It seems appropriate to take a look at what happened one year ago. Based on all previous trends in elections, McCain should have won in a landslide 310 to 228 electoral votes. Obviously, that is not happened and the question is why? From a distance of one year after the fact, the answer is now clear. Historically minorities and the under 30 age groups have a very poor record of turning out to vote assuming they are even registered to vote in the first place. It was clear that black voters were going to turn out in record numbers to vote for a black candidate. There was no reason to assume that Hispanics would do that or that young people would bother to vote. However they did do just that and that made a crucial difference in the battleground states. Thus the Democrat turnout (always heavily supported by minorities) reached record proportions.
Still that might have not made the difference in states like North Carolina, Ohio and Indiana if it were not for the Republicans turning out lower than normal. Likewise, many Republicans actually voted for Obama in the interests of proving that America's abysmal racial record was a thing of the past. In this they were disappointed because the matter of race is now more of an issue than it has been since the days of Martin Luther King. Finally a lot of Republicans stayed home because McCain was too liberal or too conservative depending upon the state the voter resided in.
At this point, this is all ancient history so why care? The question is whether the 2008 election was a total upheaval or merely a one time anomaly. The elections on Tuesday provide us with an answer to this crucial question. It was a one time anomaly since the partisan turnout on Tuesday returned to historical norms. The minorities and the young folks went back to not caring much any more about who wins elections. The result was not only Virginia voted Republican but even New Jersey did which it seldom does. This was caused by the independents switching from going 2 to 1 for Obama to going 2 to 1 for Republicans.
What does this mean for 2010? In Virginia, the Republicans carried 9 out of 11 congressional districts on Tuesday. Right now there are six Democrat congressman from Virginia and only five Republicans. Unless things change, there will be 9 Republican congressman and only 2 Democrats from Virginia after the 2010 election. It seems safe to predict that the Democrats will lose virtually all of the seats they gained in the 2006 and 2008 elections. If that happens, the Republicans will regain control of the House of Representatives. See Charles Krauthammer's article, Myth of '08, Demolished, coming to the same conclusion.
2008 and 2009 Elections Compared
We Cannot Just Say No
If those of us who are opposed to the current administration and Congress let those same folks ingrain the idea in the body politic that we are merely obstructionist, we are doomed. To just say no is to say we support the status quo and are convinced that since nothing is broken, nothing needs fixing. There are many things in America that are broken and need fixing and everyone should agree on that. The argument is over how to fix what is broken.
Liberals think that the government can fix all these broken things if we will just give them the authority to do so. The rest of us know better because what has government ever done right? History shows that government screws up everything it touches beyond all reason and belief. Civil servants have no vested interest in getting things right. They are only interested in covering their asses so they can keep their position at the public trough. Individuals and competitive profit making business have a vested interest in getting it right.
We need a forum for our proposals on how to fix what is broken. General principles can be done easily such as the ones at: PUMA Coalition Positions. The problem is that philosophical positions are not grabbers with the general voting public as opposed to political activists. To convince the non-activists to join us requires that we have specific solutions to solve known problems. We are going to take a stab at offering some fairly radical ideas on providing these fixes in the order that they are important to the American People as delineated by Rasmussen Reports.
These are: Gov't Ethics/Corruption, Economy, Health Care, Nat'l Security/War on Terror, Social Security, Taxes, Education, Immigration, War in Iraq and Abortion. Each of these problems is laid out along with our proposed solutions at www.marstonchronicles.info
What is this Big Deal About Freedom?
One thing that makes it a big deal is that the degree of freedom each individual should be allowed to have under the American system of government is what determines whether one is a liberal, conservative or libertarian. Supposedly the United States is a "free" country but we all know that this is no longer true because the federal and state laws fill several bookcases and the case law books based on these laws fill a whole library. These do not hold a candle to the rules and regulations implementing these laws since that is another whole library right there. Each one of these laws, rules and regulations diminishes our freedom by dictating what we cannot do and what we must do.
If government diminishes our freedom that much then why have a government at all? The original idea was that government is necessary because without societal order everything falls apart and the strong run roughshod over the weak. The ideal behavior is encoded in the so-called Golden Rule. Of course, the Golden Rule is not a rule at all but rather is a principle. The Ten Commandments are rules saying do this or do not do that. The problem with rules are that they do not provide for reasonable exceptions. Thou shall not kill is a good idea but what about in case of war or self defense? Doing unto others what we would want done unto us provides that necessary flexibility. Ideally ever law, rule or regulation should be tested to see if it needs to be enforced because not everybody follows the Golden Rule.
As governments grow more centralized and more powerful, it always departs from this test and starts promoting what is good for you as opposed to the minimum necessary to enforce Golden Rule behavior. The extent to which government is allowed to do this determines one's political philosophy. Those who insist that government should only do those things necessary to enforce Golden Rule behavior are called libertarians (Goldwater Republicans). They are not interested in what is good for them or even what seems to be fair but only what is necessary to maintain societal order. Liberals on the other hand are more interested in equality than they are in freedom. They are quite willing to harness the power of government to make everyone as equal as possible even if it requires more laws, rules and regulations to produce the desired result.
Perhaps you thought that conservatives were the ones most resistant to governmental control over their lives. That depends upon the issue. Where conservatives depart from libertarians is where religious views come into play. Most conservatives are pro-life and oppose abortion and euthanasia. To them life is more sacred than freedom whereas libertarians feel that freedom is more important than life. They say that if the government has the right to force a woman to have a baby she does not want and feels she cannot properly care for than we have given the government far too much power already. The same goes about "pulling the plug" for a person who is vegetative. Strangely enough, this argument between conservatives and libertarians really comes down to different religious views. A libertarian feels that God's greatest gift to us is free will and we should treat it as such and only give up the bare minimum of freedom to government required to maintain civil order. The conservative view is that God's greatest gift is life itself and that is what should be guarded "religiously" even before freedom.
The average liberal is not much for organized religion because he or she is well aware that organized religion has been competing with government for several millennia over who is in control of the people. Liberals have decided that since democracy has become the prevalent form of government that it should have the control as opposed to the narrow secretarian views of organized religion. Strangely enough liberals if they belong to any church at all tend towards Unitarian churches that have a minimum of rules. Liberals do want freedom from religious dictation but are more willing to give up freedom to a democratic government. Conservatives tend towards hierarchical churches such as Roman Catholic or Baptist churches because they are more willing to give up some freedom to a church than a government. Libertarians say a pox an both your houses and are not willing to give up much freedom to either of them. Liberals want to harness the power of government to provide the greatest good for the greatest number. If this requires giving up more of their freedom to government it is all in a good cause. After all you cannot make an omelet without breaking some eggs.
Thus the big deal about freedom is how much of a big deal it is to you. If it is a very big deal to you then you are a libertarian. If it is not that big a deal to you, you are a liberal. If your view is somewhere in between, then you are a conservative. Strangely enough few people seem to really understand these differing views on the role of government and freedom. What say you?
What Makes Obama Tick?
We have been watching the actions of President Obama trying to figure out what really motivates him. We did not support him for the Presidency, not because he was black or even a Democrat, but rather because his previous history indicated that he was not really supportive of the America we know and love. Still when he did get elected, we looked at the bright side and felt that at least we had proved that skin color was no longer a barrier to political advancement in this country. There is no way he could have gotten elected without a great number of white votes so we felt that at least white guilt would be a thing of the past and race relations in this country would improve. No such luck.
We slowly began developing a theory that could explain his actions. For a minute let's just assume that an individual who was raised as a Muslim in the most Muslim country in the world and attended Muslim schools also retained this childhood conditioning. Let's further assume that this person moved to the United States and eventually became President. What would a true Muslim do in such a case? He could not admit to being a Muslim so he would have to be ostensibly a Christian. Does this explain why Obama could be a member of a church with a rabid race baiting minister and not be bothered about it even when his mother was white?
What kind of politics would such a person be attracted to? Wouldn't he pick associates no matter how horrendous their background and who actually hate this non-Muslim country? Wouldn't he be attracted to a politics that was the most dangerous to the United States? Wouldn't he surround himself with people most likely to accept a black person and actually push him based on his race? Wouldn't such a person resort to dirty tricks to eliminate political opponents, even those who had supported him in the past? Is it just some coincidence that most of Obama's opponents were forced out of his races giving him a free ride?
Wouldn't he campaign as a person who strongly favors a "help the oppressed minorities and adopt a message of peace and good will towards all mankind" while pushing the hope that he could right all of the evils in this world? But is that what he would do when he actually got elected President? Obviously not. The first thing a closet Muslim would do is totally ignore the gays who overwhelming supported him because his Muslim beliefs caused him to think that they should really be executed. The next thing he would do is slowly and steadily pull the rug out from underneath Israel and ignore the American Jews who overwhelming supported him because he really hates them.
In foreign policy matters, he would be a total wuss. He would encourage anyone who is opposed to the United States by letting him know that he will not stand in their way if they make quiet but still overt moves against our interests. He would make nice with the most dangerous Muslim countries like Iran. Since Muslims are not particularly interested in democracy, he would quietly support dictators of all sorts such as Castro, Chavez, and their like. He would alienate our allies and slowly but surely strip them of any defense against Muslim aggression. He would bow to a Muslim king and give a speech on and in the Middle East to let Muslim leaders know they had a friend in the White House without being so obvious that anyone one not on the right wing would protest.
While campaigning on the idea that Afghanistan was where the real war should be waged, once elected he would do nothing to support it and stall as long as possible on military requests for assistance. In the end, he would do nothing so that the Taliban could win and give not only the United States but also give its NATO allies a black eye. After that betrayal, why would the West be interested in combating terrorism? He would even rename the War on Terrorism to further trivialize the effort.
He would push programs that would devastate the economic welfare of this country by running up massive deficits. He would favor laws that profess to do something about global warming but would actually make the current recession much worse. He would push for more expensive entitlement programs that would inevitably bankrupt this country. He would keep pushing these programs even when a rising opposition caused his poll numbers to go into free fall. Such a person would not care about political damage to himself or members of his party or getting them or himself re-elected because he would need to do as much damage as fast as possible. Does any of this ring a bell? We just cannot come up with any other theory that explains all of Obama's actions. We greatly fear that Obama is a Muslim wolf in Christian sheep's clothing. We truly hope we are wrong but we do not think we are.
See http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs/islams-stats-from-the-cia comment number three for Obama's sister's confirmation of this theory.
How to Get Rid of Pelosi Before the Next Election
This may come as a surprise to you but the Speaker does not have to be elected by his or her own party. It is possible to form a bipartisan coalition and elect a Speaker who is more satisfactory to the minority party. That is what happened in Arizona in 1964 in the State House of Representatives. Ever since achieving statehood in 1912 Arizona had been a typical southern state with segregated schools and Democrats in charge all along. As always happens when one party controls a state for too long, corruption was rampant. Republican members of the legislature could not serve on committees or even introduce bills. As more and more people moved to Arizona from Republican areas of the country, the segregated schools were done away with (before the desegregation decision) and Democrats from the urban areas became an endangered species.
The highest priority of most politicians is the get re-elected and these urban Democrats were in a world of hurt. That is when the Republican minority leader went to what today we would call Blue Dog Democrats and proposed a deal. The Republicans would vote for one of these urban Democrats for Speaker in return for the minority Republican leader becoming the majority leader and being given committee assignments and being allowed to introduce bills. Since these Democrats were well aware that their districts were becoming more and more Republican with every passing year they agreed with this proposal. Yes, the Speaker was still a Democrat but one the Republicans could live with since they were all now part of the majority.
There are 48 Democratic Congressmen from districts that McCain-Palin carried in a horrible year for Republicans. What will happen in 2010 to these folks? A lot of them are going to be toast and they know it. Since the Republicans only need to pick up 40 of these 48 seats to regain control of the House even that is a possibility in a good Republican year. So here is how it works, the Republican leaders approach the Blue Dog Democrats and offer to vote for their choice of one of their own for Speaker in exchange for a Republican becoming Majority Leader. Since the House will reorganize itself in January, there will be a new vote for Speaker then. If a PUMA coalition can be formed by then, Pelosi will be out and a more conservative Speaker will be in. What would that do to the Obama legislative agenda? This is the only hope for survival for a lot of the Blue Dog Democrats because they can go back to their districts and say that they are no longer going along with the leftist agenda but have become bipartisan so why elect a Republican in their place?
Do the country a favor and start behaving like Americans instead of Democrats and Republicans and we will love you for it. Are any of you House Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats ready to do that and save your own job in the process? If you do not do this, we will all be stuck for Pelosi as Speaker for years to come. Do we really want to have this San Francisco socialist become President if something happens to Obama and Biden? In case you have forgotten your civics, the Speaker of the House is third in line to become President. Many people are asking how we can do worse than Obama as President and here is your answer.
Britsh Government Claims Obama Knew about Lockerbie Bomber Release in Advance
A British newspaper, The Daily Mail, claims that a British government aide told them that the Obama Administration knew about Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, being released way in advance and did not object. The articles quotes a Whitehall aide on the subject:
"Downing Street has hit back at Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for attacking the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber.
President Obama and the US Secretary of State fuelled a fierce American backlash against Britain, claiming Abdelbaset Al Megrahi should have been forced to serve out his jail sentence in Scotland – but a senior Whitehall aide said their reaction was ‘disingenuous’.
British officials claim Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton were kept informed at all stages of discussions concerning Megrahi’s return.
The officials say the Americans spoke out because they were taken aback by the row over Megrahi’s release, not because they did not know it was about to happen.
‘The US was kept fully in touch about everything that was going on with regard to Britain’s discussions with Libya in recent years and about Megrahi,’ said the Whitehall aide.
‘We would never do anything about Lockerbie without discussing it with the US. It is disingenuous of them to act as though Megrahi’s return was out of the blue.
'They knew about our prisoner transfer agreement with Libya and they knew that the Scots were considering Megrahi’s case.’
Mr Obama said Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds was a ‘mistake’ while Mrs Clinton phoned the Scottish administration to complain in person."
If there is the slightest truth to this "leak" from the British Government, it casts serious doubt an the competency of the Obama Administration to manage foreign affairs very well. What is more it implies that the Obama Administration lied to the families of the victims of this bombing. At the very least, the Foreign Relations Committees of both houses of Congress should hold a hearing on this subject. It is vital that we find out who knew what and when did they know it on this matter. Of course, when one political party controls both houses of Congress and the White House, such investigations never seem to happen. The Republican pressure on Van Jones forced his resignation after belated news coverage on his background. This is even more important because it is seriously damaging our relationship with our foremost ally.
Ideologues Make Poor Politicians
It does not matter whether they are ideologues of the left or the right or even libertarians. An ideologue is by definition a person who believes that his or her views are the only true and correct ones. This is also true of religious ideologues or zealots. The reason why they make poor politicians and even worse statesmen is that anyone who disagrees with them is either stupid (left wing and libertarian ideologues) or a traitor (right wing ideologues). This means they cannot respect opposing views and find it extremely hard to compromise because they view this as compromising their principles.
When an ideologue gets elected to a public office, they adopt a "my way or the highway" attitude. They insist on a whole loaf of bread or none at all. The practical effect of this is that the ideological politician stands firm on principles on the deck of a sinking ship and never jumps into the compromise lifeboat. Now this is not to say that one should never stand on moral principles because some things should not be subject to compromise. A real politician knows when to stand firm and when to give a little to get half a loaf rather than none at all.
We see this syndrome all the time in politics. Some Republicans stayed home and sat on their hands because McCain was not conservative enough for them. How do you think Obama is working out for these folks? Likewise, far left Democrats are insisting on a public option in healthcare or none at all. They seem oblivious to the fact that trying to jam through something that the independents will not support is political suicide. Now some ideologues are so determined to have their way that they are quite willing to commit political suicide. In this, they are true fanatics kind of like suicide bombers only most of them are not willing to resort to violence.
There simply is no way to govern without compromise. One third of the voters are centrists and want nothing to do with either the extreme left or right. Whenever the far left or right extremists tries to jam through their agenda, the independents balk and say we are not willing to to go to that extreme. Politicians who ignore the wishes of the independents will soon find themselves on the outside looking in. If the far left Democrats do not heed this fact of life, they will be hanging those members who are in districts that voted for McCain-Palin out to dry. They will find themselves in a similar boat to the one that the John Birch Society wound up in. Whatever happened to them anyway?
