of local democratic candidates. The only two west-side Democrats not listed: NP members Danny Davis (U.S. House candidate) and Michael Chandler (Alderman and Ward Committeeman).

From newparty.org:

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).

Just what did the New Party stand for?

Full employment, a shorter work week, and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal "social wage" to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time, and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth and
like programs to ensure gender equity.
If that's not socialism, I don't know what is!

Read more ...here

I find it insane that Obama wants us to think his just an associate of socialists like Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson Jr. and the New Party but none of this rubbed off on him. Oh no, he's not one of them. He's just an agent of "change" and "hope" but not a socialist.

Whatever, dude.

The SNL skit that every American should see

2008-10-07T21:33:00.000-07:00

Watch it before NBC pulls it down again.

CNN exposes Obama on Ayers connection

2008-10-07T17:25:00.000-07:00

H/T to Dirty Harry's place

Click here to see the video

Too little, too late for Hillary Clinton, who tried unsuccessfully to use Ayers as an issue against Obama. The look of scorn on Obama's face as Hillary makes what turns out to be some truly prophetic points says it all. Between Rezko, Wright and Ayers, there's a lot not to like about Obama's leftist, radical associations in Chicago. Not the least of which is his mastery of Saul Alinsky's community organizing tactics.

All this has led this McCain supporter to wish that Hillary was the Democratic nominee and not Barry Obama. I would have a lot less heartburn over a Democratic victory (which currently looks likely) if Hillary were elected. We just don't know what Obama stands for or truly believes. At least with the Clintons, I have eight years of empirical evidence of what they will do if in power. I've come to the conclusion that a centrist Democrat with a record of fiscal responsibility (albeit they pushed for universal health care and soaked the rich with higher taxes) is far preferable to the unknown that an Obama presidency will bring.

Obama shows no inclination at all to be fiscally responsible and threatens to send this country far down the road to real socialism. But Hillary is not on the ballot (not that I would vote for her anyway). I urge all Hillary supporters to consider a write in vote for Hillary or voting for McCain. At any rate, don't waste your vote on Obama. It's increasingly clear he is far to the left of the Clintons. I'll take center-right (McCain) or even center-left (Clinton) any day over far left.

Palin reignites the Reagan Revolution

2008-10-03T12:33:00.000-07:00

If Ted Kennedy passed the torch to Barack Obama, we just witnessed last night the passing of the torch from the Great Communicator to Sarah Palin. In the words of Peggy Noonan, "she killed." Even Tom Brokaw remarked, "I'm sure the Democrats are glad there's only ONE Vice Presidential debate." Indeed.

I was wrong to dismiss Palin because of her inexperience. I rushed to judgement after the Katie Couric disaster. I should have waited for the debate before counting her out. I was wrong. This is my mea culpa.

I still believe she has an experience gap (the same reason I strongly opposed Bobby Jindal being the VP), but she brings to the table a far more valuable asset than experience: an ability to articulate and champion the values what we stand for. As Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator, demonstrated, you can't put a high enough price on the skills of a great salesperson for your cause. In a year in which the Democrats have nominated an empty suit orator full of words and litte experience, we need a voice like Reagan's now more than ever to sell the American public on what conservatives stand for.

The message for conservatives: Get out there and sell, sell, sell!

As our salesperson, Sarah spoke so eloquently about America and what we stand for:

"But even more important is that world view that I share with John McCain. That world view that says that America is a nation of exceptionalism. And we are to be that shining city on a hill, as President Reagan so beautifully said, that we are a beacon of hope and that we are unapologetic here. We are not perfect as a nation. But together, we represent a perfect ideal. And that is democracy and tolerance and freedom and equal rights. Those things that we stand for that can be put to good use as a force for good in this world."
"We have to fight for our freedoms, also, economic and our national security freedoms."

"It was Ronald Reagan who said that freedom is always just one generation away from extinction. We don't pass it to our children in the bloodstream; we have to fight for it and protect it, and then hand it to them so that they shall do the same, or we're going to find ourselves spending our sunset years telling our children and our children's children about a time in America, back in the day, when men and women were free."
"We will fight for it, and there is only one man in this race who has really ever fought for you, and that's Senator John McCain."

It was inspiring and would make Ronald Reagan proud. Palin has a gift for oratory that McCain and my hero, Dwight D. Eisenhower, are lacking. In short, last night Palin exposed her inner Reagan.

On one Presidential ticket, we now have a reformer in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower combined with the conviction and communication skills of Ronald Reagan.

In stark contrast to the McCain campaign, Obama and Biden blame America for the world's problems and apologize for America. McCain wants to reform and make America even greater. Obama says America is broken and only he can fix it.

With Obama, it's not "ask what you can do for your country", instead it's let's soak the rich and let big government take care of everything for you. That's not how Jack Kennedy talked. JFK inspired Americans by telling us how great we were and how we could be greater yet. That's the same way Reagan talked. It's a message that resonated with all Americans, regardless of political affiliation. That's not the message I hear from Obama and Biden. I can't believe in their change because they don't even believe in America the way that FDR and JFK did. I want a leader who believes in America and doesn't apologize for it.

I hope I'm wrong about Obama and Biden. I hope if Obama should somehow win, that he'll find his inner JFK or his inner FDR and stand up for American values. But from I've seen so far, Obama is no Jack Kennedy. He's not even FDR, who deserves great praise along with Churchill.

Who will lead America and the UK in what could again be one of our darkest hours? In the 1980's we had Reagan and Thatcher to finish the Cold War. These are even more dangerous times. This is not a time to be a partisan, it's a time to pick a leader to represent and advocate for America, not apologize for America.

Choose wisely.

Would you meet Iran without preconditions?

2008-10-03T07:40:00.000-07:00

Since Obama and Biden want to parse words, maybe it's worth a look back at Obama's actual answer:

I thought this was a strong, strong answer by Hillary Clinton. She looked and sounded Presidential. Even as a Republican, I really liked her answer. You could just feel Obama suddenly realizing that he dropped the ball on that answer and Hillary spanked him. Maybe Hillary still has a little Goldwater girl left in her after all. Too bad for the Democrats they didn't nominate her.

The Downing Street Memo... on Obama

2008-10-02T15:39:00.000-07:00

H/T to FreeRepublic and Drudge

All you need to know about Barack Obama courtesy of our friends in the UK:

The following is the full text of a July 2008 letter sent by Sir Nigel Sheinwald, British ambassador to the United States, to Gordon Brown, British Prime Minister, shortly before the visit of Senator Barack Obama, then the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, to London.

My news story about the leaked document is here.

BARACK OBAMA

This letter contains sensitive judgements. Please limit copying, and protect the contents carefully.

1. Ahead of Senator Obama’s visit to London next week, I thought it would be useful to give you a snapshot of his personality, politics and emerging policies.

Background and Personality

2. The key themes which are important in understanding Obama’s political makeup are the following:

- His struggle to understand his racial identity. His first book “Dreams from My Father” (1995) traces this struggle through Hawaii, New York, Chicago and Kenya. Raised by his white Kansas-born mother and her parents after his Kenyan father left, Obama made a conscious decision in the 1980s to choose his African-American identity – he worked as a community organiser in the poorest areas of Chicago, and went on to travel to Kenya to learn about his father. His decision after Harvard Law School to settle back in Chicago led to growing integration into the city’s black middle class culture and provided him with the political laboratory from which his career was launched;

- His personal makeup drives his view of politics. Obama talks of wanting to reach out to all Americans (“no red states or blue states, only the United States”). “I will never forget that in no other country on earth is my story even possible. It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story which has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many we are truly one.” The race issue is present in the campaign – the debate continues to rage over how much. Obama wanted to avoid it as much as possible until the Reverend Wright videos forced him to make his elegant speech on race in March and then, when this was clearly not enough for the latest Wright outburst, to disown him completely and leave his church;

- Star quality. Obama has always had it, at least since his arrival at Harvard. A friend in the progressive Chicago establishment said, “I honestly don’t remember what it was about him, but I was absolutely blown away. I said to several people that this guy, who is now 30 years old, is some day going to be President. He will be our first black President”. That was in the 1990s. His rise has been meteoric. He first came to the notice of the national political establishment when he won the Illinois Democratic primary for the US Senate in early 2004. But it was his mesmerising speech to the 2004 Democratic Convention in Boston which propelled him to stardom, at a low point for his party. He is the only black member of the Senate. He is already the most successful black elected politician in American history, to the discomfort of Jesse Jackson and others;

- The promise of post-partisanship. Throughout his career, from the time he won over the conservative board of the Harvard Law Review to today, Obama has succeeded in crossing traditional boundaries, and making a virtue of it. His political personality is much more difficult to define than McCain’s. His campaign has the features of a movement, but he has himself said that “without organisation, without policy, without plans”, movements will dissipate. He uses Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign as his example. More broadly, he is a mixture of idealism and progressive politics on the one hand and pragmatism and disciplined organization on the other. He resists pigeon-holing. People disagree about how sincere his post-partisanship is, and how successful his attempts to reach across the aisle would be, given his mixed record in the Senate;

- Obama is highly intelligent. Not just savvy – which most people at this level of American politics have to be. But intellectually smart; cerebral. His manner is frequently interrogative. He is a quick learner. He has the confidence to surround himself with bright people, and is said to listen carefully to and weight thir views. This can have its downsides – he can seem to sit on the fence, assiduously balancing pros and cons. He can talk too dispassionately for a national campaign about issues which touch people personally, eg his notorious San Francisco comments about small-town Pennsylvanians “clinging” to guns and religion. The charge of elitism leveled by both Clinton and McCain was rich coming from them, but not entirely unfair. Despite his blue-collar upbringing. Obama does betray a highly educated and upper middle class mindset;

- He is a supreme organiser and networker. Obama has 20 years’ experience of organising from the grassroots up. He has surrounded himself with experienced, creative campaign organisers, particularly David Axelrod and David Plouffe. He has broken all the financial records, especially for conations via the internet and from younger people. His campaign has been a brilliant combination of the strategic and emotional on the one hand (“change you can believe in”) and state-by-state organisation on the other. The latter, as much as the former, beat Hillary Clinton; and that remains in place against McCain;

- He is tough and competitive. That is of course the Chicago school. You don’t beat Clinton without being resilient (but, like her, his energy levels do dip and he can be uninspiring e.g. in debates). He loves basketball and poker. He demands loyalty.

- Ambition. Of course. He has talked at least since the 1980s about a shot at the Presidency. He plans each move carefully, and incrementally. The 1995 book was a very clever platform.

- Obama is cool. He looks cool, tall, slim. He is temperamentally cool (by any standards, not just in comparison with the more impetuous McCain). And maybe aloof, insensitive – see above. Friends like Tom Daschle told me that he demands calm and “no dramas” from those around him. That will, I think, be an important criterion for his choice of running mate;

- Luck. Obama has had his fair share, but also made his own. He was certainly lucky in having Democratic and Republican opponents for the US Senate in 2004 who were tarnished. He was lucky that Hillary Clinton had such a bad organisation in the primary campaign, and took so long to respond to Obama’s threat.

Policies

3. Obama’s politics and policies are still evolving. His Illinois and US Senate careers give us only a few clues as to his likely priorities in office. In the Senate he took a low profile in 2005-6, but was a diligent member of the Foreign Relations Committee, respectful and friendly to the veteran Republican Senator Lugar, with whom he travelled to London in 2005. His voting record was decidedly liberal. But the main impression is of someone who was finding his feet, and then got diverted by his Presidential ambitions. Obama’s positions and policies emerging from the campaign are a better guide to a future Presidency, but “The Audacity of Hope” (2006) does of course set out the broad themes. If elected, Obama would have less of a track record than any recent President. Carter would be the nearest, but even he had four years as a Governor.

Domestic Policy

4. Since clinching the nomination in June, Obama (as is traditional at this stage) has tacked towards the centre. He has seemed to move on foreign policy (see below), intelligence (his decision to vote for the compromise legislation on interception, having initially threatened to filibuster), gun control (after the Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment), the death penalty (after the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana capital law for child rape) and more moderate comments on trade (again, see below). Most of these changes are not outright “flip-flops” but they do reflect a decision not to leave himself vulnerable to attacks from the right. They unsettle some Democrats.

5. Obama’s policies will continue to evolve during the campaign. Some of his positions on domestic policy are highly detailed, even as on others (such as energy policy) he is less specific in some areas than McCain. We have sent back detailed reports on Obama’s economic policy (in June) and trade policy (this week), so I will avoid detail here. The key overall domestic theme is Obama’s view that US economic policy, particularly during the Bush Administration, has benefited the few, not the many. He is concerned about the stagnation of real median wages while the costs of food, healthcare, education, pensions and fuel have soared. He talks of restoring the American dream to Middle America.

6. President Obama would reverse many of Bush’s economic policies. He wants to cut taxes on the middle-classes but would increase taxes on the rich. Instead of rolling back the state, he stresses the enabling role that government can play in improving the economy. He complains that outdated infrastructure, low levels of education, and a failing social safety net are hampering the economy’s ability to compete in a globalised world. He would invest heavily in all three.

7. Obama’s flagship economic policy is a plan for universal healthcare. This would build on the current employer-based system to expand cover. It would not create a single national health service, but would seek to fill the gaps in the current system. Help would be provided for those too poor to buy insurance. The self-employed and small employers would be able to use a government-administered scheme. Unsurprisingly, there is a lively debate about how much all this would cost.

8. As our parallel report makes clear, Obama’s position on trade is shifting. One senses three basic factors at work: an instinctive belief in the economic opportunities of free trade; an equally instinctive sympathy for those losing their jobs; and lastly a political calculation about handling the various special interest groups, particularly those (eg the unions) active during the primary campaign.

9. In recent weeks, Obama has repositioned himself somewhat towards free trade. But his advisers are adamant that he does intend to shift towards a “smarter” approach to trade and globalisation. The exact meaning of this is unclear, but it could mean relieving popular economic anxieties through measures such as healthcare, retraining and trade adjustment assistance before pursuing a broadly liberal trade agenda. Or it could mean doing that and pursuing a more “balanced” trade policy, with greater commitments to labour and environmental standards. The next (probably more protectionist) Congress will be a big factor. The choice for Obama looks like being, in practice, in the middle of the Democratic spectrum, not at the extremes – ie no return to Clinton liberalism but not the trades union agenda either. But there are few domestic political drivers for Obama to engage early on the DDA.

10. Obama has a progressive position on climate change and supports an economy-wide cap-and-trade system with permits being mainly auctioned. He and his campaign know that this will be an international priority in 2009, because of Copenhagen, but it is not clear how far an Obama Administration would try or be able to get with domestic leglislation early in his term. Other domestic priorities would probably take precedence eg healthcare and tax, possibly housing and energy. Obama is not a nuclear power enthusiast, and opposes drilling off the coast of the US. We will be writing a more detailed report on the two candidates’ environmental policies later this month.

11. Obama has a mainstream team of youthful economic advisers, with strong credentials. His director of economic policy, Jason Furman, comes fresh from a centrist Washington think tank. His chief economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, was plucked from relative obscurity in the University of Chicago by Obama (mainly because Clinton had sewn up the Democratic establishment). These two (and his other advisers) approach policy with refreshingly few prescriptions. They have drawn on a range of new thinking (eg behavioural economics) and are willing to challenge traditional Democrat ways of thinking. For example, they emphasise the need for government to be easy to use (so-called iPod government) and to help people to make the right decisions (automatic opt-in pensions, easy-to-compete tax returns). They are less keen on mandates and top-down regulation.

Foreign policy and national security

12. Although he has been a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for four years, and a regular attender of meetings in his first two, there is little Obama track record to refer back to. On the other hand, he has – as he stresses on the campaign trail – a uniquely internationalist background – Kenyan father, childhood in Indonesia, Muslim forbears. One of his biggest assets in the primary campaign was his decision to oppose the Iraq war from the start, unlike most of the other Democratic candidates.

13. As with McCain, there are some potential conflicts within his campaign team. On McCain’s side, there are obvious tensions between the realists and the neocons, In the Obama camp there is less overt tension, but a potential fault line between progressives like Tom Daschle, Susan Rice and Samantha Power on the one hand and the more pragmatic advisers on the other (Nunn, Hamilton, Danzig, Brzezinski). Tony Lake hovers between the two.

14. My judgement is that – so far – Obama approaches these issues essentially pragmatically, case-by-case. He has adopted a balanced approach to the big security issues, taking a robust position after 9/11, but nevertheless opposing the Iraq expedition; supporting a broader-based US policy towards Pakistan, but also the right to initiate unilateral US strikes; willing directly to criticise Russia and China, but avoiding talk of boycotts. I would expect this pragmatic realism to continue, not least because he needs to show that he has the depth, authority and judgement for the Presidency. These are qualities that the McCain campaign will test, given his relative inexperience compared to their candidate.

15. Obama has several overarching international themes:

- the need to restore US leadership This gets a strong response from campaign audiences. He stresses his multilateralist credentials, his commitment to Nato and transatlantic partnership, and his support for strong international institutions (the campaign are sympathetic to the Prime Minister’s institutional reform ideas, but have focused little on them so far). Obama has said that he admires Bush Senior, JFK and even Reagan – this is no doubt meant to show a sort of “bipartisan realism”;

- the need for engagement with other governments, friendly or not. He talks about “tough-minded diplomacy backed by the whole range of instruments of American power – political, economic and military.” Under fire from McCain, he has qualified his earlier position that he would be prepared to meet Ahmadinejad and other “rogue leaders”, saying that any such meeting would need to be prepared carefully by officials. But defeault engagement rather than default isolation would be a significant shift compared with Bush, and with a prospective McCain Administration; and,

- a more nuanced approach on terrorism. This will need to be fleshed out, but Obama talks about a policy which “draws on the full range of American power, not just our military might…In the Islamic world and beyond, combating the terrorists’ prophets of fear will require more than lectures on democracy...To empower forces of moderation, America must make every effort to export opportunity — access to education and health care, trade and investment”. He talks a lot about winning the battle of ideas.

16. Obama’s big foreign policy/national security point, reiterated in his speech on 15 July, is that Bush’s Iraq adventure obscured the real tghreat from Afghanistan/Pakistan, which would be his No. 1 priority. He is strongly committed to doing more “militarily, economically and politically” in both countries, which he sees as the central front in the struggle against AQ. He promises two more combat brigades to Afghanistan after recuperation from Iraq, and $1 billion a year more in aid. He would ask the European NATO countries to do more. On Pakistan, Obama supports Biden’s proposal that the US should do more economic aid and institution-building, as well as traditional military assistance; in his speech he said he would triple non-military aid to Pakistan and make military aid more contingent on Palistani commitment on CT. he reserves the right to unilateral US strikes (McCain criticises this as bluster; Obama responds that he is simply articulating every Administration’s position). Beyond that there is a good deal of fleshing out needed to make Obama’s Afghanistan/Pakistan policy a reality.

17. Iraq will remain one of the major fault lines with McCain. Obama continues to argue that his decision to oppose the war from the outset was evidence of his sound judgement on national security issues. His pledge to end the war and withdraw all US combat forces within 16 months of taking office has proved popular in the Democratic primary. During the campaign itself he has come in for criticism for not acknowledging the success of the surge. He himself fuelled speculation that he was going to use his trip to Iraq to reposition himself when he said a fortnight ago that he would continue to refine his policy, promoting further accusations of flip flopping.

18. In his speech this week, Obama sought to address this, reiterating his commitment to end the war and withdrawn US combat forces within 16 months of taking office. In reality, his position that we need to be ‘as careful getting out as we were careless getting in”, leaves him some wriggle room. Even after his initial draw-down, he would leave behind a (large) residual force to target any remains of Al-Qaeda, protect US forces and diplomats and train and support Iraqi Security Forces. In practice, the positions of Bush, McCain and Obama are now starting to converge. Whatever the detail, our own proposed transition in south-east Iraq would be consistent with Obama’s likely approach. Obama’s ideas on a more expansive regional framework for Iraq would also fit well with our thinking.

19. Iraq remains difficult for Obama politically. Opinion polls consistently show that McCain polls as well, if not better than, Obama on Iraq, an area of policy where Obama would hope to score better given the unpopularity of the war. This reflects the success of the surge and American dislike of “defeat”.

20. Given that Iran is likely to be a major issue in real world politics this autumn, it is bound to continue to feature prominently in the campaign. Obama favours a twin track strategy of increased pressure, including tougher international sanctions, but also direct US engagement, which he hopes to trade for meaningful European, Russian and Chinese sanctions if Iran does not respond. Tony Lake made this clear in a recent interview in the Financial Times. During his European tour, Obama wants there to be no hint of difference between his own and the European approach on Iran – this is “a real red flag” according to one forign policy adviser. The next US President will face some difficult timing issues, with the Iranian Presidential election only a few months after his inauguration. If Obama wins, we will need to consider with him the articulation between (a) his desire for “unconditional” dialogue with Iran and (b) our and the UNSC’s requirement of prior suspension of enrichment before the nuclear negotiations proper can begin. Moves by the Bush Administration, however, may mean that these distinctions have blurred by January 2009.

21. On other subjects:

- the MEPP is unlikely to be a top priority for Obama, but he would pursue it reasonably vigorously, and with Clinton-style diplomacy, i.e. an envoy, engagement with Syria, and balanced pressure on both Israel and the Palestinians. Obama’s early position on Iran and his links with Reverend Wright and others raised some doubts about him in the American jewish community, although his speech to AIPAC did much to reassure;

- Russia: I would expect continuity with Bush’s approach. Some (though not all) of his advisers think Obama can trade deployment of BMD in Europe for meaningful Russian cooperation on Iran sanctions;

- China: he would continue, broadly, the “responsible stakeholder” approach;

- Non-Proliferation/Disarmament: he was an early supporter of the Kissinger/Nunn initiative, a strong supporter of the NPT and co-sponsored with Republican Dick Lugar legislation to secure loose nuclear materials. Now McCain has also embraced most of the Gang of Four agenda, there is little to differentiate the candidates, other than the Democrats’ general scepticism about BMD;

- Terrorism/Guantanamo: like McCain, Obama is committed to closing Guantanamo, and greater use of soft power, but couple with continued use of kinetic action where necessary;

- Africa/MDGs; his heart and mind tell him he should do more. He is committed to doubling the US aid budget by 2012, and says he will “capitalise a $2 billion Global Education Budget” to address the global education deficit. But he won’t want to be pigeon-holed as too focused on Africa; and this has not – despite Susan Rice’s influence – come through as a major campaign theme.

(document ends)

Glossary

AQ – Al Qaeda

BMD – Ballistic Missile Defence

CT – Counter-terrorism

DDA – Doha Development Agenda

MDGs – Millenium Development Goals

MEPP – Middle East peace Plan

NPT – Non-Proliferation Treaty

UNSC – United Nations Security Council

Reclaiming Ike AND Reagan

2008-10-01T22:41:00.000-07:00

"We must achieve both security and solvency, in fact the foundation of military strength is economic strength." - Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952 campaign

Jim Lehrer opened Friday's debate with that quote and then asked the candidates to debate the financial recovery plan. I thought to myself... "This is it! Finally McCain can prove to fiscal conservatives everywhere that if they liked Ike, they need to back Mac!" But like the fan at home cheering on their favorite football team and hoping for a much needed touchdown, I had no ability to get my candidate to say the words I longed to hear. It just wasn't in the cards that night.

Conservatives have a curious relationship with Ike. We have no trouble claiming Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater. But when it comes to "The Forgotten Conservative", Dwight D. Eisenhower, the silence is deafening.

I've been loudly singing the praises of Ike now for months and wishing John McCain would do the same. At various times, McCain has been glad to extol his personal hero, the original maverick, Teddy Roosevelt. To be honest, not a lot of conservatives claim him, but more of them really should. McCain seems to have done so without too much of an uproar. McCain invokes Lincoln on occasion, but then again so does Obama and just about every candidate at some point or another. Of course, McCain refers to his days as a footsoldier in the Reagan Revolution as a freshmen in Congress. But Ike? Nada.

So why should you care? I'll tell you why... liberals are busily claiming Ike as their own and using him to divide the Republican Party between Reagan conservatives and Eisenhower conservatives.

Just look at this piece from HuffPo entitled "Ike's In, Reagan's Out" by Eugene Jarecki.

Jarecki says:

"I can't help seeing this moment of combined military and financial crisis as a validation of Dwight D. Eisenhower and a repudiation of Ronald Reagan."

AAANNNNHHHH! Wrong.

The financial crisis is a repudiation of Carter, Clinton, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Reserve. Deregulation is part of the problem, to be sure, but the greatest blame for the credit crisis lies with the Easy Al and his credit bubble along with the runaway mortgage lending by Freddie, Fannie and the failure of Democrats in Congress to allow them to be regulated. Clinton's zeal to put low income families into homes they couldn't afford otherwise (which Bush exacerbated with his "ownership society") combined with runaway liquidity, artificially low interest rates and government backed mortgages (Freddie, Fannie) created an atmosphere of runaway credit with no concern about ever paying it back. You can blame banks for taking advantage of the cheap credit and government guarantees but remember that the government created the cheap credit, liquidity and the implicit guarantees!

Government is not the sole problem, but government can't solve all our problems either! Government often contributes to and exacerbates those problems which it purports to solve. The solution is to reform government, not to socialize markets or set them completely free to do as they please. Deregulation means minimal and efficient regulation, it does not mean zero regulation.

Reagan was a fiscal conservative strongly committed to reining in federal spending. Most federal departments experienced sharp spending cuts during Reagan's first three years in office. He did increase overall spending but most of that went to defense during the Cold War, which in hindsight appears to have been a very wise investment. Contrast that to George W. Bush's first three years, when spending for virtually every department went through the roof!

John McCain opposed Bush's massive prescription drug entitlement and opposed Bush's tax cuts because they weren't matched by spending cuts. Ike and Reagan would have strongly disagreed with each other over cutting taxes without matching spending cuts. Therefore, I think it's pretty clear that McCain is more likely to agree with Ike on taxes and spending, despite his campaign rhetoric this year. All three strongly advocated cutting spending and are strong fiscal conservatives.

The fact is, McCain melds together the best of Eisenhower, Goldwater and Reagan. McCain will restore the Republican brand and return us back to the values that made this party great. Don't let liberals tear this party and capitalism apart so that they may fill the power vacuum and set this country on the irreversible Road to Serfdom. Now, more than ever, we need to fulfill Eisenhower's wish that we maintain an ever-vigilant, active citizenry that stands for self-governance, liberty, democracy and freedom for all. Don't let Barry Obama fool you with his siren song of socialism.

High praise for Palin from an unlikely source

2008-10-01T07:47:00.000-07:00

HuffPo's Jed Lewison pays Palin's debating skills high praise and has a video that splices together some of her best performances during the Alaska gubernatorial debates.

For the video, I looked at her past debates and randomly grabbed six answers that I thought were pretty good. These weren't cherry-picked answers, they were just the first six answers that I thought she handled effectively. (I only rejected one answer in which I felt she was too defensive about her experience.)

Given the debate's format on Thursday night, I expect Palin will do just fine. I will be quite surprised if she gets caught off guard or has a moose-in-headlights moment.

I don't think she'll display much in the way of specifics, but she will get the values-oriented language right, and that should be good enough at least for a draw, and that will mean she beats expectations.

Of course, the real political issue in the debate isn't whether or not Palin meets or beats expectations, it's whether she is able to make a case for John McCain that John McCain hasn't yet been able to make for himself.

That's something no vice presidential candidate in history has been able to do, and should serve as a reminder that in the end, this election is still between Barack Obama and John McCain.

The Road to Serfdom revisited

2008-09-30T16:03:00.000-07:00

If you've never seen the cartoon version of "The Road to Serfdom", click here to read it. It's a classic from 1950 and well worth revisiting as we stand on the edge of economic catastrophe. The choice between reform and socialism has never been clearer, just as it was in 1952.

A colleague of mine today and I were talking about economists. I pointed her to this survey of economists compiled by Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert. You will note that the economists are 48% Democrats versus 17% Republicans. Not surprisingly, most economists support Obama.

Assuming that many of the Democrats are also Keynesians and believe that government spending is good for the economy because it stimulates growth and deficits aren't so bad after all, I decided to dig a little deeper. Classical economists would argue that governments can only crowd out growth and largely function to create liquidity and regulate the money supply.

I would argue that neither laissez faire nor Keynesian economics are the proper role for government with regard to the economy. I believe there is a third way that says government does have a role in regulating the economy, much as the referees in a football game have a role in regulating the game but not to the extent that the game ceases to be competitive or the outcome is pre-determined. The playing field in both football and the economy should be free but fair.

Apparently, Friedrich Hayek, who wrote "The Road to Serfdom" and whose theories are drowned out in many college classrooms by liberal economists harping on Keynes, held beliefs not too far from my own. Hayek was not in favor of pure laissez faire. He believed, as do I, that governments could limit working hours and place other limits and regulations on business as needed. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Theodore Roosevelt, McCain's hero, created the FDA, in response to Upton Sinclair's book, The Jungle, and the meat packing controversy. Rather than abandoning capitalism and instituting socialism, TR merely reformed it by adding some necessary and good regulation to insure that consumers could rely on safe products.

If a democratic society elects to place restrictions on employers, I see that as being no different from member institutions of the NCAA creating a rule that says there can be no more than 11 players on the field and there is a 40 second play clock. It's called setting the rules of the game. Where I have a problem with socialists and planners is they not only want to coerce the rest of us to follow their rules, they also want to dictate the outcome of the game and pick winners and losers. In short, they want to take all the sport out of it and eliminate all competition.

When football referees are perceived to interfere with the outcome of the game, the reaction from fans is ferocious and immediate as it should be. When the federal government becomes overly meddlesome in our lives and our economy, we end up on The Road to Serfdom, better known as socialism. We stalled and sidetracked the move to socialism in the 1950s thanks to the efforts of Hayek and others like Barry Goldwater and Winston Churchill.

Once again, the world is being lured by what Barry Goldwater called the "siren song of socialism". We live in dangerous times, just as dangerous if not more dangerous than in the 1950s.

We were lucky in the 1950s because the danger we faced was easy to see and we had a steady hand in Dwight D. Eisenhower. He kept us at peace, reformed government and provided a moderating voice in opposition to creeping socialism but in favor of needed regulation. Ike understood that a careful and delicate balance was required. Even though Ike wasn't anywhere nearly as conservative as Goldwater would have liked, it's clear that Ike's moderation was far preferable to the train wreck that LBJ's Great Society and bungling in Vietnam wrought. Just like Ike, John McCain will be a steady hand and a great reformer who will be far better than the alternative, Barack Obama.

Obama would be the realization of Goldwater's worst fears... the people of the United States will be "federally born, federally housed, federally clothed, federally educated, federally supported in their occupations, and die a federal death, thereafter to be buried in a federal box in a federal cemetery."

Think Obama doesn't really feel that way? Well, he won't say it... but his campaign co-chair, Jesse Jackson Jr. has no trouble articulating the real agenda of Chicago liberals:

"After a job or an income that provides adequate economic security - and right next to universal and comprehensive health care of equal high quality - decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing stands as one of the greatest material needs of the American people.

I believe that adequate, safe, and affordable housing is a human right. As civilizations and economies develop, certain material basics (like food, shelter, health care, and education) should not be turned over completely to market forces, to a "survival of the fittest" philosophy and program. We know that in such a system, the few always wind up on top with the best and most of everything, while the many end up on the bottom with the least and worst. Such is the case with housing in America."

A vote for Obama is a vote for the "siren song of socialism." He'll lure you with a promise of a middle class tax cut that you'll never get. We're still waiting for Bill Clinton's tax cut. In the end, Obama will leave you will new entitlements we can't afford and a much higher tax bill and a much bigger federal government. Just a few more miles down the Road to Serfdom.

Dems defended Fannie Mae in 2004

2008-09-29T19:03:00.000-07:00

Which is party is against regulation and for laissez faire free markets?

This video certainly challenges some oft held assumptions by the general public. This video would be easy to cast aside as partisan spin but the real zinger comes at the end when former President Bill Clinton weighs in. The McCain campaign should run that Clinton footage over and over again.

Remember when Bush tried to get Democrats to sit down to talk about Social Security reform and they said there is no crisis (just as they did with Fannie Mae)? Just as Democrats tell us there's no energy crisis now... which could all change in a New York minute the next time Arab countries decide to embargo their oil or Russia, Iran and Venezuela cut off all oil to Europe and the US (not as ludicrous as it sounds after Chavez's announcement today that he wants to go nuclear). Which party has its head in the sand and doesn't want to talk about real solutions?

Vote for John McCain if you want real reform in government and an end to runaway spending.

How Oregon voted on bailout bill

2008-09-29T18:09:00.000-07:00

Oregon provides an interesting slice of how the bailout bill vote went down today in the US House of Representatives:

Oregon
------
Democrats:
Yes: 1 (Hooley)
No: 3 (Blumenauer, DeFazio, Wu)

Republicans:
Yes: 1 (Walden)

It's quite surprising that Oregon Democrats voted 3 to 1 against the bill. Darlene Hooley is not up for reelection so she was secure in voting for the bailout. Ditto for Greg Walden, who represents conservative and strongly Republican eastern Oregon (it's like a whole other state). David Wu has a relatively safe seat and his opponent left the GOP and endorsed Obama. Earl Blumenauer has a safe seat in a heavily Democratic district that includes Portland yet he chose to defy Pelosi and vote against the bill. Peter DeFazio also has a relatively safe seat and beat his GOP challenger in 2006 by a 62% to 38% margin.

So what gives? Why did Oregon Democrats fail to march to Pelosi's drum? Their seats were safe. Were they really that worried about the political consequences?

Or could it be that there are still some issues to be worked out with this bill? Unlike the Financial Services Modernization Act in 1999, which only had 64 votes against it between the two chambers and was signed by Bill Clinton, there is still significant opposition to the bailout bill in its current form. There still remains a lot of negotiation to achieve a workable solution. I think that's a good think. As Obama likes to say, we should be as careful getting out of this mess and we were careless getting into it. The solution should be bipartisan because the mess certainly has plenty of blame to spread around.

Kathleen Parker: Palin is "out of her league"

2008-09-29T07:28:00.000-07:00

Kathleen Parker wrote a column that is sure to draw a lot of fire. She says what a lot of us must be quietly thinking to ourselves but can't bring ourselves to say out loud. Parker ultimately concludes:

"Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.
Do it for your country."

Parker's analysis is fair, balanced and well reasoned. She essentially says Sarah Palin is just flat out inexperienced and she requires the same "on the job training" that McCain rightly points out that Barack Obama needs. I highly recommend reading the full article here.

I have to admit I've been queasy about Palin from day one though I've quietly waited for Sarah to convince me I'm wrong about her. I've defended Sarah from many of the unfair and untrue personal attacks against her but I can't defend her from the reasoned criticism that she is inexperienced. So I'm relieved that Kathleen Parker finally said out loud what I've been thinking to myself.

But in the interest of full disclosure, my initial queasiness about Palin was due to my great disappointment that McCain didn't pick Tim Pawlenty. I was a firm believer throughout August that McCain should have picked Pawlenty.

Back on August 7, I wrote the following:

"Pawlenty is the perfect VP for McCain except for he's not a minority or a female. But is that really a problem?"

Well, yes, apparently that was the problem with Tim Pawlenty as I feared back on August 7. It will never be confirmed by anyone in the McCain campaign but I will always believe Pawlenty was passed over because he didn't fit the right demographic. 54% of voters are female and that alone seems to have allowed Palin to trump all the other more viable and experienced choices that were available to the McCain campaign.

Palin should have said "Thanks, but no thanks" to John McCain and let Pawlenty or someone else have the honor. Palin still has a bright future ahead of her and can still do great things for the people of Alaska. But she really should have passed and let someone more experienced be McCain's VP. I'm sure I'll take some heat for voicing this publicly but I have a feeling Kathleen Parker won't be the last conservative to speak out on Sarah Palin. She certainly articulated my concerns far better than I could have and has far greater credibility.

I wish Sarah and her family nothing but the best but I think Kathleen's right... it's time for Sarah to put her country first and do what's best.

Itchy Trojans cure jock itch, now infected with Jacquizz

2008-09-26T09:21:00.000-07:00

USC appears to be cured of their jock itch problem, but now the Trojans would give anything to cure the Jacquizz outbreak that had Trojan fans scratching their heads and holding their girlie-man California gonads last night in Corvallis.

Life was a lot better for Pete Carroll when his players were back in California scratching their gonads and holding their heads high with their #1 ranking.

The moral of the story: No Trojan is too strong to hold back an angry and determined Beaver. Trojans will burst under pressure which is why the safest sex is no sex at all.

The Oregon State University is the REAL OSU. Those pretenders from Columbus better recognize and show some respect.

GEAUX BEAVS!

Leadership you can believe in

2008-09-25T07:24:00.000-07:00

This says all you need to know about leadership:

Paulson Pleaded for McCain to Save Bailout

Obama says "If I can be helpful"... then he'll be there

Harry Reid to McCain and Obama: Stay Away... you "would not be helpful"

Hank Paulson recognizes that McCain is not only helpful, he's the one leader that can save us from what Warren Buffet (an Obama supporter) has rightly called our "economic Pearl Harbor." Paulson effectively refuted Harry Reid.

Meanwhile, Obama isn't even sure enough of himself as a leader because he takes his marching orders from Pelosi and Reid. Apparently, Obama believes solving the most important problem in America is less important than running a political campaign.

Country First? Leadership? It's pretty obvious Obama neither puts his country first or is a leader. Obama can't even lead his own party, let alone America.

The Democrat Slim Fast energy plan

2008-09-24T21:58:00.000-07:00

Thank you, Al Gore!

...for offering yet more proof that, as we stand on the edge of economic catastrophe, the Democrats offer us a Slim Fast energy plan written by climate alarmist blowhards like Al Gore.

From Reuters:

"If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration"

Remember to thank Al Gore when coal plants are shut down by angry protesters and electricity and natural gas prices (which is what most of the non coal-fired power plants use) go through the roof.

And, in case you missed it... here's Joe Biden setting up Al Gore's speech:

A fiscal conservative's dilemma

2008-09-24T14:36:00.000-07:00

When it comes to fiscal conservatism, George W. Bush failed us. He has angered fiscal conservatives in both parties. I don't spend much time defending Bush's fiscal record because there's really very little worth defending.

But Bush's failure wasn't because he cut taxes. Bush failed because he failed to cut spending.

P.J. O'Rourke defined fiscal conservatism as follows:

"To a true fiscal conservative, tax cuts don't matter much, and neither does the national debt. That is because the real problem is spending. Even the best and most necessary public spending comes with a harrowing price: the percentage of a nation's goods and services controlled by its government is the percentage of freedom and independence taken from individuals and given to politicians. Currently, just at the federal level, that's about 18 percent of your life. " [note: it was 18 percent in 2000 when O'Rourke wrote this.. now it's more like 19.5 percent and climbing]

Cutting taxes doesn't matter much and neither does raising them. Why? I'll let Mr. O'Rourke explain:

"Government spending diverts wealth from the brilliant, if somewhat erratic, intelligence of the free market to the absolutely reliable stupidity of the political arena. But while politicians may be stupid about spending, they are very sharp about how to finance their expenditures. Government can pay its bills with tax money, run up a budget deficit or print more cash, creating inflation. Inflation hurts the saver, deficits hurt the investor, taxes hurt the earner, and all three are usually the same person: you. "

Mr. O'Rourke wrote those words back in 2000. Since then, George Bush has increased spending dramatically, including a massive prescription drug entitlement which John McCain voted against. Granted, Bush did try to get Congress to work with him on entitlement reform. They refused to work with him and accused Bush of manufacturing a crisis out of thin air. Meanwhile, few people in my generation are counting on Social Security to provide much income 30 years from now when we'll be nearing retirement.

The biggest chunk of federal spending today is on entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. In 2007, 33.9% of federal revenue or $848 billion came from social insurance tax receipts (payroll taxes). But we spent $1.026 trillion on Social Security and Medicare in 2007. Why the shortfall? Because $178 billion was raided from the general fund (deficit spending) to pay for Medicare Part B and Part D. Medicare is already running a deficit (which makes Bush's prescription drug benefit all the more insane) and Social Security payroll taxes won't be enough to cover that entitlement's annual expenses beginning in 2017.

The increase in entitlements (mandatory spending) threatens to take over the entire federal budget. Just look at this chart from the Tax Policy Center:

"Mandatory spending has claimed a much larger share of the federal budget over
the past four decades, more than doubling from about one-fourth of federal
spending in 1962 to just over half today. In contrast, the share of the
budget going for discretionary spending has fallen from two-thirds in 1962 to
about two-fifths now."

Per the White House's own OMB, mandatory spending in 1962 was 4.9 percent of GDP and is now 10.6 percent of GDP. If no changes are made to entitlement programs, mandatory spending would be 20 percent of GDP by 2080, equivalent to the entire federal budget today (in GDP terms). Entitlement spending is the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about.

Now, if we are to believe P.J. O'Rourke (and I do!) and believe that spending is the real problem and that every dollar government spends is one less dollar available to those of us who invest in this country and work for a living, then we must elect a leader who will rein in runaway spending.

I ask you... who better to do that? John McCain or Barack Obama? Now, remember...John McCain is not George Bush and Barack Obama is not Bill Clinton. This election is between Obama and McCain. Of the two men running for President this year, which one is more fiscally conservative and will reduce spending?

Obama was not in the Senate in 2003 when the prescription drug bill was passed but says he would have opposed it because the "doughnut hole" was a "bait and switch". Obama's opposition stems not from the massive new expenditure but because the new entitlement didn't go far enough to benefit America's seniors. Obama said in an April 2003 interview, "We'll probably have to spend at least $30 billion annually in troop deployment in the rebuilding of Iraq which can be used to cover prescription drug coverage for seniors." The Iraq war is funded with deficit spending... Obama believes we could shift that money (that isn't funded in the first place) to mandatory, entitlement spending. Enough said.

By comparison, listen to what McCain had to say about the same bill:

"The American people should be aware that this new benefit has substantial cost to seniors, and to current and future generations of taxpayers, who will bear the majority of a crushing financial burden. There will be unintended consequences of our actions, Mr. President. We can be sure of that. Moreover, we should be honest about the cost of this measure - $400 billion is merely a down payment for what we are creating. Given the fiscal realities we face, realities that will become more dire with every passing year, Congress and the Administration should have committed to addressing the acute need for a drug benefit to alleviate the impossible choices confronting lower income seniors. And, most importantly, begun to seek consensus among responsible members of both parties for the reforms we all know are necessary to save Medicare."

John McCain was one of 9 GOP Senators who voted against Bush's massive new entitlement. Further, McCain has since proposed asking wealthy seniors to share more of the cost of the benefit. McCain has a long record of fighting wasteful spending. John McCain is committed to entitlement reform.

I think it's pretty obvious McCain is more fiscally conservative than Obama. Don't believe Obama's lies and pandering when he tries to tell you he's a fiscal conservative. John McCain has a 26-year record of opposing waste in government and reckless spending. Obama has a list a mile long of new spending proposals. Even CNN concluded Obama will spend more than McCain.

McCain harkens back to Eisenhower's philosophy. Fiscally conservative, yet socially compassionate. It's one more reason, I like Ike and I BACK MAC!

McCain: Deficit Hawk or Supply Sider?

2008-09-23T16:58:00.000-07:00

In response to my good friend Jonathan's comments... I've dug up the following Newsweek article by Daniel Gross written in Feb. 2008 that sums us my thoughts on McCain's views on the federal budget, taxes and the deficit.

"John McCain's performance in the Super Tuesday primaries, coupled with the release of President Bush's fantastical budget on Monday, may have doomed the extension of the Bush tax cuts on income, capital gains and dividends, which are slated to expire after 2010."
...

"For his part, McCain is making the right noises in the primary. In the tax section of his platform, he commits to making the Bush income and investment tax cuts permanent. But it's not particularly convincing. After all, he's one of the few Republicans with Washington experience that can legitimately claim to be a fiscal hawk. In 2001, McCain, along with Republican apostate Lincoln Chafee, were the only two Republican senators to vote against the first Bush tax cut. In 2003, he was one of three Republicans to vote against the second round, which is one of the reasons the Club for Growth hates him so much. McCain correctly noted that it didn't make sense to cut taxes in a time of war, especially in ways that benefited the wealthy to such a large degree. He voted against the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, recognizing it as a massive unfunded entitlement. His top economic adviser is the reality-based Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former head of the Congressional Budget Office, and one of the Republican economists least complicit in the intellectual chicanery behind the Bush fiscal policy."

"Let's say McCain wins the election in November, and is confronted with a Democratic Congress, and is faced with a short-term and long-term budget scenario that is worse than the Bush fantasy. Extending the tax cuts in anything approaching their entirety will be an impossibility. Will McCain go to the mat and spend his political capital urging the public to back an extension of the cuts? Would he make bargains with Democrats on subjects about which he has far deeper convictions (say, Iraq) for the sake of extending policies he didn't vote for? Or will he bow to reality and let most of the tax cuts sunset, as they were designed to do?"

"In fact, there's a degree to which many of the wealthy have more to fear from McCain than from Obama or Clinton. McCain isn't a creature of Wall Street. Clinton, Obama, and Giuliani have received far more cash from the financial-services industry than McCain has. Mitt Romney made his fortune in private equity. Of the three (or four) remaining serious candidates, McCain is probably the most likely to call bull on the loophole that lets private-equity and hedge-fund managers pay a 15 percent capital gains tax on wages they're paid for managing other people's money."

In other words, despite his campaign rhetoric, McCain is unlikely to go to the mat to fight for extending the tax cuts that he opposed in 2001 and 2003. He says he will now, but he knows full well that he'll likely be facing a heavily Democratic Congress in 2009 and 2010. When push comes to shove, McCain will let the portion of the tax cuts that he opposed in 2001 and 2003 expire.

McCain is saying what he has to for now to placate the supply siders and tax cut advocates, but he hasn't changed his stripes. He remains committed to balancing the budget, reducing the deficit, reforming government and reducing wasteful spending.

Obama, on the other hand, wants to soak the rich and increase government spending. Obama rarely, if ever, talks about what he'll do to reduce the national debt, though he's all too happy to tell you that Bush is to blame for the debt. Instead, Obama talks about all his plans to spend more and more money by soaking the rich (who already pay most of the federal income taxes) while giving the middle class another tax cut. Guess the middle class doesn't need to pay taxes to be patriotic, right Mr. Biden? Only rich people are more patriotic when they pay more taxes according to Joe Biden.

We all agree that Bush is responsible for the massive increase in the national debt. I spend little to no time defending Dubya's fiscal record because it's quite indefensible. McCain is hardly going around defending Bush's reckless spending. The question is... who's going to do something about it? Obviously, it won't be Barack Obama. He's not even trying to appear to be Bill Clinton's protege or a deficit hawk in the slightest. Obama's no supply sider, either. He's just a flat out tax and spend liberal.

I believe that John McCain will restore some Eisenhower-era fiscal discipline to Washington D.C. He will reform government and remind us all that government is not the problem, but government is also not the solution to all our problems, either. McCain won't be afraid to work with Democrats to find bipartisan solutions to benefit all Americans. McCain will make conservatives just as upset as he will make liberals (just as Goldwater had quite a few choice words for Ike), but he'll put his country first as Ike did.

Proof Democrats support Slim Fast energy plan

2008-09-23T09:06:00.000-07:00

Same old double talk we've come to expect from the Democrats on energy. Out of one side of their mouths, they pretend to be for clean coal, offshore drilling and other traditional forms of energy that can supply the bridge to our energy future. But in reality, they're slaves to the green climate alarmists like Al Gore and want to America on a Slim Fast energy diet and get us off all fossil fuels no matter how it wrecks our economy. In their zeal to "save the planet", they're willing to throw the middle class under the bus.

From Ben Smith at The Politico:

Some great rope line video from Joe Biden's recent Ohio swing, where he was asked by an anti-pollution campaigner about clean coal -- a controversial approach in Democratic circles for which Obama has voiced support, particularly during the Kentucky primary.

Biden's apparent answer: He supports clean coal for China, but
not for the United States.

"No coal plants here in America," he said. "Build
them, if they're going to build them, [build them] over there. Make them clean."

"We’re not supporting clean coal," he said of himself and Obama. They do, on paper,
support clean coal.

The answer seems to play into John McCain's case that Obama has been saying "no" to new sources of energy.

See the rope line video and the rest of Ben Smith's commentary here

We have energy, America. Let's develop wind, solar, hydro, tidal, geothermal but let's also continue to use the fossil energy resources we still have as a bridge to a clean energy future. Don't buy into the climate alarmist agenda. The planet will survive as it always has. Without stable energy supplies, it's increasingly doubtful that we can sustain all 7 billion people on this planet.

Mankind has dealt with climate change before. North America was originally settled during a time when the seas were much lower than they are today and a land bridge existed between Alaska and Russia. What mankind can not afford is to risk the mass starvation of millions, perhaps billions of people, because we refuse to use the energy we have to provide food and warmth for mankind. Don't let Democrats put America on a Slim Fast energy diet. By Biden's own admission, the Chinese don't intend to stop using their own fossil fuels. Even China realizes that energy is key to their future.

Don't hope for energy. Make it happen.

Joe Biden: The gift that keeps on giving

2008-09-18T19:49:00.000-07:00

Every time Joe opens his mouth he provides conservatives an opportunity to expose Obama and Biden for the closet socialists they are.

Today, Biden told ABC's Kate Snow in response to a question about whether people making more than $250,000 would have to pay more in taxes with a President Obama:

"You got it," Biden replied. "It's time to be patriotic, Kate. Time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help America out of the rut, and the way to do that is they're still gonna pay less taxes than they did under Reagan."

First, paying more and more tax to the federal government is patriotic? Tell that to the founding fathers! At what point do more and more taxes cease to be patriotic and start to be cause to overthrow the tyrannical central government that imposes such an outrageous tax burden?

Second, the line about lower tax rates than we had under Reagan is a massive distortion. Biden is obviously referencing 1981. When Reagan took office after the disastrous Carter years, taxes were way higher than they are now. The top marginal rate in 1981 was 70% for all income over $108,300. In 1981, the 39% bracket kicked in at a mere $23,500. In 2008, the top marginal rate is 35% (Obama wants to raise it back to 39.6%) and doesn't kick in until you make more than $357,700. But during the 1988 tax year, Reagan's last full year in office, the top marginal rate was 33% (even lower than today!). Someone making $23,500 in 1988 was in the 15% bracket and paying considerably less tax thanks to Ronald Reagan as were all Americans.

Obama says he wants to restore taxes back to what they were during the Reagan years, but he doesn't mean 1988... he means 1981! Those weren't Reagan's tax rates, those were Jimmy Carter's! The highest marginal rate was lower when Reagan left office than at any time since 1931. Tax rates were lower in 1988 for people earning $250,000 than they are today. The only people who have a lower tax rate than they did in 1988 are people like me in the middle and lower classes! Guess who cut their taxes? George W. Bush! Clinton promised a middle class tax cut but Bush actually delivered.

In fact, a look back at income tax rates shows that with rare exception (1932's mammoth tax hike by Hoover), Democrats have dramatically raised taxes and Republicans have been the ones to dramatically lower them. The most dramatic tax reductions came in the 1920s and in the 1980s, both times by Republican administrations. It took Ronald Reagan to finally exorcise the demonic weight of obscenely high income tax rates imposed during the Great Depression, World War II and the Korean War. Let us never again allow our economy to be strangled again by ridiculously high tax rates.

As if Biden didn't step in it enough today, he then proceeded to pontificate on Catholic teaching.

"Catholic social doctrine as I was taught it is, you take care of people
who need the help the most. Now it'd be different if you could make the case to me that by giving this tax cut to the very wealthy, everybody else was going to be better off. We saw what happened the last eight years when we gave that tax cut. Tell me how everybody is better off. And the point I want to make to you is, and I mean this sincerely - wealthy people are just as patriotic, patriotic as poor people. We just have not asked anything of them."

Joe, didn't you learn anything from Nancy Pelosi?

Yes, Catholics are taught to take care of those most in need, but that is a directive to each of us as individuals and as a church, not a call for government action! You, as an individual, (not the government) have a responsibility to care for others and those most in need of help. Catholic doctrine does not say Catholics should use the power of the government through taxes to force your neighbors to help those who need the most help. Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s." Separation of church and state, straight from Jesus' mouth, Joe! The federal government is not a church!

God loves each of us enough to let us fail (sin) over and over again with the hope that one day each of will see the light and do our best to live up to the high standards (among them charitable acts) he has set for each of us. God wants us to act out of love and our own desire to serve and love each other and Him. No where does Jesus say it is God's will for government to forcibly confiscate the wealth of the rich and redistribute to the needy. Instead, he makes charity and our actions the responsibility of each individual, accountable only to God and each other, not the government.

But why am I so shocked that Joe would have such a poor understanding of Catholic views on charitable acts? According to his own tax returns he's given a mere pittance to charity the last 10 years. Perhaps Joe should concern himself a little more with his individual actions rather than wealth confiscation and redistribution schemes.

McCain on "solid ground" fighting pork

2008-09-18T15:14:00.001-07:00

From politifact.com:

"McCain hammers at this point of distinction: He hates
pork-barrel spending; Obama revels in it."
...

"A PolitiFact review of McCain's attacks on Democratic nominee Obama, as well as McCain's boasts about his own record on pork, finds that the Arizona senator is largely on solid ground. There is a clear distinction between McCain and Obama on earmarks in federal spending bills, the traditional form in which Congress authorizes pork spending, even if McCain is often a bit too generous in describing his own record."

Dow Jones 1910 - 2008

2008-09-18T15:14:00.000-07:00

I took this graph from FreeRepublic and added in who was in control of the White House and the US Senate:

The choice between Reform and Socialism

2008-09-17T19:11:00.000-07:00

That was the choice offered to America in 1952 and it's the same choice we have in this election.

In 1952, we had endured 20 years of Democrat rule that brought us Social Security, FDR's New Deal and Truman's Fair Deal while decisively beating back fascism and Nazism and holding Communism at bay. Eisenhower swept into office to keep the peace and curb the trend towards socialism at home. Ike did his best during his eight years in office to hold back the tide against a bigger and bigger federal government.

Barry Goldwater gave an impassioned speech on the Senate floor in 1957 chastising the Eisenhower administration for not doing enough:

For the first four years, [Goldwater] said, the Eisenhower Administration had made progress toward the goals of economy and efficiency enunciated in 1952. Now he feared it had been gripped by some "strange and mysterious force," had been lured by the "siren song of socialism," was tending toward "squanderbust government . . . economic inebriation . . . bloated government."
Crying out against both "foreign giveaways" and "slavish economic indigence" at home, he argued that too many Republicans have adopted the Democratic principle that the people of the U.S. should be "federally born, federally housed, federally clothed, federally educated, federally supported in their occupations, and die a federal death, thereafter to be buried in a federal box in a federal cemetery."

Now, it's plain that Goldwater was simply trying to send a wake up call to Ike and his fellow Republicans. As LBJ's Great Society boondoggle showed just ten years later, Goldwater had much to fear when it came to the "siren song" of socialism.

Eisenhower gave a great interview to US News & World Report in 1966... in the middle of Johnson's assault on American pocketbooks and his total bungling of the war in Vietnam. In this great interview, Eisenhower shared his "compassionate conservative" views:

"...we are getting the feeling today that we are not just taking care of the needy, but that we are acting unwisely to the extent that we are actually using the Federal Treasury to encourage and reward laziness and malingering."

"I would like to see more efficiency in determining who actually are the needy, and who it is that just wants to get an easier living."

... "In our welfare programs, an effort should be made to make sure that the needy have proper support. But the idea of temporary relief seems to be giving way to a new idea that hard work is not the way to make a living, that you should look to the Government to take care of you."

"How are you going to get ahead in the world? By hard work—that was always the American way. But now, no longer do all our people take pride in good work well done."

That was in 1966. Fast forward to today and entitlements like Social Security, SCHIP, Medicare and Medicaid are 8.4% of GDP (43.5% of the federal budget) and projected to be 25% of GDP by the end of the century.

George W. Bush has not helped by adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare (with a $8.4 trillion unfunded liability) and his refusal for many years to veto any spending bills (back when McCain was the lone wolf along with Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn preaching fiscal responsibility). To Bush's credit, he did try in vain to get a bipartisan solution to Social Security reform which was demagogued and defeated by the looney moonbats running the Democrat party these days.

All this brings us to our current situation. The economy is teetering on the edge of disaster because of easy money, bad loans and obscene mismanagement of many of our financial institutions. If it feels a lot like the 1920s or 1970s, it should. There is a lot wrong that needs fixing. Both candidates for President freely admit as much. But their solutions offer vastly different approaches.

Obama proposes socialism masked as change much in the way FDR did back in 1932 after another Republican President bungled up the economy as Hoover did. The worst thing Hoover did was pass the Revenue Act of 1932, which dramatically raised incomes taxes and made the Great Depression great instead of just another recession. Thankfully, we know better now than to raise taxes in the middle of a recession... or do we?

FDR used the bad economy as an excuse to further raise taxes and impose his socialist vision. We still have the entitlement programs, which are now the third rail of politics and it wasn't until Reagan that income tax rates came back down to the levels of the 1920s. Obama claims he will cut middle class taxes but Bill Clinton made the same empty promise in 1992 that he quickly abandoned as soon as he took the oath of office. To Clinton's credit, he did manage to leave office with a budget surplus and was much more fiscally responsible than quite a few 20th century Presidents. Thankfully, his wife's proposal for a huge single payor healthcare entitlement failed.

Obama has promised everything to everyone... just look at this list from Peter Nicholas in the LA Times:

"Among other proposals during the course of the campaign, Obama has said he would strengthen the nation’s bridges and dams ($6 billion a year), help make men better fathers ($50 million a year) and aid Iraqis displaced by the war ($2 billion in one-time spending). Last week, he pledged to give religious and community groups $500 million a year to provide summer education to low-income children."
"Other proposals are more costly. Obama wants to extend health insurance to more people (part of a $65-billion-a-year health plan), develop cleaner energy sources ($15 billion a year), curb home foreclosures ($10 billion in one-time spending) and add $18 billion a year to education spending."
"It is a far different blueprint than McCain is offering. The senator from Arizona has proposed relatively little new spending, arguing that tax cuts and private business are more effective means of solving problems."
"The total price tag of Obama’s plans, according to his campaign, is $130 billion a year. On top of that, Obama is proposing a middle-class tax cut of about $80 billion a year."

Obama wants more and more spending, more and more creeping socialism.

McCain has a long record of reform, fiscal restraint and conservatism. He has stood up to his own party, much the way Barry Goldwater (the man whose Senate seat he holds) did 50 years prior.

Do you want to take a chance on more and more creeping socialism, more government dependency and entitlement? Do you think it's right when everyone from Wall Street bankers to flood victims (whether they be in Louisiana, Iowa, Oregon or elsewhere) put their hand out and ask for more and more from taxpayers to bail them out of their own poor choices?

I believe that Ike was right, there are certainly some folks who are truly needy and we should be compassionate. But clearly, our government is doing far too much for far too many who are not truly needy. Ike's worst fears have come to fruition.

The solution to the problem is reform, not more of the same. We don't need more and more socialism and government prescriptions. Laissez faire is not the answer, either. McCain is right to laud praise on his hero, Theodore Roosevelt, the trustbuster, who was well ahead of his time in recognizing that capitalism needed a level playing field to promote competition much in the way we take for granted in the world of athletics. The goal of captialism should always be free choice for consumers, spirited competition and a respect for the laws of the land. TR had no trouble asserting himself as the head referee for the playing field of American capitalism. I believe John McCain is just that kind of leader. He recognizes the system is not broken, it merely needs reform and it needs it badly.

Now, back to TR. Teddy advocated for the creation of the FDA in 1906 partly in response to Upton Sinclair's book, "The Jungle". Sinclair was a proud Socialist who considered the book a call to arms against capitalism and was disappointed that his book didn't cause a revolution. But instead of a socialist revolution, TR used the book as an impetus to reform capitalism and make it stronger and better.

Such is our choice now... Reform or Socialism.

Future governor of a large, Southern state

2008-09-15T16:41:00.000-07:00

I caught a bit of the North Carolina gubernatorial debate on C-SPAN. I've spent about three hours of my life in North Carolina so my interest was low but I tuned in just along enough to hear Pat McCrory, the Republican candidate make some salient arguments including this gem:

"We're hypocrites in North Carolina if we'll fill up our gas tank with gas from oil pumped off the coast of somewhere else but not from North Carolina."

Hallelujah! Finally, someone said it out loud!

Not surprisingly, McCrory has opened up a five point lead over his Democratic challenger.

If you live in a state like I do, an energy welfare state, where you use oil and natural gas that comes from other states and other countries AND you refuse to support drilling in your own backyard, you are a NIMBY HYPOCRITE and an energy welfare queen.

Everybody who uses oil and natural gas and doesn't support drilling and exploration in their own state is a HYPOCRITE. It's like being a chain smoker and opposing tobacco farmers in your home state but greedily buying all the cigarettes you can from another state or country. Don't support drilling off America's Gulf Coast or some Third World country but refuse to allow it off your pristine coast which you use Alaskan oil or Gulf Coast oil to drive to. It's hypocrisy, pure and simple.

It's time for other coastal states to step up to the plate and contribute more energy of their own. Stop plundering the energy resources of Alaska and the Gulf Coast and start producing some of your own.

A failed governor of a small, Southern state

2008-09-12T19:44:00.000-07:00

In 1992, the Bush campaign smeared Clinton as "a failed governor of a small, Southern state". Whether or not the smear was true or not isn't important. It ended up being more offensive to residents of small states and Southern states alike.

I was a young, naive 18 year old resident of a small, Southern state in 1992 and that "small, Southern state" meme really stung and made me mad. To be honest, I found it repugnant and condescending coming from a Texan. I think a lot of other residents of Southern states and small states must have agreed with me. Clinton won Southern states like Louisiana, Georgia, Tennessee and of course Arkansas as well as many other Middle America states like Iowa, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri.

Bush was perceived to be out of touch with small town, rural America and struggled to carry many states that rejected Al Gore and John Kerry for much the same reason during this decade. To put a finer point on what happened, let's look at a quote by Hillary Clinton given in response to a question about Barack Obama's infamous "bitter gun clingers" comments:

"You know, the Democratic Party, to be very blunt about it, has been viewed as a party that didn't understand and respect the values and the way of life of so many of our fellow Americans,'' Clinton said. "We had two very good men and men of faith run for president in 2000 and 2004. But large segments of the electorate concluded that they did not really understand or relate to or frankly respect their ways of life.''

I'm not a big fan of Bill Clinton, though I can admit he did some good things such as reducing the deficit and reforming welfare. But regardless of your views of Bill Clinton, it's clear that he connected with Middle America, small towns, Southern states and small states. Just looking at the difference on a county by county level in Iowa shows how much more successful Bill Clinton was at connecting with those voters. Fast forward to today.

Sarah Palin is being attacked, much as Bill Clinton was in 1992, by being labeled as a "mayor of a tiny remote town" and the "governor of a sparsely populated, remote state". We could debate how relevant Palin's experience in Wasilla and Juneau is (just as people debated Clinton's experience in 1992), but the debate misses the point. By smearing small towns and small states, Obama's surrogates and the liberal media are setting up Palin to be the champion of small towns, rural America and small states everywhere.

Palin has been using this to her advantage in every public appeareance and speech. All she has to do is throw Obama's red meat "bitter gun clingers" comments right back at him.... which she does practically every day to great success.

Said Palin back on September 3:

"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening."
"We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco."

Now, Obama may well win the White House without the support of small town Americans. There may be enough big city folks to swing the election Obama's way. But my gut tells me Hillary was right. Democrats have lost the last two elections because middle America has perceived them to be out of touch with their values and their concerns. Recent polls show a big swing towards McCain in states like Ohio, Florida and Virginia. Even Washington State's latest poll shows McCain has gained 10 percentage points and now trails by only 2%.

It's becoming increasingly clear that Palin's selection was a brilliant strategic decision that brought a great deal more to the ticket than the first woman on a GOP Presidential ticket. Palin has strong energy credentials, the number one domestic issue in this election. She's an excellent speaker, which was obvious the minute she took the stage in St. Paul and she displayed it again this week in her interview with Charlie Gibson. No stuttering, stammering or nuanced indecision from Palin. She speaks clearly and gets her point across. People may not agree with her on the issues and may be convinced she doesn't have sufficient experience (I admit I have my own reservations), but no one can deny that she comes across as a strong, sure speaker unafraid to champion what she believes in. People respect someone who comes across that way.

But ultimately, she makes a strong appeal to those small town "hockey moms" alienated by Obama and attracted to Hillary. Small town America is Obama's Achilles heel and it was Bill Clinton's ace in the hole. Short of dumping Biden and moving Hillary to the top of the ticket, I have trouble seeing how Obama can rectify this situation. There's a lot more people in this country who empathize with small town mayors and hockey moms than they do with community organizers from the South Side of Chicago who attend Reverend Wright's church. The more Obama's supporters attack Palin because she governed a small town and small state, the deeper hole they did for Obama and the more Palin's North Star rises.

The tale of two Ikes

2008-09-12T17:04:00.000-07:00

It's a safe bet that many Texans do not like Ike today.

No, not my hero, Dwight "Ike" Eisenhower. That other Ike.

Hurricane Ike threatens to level Galveston and wreak havoc to Houston, America's 4th largest city.

I've spent a lot of time in the Houston area over the last three decades and have always held a soft spot for The Bayou City. During that time, I attended several Astros games back at the Dome and often visited friends and family in the Houston area. I was just there in January to run the Houston Marathon with my best friend who lives in Houston. In fact, he's here visiting me this weekend and is on pins and needles worried about the new home he and his wife just moved into this year. He may be staying here a while as there's just no telling when he'll able to return to Houston. There's really little to do but wait and stay safe out of harm's way.

It's a traumatic time for everyone in Southeast Texas and anyone who cares about the Gulf Coast and its people as I do. At this hour, they need our prayers, our support and our generosity.

I'm glad to see Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans has rolled out the welcome mat. Kudos to Ray. If anyone can understand the stress of a major hurricane and its aftermath, it's the residents of south Louisiana. I hope and pray that Southeast Texas residents weather the storm with minimal loss of life and property. Just know that a lot of Americans will be thinking about you and the people of Louisiana look forward to repaying the generosity extended to them by Texans back in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina.

We are all Texans this weekend.... and I will forever be a Houston Astros fan. Go 'stros!

LNG and Left Coast liberal hypocrisy

2008-09-11T10:04:00.000-07:00

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) made headlines this week by decrying the export of LNG from Alaska to Japan and complaining about the high price of natural gas.

Oh, the hypocrisy.

Wyden and other Left Coast liberals such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and my governor, Ted Kulongowski (D-OR), have done everything they can to stonewall LNG terminals proposed for the West Coast, including three proposed terminals right here in Oregon. There are currently no LNG terminals on the U.S. West Coast, the nearest terminal is across the border from San Diego in Baja California. The Baja terminal just opened two weeks ago. I repeat... just opened.

A drive down the Oregon Coast finds vocal opposition to LNG terminals in the form of yard signs. NIMBYism run amok and typical liberal false outrage and overreaction in the name of "environmental and economic concerns"... not to mention climate alarmism run amok.

Oregon imports 99.72% of its natural gas from other states and Canada, primarily from Alberta. Oregon and Washington are energy welfare states, producing virtually no oil or natural gas of their own. According to the federal Energy Information Administration, Oregon residents use more than 3 times as much natural gas as they did in 1967. No doubt, many of those NIMBY, climate alarmist liberals use natural gas to heat their homes while protesting the construction of LNG terminals that could supply more gas. Just as they bash Big Oil and decry the high price of gas while motoring along using the very resource they condemn as an "evil fossil fuel".

According to the state of Alaska:

"Alaska’s exports of LNG from the Kenai Peninsula facility were $161 million for 2006. The LNG loading facility in Nikiski and the regasification facility in Negishi, Japan pioneered LNG marine transport in 1969. Alaska LNG export to Japan has been continuous since then. The current LNG contract is for five years — 2004 through the first quarter of 2009."

We could use that Alaskan natural gas, but the liberals who run this state are fighting the LNG terminals tooth and nail... and then they have the nerve to complain when Alaska sends the LNG to Japan because West Coast liberals won't build LNG terminals.

Kudos to Alaska for producing American made energy. Don't blame them if Oregon refuses to build a LNG terminal to use Alaska's surplus gas.