Quick Hit for Wednesday

CAN THE GOP BE SAVED?

Personally, I couldn't care less. I'm not a party man, I'm a conservative. If the GOP isn't going to be conservative, then someone else will. Though I am not unaware of the importance of having a party counterbalancing the left, ultimately my allegiance isn't to a party. I have an easy time not voting for someone who brings "Hope" and "Change", because I already have a Savior and am in no need of someone attempting to be another.

However I do think that if they want, the Republicans can salvage themselves. Here is what they need to do.

1) Offer solutions. Too much of the party platform is summed up in one word: 'no.' Abortion? No. Gay marriage. No. If the GOP wants to be significant, they need to be able to provide answers to common issues. Why vote for someone who is just against something but doesn't provide any alternatives? The GOP is up against a modern Democratic party that has whored itself out to every cause they can think of. If the GOP is against it, they'll support it. With a few exceptions, that's where we are. Politics cuts both ways, with the GOP being against whatever the Democrats are for. People are much more likely to vote for a party that acquiesces to everything they want than a party that just says no to everything.

2) Actually follow through with what they promise. Lowering the deficit is a good thing. Decreasing spending is a good thing. Lower taxes are a good thing. All of those are things people generally like, and they're fundamentally conservative tenants. But when a liberal Democrat is perceived as being the tax-cutting candidate, you know your party has messed something up. It doesn't help that the deficit and spending increased exponentially under Republican leadership.

3) Communication. The GOP is horrible at communicating their message (when they have one). Whether it is through the internet or your average stump speech, they just aren't communicating with the average voter. Ironic, considering it is the party of Ronald Reagan, "The Great Communicator."

4) Don't assume anything. Even if the economy tanks over the next four years, Obama is a good enough communicator that he could still pull off re-election. Heck, FDR was able to get re-elected twice during the Great Depression. If he can do it, so can Obama. The GOP can't sit back and assume that the American public is aware of anything. If the Zogby poll and heinous media bias taught them anything, it should be that they can't rely on Americans getting the most reliable information without them actively making sure they know.

I think if the GOP sticks to those four fundamentals, then they'll be alright. People always want 'hope', but they'll respond even more to actual specifics.

The Bush Legacy

OR

TOO HARSH A CRITIC?

  The Media is a very interesting thing.  In it you have a conglomerate of people who get together, have mostly the same interests (much like you would if you got a lot of doctors together), who create a rabid mob mentality. As  humans they have tendencies to miss the big picture and focus on whatever pop culture item everyone else is talking about.  I have the same tendency, as does everyone I know.  The only difference is I'm not shaping public opinion.

  The Bush Legacy is a matter of perspective.  I was having dinner with a friend of mine the other night when he made a remark that President Bush is going to go down in history as the worst U.S. President ever.  So I posed a question to him, "What policies of President Hoover's do you disagree with?  What is your impression of President Harrison's term?  Where would you rate President James Polk?"  There aren't a lot of people who have a really thorough knowledge of every single president.  I certainly don't want to make that claim.  Yet my friend made the assertion that even without a working knowledge of every other president, he knew that President George W. Bush will no doubt be the worst.  Where did he get that impression from? 

  No doubt some of that comes from politicians.  President-elect Obama has spent the better part of two years traveling the country and blaming President Bush for everything from terrorism, high food prices, high oil costs, to the troubled economy while promising "Help is on the way."  While certainly partisan, the President-elect isn't a moron, so the case he makes isn't tantamount to saying Bigfoot exists.  It can actually make sense.  How long can someone listen to that before it starts to sound true?  

  Add the media, in love with the candidate and giving very favorable coverage of him, and you have quite a formidable opponent if you are trying to keep things in perspective.  You have to go out of your way research how the President is really doing.  

FARM BILL: 2008

  Who has heard of the farm bill that was passed in May of this year?  Do you know the details of it?  Take this into consideration:

- The average U.S. farm family income is $90,000.  

- The Farm Bill provided for a total of $300 Billion in funding.  Two thirds went to food stamps, $40 Billion in       U.S. Farm subsidies, $30 billion in 'environmental initiatives.'

- President Bush wanted the per-farm subsidy cap at $250,000.  The bill called for a pre-farm subsidy of             

   $750,000.

  An important reminder: do you remember what food prices have been like the last year?  Extremely high. We witnessed some of the highest inflation in food prices this nation has ever seen.  American farms have been experiencing record profits as a result of the spike in cost of corn and other products.  A major reason was ethanol production, as the U.S. tried to more towards bio-fuels and away from oil.  All that movement did was create another, more financially beneficial, market for farmers to sell their goods in.  Think about it this way: our government directly funded and helped create a market in direct competition for our food.  In practice that means a farmer could either sell their product as food, or to bio-fuel producers to convert into ethanol.  Because of the competition, food prices skyrocketed.  

  Because President Bush wanted lower per-farm subsidies, he vetoed the bill.  And because you can always count on cross-party cooperation when it comes to supporting each other's pork projects, the Senate got together and voted 83-15 to override the President's veto.  In an odd piece of historical irony, then-Senator Obama didn't show up to vote that day.  However, he was still campaigning against President Bush and had this to say about the process: "By opposing the bill, President Bush and John McCain are saying no to America's farmers and ranchers, no to energy independence, no to the environment, and no to millions of hungry people (emphasis mine)."  

  So who remembers the farm bill?  I guarantee my friend doesn't, even though he is more conservatively minded than he'd like to admit and might actually support the President on this move.  The point is, when the candidate isn't afraid to throw around such wildly hyperbolic accusations against the sitting President (and yes, all politicians do this), and the media doesn't offer any perspective but instead focuses on pro-Obama stories, how is the general perception going to be formed?  People are going to come to the exact same conclusion that my friend did.

SO WHAT DOES THE PUBLIC ACTUALLY KNOW?

  Zogby International just completed recent poll about the knowledge of people who voted for Obama.  They asked 512 Obama voters 12 different questions.  Here are some interesting findings.

- only 17% of Obama supporters knew that he won his first election by getting all his opponents removed from        the ballot.

- only 12%  knew that Obama said his economic policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry.

- only 28% knew that Biden quit a previous Presidential campaign because he plagiarized a speech.

- only 43% knew which party controlled Congress leading up the the election.

- only 54% of those polled were able to answer at least 1/2 of the 12 questions correctly.

On the flip side, while they weren't generally knowledgeable about Obama, they were aware of the GOP:

- 94% knew that Governor Palin's daughter was pregnant.

- 86% knew that the GOP spent $150,000 on clothes for Palin.

- 81% knew that McCain was unable to identify how many houses he owns.

- 87% identified Governor Palin as saying she "could see Russia from her house", even though she never said           that (it was a SNL skit)

  This poll does not expose Obama voters as moronic.  I think what it reports is where Obama supporters get their information.    In previous blogs I have asserted that the media representation of the campaigns was a little off-kilter, something now being echoed in places like Newsweek.  If people are so aware of the negatives surrounding the GOP candidate, and oblivious to the negatives surrounding the Democrat candidate, the natural conclusion would be to vote for one you view more favorably.  Carrying that over, how would that impact the perception of the sitting Republican President?

GOING DOWN IN HISTORY

  History has its own judges, and it isn't really possible to say how they'll interpret things.  Napoleon was fond of saying "What is History but a myth agreed upon."  Historians have the maddening tendency to report things the way they want to, and they won't stop now.  The War in Iraq has suffered quite a few set backs to be sure, but so did WWII.  People are generally taught that FDR's New Deal helped the country recover from the Great Depression, but economist at UCLA have said it lengthened it by 7 years.  Who knows how historians will decide to sum up the current Administration.  

  President Bush is by no means perfect, but I don't think he has gotten a fair shake either.  Historians can write whatever they want, and they will.  And then some bureaucrat in Washington will read the different books and decide what he/she thinks should be taught.  And our kids will grow up believing it.  What needs to be avoided is teaching opinions.  For instance: instead of teaching "FDR's New Deal saved our nation," teach "FRD introduced the New Deal, which did this and that" along with "FDR was president for almost 10 years before the Great Depression ended."  Let people make up their own minds about how effective the New Deal was.  Currently we teach too much opinion, not enough fact.  The Zobgy poll exposes that, if it does nothing else.

  In the end, I don't know what the Bush Legacy will be.  Certainly it hasn't been realized yet.  It takes a long time to know how each policy decision will impact the future (It took over 30 years for Carter's decision not to support the Shah in the Iranian Revolution to produce an Islamic government creating nuclear weapons).  The fact that people are already forming their opinions demonstrates our own hubris, our partisan nature, and our lack of perspective.

Farm Bill - Washington Post

Farm Bill - LA Times

Farm Bill - The Nation

Farm Bill - The Nation

President Barack Roosevelt?

THE NEW NEW DEAL?

I was reading today that President-elect Obama has a plan of creating 2.5 million new jobs in the first two years of his administration by re-building roads and bridges, modernizing schools, and developing alternative energy sources and more efficient cars. I am a little skeptical for three reasons.

1) The Unites States is projected to have a possible $500 billion deficit for the year 2008. Guaranteeing the creation of 2.5 million new jobs at the billing of the Ferderal Government seems to me, at this time, an unwise move. I would rather see the government cut spending than pick up a couple more million employees, or begin billions in spending for new projects. Adding in the contraction of the economy we are seeing right now and educated guess would project that the government will likely see less revenue over the next year than they did in 2008. More expenditures with even less funding is a losing proposition. In order to create more spending the government needs to raise more money. The government can only raise more revenue by taxing us more or when the entire economy expands. The later doesn't seem very likely at this point. As such, it would seem an unwise time to increase spending, since the end result is either taxing more in a down economy, or increasing the federal deficit.

2) The government cannot by itself create jobs unless they first take the money out of the private sector. The government is not in the business of making their own money, the only money they have was first produced by the private sector. I am not as confident in the government's ability to use that money in positive ways as I am the private sector. I have arrived at that conclusion by watching the government's lack of efficiency in other programs, mainly Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. And that brings me to point number three.

3) I just finished reading a paper by two economists at UCLA. In 2004 they completed four years of research into what made the Great Depression so prolonged. What they found was that President Roosevelt's policies had a major play in it, as they were directly responsible for lengthening the recovery period by 7 years. In effect, without FDR's policies of pro-labor, misplaced stimulus and anti-competition, the Depression might have ended 7 years earlier.

It is also important to remember that not all policies have an immediate effect, whether for the good or the bad. Some really nefarious policies start out looking really good, but end up being very bad. For instance, in an earlier blog I wrote about the Community Reinvestment Act. Passed by the Carter Administration in 1977, it took 30 years for the effects of that piece of legislation to contribute to an economic implosion. One might even be able to suggest that Social Security, an original FDR policy, is another policy that is failing. Originally signed into law as part of FDR's New Deal in 1935, some historians have suggested that it led to what has been called the "Roosevelt Recession" in '37 and '38. Perhaps Medicare, adopted in 1965, is another social program that is on tract for failure.

To be fair, the President-elect hasn't done anything yet. It remains to be seen exactly what his economic plan would be. President-elect Obama deserves a fair shot at succes, but it does seem as though he is modeling his economic recovery efforts after FDR in some limited sense. It is impossible to know where he would go with things once he gets into office, but this plan to create 2.5 million new jobs by employing them in government projects is reminicent of FDR's New Deal.

Overall, I don't think that would be the best way to go. I think if we cut spending, cut taxes, and let the market correct itself, we would better be able to cut our losses. Nothing we do can stop the pain that occurs when a market corrects itself, as a contraction of the market necessitates job losses. But if we start passing measures that help in the short term while lengthening the overall economic recovery, I don't think we're the better for it. We need to get to a point where we can identify the problems, fix them, and go from there. Even more than that, we need to resist the desire to impliment anti-growth policies in order to lessen the pain in the short term. We need to be able to mass all our resources into figuring out the problem, fixing it, and starting from there. Using those funds to pretend that nothing is happening only hurts our recovery efforts over the long run.

Take a Breath...

CONGRESSMAN PAUL BROUN

  Congressman Paul Broun has gotten himself into hot water this week by referring to President-elect Obama as a 'Marxist,' and saying Obama's plan to create a civilian security force as strong and well funded as the military is what "Hitler did in Nazi Germany and what the Soviet Union did."  He did, however, go on to clarify his comments, saying "I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler."  Of course, the Congressman has now come out and apologized to whoever was offended.

  I realize it is tricky to bring up the Nazis and not get caught up in the emotional aspect of it, but it should be obvious that the Congressman was not saying 'President-elect Obama is just like Hitler.'  Forget for a moment whether his original analogy is a good one.  Is it not a good thing to be able to learn from history, the good and the bad?  If we can't model our society after the good that came before us, we are doomed to guessing games about which policies might work.  Conversely, if we cannot try and avoid policies in the past that have proved unwise, how are we supposed to make sure our civilization doesn't travel down paths that have proved to have bad consequences?  

  There have been many leaders in many governments that existed on this earth who have done some horrible things.  Are we only able to learn from their bigotry?  Can we not also learn from the failures of their structure of government as well?  The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were gigantic failures, would it be wise to understand why?  How else are we to know whether we're on the same path?  Even if President-elect Obama had a policy similar to one of Hitler's or Stalin's it doesn't mean he IS Hitler or Stalin.  After all, Germany was a democracy when it elected Hitler, just as we are a democracy.  Does making that comparison mean I am saying all Americans are Nazis? Of course not.

  Unfortunately, I believe we are so partisan now that we're all just waiting for someone on the 'other side' to say something we can twist and make into a political victory for 'our side.'.  We have lost the ability to have civil conversations.  The Congressman could be wrong about how President-elect Obama's civilian security force will be structured, I don't know.  Or he could be wrong about how Hitler's was structured.  His comparison could be entirely in-accurate.  But he should be able to make the comparison. Especially since he isn't even talking about  Hitler's bigotry, but rather his rise to, and consolidation of, power.  If we can't have a dialogue about that, we're damning ourselves to repeat the same mistakes those before us did.  

  Lets all just calm down, take a breath, and more importantly stop looking at each other as though we are enemies just waiting to be exploited.  

Tuesday Quick Hit

 We just finished a 23 month long campaign, where a good many politicians promised us everything from tax cuts, rebate checks, mortgage security, national security, wealth, health care, and basically anything else they thought might get them elected.  Considering the frequency at which the electorate is lied to, I would hope that most would view these promises with a healthy dose of skepticism. 

 According to a new poll, 72% of Americans think that President-elect Obama will fix the economy.  In my opinion, that is 72% of Americans drinking a lot of Kool-aid.  I don't want to speculate on whether his plan (whatever it turns out to be) will be successful, but considering that he hasn't even taken office (and won't for another two months), wouldn't it be wise to temper those hopes a little bit?  If things improve next spring, no doubt both parties will try to claim responsibility, which will be an entirely different discussion I hope we're having in 8 months.  However, we don't even know what plan the President-elect is going to go with, so placing a lot of hope in him seems a little naive.  Especially considering that if the economy improves, it is going to be the private sector doing the work, not the government.  It is impossible for the government to create jobs, unless they tax us more to do it.  The best they can do is enact policies that encourage growth, and we won't see what the new administration will do for quite some time.  

 Of course, I've always been one to believe that every elected official should be held to pretty high standards, and trusted as far as we can throw them.  No one we put in the office is going to be our savior, and in fact I already have One.  I wish the President-elect all the success in the world as his policies will directly affect me, but am prepared for the very real possibility  that he'll do more harm than good.  He has promised us the world, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt until I see exactly what it is he plans on doing, at which point we can dissect his plans.

 For now, I'd suggest those 72% get off the gravy train and start viewing our government officials with a little more guarded skepticism.

Reactions

FIRST THOUGHT

As an American I am extremely excited at the reality of a Black American as president. 146 years ago President Abraham Lincoln issued the first part of the Emancipation Proclamation. The Civil Rights Act didn't come for another 102 years. It has been a full 221 years since the U.S. Constitution was ratified. It has been a long and painful struggle for Black Americans, and the election of Barack Obama should be celebrated across party lines. All Americans, no matter their vote yesterday, should be proud of that fact.

I am extremely desirous of a successful Obama Administration. I am hopeful that wounds can be healed, the economy can be resurrected, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can be brought to a successful conclusion. Everyone one should be willing to give Obama respect as our president, and give him the benefit of the doubt as he selects men and women to fill posts in his administration. His presidency should begin with grace from both sides of the political aisle, which would enable him to freely pursue the policies he thinks best for the country without having to feel the pressure of people just salivating at the thought of him screwing up.

President-elect Obama starts with a clean slate. He should have the freedom to implement the economic policies of his choosing, and only be judged on the success or failure of his actions. Whether I believe his policies will eventually fail or not is of little consequence, because he hasn't done anything positive or negative at this time. The only way we'll find out whether his policies will work or not is to let him implement them and judge them on the results. And that is how it should be. Like Senator McCain, I wish Obama Godspeed and will be praying for his success, sanity, wisdom, and discernment.

ACCURATE PREDICTIONS? THE DAY AFTER

It looks as though my first prediction proved accurate. I predicted that the day after an Obama victory the stock market would drop 400-500 points as investors weighed the ramifications of Senator Obama's tax policies. Today, the day after Obama's historic victory, the stock market dropped 486 points, the largest percentage drop after an election in the history of the market.

My second prediction was that Obama wouldn't be able to impliment his entire tax policy. I'm not sure where is administration will start, but in Obama's acceptance speech he downplayed expectations, stating that the economy might not rebound even in the next four years.

Another one of my predictions was the escalation of Russian aggression, and today Russia announced the placement of missiles near the Poland border. Russia has always been against the missile shield the U.S. is placing in Europe, so it would be difficult to blame this move directly on the election of Senator Obama. But it also would seem mighty suspect that they would pull a move like that the day after Obama's election.

Predictions

TWO QUICK THINGS

1) The Washington Redskins lost last night, which if history holds means our next president with be Senator Obama.

2) I am not normally one to speak in hyperbole or gross exaggerations when it comes to discussing the candidates. I'm not like Matt Damon, who is 'frightened' at the thought of a VP Sarah Palin. I'm not going to say it'd be disastrous if Senator Obama won, or that I'd move out of the country. I wouldn't even call the Senator dangerous. Though there is one thing I am very concerned about, and would come close to violating my own policy on, and that is Senator Obama's interpretation of the Constitution.

When Senator Obama was being interviewed about the Civil Rights movement, he said a failure of the movement was not establishing a system to redistribute the wealth from the wealthy to the needy. I mentioned this in my last post, but he went further in saying that the great failure of the Constitution was to limit the power of the Federal government, and he was disappointed that the Supreme Court didn't do anything to change that policy.

The reason that is so disconcerning to me is that the Constitution's primary focus was to limit the power of the Federal Government. In fact the first draft of the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, established such a weak federal power that the document ended up failing. The Founders would have rather failed in their first attempt by creating a powerless government than to err on the other side and create an overly powerful one.

After the Constitution was ratified, they began immediate work on the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights were designed to further ensure that the government didn't have certain power over us, and in very specific ways. This wasn't by accident, it was very purposeful. Some of the Founders even threatened to vote against ratifying the Constitution because it didn't provide enough protection from the federal government. As a result of the Bill of Rights, we enjoy the right of free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to assemble, etc. The primary ingredient for those rights to exist isthe specific removal of all federal power. In fact, the Founders set up our system of government as a way to remove government from our lives and ensure that the power it did retain was extremely limited. That was the design of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

So I am very concerned that a man is running for the highest office in the land while holding contempt for the very purpose of our founding document. Either Senator Obama doesn't understand that the Founders wanted to establish a system of government that was limited in nature, or he doesn't care. I would prefer that he be oblivious, but I don't think Senator Obama is a moron. I think he knows exactly what he is saying when he says that the Constitution failed when it limited the power of the Federal government. And that concerns me more than just about any other of his positions (except possibly his radical position on abortion). It is now possible that the United States might find a man in the Oval Office who finds our very Constitution as one of his established enemies, and that should make anyone who is even the slightest bit conservative very nervous.



Now on to my predictions for....



AN OBAMA VICTORY

Economy -

With an Obama victory, the stock market will experience a quick dip. Obama's policy of taxing corporations higher and raising the capital gains tax will make the stock market less attractive for investors. As a result, if Obama wins I would expect a 400 point dip in the stock market the day after. This might be tough to discern, since it is trending downwards already. Additionally, a good many people much smarter than myself have suggested the market is already continuing its downward spiral because of an anticipation of an Obama victory, but that is hard to prove. In any regard, this will only be a temporary decline as people will continue to invest in the market anyways. After a while, the stock market will climb as people re-invest, but I wouldn't be surprised to see an initial dip.

I don't think we'll see the Obama tax cuts as he has promised. At least, he won't be raising taxes on those he has indicated he will. Not until the economy has recovered. I would imagine his advisers would tell him that it would have a negative affect on the economy, and as a result I'd expect him to cut taxes on the 'poor' but not let the Bush tax cuts expire until the economy starts to recover a little.

He won't be able to implement his entire economic plan, at least not for the first couple of years of his term. To do so would be economic suicide, and I don't think he'll do that. If he does, I would expect the economic situation to worsen before his term is up.

I would also expect the Democrats to pass another stimulus package, to the tune of $200-$300 Billion. I don't think it will do much to stimulate the economy more than the current one, but they would want to be in the position to claim leadership on the economic situation.

By the end of his four year term, I see little to no improvement in the economy if his plan is implemented. Corporations, now being charged 10% more in the U.S. than in other countries, will continue their migration out of the U.S. We'll lose more jobs, as Obama's plan to force small business to pay for health insurance, higher taxation, and generally more hostile business policies will keep the market stagnant. No one will have an interest in expanding their business, as doing so will only result in more taxes. Of course, that is if he actually implements his campaign promises, which I doubt he will.

Foreign Policy

Israel will get serious about Iran. With only two months remaining in the very pro-Israel Bush Administration and Obama being a little vague on his support for Israel (especially in case of a war with Iran), Israel might be interested in attacking Iran while a pro-Israel president is in the Oval Office. This might be the 'international disaster' Biden guaranteed with an Obama presidency, because Israel will have a very serious problem in not knowing where Obama stands, especially after his statements about Iran being 'tiny', 'not dangerous', and his willingness to hold talks with them. Will Israel be willing to risk attacking Iran at a time when they can't be sure of United States support? I doubt it, I would think Israel would accelerate their plans while Bush is still in office.

The world at large will celebrate the victory as the United States finally wising up. This will last until the first trouble in the Middle East, during which Obama will either alienate the world by placating the wishes of those at home, or vice versa. Senator Biden did say that the U.S. wouldn't be satisfied with Obama's response to the first crisis he encounters, so perhaps that is an indication that Obama would placate the world and risk alienating voters at home. At any rate, Americans don't view the world the same way as Europeans, so Obama will have to make a decision as to which body of people he wants to satisfy.

Since Obama is perceived as being so weak on Foreign Policy, I would expect him to call some sort of international meeting of world leaders, something like a summit. In the very least, he will arrange to address the U.N. within the first 5 months of his taking office.

I would imagine nothing on the Iraq front will change. Because the success of the Surge has enabled the military to draw down troop levels with the support of the Iraqi government (current troop numbers are already at pre-Surge levels), he won't have that issue to tackle. He'll be able to satisfy the wishes of his base and those of conservatives at the same time by just maintaining the status quo.


I think Russia will be more aggressive, much more aggressive. Considering Obama's pretty weak reaction to Russian aggression into Georgia, and Russian movements toward re solidifying their previous federation, I see Putin salivating at the thought of an Obama presidency. If Obama is elected, expect Russian movements into more of their former states, like Ukraine and Georgia. They have already been aggressive on the world stage, but expect that to accelerate if Obama is elected.

Domestic Policy

The Fairness Doctrine will be re-introduced, and with a super majority in the Senate and control of the House and Oval Office, it might pass. The Fairness Doctrine states that no matter what the media, they must give equal time to opposing viewpoints. House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi has already discussed implementing this. Naturally, as someone who supports the free market of ideas, I would be against the Fairness Doctrine. With an Obama administration, I would expect the issue to be re-introduced.

Obama will resume public financing for abortions, and will resume international funding for abortions.


If Obama is serious about bankrupting the Coal industry like he promised, then expect electric prices to skyrocket. We won't start producing any more of our own Oil under an Obama presidency, so expect gas prices to continue their climb next summer. Perhaps when prices continue to rise he'll reconsider due to public encouragement. Since Obama's energy plan consists of 'fast tracking' alternative fuels and I don't believe you can fast track something that doesn't exist, I would expect no progress to be made on that front during his presidency (especially if he is here for one term). At least no more progress than already would be made in a free market anyways.

Obama will elect liberal judges, and depending on the composition of the Senate this will either be a serious problem for Obama or the Democrats will confirm his nominations with ease. I would expect his judges to add to the current crop of those who legislate from the bench, since he has indicated his desire to nominate those who would tend to perform that way.

Odds of being Re-elected

I would imagine Obama will be moderately popular at the end of his term, depending on which of his promises he keeps and which he does not. Since I disagree with the odds of his economic policies being more than moderately successful, I cannot imagine him actually following through with them. If he does, his term will be quick but painful, much like Jimmy Carter's. Jimmy Carter had much the same policies as Barack Obama (taxing the rich at a much higher rate, higher capital gains tax), and by the time he left office interest rates were in the 20s, inflation was in the teens, and the economy lost millions of jobs.

If Senator Obama deals with his first foreign policy disaster well, I don't think he'll suffer from the ill affects of a failure on that front. I'm not sure how he will react to a disaster like Israel bombing Iran, though I'm sure his first act will be to convene a summit about it. I am a proponent of diplomacy, but we all need to keep in mind that appeasement is only diplomacy taken one step too far. Those who appease are really only those who don't know when to call off diplomacy. I am not sure which kind of leader Obama will be since he has no specific foreign policy experience or record, but if he is too much Neville Chamberlain and not enough Winston Churchill, he might suffer in the public mind much like President Carter did.

Senator Obama is promising so much through his campaign that honestly I don't see how his presidency would be anything more than a failure. He has the middle class believing that he is going to give them more, the upper class believing that he is going to take more, all the while trying to convince both that somehow that policy will result in more job creation and an expanded economy. I don't see that happening.

Overall, I think Obama's re-election depends primarily on whether he follows through on his campaign promises. If he does, he will be a one term president. If he does not, he has hopes of being re-elected.

And now my predictions for......

A MCCAIN PRESIDENCY

Economy

McCain has admitted that he doesn't know much about how the economy works, and as a result his success on this issue largely depends on who he has advising him. That said, if McCain wins the nomination I would expect a modest jump in the stock market in reaction to his pro-investment policies of lower capital gains taxes and pro-growth policies of less taxation in gerneral.

To prove his worth on economic issues, McCain will try and put together another bipartisan stimulus package if the economy isn't better by summer 09.

McCain will follow through with his tax policies, which really amount to lower taxes on corporations and capital gains (investments). I see this helping the economy recover faster, but of course that is purely subjective and impossible to prove. I think if we could compare the economy after a year under Obama and McCain, the economy would improve 6 months faster under McCain than Obama.

At the end of his four year term, I see more economic growth under McCain than Obama. It would be impossible to actually compare, as only one of them will actually be elected, but McCain's plan favors economic growth so I would expect more growth under it than Obama's.

Foreign Policy

McCain has more foreign policy experience, and his presence in the Oval Office will command a different amount of respect than Obama's. I wouldn't expect Russia or Iran to test McCain as much as they would Obama. We still might see Israel bombing Iran, but knowing they still have an ally in the White House would stay Israel's hand for a longer time period, thus allowing for more diplomatic relations.

Iraq will be handled the same as Obama would handle it, but if a hiccup comes along McCain will be much better suited for it than Obama. McCain's position on the Surge, when it was unpopular, was the correct one. I'd have a lot more confidence in his adjusting to a battlefield change than Obama's.

McCain will try to prove he is different from President Bush by being more active in foreign relations. I would expect him to visit foreign countries pretty soon after his term begins, but probably not as quickly as Obama. His goal, unlike Obama, won't be to prove his worth in foreign policy areas, but rather to prove how different he is than President Bush. However, McCain's first allegiance is the this country, so I believe he won't try and cater to the world population like Obama does. You'd never see McCain giving a speech to 200,000 people in Berlin talking about international healing. He would rather give a speech about kicking someone's ass, which would be both good and bad. But I don't think he'll take that route. While he will seek their approval, he will in the end do what he thinks is best for this country, and will always speak in those terms.

Russia won't be as big of a problem under McCain as they would under Obama. With an Obama victory, Russia will be more willing to test his resolve. Under McCain, they wouldn't be so bold. While I believe in the long run Russia has imperialistic desires, I don't see them challenging McCain the way they would challenge Obama. They might wait until after McCain leaves office, or wait until his attention is on some other crisis.

Domestic Policy

McCain will seek bipartisan relations within Congress to a degree President Bush wouldn't have. He will encourage legislation that will anger conservatives, like more immigration and campaign finance laws.

His judges will have a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and won't tend to legislate from the bench. I don't think he would go as far as nominating only judges who would over turn Roe v. Wade, but would more stick towards the middle, moderate routes he is familiar with.

There won't be as many changes Domestically under McCain as there would be under Obama, and not just because McCain is a moderate conservative like President Bush. More so because Senator Obama is just so liberal. On the energy front, McCain will push for more oil drilling while supporting alternative fuels. Gas prices will rise at a slower pace than under Obama, though of course that is impossible to substantiate. As a result of increased drilling, more jobs will be created and more wealth will be created. That will be a large boom for the economy, as will his desire to create more nuclear power plants.

Odds of being Re-Elected

I don't believe McCain has as good of odds at being re-elected. Unless things are vastly improved by the end of his term, I don't see the American public re-electing him. Either candidate is going to have a very difficult time, and I don't see them having crazy amounts of success on the economic front. I think by the time McCain's term is over, we will only just be beginning to see the benifits of his economic policies. While I think McCain would have more success than Obama would, I don't know if it would be enough for him to be able to justify his re-election. Much more likely, in my mind, is the succession of Governor Palin. If McCain's presidency is successful, and he opts out of running again (which is always a possibility), then it would be easier in my mind for Governor Palin to get elected than it would be for McCain to get re-elected. I would wager that Governor Palin would have as good a chance at getting elected in 2012 as Senator Obama would have at being re-elected.

Those are my predictions. What are yours?

An Obama Administration

  Anyone who has spent time reading this blog knows I am no fan of Senator McCain. I disagree with him on quite a few issues, ranging from immigration to campaign finance reform. I would prefer that he be a little more small government oriented, as I think he has a tendency to lean towards a larger government than I would like. It isn't that he is without his benefits (pork spending, lowering taxes, etc), it is just that I would prefer someone who is a little more conservative. That said, I also haven't hid that I think a moderately conservative McCain Administration would be preferable to a Liberal Obama Administration. Here are my reservations about Senator Obama winning on Tuesday.

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE FOUNDERS

  I don't think Senator Obama has a firm grasp on what the Constitution was written for, or what the Founders intent was.  He continues to call for a larger government, when our Founders were extremely wary of a strong Federal government.  Listen to what he says about the redistribution of wealth and the Constitution: "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth.....It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution."  He went on to say that the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution as "a document of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."  What Obama said was we need to "break free" from the constraints placed on the powers of the Federal Government by the Constitution.  Essentially, that the Founders were wrong, the Constitution is wrong, and needs to be fixed.  Like I have said before, if you agree with him then fine, agree with him.  But know that when you vote for him, you're voting for someone who thinks the Constitution is flawed in limiting the power of the Federal Government, and should have mandated redistribution of wealth.  In an earlier blog I wrote about Senator Obama's belief that Health Care is a right, and what that says in regards to his theory on government.  This further confirms what I said, in that when he says that the Constitution failed the mention "what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf" he is essentially saying that the function of the federal government is to provide us with tangible things, like wealth.  To do that, it has to be very powerful, because tangible things don't exist in a vacuum, they have to be created.  

  The Founders wrote the Constitution to ensure the government doesn't take away our rights that already exist without the governments intervention (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).  Obama thinks the Constitution should actively create tangible rights for us: redistribution of wealth, health care, etc.  I think Senator Obama would be in direct conflict with Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Washington, and even Andrew Jackson.  I think he fundamentally doesn't understand the function of our Constitution, and I believe that is further evidenced by other issues I have with his policies.

CIVILIAN NATIONAL SECURITY FORCES

  Senator Obama has called for the creation of what he calls a Civilian National Security Force, "just as strong, just as powerful, just as well funded" as the military. I don't think even the Senator has hashed out this policy in full, but there are a series of serious issues here. One, the Constitution hasn't given the authority to create such a force. To create one would mean having to deal with a slew of serious problems, like who is in command of the force? When the Constitution allows for State militias, why do we need yet another Civilian National Security Force? To be honest, and I'm not trying to be gratuitous about this, the Civilian National Security Force reminds me a lot about the Hitler Youth (in design/function, not the group's ideology). A private security force, controlled by the executive branch? In the wrong hands, it is extremely dangerous.  I'm not on board with that.  Our Constitution was very specific in making sure the military is NOT part of the executive branch, to avoid problems that would no doubt rise from one branch controlling that much power.  In fact, our military was set up to be exactly what Obama wants, a civilian force, not controllable by the executive.  That is why the President's cabinet has no direct control of the military.

JUDGES

  Senator Obama has declared that when it comes to nominating a judge, he would nominate someone "who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom.  The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.  And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."   I'm all for empathy for those less fortunate, but that particular characteristic is misplaced in the Judicial Branch. I realize the Senator is probably trying to create a more human judicial system, but in doing so he is changing the function of what the courts were set up to do. The Judicial Branch was created to interpret new laws constitutionality and make sure the laws are enforced. They aren't there to be empathetic towards those less fortunate. Once you start electing judges who interpret the law not based on precedence or the letter of the law but instead based on what they think the law should state, you create judges that legislate from the bench. We have a branch of the government designed to be our representatives and have empathy for those less fortunate, and that branch the legislative branch. Our system of government is set up to function that way as a check and balance, and I would be concerned with a leader who has stated that he wants to redefine the way our system of government functions.  That is a massive change in the Constitutional definition of the judicial branch.

TAXES

Forgetting for a moment the vacillating definition of wealth that the Obama campaign is struggling to concretely define, the very policy of redistribution of wealth is a bad idea. Again, our system of government isn't set up for that. The $1,000 tax rebate that Senator Obama is offering is NOT a tax rebate in the traditional sense. It is NOT money that people paid in taxes that the government doesn't need, and is returning to them. Senator Obama is proposing to get the money directly from a tax on Oil Company profits, and then re-distribute it to everyone else. I realize that Oil Companies are currently making quite a bit of money (though, as a % of revenue it is less than the profits of Microsoft and Google), but as soon as we let our politicians convince us it is ok to tax those more fortunate than ourselves we are traveling down a slippery slope. Who is to say exactly where Senator Obama will stop defining people as "wealthy"? If we give our politicians the authority to make that distinction, they won't stop at just those making $14 Billion profits. Eventually they will get to taxing you as well. More than that, this exhibits a fundamental difference between the candidate's view on the function of government.  Senator McCain wants the government out of our lives to protect our rights.  He believes our rights exist only when the government is least involved.  Senator Obama wants the government to create rights for us, to be actively involved in our lives.  

  Additionally, think about what their individual policies are really saying.  Senator Obama is essentially saying that your cut of the pie is too small, and to make sure "your cut of the pie is bigger", he will take from those who have larger pieces and give it to those who have smaller. Senator McCain wants those who have smaller pieces of the pie to get bigger pieces as well, but he doesn't want to accomplish that by taking from others. McCain's theory is, why not enrich everyone?  McCain would say, why not make the entire pie bigger. Expand the economy, so we all benefit and make more money. That exhibits a very fundamental and important difference in how these men approach the government and how to create wealth, and I am not comfortable with Senator Obama's interpretation of things.  To him, he'd rather take from those who have more than expand the economy as a whole.  Not only will his plan shrink the economy in the long run, but it doesn't even benefit those he claims.  

  Think of it like this.  If you make $60,000/year, you are taxed at about 10%.  So you paid $6,000 in taxes.  Say Obama gives you a $2,000 tax break. so now you effectively made $62,000.  In reality, that change benefited you very little.  In addition, under his plan your boss' taxes were raised and he is now paying 45% on his income taxes, is required to pay for your health care or is fined, and pays 33% more on his capital gains.  After all that, as his employee would you expect to get a raise any time soon?  But what if you took the conservative approach, and tried to make sure you were able to get a better education, a better job, and thus more money?  Or take the conservative plan to tax your employer less, and not require them to cover your health care costs (it might be nice that you have employer paid health care, but effectively that is money they aren't paying you directly, and you didn't even get to chose your health plan!).  Under which plan would you expect to flourish?

ABORTION

  Abortion is largely an emotional reaction to a very real issue.  It is the answer, for some, to all kinds of legitimate questions: what if I get raped?  What if I get pregnant as a teenager?  What if I get pregnant and my boyfriend leaves me?  Those are legitimate concerns.  I don't really want to get into the issue of abortion right now because my concern with Obama isn't just whether he is Pro-Choice or not, it is how Pro-Choice he is.  First, people need to understand that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will NOT be made illegal.  What would happen is abortion law would revert back to the states, where the Constitution wanted it.  Roe v. Wade is bad interpretation of Constitutional law and the jurisdiction granted by the Constitution to the Federal and State governments.  Roe gives the Federal Government powers that it should not have, as the Constitution states that all issues not addressed in the Constitution are to be considered State jurisdiction.  The real issue is that Obama goes further than wanting to hold up the Roe v. Wade decision.  In a speech to Planned Parenthood the Senator promised that his first task in office would be to sign the Freedom of Choice act, which further solidifies abortion as a Federal issue by removing any state restrictions on abortion.  It would attempt to make abortion legal up until the moment of birth, a procedure called partial birth abortions.  Here is the definition of partial birth abortions: A partial-birth abortion is performed in the second or third trimester and entails inducing a breech delivery with forcepts, delivering the legs, arms, and torso only, puncturing the back of the skull with scissors or trochar, inserting a suction catheter into the skull, sucking out the contents of the skull so as to collapse it and completing the delivery by removing the collapsed skull."  Ron Fitzsimmons, former Exec. Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, has stated that "in the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus."  According to previous statements by Mr. Fitzsimmons and estimates provided by others, there are between 2,000-5,000 of these procedures performed each year in the United States.  In 2007, the U.S. Supreme court upheld an Act signed by President Bush in 2003 that prohibited this type of abortion, but the passage of the Freedom of Choice Act would be in direct opposition to that law, and a legal situation would ensue.  My point isn't whether or not Partial Birth Abortions will continue to be illegal, but rather to illustrate the danger of a policy making the issue solely the domain of the federal government.  

  In addition to partial-birth abortion, the Freedom of Choice Act would remove state rights in regards to requiring  parental notification, age restrictions, etc.  Essentially, it creates federal domain where there should only be state domain.  As someone who believes in the Founder's intent to keep the Federal government limited in scope, I take issue with Senator Obama's intent on this issue.

  Senator Obama also supports EDR, Embryonic Destruction Research.  EDR provides for the fertilization and destruction of human embryos for genetic research.  The goal of that research would be to create a database of embryos that would represent every genetic variation, and every disease.  They would want all variations of embryos to represent all variations found in human beings, so their research could be specific as possible.  This would necessitate the fertilization and experimentation on tens of millions of embryos, literally the harvesting of human life.  Senator Obama supports this type of research, as indicated by his opposition to President Bush's policies restricting it, voting against legislation that bans human cloning while in the Illinois state senate, and his c0-sponsoring of the Human Cloning Ban Act of 2005, which ironically enough protects human cloning when it comes to genetic research and then requires the destruction of all embryos created for that research.  Senator Obama also voted against a bill in the United States Senate that provided funding for stem cell research other than embryonic.  Research that did not require the creation or destruction of any embryos.  The office of the President, through the National Institutes of Health, is in charge of allocating all Federal money for genetic research.  As such, it would give me great comfort to know that the person in charge is not in favor of the creation, experimentation on, and then destruction of human embryos.

ENERGY

  Recently it has come to light that Senator is willing to place a cap-and-trade system on the Coal Industry that would not just encourage clean and renewable alternatives, but would in fact run them out of business.  Here is a direct quote from the Senator: "If somebody wants to build a coal power plant they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum."  Currently, coal power plants generate 54% of our electricity.  I realize that in the future Senator Obama wants to move to more renewable energy which is a sound, responsible policy.  However, placing large charges on coal plants today, before the infrastructure is in place for renewables, would create crippling prices for today's energy.  Since Obama has recently indicated he is for coal power (but his above quote would indicate he actually is not), I would be curious if Obama holds the same thoughts on Nuclear power.  Seeing as he publicly says he is for coal power but is obviously for taxing it out of business, I would like to know if he holds the same view for nuclear power.  

  I do not believe it is sound policy to move towards renewable energy while at the same time cripple your current energy producing sector.  Not even to mention the tens of thousands of Americans who work in the coal industry.  To hear a presidential candidate speak candidly about destroying a section of the American economy, regardless of his good intentions, is worrisome.  It is bad policy to try and force change like that.  It will result serious financial consequences, and it will hit the poor the hardest. 

FOREIGN POLICY

  Even most Obama supporters I talk with are concerned with his lack of experience on this issue.  For someone who wants to become Commander and Chief and will be running two wars for our country, it is amazing to me that the first time he visited Iraq was only a few months ago.  I would prefer he have a little more first hand knowledge of the issue.  His lack of experience in foreign policy leads me to my next point.

WORLD VIEW

  This is what I placed at the top of my list for qualifications of a president, and it is something of which we know very little about Obama, as he is known principally through his books and his speeches.  What we do know about his friends, associates, and religious affiliations aren't comforting to say the least.  The fact that his spiritual mentor is a man who speaks of the "US of KKK -A" and "God Damn America", and September 11th as the US's "Chickens coming home to roost" is troubling.  I have personally never heard a pastor say that, and if he/she did I would have left the church immediately, not stayed for 20 years.  The fact that Wright was his pastor for 20 years, baptized his children, married him, and served as his "spiritual mentor" is a little foreign to me.

  On the foreign policy side of things, his response to Russia's invasion of Georgia was to call for both sides to stop their aggression and for the U.N. Security Council to get involved.  Either he doesn't know that Russia holds a veto on the Security Council, or he knows that calling for their involvement will get nothing accomplished.  Neither option is, to me, reassuring.  He either doesn't know enough about the situation to comment on it wisely, or doesn't want to hold Russian aggression responsible, and seeing as that aggression was against a US ally I find that distressing.  

  

HIS SUPPORTERS

  I admit this is a bit satirical, but there is a certain amount of reassurance I get from knowing that I disagree with a great many of the people who have publicly supported Obama. Who wouldn't find it reassuring to know they're on the opposite side of issues from people like Madonna, Lindsey Lohan, Hamas, Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani, Perez Hilton (yes, I spelled that correctly), Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Anne Hathaway, Europe, etc?  When a cause is that popular, it is normally on the wrong side of things.  Civil Rights, Civil War, Women's Rights, Abolition of Slavery, even our own Revolution, were not supported by a majority of people, especially not at the speed at which Senator Obama has been embraced at.  Public acceptance of a movement this quickly shouldn't necessarily be seen as a positive indication of where things are heading.  In fact, history is littered with quickly-embraced movements that turned out to be very bad for everyone involved.

  To be fair, I realize a great many good people support him, which is a plus.  And a great many crazies support McCain.  But I don't support McCain either, so I feel I'm safe on that side too. 

GUN RIGHTS

  Obama's public support for Coal Power while privately holding the belief that it should be taxed into bankruptcy makes me contemplate a couple of things.  1.  Where was the press on this issue, and why are we finding out his blatant hypocrisy the day before the election?  2.  What else is Senator Obama pretending to be for while is is actually against?

  Obama has indicated in the past that he would be in support of making hand guns illegal, and prosecuting people who use them against intruders in their own home.  As someone who supports the Second Amendment, gun rights, concealed weapons permits, this makes me worry because Obama is also now indicating he supports all these things.  If he is pretending to be centrist on coal power, is he also pretending to be centrist on this issue?  If he is elected, with a Congress controlled by his own party, will we find out how liberal he really is only after the election?

THE UNKNOWN

  I am concerned with what we don't know.  We know that the media has been biased in this election, and we are finding out things about Obama just now.  The Los Angeles Times is currently holding a tape of Obama at a function with anti-Israel speakers that they are refusing to release.  What else would they hide?

  Obama is a first term Senator who began his run for president a mere 143 days after being elected into office as a senator.  His 129 votes of 'present' in the Illinois senate are of some concern to me.  I don't think it disqualifies him for the job of president, but I'd rather have a president who knows whether they are for or against a bill and isn't afraid to stand up for it.  

  The media's inconsistencies in reporting on Senator Obama is odd to say the least, and dishonest at the worst.  I don't believe they did their job when it came to looking at Obama and reporting back to the public, and when he is running against someone in McCain who has one of the most visible records imaginable, that is a little of a disappointment.

CONCLUSION

  These are a few things that bother me about Obama.  While this isn't an exhaustive list, his misunderstanding of the Constitution is quite unsettling.  His extremely left views on abortion, and admittance to not being able to identify when human life begins are eye opening.  He is the most liberal senator in the Senate, which is amazing because to be labeled that he had to beat out Bernard Sanders, a member of the SOCIALIST party.  

I am not in love with Senator McCain, but I honestly think that the only person who could make me vote for McCain would be Obama.

Tomorrow I'll write my predictions for a victory of each candidate, and examine what I think will happen for each circumstance.