I suppose we'll get to see just how permanent all of this is whenever Obama finally does pull all of the troops out, be it in 16 months or (as per the S.O.F.A) December 2011, but, for now, this ABC News report should make you feel pretty good about how things are going in Iraq right now:
I think that speaks for itself.
Thanks, General Petraeus.
Could my good Governor, Mark Sanford, wind up as the Republican nominee for President in 2012? And, if so, might he actually win? Well, The American Conservative seems to think that, if the great behemoth of Hope n' Change turns out not to be the very Will of God it has thus far promised, Governor Sanford, thanks to his "stringent free-market philosophy" and "elegiac demeanor," might be well positioned to do both of those things:
Mark Sanford is easy to overlook. If Republicans need a champion in the Obama era, there are more colorful candidates than the South Carolina governor. He doesn’t play electric bass, or to the Religious Right, like Mike Huckabee. He has made no attempt to rewrite the GOP’s almost forgotten small-government playbook like Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty or Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal. Though he is popular, Sanford seems incapable of playing a red-meat populist like Sarah Palin. He looks plain, his philosophy is old, and he has an elegiac demeanor that seems incompatible with electoral politics.
But unlike many other Republican politicians of his stature, Sanford recognizes that there are limits to ambition, that government treasuries are not bottomless, and that no ideology can captain the globe. If the promise of “hope” in the form of bailouts fails to revive the American economy, Mark Sanford will be the GOP’s most dangerous man in 2012.
In recent weeks, he has become the unofficial spokesman against Obama’s trillion-dollar economic stimulus plan.....While cable’s talking heads shout at him, he somberly quotes Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek. He worries aloud that the bailouts represent a 'crisis of American civilization.' "
Here's the link to the full article, which is interesting both as a profile and 2012 look-ahead.
Insofar as the question of a run itself is concerned, it's been asked before and Sanford has repeatedly denied that he's got any future political plans after his term as Governor is up. Nevertheless, the race might actually set up rather well for him; since his term as Governor will end in January 2011, giving him a full year before the Iowa Caucuses to get a campaign up and running. Plus, he'd be an easy favorite in the all important SC-GOP Primary.
Will he? Who knows - and honestly, at this point, it's way too early for me to care all that much about the 2012 Elections. Besides, Sanford already has an important day job; and it's not going to be getting any easier over the next 2 years.
...then try, try again, right? And hey, if it just so happens to involve a few billion dollars of (yet to be earned) taxpayer dollars, well, so be it. Alas, while this attitude probably doesn't behoove folks like you and me, who will have to pay for all of these bailouts (plus interest!!) at some point in the future, it seems to be working out fabulously for the fine folks struggling to run AIG; who, it was announced today, are set to get a second round of bailout money from our Federal Government.
So, let's recap, shall we? Last fall, under the watchful eyes of President Bush and Secretary Paulson, we decided to sink billions of dollars in AIG because it was "too big to fail" and we needed it to turn around. Now, after we gave them all this money, they have come back to us to report $61.7 billion in 4th-Quarter losses, the largest loss ever reported by an American company. And, naturally, we decided it would be a really good idea to reinvest another $30 billion in this failing business.
Well, at least now we know why all the former Wall Street people now working in D.C left Wall Street - as the kinds of business decisions they're making on behalf of the government would have gotten them fired in the business world.
Seriously though, at what point does all this bailing out finally end? Hell, after we've gone in and bailed out AIG once, why shouldn't we go in and do it a second or third or even fourth time? Better yet, when do we reach the point where a company failing is finally less important than our government's checkbook failing?
Of course, such rhetorical questions help indicate the problems this kind of government intervention inherently entails; namely that, if you do it once, there's nothing to keep you from doing it again. Indeed, given the rationale that you used the first time around (i.e. 'too big to fail'), you're pretty much compelled, rationally at least, to repeat the bailout the second time around, too. Afterall, if it was too big to fail the first time, how can it not be the second (or third, or fourth) time around as well?
So how do we escape from this trap that our political logic has led us into? Well, as I see it, there are only two ways: either the company is fundamentally restructured so that it becomes, metaphorically speaking, small enough to the point where it can fail; or it ceases to fail and, once again, becomes a successful company. Unfortunately, by bailing out companies like AIG in the first place, the government makes it unlikely that either of these things will happen. That's because, through the bailout, the government has absolved AIG of its financial losses; losses which were incurred because of poor business decisions. In other words, somewhere along the line AIG took a risk that didn't pan out - which is o.k, because risk taking (and, yes, the occasional failure) is a part of business. Now, normally, AIG would be forced to take those losses, which would, most certainly, cause serious problems for the company.
Through the bailout, however, the government has decided to prevent AIG from having to go through the painful process of dealing with its bad business decisions. The problem is that companies, like people, aren't going to learn from their mistakes if they don't have to deal with the negative consequences of them. Screwing up and taking big-time losses are what cause companies to restructure and come up with a new business plan. Consequently, by using the government to bailout an AIG, you make it more likely that this company will fail again in the future because you've eliminated the gusto, if you will, of the market forces that would normally force it into severe restructuring.
And that, of course, means more bailouts - ad infinitum, I suppose - and also indicates to us that the bailout, like so many government programs that came before it, is self-perpetuating. Proving once again the validity of Reagan's maxim that government doesn't solve problems, only subsidize them.
One of the more interesting statistics that I've heard tossed around in the aftermath of the recent Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip is the comparison of total casualties on both sides. As you might expect, the Palestinians, as in the past, had significantly more casualties in this war than the Israelis did. (Sorry, I don't know the exact numbers of the top of my head, so you'll have to google it yourself.) The argument, as I've heard it, essentially amounts to a knock on Israel for being excessively brutal or using, in what has become the new favorite catchphrase of UN policy wonks, 'disproportionate force.' In other words, Israel must be more of a bad guy because they're killing so many more Palestinians than the Palestinians are killing Israelis. Yet, simple as this logic may sound, I feel it has a couple of important flaws.
The first problem is that arguing casualty numbers in this way fails to take into account the nature of the Gaza Strip itself; namely, that it's rather small and really crowded. That combination, no matter who's shooting or what they're shooting, is going to result in higher casualty numbers for the Palestinians in Gaza because more people in less space makes the likelihood of collateral damage increase exponentially even in the most precise and well-planned attacks. This fact, in my book, can't really be blamed on either side, as it's just a reality.
Another obvious thing that should be noted about the discrepancy in casualty numbers is that they likely stem directly from the drastic differences in firepower. Simply put, the Israelis have bigger and better guns. No matter how accurate, a Hamas rocket will never be able to do as much damage as Merkava Tank. Moreover, this fact doesn't make the IDF the 'bad guys' - it just makes them the more technologically advanced military in this particular war. Indeed, I'd be willing to venture that, if given the opportunity, Hamas would happily kill many more Israelis; just because, at this point in time, they can't doesn't make them morally superior.
Nevertheless, I do think that, when looking at a war, it's important to try and distinguish, even at a rudimentary level, between good and evil. However, it's war, so people are going to be killing each other - that's just part of it (some would say the point of it...), so we can't distinguished based just on the act or its success rate. In order to truly gain a moral perspective on war, we have to look at what surrounds the killing, and that's why I think that, particularly in this case, intent matters a great deal. Afterall, it's one thing to kill civilians while targeting the enemy's soldiers; it's an entirely different thing to aim exclusively at the civilians from the get-go.
And I suppose this is why the statistical difference in casualty numbers does not increase my sympathy for the Palestinians; because, when I look at the "why" behind the actions of the Gazans' elected representatives, Hamas, I don't exactly see morally superior motives.
...about the stimulus, you could probably learn from this chart, right here: Either with or without the stimulus, President Obama has already negatively affected the budget deficit, as it relates to GDP (what Democrats bragged about during the Clinton years), to a greater degree than any of the last 5 Presidents.
Based on my reading of that chart, I get: Reagan - more-or-less budget neutral: 0% change
H.W. Bush - same as Reagan: 0%/-0.5% change
Clinton - slightly budget positive: +4% change
W. Bush - slightly budget negative: -4% change
Obama without stimulus - slightly budget negative: -5% change
Obama with stimulus: significantly budget negative: -10% change
To be fair, of course, President Obama hasn't had a full term yet, and both Reagan and H.W. Bush started out increasing these deficits but finished by decreasing them. However, in their worst years, Reagan and Bush, Sr. increased the budget deficit by 2% and 1%, respectively; Barack is not only working on between 5% and 10%, but is well on his way to creating the biggest one-year increase in the budget deficit over the last 30 years.
These new heights of deficit spending come, naturally, at the same time that the long term deficit is also reaching new heights (depths, really...), and the future costs of programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are beginning to increase exponentially.
Now, I'm no economist, but I am a young, budding taxpayer - and I'm pretty sure all this means that I'm about to get screwed.
The Gipper would have been 98. "The 9 most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help." "The Government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves; tax it. If it keeps moving; regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." "Government doesn't solve problems - it subsidizes them."
He won the Cold War and vanquished the "Evil Empire" without firing a shot, revived a stagnant U.S Economy and lead it into the modern age, restructured our tax code for the better, and made the United States, once again, the Greatest and most Free Nation on Earth.
He was the Greatest President of the 20th Century.
One can only imagine what he would have thought of the horrific "stimulus" packages the current President and Congress are trying to pass. And while those folks continue to try and hash out the final details of how, exactly, to spend the next few generations of American taxpayers' dollars, all for the stated goal of helping us "Ordinary Americans" in this time of recession, I think it appropriate to remember some of the wisdom of Ronald Reagan:
Indeed.
We miss you, Mr. President - and we sure could use some of your principled leadership these days.
Ah, the joys of "free" healthcare:
"A former soldier pulled his own teeth out with a pair of pliers because he could not find a dentist to take on NHS patients...
He said: 'I've tried to get in at 30 dentists over the last eight years but have never been able to find one to take on NHS patients.' "
Lovely, huh?
The great thing about this story is that it's a perfect example of why the type of "Universal Health Care" system desired by President Obama, other liberals, and even some 'Conservatives' (hello, Mitt Romney...) here in the U.S won't, ultimately, work.
Many a time during the campaign, when asked to defend himself against charges that his Healthcare plan was a thinly veiled attempt at socialized medicine, President Obama responded by saying that, since those who so desired would be able to opt out and get private health insurance, his plan couldn't be dubbed socialized medicine. Indeed, the point of the "universal" part of his plan, he argued, was simply to ensure that those millions of uninsured Americans would never have to go without, thanks to the government sponsored insurance he would be offering.
Well, guess what? In the U.K, people with the financial resources do have the option of getting private healthcare; and furthermore, in a manner that would seem to dovetail nicely with President Obama's plan, those who can't afford such a luxury are given all the health coverage they need via the NHS. Nevertheless, despite being fully provided for by their government, the British folks who were supposed to have been saved from the pain of being uninsured by the almighty hand of a government health care program still aren't getting the health care that they need.
Indeed, despite having a truly "Universal" system of health coverage at his disposal, Ian Boynton was unable to do something as simple as find a dentist to examine his toothache.
What this particular story illustrates so well is a point, which I have made on many an occasion before, that neither socialized medicine nor Universal Health Care (not that the difference is all that substantial...) will solve the current Health Care problems in the United States. This is due the fact that, like all big-government programs, they are inherently flawed solutions because they fail to address the real problem facing the system. In this case, both in the U.K and U.S, the real problem is that Health Care is to expensive. What Socialized Medicine and Universal Health Care both do to address this problem is to offer you either "free" or insanely cheap Health Insurance to make sure that you have enough money to cover this high cost. In other words, instead of directly addressing the problem of expensive health care, and trying to bring down these high costs, these programs are designed to simply mask it through government welfare.
Of course, the problem with masking crises instead of confronting them is that they tend to fester and come back - usually with a much greater degree of monetary pain than they hit you with on the first go-round.
That's why, if we want to try to offer real health care reforms here in the United States, we can't fall into the trap of simply offering up ideas that don't address the real problem. If we want to make Health Care in the U.S better, we need to look at solutions that will actually reduce the costs of health care and thus make it affordable to an even greater number of Americans - without us having to give them a welfare check, first. Two quick and easy ideas to jumpstart such a change would be to allow insurance companies to compete across State lines and to reduce our Doctors' operating costs through Medical Malpractice reform.
Just anything but Big Government, please. Because, afterall, I can already pull my own teeth out with pliers for free - and I don't even have to bankrupt my country's future in the process.
But, but, but....I thought that George W. Bush was turning American attention away from hunting down Al-Qaeda because he was so maniacally focused on avenging his Daddy in Iraq??
Alas, to the deep disappointment of Bush-haters everywhere, our former President did not forget who attacked us on 9/11, and he never stopped hunting them
"CIA-directed airstrikes against al-Qaida leaders and facilities in Pakistan over the past six to nine months have been so successful, according to senior U.S. officials, that it is now possible to foresee a "complete al-Qaida defeat" in the mountainous region along the border with Afghanistan...
The CIA has been using drone aircraft to carry out attacks on suspected al-Qaida and Taliban targets in Pakistan for several years, but such attacks were significantly expanded last summer under orders from President George W. Bush."
The way that 4th Generation Warfare is fought ensured that the destruction and incapacitation of al-Qaeda would be neither a quick nor easy process; however, with a strong resolve and continued dedication, it was always possible. Moreover, like nearly everyone in the United States after 9/11, from top-to-bottom in the U.S Military and across the political spectrum, President Bush had some things to learn about the evolution of war over the last 60 years; but, now that he's safely stashed away in Texas, we continue to hear more and more about just how well he and his top advisors came to understand the delicate and difficult nature of the tasks they were facing in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East. Given the orientation of the U.S Military in 1999, and the general uselessness of Donald Rumsfeld, the fact that we have evolved our tactical and strategic capabilities to the point of being able to bring al-Qaeda to the brink of collapse is no small feat.
Finally, and this is for you President Obama, please note that while George W. Bush had no problem actually ordering military strikes within Pakistan, he never felt the need to talk about them on national TV or announce them to the world (and, by extension, our enemies). On the other hand, during his campaign, President Obama always talked about how he would send troops/drones across the border into Pakistan - apparently forgetting that one of the most important elements in any war is secrecy. So, for future reference Mr. President, be more like George W. Bush: do what you have to do to win, but try and keep the plans out of the news.
Prior to today, I'd heard good things about SC State Representative Nikki Haley, but haven't really had a chance to hear her talk or learn anything about her first-hand; having now done that, I must say, I'm deeply impressed.
Unlike seemingly the vast majority of "Republicans" in the SC State House, Rep. Haley isn't part of the Good ol' Boy network, nor is she the average Democrat turned RINO, willing to spend my great State into financial catastrophe. In fact, she's probably the greatest advocate that true fiscal conservatives have right now in all of Columbia. She's also just managed to piss off the establishment and score a huge victory for voters with her recent, and ongoing, crusade for much-needed transparency in our State Government.
Anyways, I've posted a video below of her talking about some of the issues (as well as some fundamental conservative principles) at a sort of 'Meet your State Rep' event she recently did. It's kind of long, but if you want to understand some of the fundamental problems with South Carolina State government, and how to start fixing them, or if you just want to listen to a damn good speech about why transparency, real spending restraint, and public interest/participation are important when it comes to government, take the time to listen.
Well said, ma'am - and keep fighting for South Carolina voters, even those of us who aren't in your district!
I don't smoke, and I'm not totally sold on the need to end the War on Drugs, but this, nonetheless, kindda scares me.
Don't get me wrong, Google Earth is awesome (as well as addictive and time consuming); but the idea of law enforcement being able to use it to search people's private property seems, to me, at least, a really....bad precedent. I mean, theoretically, if the police want to come search my house, they need a warrant, and to get a warrant they need probable cause - meaning, of course, that, in order to search my property the old-fashioned way, the police would have to follow a certain procedure that still gives me, as a citizen, some degree of Rights protection.
However, to use Google Earth you just need internet access and basic computer skills - not a warrant. Consequently, the police could, theoretically, search my property without obtaining any kind of probable cause first. Of course, if they tried to use that evidence in court, they might find themselves in violation of the 4th Amendment. (Although they'd probably need a pretty decent lawyer to make such a case.)
In any case, the whole concept is way too Big Brother-ish for me.
I know Google has had some issues with Privacy Law in the past, and I realize that this happened in Switzerland and not the United States; but still, I tend to think that this kind of police work should be illegal. Afterall, telling the Judge "We saw it on Google Earth" really doesn't sound like a probable cause that respects people's Rights.
Newsflash: Republicans on Capitol Hill may have finally rediscovered their balls and brains.
Maybe.
After spending the last week talking about how they need to come together and vote for this $825 billion stimulus package, if only for the sake of being bipartisan and showing support for our new Jesus President, the House GOP leadership may have begun to realize that, even if the Lord Messiah himself commands votes of 'yea,' a shitload of pork and other politically motivated spending projects won't actually rescue the U.S economy from recession. Moreover, they seem to have realized that, in addition to being a massive pile of crap, the bill can, in fact, be opposed in the form of a 'nay' vote.
And it's about freakin' time too, huh? The National Debt is over $10 Trillion, the largest programs in the Federal government (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) are in the process of going broke, the federal budget hasn't been balanced in years, and finally the House Republicans seem to have figured out that we can't continue to spend money like teenage girls in a shopping mall because - surprise - we don't have any. President Obama can't deficit spend his way into economic stability any more than President Bush could; and if he wants to pilot the ship towards the abyss the Republicans should at least have sense enough to jump overboard before it gets there.
Oddly enough, the Democrats are trying to warn Republicans away from voting 'nay' because then they will risk becoming "the Party of 'No,'" over the next few years. Of course, in making this threat, the Democrats seem to have forgotten that the Republicans' biggest problem over the last few years, one which the Dems themselves have criticized us for, was, essentially, becoming the Party of 'yes.' For years, Republicans in Congress became a rubber-stamp for any spending bill that President Bush sent their way, on everything from No Child Left Behind to the prescription drug bill. Furthermore, in doing so, Congressional Republicans lost sight of what brought them to power in the 80's and 90's in the first place: fiscal responsibility.
Moreover, being staunch supporters of fiscal responsibility in conjunction with the tax cuts Republicans so love, directly translates into the need to also be the Party of Small Government. For better or worse (I think for better), being the Party of small government - which is what the Republicans are supposed to be - means saying 'no' and saying it often. It means believing in things like balanced budgets, accountability, and responsible, restrained government spending; all of which even the most powerful SONAR couldn't locate in this craptastic "stimulus" bill. That's why Republicans need to take a principled stand and vote against it.
Finally, over the next four years, if Republicans want to effectively oppose President Obama's liberal agenda, they really do need to become the 'Party of No.' They need to oppose his policies - not the man, the way Democrats did with George W. Bush - and articulately explain to the American people why, from a principled perspective, they simply are not down with atrocious bills like this stimulus. And who knows, by saying 'no' to most of the big government projects and a New Deal-like spending agenda, they just might rediscover what it means to be the Party of Ronald Reagan.
With my post-election politics fatigue finally having worn off, and with the period of exams, holidays and back-to-school craziness finally over, it's back to blogging about politics just in time to say goodbye, here in its final 12 hours, to the 8-year presidency of George W. Bush. It hasn't always been the smoothest of rides these past 8 years, and it remains to be seen what history's final judgment on them will be, but, it seems appropriate to at least reflect on what an old-school conservative's view on them might be.
There certainly have been some serious counts on which I have disagreed with this President. Immigration jumps immediately to mind. The Prescription Drug Bill (the largest spending bill in Federal history) and his lack of fiscal discipline also do.
Moreover, he has recently been, unfairly, blamed for the recent economic collapse, which has its roots in a housing crisis that has been building, quite literally, since the Carter Administration; and while he has certainly played some part in it, I believe that where history will truly haunt him is on his response to it. His absurd belief that he could "save" the free market by betraying his free market principles has made the economic policy of his last 6 months virtually indistinguishable from that of the liberal President-elect, and has done absolutely nothing to help end the economic downfall. Big government doesn't solve problems, it only perpetuates them, and I think that President Bush's all-to-frequent forgetting of this fact has done more damage to his Presidency than anything else.
On the more positive front, one would be hard pressed to find a President, including the Old Gipper himself, who was a greater friend, both in word and in deed, to the pro-life movement than the 43rd. His outstanding judicial appointees have certainly played a large role in securing that legacy, but, from a conservative point of view, this is certainly an issue for which he, personally, deserves a good deal of praise. Furthermore, as Israeli President Shimon Peres himself hinted at in a farewell phone call with Bush earlier today, there has probably never been an American President who has been a greater friend of Israel than George W. Bush - and in my book, that scores high marks.
There are other issues, of course, which I could hash out in trying to evaluate the 8 years of President George W. Bush; but continued discussion of such points will, ultimately, be of little relevance to his final legacy. This is because the final verdict issued by history on the success or failure of the 43 President of the United States will be intricately linked to the wars he started in Afghanistan and Iraq - although I suppose that, in his heart, that is exactly the way he would want it to be.
President Bush's beliefs on the power of Democracy and Freedom to improve peoples' lives and bring peace have made him, perhaps, the most openly idealistic President since Woodrow Wilson - far to much so for my tastes on many an occasion - but these beliefs have led him to begin the arduous process of creating stable democratic governments in two countries whose relative political histories are the antithesis of such ideals. It certainly remains to be seen whether these experiments - for that is what they are - will work in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I suppose even I, myself, am only cautiously optimistic about their potential success; but if 20 or so years from now Iraq and Afghanistan are stable, relatively democratic countries, history will be kinder to G.W. Bush than his recent approval ratings have been. On the other hand, if Iraq falls back into chaos (or if Afghanistan remains there), then history's ultimate verdict will most certainly be failure.
I have a firm belief that it is inappropriate to judge the worth or value of a war before it is over, so I will put this aspect of Bush's legacy to rest by simply noting that, while I, personally, agreed with the decisions to begin both wars, the jury is most definitely still out on both counts.
One part of the Bush Presidency that, on a somewhat personal level, I will always value was his re-election campaign. That's because, during those long months on the campaign trail, Dubya, while a very imperfect practitioner of them, stood up for me and my values. When there was talk of things like 'culture wars' and 'fly over country,' W stood up and said that, while many in the media might have sneered at them, those conservative values and ideals were his values and ideals, and that they were worth fighting for. He has never been, as I just mentioned, anywhere near a perfect practitioner of these values, but he wasn't ashamed of them (as John McCain sometimes seemed to be), and in fighting for them he fought for me - and I will always appreciate that.
However, more than anything, these last few years, George W. Bush has kept me safe, and for that I thank him. I know that, in the past, I have spared no opportunity to make fun of things like airport security; but the fact remains that since September 11, 2001 there have been no Islamic terror attacks on American soil. There's been a good deal of luck involved in that, as I suppose there always is, but a good deal of skill too, thanks in no small part to the tireless efforts of the good folks who work at places like the CIA and the FBI. But if, as me and many others have stated in the past, the blame for the mistakes of the past 8 years is to be laid at the feet of Dubya, then some of the credit for the successes also lies with him - afterall, he was "The Decider."
With the politics now out of the way, I'll conclude this little retrospective by noting, perhaps to my own personal surprise, that while I haven't always agreed with him on politics, I have come out of these last 8 years with an immense respect for George W. Bush as a man and as a leader. Does this mean I think he'll go down as a great President? No. But the Reagans and Churchills of this world come around all to infrequently, so I can hardly fault him for that.
And so, adieu, Mr. President - and enjoy Texas.
So, with the election now some two weeks in the rear-view mirror, we've all had time to listen to the various pundits, politicians, and activists running around on TV screaming about the coming era of doom for the GOP. Apparently, the apocalypse has already happened - only it came in the form of a political party losing an election, and there was no mark of the beast. Indeed, if you've gotten so tired of hearing, 'The sky is falling! The sky is falling!' that you momentarily thought that you were either experiencing Deja Vu or a glitch in the Matrix and being flashed back a few years to when Al Gore first came out with An Inconvenient Truth, well, you can be forgiven.
Yes, we lost the election - badly.
No, it's not the end of the world as we know it (cue R.E.M...)
Strangely, some people on the right have been so badly shaken by a mere five point swing in the electorate that they have gone so far as to wonder whether the United States is even a centre-right country anymore! Don't worry, it is. But even if it wasn't, that wouldn't be the end of times; afterall, the GOP is the Party of free markets, so if the market for political ideology has changed, the GOP will adapt to meet the demand. Markets always have a funny way of working things like that out.
And the electoral crisis was not as bad as some people seem to think it was. The youth vote was not any higher than it has historically been (it only flipped Indiana and North Carolina for Obama), and even its complete absence would not have affected the ultimate outcome of the election. The turnout was not any higher than it was in 2004, when the GOP was the big winner; and the margin of defeat, given the political climate, was not at all as devastating as the media would have you believe.
More absurd - nay, most absurd - is this idea that the GOP lost the election because it has become something along the lines of 'too Christian;' with the suggestion being that the GOP needs to get rid of its Evangelical, social conservatives before it can move on to bigger and better things. Well, pardon me, but this sounds like a suggestion that we're supposed to extend our life span by cutting off our own head. The only reason the GOP had any semblance of power to lose in this election in the first place is because of the Evangelical movement. It's no coincidence, folks, that both Reagan and the Evangelical movement rose to prominence in the 1980s - the two were intimately connected. Social conservatives make up the most reliable, and possibly largest, voting block the GOP has, and putting them out to pasture would be nothing more than a sure-fire route to an even smaller minority.
Nevertheless, the GOP's problems can be traced, in some ways, to the Evangelical movement - although not necessarily through any fault of theirs. You see, for the last several years, in part thanks to President Bush - although I think he's become more a scapegoat than anything else - the GOP has become maniacally single-minded. Either we were talking about and fighting for the War in Iraq, and only Iraq, or we were talking about gay marriage and only gay marriage. In other words, the GOP has spent recent years focusing mainly on a few issues, at the great expense of others.
Thanks to President Bush's self-designation as a 'compassionate' conservative, the primary focus of the last 8 years has been social issues, and the results have been superb. Two excellent Judges, the partial-birth abortion ban, as well as several other, smaller steps towards the overturn of Roe v. Wade. And ditto on gay marriage; heck, even in this election, a gay marriage ban passed in California. The GOP has devoted great efforts to these issues and, largely, won the battles. This fact is particularly true for Iraq as, thanks to Republicans in the Senate and the President, the retreat was never sounded with the result being an emerging victory.
There is no great shame, as some in the GOP seem to think, in having succeeded, ironically enough, to the very point that those issues became irrelevant to voters in the '08 elections.
Of course, in working so hard on these issues, the GOP managed to neglect, uh, well, most everything else; particularly fiscal conservatism. And while I'm on the subject, let me echo the sentiments of P.J O'Rourke in advising the collective Party that fiscal responsibility is not just cutting taxes - any old fool can do that. It's a combination of cutting taxes, reducing spending, eliminating waste, decreasing corruption and balancing budgets.
And on those counts, just 1/5 ain't o.k.
The same could be said of healthcare, Social security, and a whole host of other issues which the Republican Party has basically forgotten about in recent years.
So what's it all mean? Well, the Republican Party has a multitasking problem. That's right, for all our supposed business acumen, we Republicans seem to have forgotten how to do something as basic as managing all the items on our own daily planners. You can't govern on just one or two important issues; indeed, single-issue parties have a history of becoming, well, history. Consequently, this is what Republicans must change between now and November 2010 (to say nothing of November 2012). They must learn to deal with all of the issues that voters are concerned about. And yes, you annoying-ass, beltway-bred, cocktail Republicans that includes continuing to stand up for socially conservative values on behalf of us crazy-ass-backwards Southerners (who, by the way, excluding the apostates in North Carolina and Virginia, are the only people you can really count on right now...).
So there you have it, my quick GOP-recovery plan. It doesn't involve performing CPR, or some kind of Buddhist retreat, just a little bit of common sense. Learn to multitask, and show the American people that you can simultaneously govern like adults and care about all of their various issues.
And one last thing - stop blaming Sarah Palin. She was the best damn thing that happened to this ticket. How some of these idiots keep going around talking about how the GOP has to totally change its image while simultaneously cursing our use of a female, from Alaska (who actually balanced her budget...), with a track record of battling corruption and getting things done as the VP candidate is beyond me. I mean, seriously, do these people not realize what the exact problems with the GOP, that they're complaining about, are? All of the things that we need changed in Washington are the exact things she's managed to do as Governor in Alaska. Open your eyes people!
Hell, come to think of it, maybe, before trying to bring back the Grand Old Party, we ought to boot out the idiots first.
The money phrase from the Congressman is right up front:
Hear that? It's not your money - its Congress'. And they're going to do what they damn well please with it.
Incidentally, the Congressman claiming that the bailout money is the copyrighted property of Congress caucuses with the, ahem, Republican Party.
And these people wonder why they keep getting smashed in elections....
Well, let's be honest, we all kind of knew that this could turn out to be a really....bad day - and so it has. First off, congrats Barack, you won and have now probably inspired a whole new generation of African-Americans (among others) to actually give a damn about politics and their country. That's no small feat.
Second off, the good news (what little of it there is): Namely, that Democratic gains in both the House and the Senate were not as severe as forecasted. The minimum number of House seats the GOP was supposed to lose was 24; at this point it looks like we'll lose either 19 or 20. Not good, for sure, but not catastrophic either.
In the Senate, the Democrats are going to fail to get their 60 seat supermajority. We already have 40 seats, with four results still pending. In Georgia, assuming he stays above 50% when the last 1% of precincts report in, Saxby Chambliss will retain his seat. Norm Coleman has already eked out a narrow victory in Minnesota, but law requires it go to a recount before being made official due to the razor-thin margin. In Oregon, Gordon Smith, surprisingly, has a chance to hold onto his seat, for (as I write this) 76% of the vote is in and he is virtually tied with his Democratic opponent at 47%. And finally, in what has to be the most interesting result of the evening, it appears GOP Senator Ted Stevens, he of the 7 felony convictions, will win his re-election bid. In all likelihood the Senate will kick him out when it reconvenes, and then Gov. Palin will pick a replacement to serve for 2 months until a special election is held. With the right pick (Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell!!), this seat should stay in the GOP column.
Nevertheless folks, start battening down the hatches - for the countdown to Jimmy Carter Deux is on!
On a more personal note, let me now thank Senator McCain and Governor Palin for their campaign; as it was an honor and a pleasure to volunteer on their behalf, even if it was, ultimately, a losing effort. Theirs was probably the most uphill campaign any Presidential candidate has ever had to run - and that includes when Gerald Ford ran with Nixon's resignation hanging around his neck. As I said back before the South Carolina GOP primary, there was no Republican candidate who could have done better, win or lose, in this election than John McCain. If McCain couldn't win this election, no Republican could have. The fact that he ever even had a chance is a testament to the man and his determination. It hasn't always been the best-run or most effective of campaigns; but, in my mind, it will forever be associated with the masterstroke of Sarah Palin.
Don't forget her, folks. As Ahnuld would say, she'll be back; and I really believe that she will one day be my President. And Governor, whenever you do decide to run again, you've got my (S.C Primary) vote - and, rest assured, I'll be ready and willing to work my ass off for you.
But now let's get back to good ol' Johnny Mac. As you may know, I haven't always agreed with the man, on both style and substance, but I have come to respect him immensely over the last few months. As I watched him giving his concession speech last night, and listened to him talk for one last time about his country, I realized something; and that's simply that they just don't make many Men like that anymore - and it's a damn shame.
His has been a life of hard knocks, one of ups and downs, and yet one with the kind of rugged character that we have come to expect from those in his generation. Above all, however, his has been a life about self-sacrifice for greater and more important causes.
Country First. I hope one day I understand that as well as he does.