Guard Dog

You need to understand something about the GOP, it is not at all a monolithic entity. It is made up of three contentious factions that often work against each other despite their common causes. Even the three factions are broken into subgroups. The Democrat party is as well (there are dozens of factions there) but they have been more successful uniting when the chips are down. The three big groups are the Fiscal Conservatives, Social Conservatives, and the Rockefeller Republicans. McCain was the champion of the Rockefeller's. He tied the Socials to him with his choice of Palin but made no effort to court the Fiscals who were hostile to him anyway. The big thing about the Republican base is, if they don't like you, they will stay home. And looking at voter turnout between registered Dem's and Repubs it looks like they did. The Republican party is in shambles now. The Rockefellers are blaming the Socials for the loss. The socials are blaming the fiscals and the fiscals are the ones who claim McCain was not conservative enough. But they say the same thing about Bush (correctly too since he has never practiced economic or fiscal discipline). I tend to agree. Conservative economics has never failed to produce growth in the US. Just look at the last President who cut taxes and spending at the same time. Bill Clinton. Surprised? From 1994 to the end of his term Clinton governed far more as a supply side fiscal conservative that Bush ever did. Before his it was Regan whose tenure saw the longest period of sustained growth in US History. So yes, I'd say that statement is true. If McCain was more conservative he might be President now. But if Bush had acted more like a conservative (small government, non-interventionist foreign policy, lower taxes and spending) the environment that saw the Republican party fragment and collapse and saw Obama sweep into power might never have happened.

Look at this example. You live in Washington I believe. Before it was gobbled up in mergers AT&T Wireless had it's headquarters in Redmond. Beginning in 2001 and escalating to 2005 Washington state 1)Removed a number of property tax exemptions for business who bought (as opposed to rent) their office spaces 2) Increased State regulatory tax on businesses operating in WA (aka "the Corporate Income Tax") 3) Increased state income tax. Doing business in WA became expensive enough that the company moved it's headquarters to San Antonio TX. Now, many employees were offered jobs in TX if they were willing to move. If they were not they were laid off. So, because of increased taxes WA lost the revenue it made off AT&T Wireless' business, the income and sales taxes paid by the workers who moved (permanently) and the ones who were laid off (at least temporarily). Do you really think that is a good outcome of raising taxes? The one area Obama is absolutely certain to hit, and hit very hard, is Capital Gains Tax. IMHOP this is nothing more than sanctioned robbery. Follow me on this. I am employed, I earn a salary that Uncle Sam takes 25-28% of every two weeks. Suppose I took some of that money(that I have been taxed on once) and bought a stock with it. And the stock does so well that I sell after a short time and make some money on it. That money is considered a capital gain and I'm taxed on it again. Under Clinton it was a flat 20% rate. Bush reduced it to 15% for business, 5% for individuals. Obama has already promised to allow it to return to 20% when the Tax Reconciliation Act sunsets in 2010. Then he has intimated he will raise it more. Securities investing is risky. If a stock buyer assumes the risk it's because they believe the return will be worth the potential for loss. If the government is then taking away a third of more of their returns they will be disinclined to invest. Without investments business do not have the capital to operate. You see where this leads? One of my biggest problems with Obama is that he actually believes the US has a zero-sum economy. I'm finding that mindset is common in bureaucrats who have never held a real job (Obama has not). Heavy taxation presumes that if money is taken from one group that earned it and given to another that did not then the two balance out. So many times in US history (most notably the late 70's) we have applied that model and it has always led to disaster. The US has market based economy and a tax plan that punishes and discourages investment only stifles growth. Market economies are never....ever...ever static. If it is not growing you can bet it's contracting.

What constitutes going 'extreme left' in the current US context? I mean, what are the policy areas and decisions he'll be making in the near future that will indicate whether he's viewed as leftist or moderate. Is it purely taxation and expenditure on public services? The big thing everyone's talking about is Iraq and Afghanistan but I don't see those as particularly left/right issues. Tax increases greater than what the average American deems as fair (a specious standard to be sure but I can't be clearer than that), gun control, attempts to limit free speech (the "fairness" doctrine), rapid and large scale military cuts (this may sound innocuous but it has a lot of bad trickle down effects). Excessive government spending (there are plenty in the opposition who will be waiting to make an issue of this). Ham fisted attempts at nationalization of business (like Clinton did in 1993). The American people wanted change but if you give it to them too much too fast they will dig in their heels and yell "Stop". If he did pull out of Iraq in rapid and dramatic fasion and the country collapses he would be finished politically. He knows that. That is why nothing will change in Iraq or Afghanistan. I know what he said on the campaign trail but no one is ever obligated to make good on a campaign promise. Plus I will get a HUGE "I told you so" right here on this board.

Trying to change the conversational tack here. Obama will take office at same time as the 111th Congress. What will define the first two years of his Presidency will be his relationship with them. While it is true his party has total control the leadershio he will be facing is prickly, and all to convinced of their own importance. To make matters worse they will go into this believing he owes them something (all of them are superdelegates). They will certainly give him what he wants, but you had better believe they expect him to give them what they want. What I will be most interested to see is the first veto battle. How soon will it come? Over what? Unless Obama is a total fool he should keep 1994 in his mind. His life will become significantly harder if one or both houses changes hands in 2010. Of course that is less likely because the Republican party is in ruins. They are descending into infighting between two of the three main factions. Without a clear leader in the opposition Obama can be as left as he wants to be without serious reprecussions. But he has to guard against going too far. America did not change it's ideological bent just because he won the election. It would behove him to remember that if slightly less than 2 million votes had gone against him in FL, NC, VA, OH, and CO (yes it was that close) history would have turned out different. If he goes extreme left it may cost him a second term but it will certainly cost the dems the House of Representatives. He has to think long term. Congress will not, they have only two years to make their case to their home districts for reelection. Therein may be his first conflict. I still predict that the very first thing the 111th Congress does will be to vote itself a pay raise.

Whoever you are.... where ever you are.... you must, MUST see this weeks South Park. Do it. You'll thank me.

Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." - Sir Winston Churchill "At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth...could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years... If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." - Abraham Lincoln "Who would fear the wrath of cowards?" -Thomas Paine "If there are no dogs in heaven I do not want to go. When I die, send me wherever they went" -Roy Rogers "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." - Abraham Lincoln "There is nothing on earth half so terrifying as a truly just man" -George R.R. Martin

a) Thats a little hard to say since he hasn't even take office yet. But even Obama would have to get up pretty early in the morning to outdo Woodrow Wilson or FDR. Those two are the reigning kings of the expansion of Federal power. b) Not a chance. Even if he wanted to. c) Tell your friend about the 4th Amendment d) Taxes are going up and it will be more than he promised on the campaign but I believe the biggest hits will be capital gains. For seome reason dems love to punish investments. e) Ohhh I hope they take me somewhere warm! That last one is my favorite. I'd bet Pop would like that one to be true. Before you all laugh too much there was a lot of post-election lunacy from some posters on this very board after Bush won in 2004. None of that trash happened either. As for calling him a socialist (something even I might have done) allow me to point out that almost all descriptions are comparative. He is not a text book socialist but compared to other US presidents and candidates he is closer than most.

You make over $200,000 a year? Really? Oh I guarantee that bar will be a LOT lower when the time comes.

No. The current representative system is written into Article I of the Constitution. It would require huge amounts of political capital to even get the conversation started in that direction, and, ultimately, the resulting policies wouldn't be all that different. For good or ill, in the States, there's a lot of reverence for the 1789 Constitution. There have been a few periods of major changes made to it (most notably, the initial Bill of Rights, the Civil War amendments, and the efforts of the early-1900s Progressives), but otherwise, there has been great resistance to anyone questioning the wisdom of the "founding fathers." Can you imagine the utter chaos that would result from a Constitutional Convention in our time? It was highly contentious in 1789, it took more than 10 years to get 13 states to ratify it. And in those days the was far more cultural and political similarity between the states than now. The document that would be acceptable to New England would never be ratified in the South or Mid-West. What the pacific coast states would require might be intolerable to the Great Lakes. There are far more political factions now that will want their pet issue put in. Religous conservatives, big government populists, greens, free staters, socialists, capitialists, etc. Thomas Jefforson produced a document that was six hand written pages long. The new one would probably require a hand truck to move it around. Actually there is a very good chance such an exersize would fracture the country whis would be a disaster.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Someday Sand you are going to wake up and realize that that vast majority of your fellow citizens do believe in God in some form or another. Including the founding fathers of your country who had the wisdom and foresight to spell out that unalienable right DO come from God and not from man. If rights came from man then man could take them away. So if you value your freedom it actually behooves you to be at least a little religious. But I was just using a phrase for emphasis the post in question.

To many of them their guns are like their babies. And now that Obama is elected they fear he'll take their babies away from them. It's not the gun itself it's the fact that the government would be attempting to supress/eliminate a god given constitutionally guaranteed right. It is real easy to see how the elimination of one right sets precedent for the elimination of others if the government decides it wishes to do so.

The state does not recognize marriage as a religious practice at all. In fact there are well documented divisions between the government and religion in this country that prevent that very thing. Marriage is viewed as a civil contract between two adults (although states are beginning to add the verbage "man and woman" like FL and CA for example). So I would not call it a sacred christian practice at all. In Aristes defense here (against Krezacks sophmoric argument that he is a bigot because he did not vote a certain way) I could make a compelling argument that a state constitution being the supreme law of the land (beneath the US Constitution) it is not appropriate/ or is appropriate depending on you view of government to use that to define terms of a specific civil contract between individuals. That would be a libertarian argument (to argue that it is not) even though the immediate libertarian response to gay marriage is "who cares" and "let them do what they please" as a matter of individual freedom. edit: This sounded right in my head but i'm not doing well getting my point accross my keyboard here. But I think you see what I'm getting at.

I'm a little hung over this morning but I am cheered by one thing. The democrats failed to achieve a super-majority in the Senate. So although last night was a huge win all around for the left, they did not seize total power. That is a good thing. I'm very curious how Obama will proceed now. Will he attempt to stay centered or will he immediately veer hard to the left? The powers that be in Congress will be pushing him left. It will be interesting to see. I suspect he is prudent enough to govern as a moderate. The last time the Dems held all the cards they went absolutely hog wild taxing and spending and two years later they were swept out of power in dramatic fashion. That could easily happen in 2010. Prediction: The first thing the 111th Congress does once sworn in in Jan 2009 will be to vote itself a pay raise.

Absent a federal law the 10th Amendment requires the SCOTUS to defer to the California State Supreme Court. They in turn are required to defer to the California Constitution. If prop 8 passes it is the law of the land and the California SC must up hold it and the SCOTUS has no standing to rule on it. If Congress were to pass a law permitting gay marriage then the state law banning it would be overridden. So if prop 8 passes then the only choices are to try to repeal it via ballot initiative in 2010 or call you congressman. Obviously the former would have a far more likely chance of success. About the only way I see to bring it to the SCOTUS would be if a couple married in a state where it is legal is residing in California and is denied the benefits of that marriage by the state THEY would have standing to challenge the California law under the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the US Constitution. This has been tried before and it has failed and the current SCOTUS is far less activist than even under Rehnquist. I doubt they would rule on the case even if it were tried. Incidentally, I noticed Florida also passed a similar ban: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/...0,6683922.story

Pennsylavania has gone to Obama. McCain needed to win that one if he lost either NC or Ohio. He has no margin of error now. If they call either Florida or Ohio for Obama I'm shuttong the computer off and making anther drink. And then another after that.

Latest from FL with 8% of precincts reporting (none in panhandle, they just closed) Obama 51% McCain 48% http://enight.dos.state.fl.us/

So far no surprises. The traditionally red states are going for McCain, the blues for Obama. North Carolina may upset that apple cart though. Looks like Obama is going to win there.

McCain win West Virginia, Obama takes Delaware. North Carolina, South Carolina, Indiana are a dead heat with 5% of precincts reporting. McCain has a strong lean in Virgina. This is BIG news. If McCain win VA he will be doing pretty well.

First results are in, McCain win Kentucky, Vermont has fallen to Obama. http://www.foxnews.com/index.html

That has always been my biggest fear, unfettered power by any one political party. It is all the more terrifying when one considers that kind of power wielded by a leftist reactionary party hell bent on destroying the country and remaking it in it's own image. At least thats how I see it. If you think about it the Dem's have become the party that is against individual liberty. They oppose free speech and try to suppress it with their "fairness doctrine". They oppose the freedom to own a firearm. They oppose the right to be secure in person and property by the way they hailed the Kelo V New London decision and Dem controlled state governments have made extremely heavy handed use of imminent domain to seize private property to sell for economic development. They have ever been the champions of heavy taxation and redistribution of wealth so one might argue they are opposed to economic liberty as well. I could go on but I think I made my point. Voting democratic is the equivalent of selling your soul for bread.

Obama has enough "safe" electoral votes that to win McCain will need to essentially run the table on the 8 undecided/too close to call states. But Enoch is right. If Obama wins any two of the Florida, Virginia, Ohio trifecta McCains chances of victory will be just about zero.

As early as midnight eastern time, or as late as tomorrow morning if the races are close out west.

Politics are incredibly differnent in the US it seems. In my political environment, this combination would seem like a contradiction (except if "liberal" means socially liberal, and even then it wouldn't really fit). I have some incredibly productive days behind me now, and still two of them to go. I certainly hope I'm not totally burnt out by then... You are absolutely correct Samm. And kudos for pointing it out. In US politics the word "liberal" has taken on a meaning that is polar opposite it's textbook definition.

I strongly disagree. And I disagree with Hurlshot, there are stark differences between the two. Obama by himself is not so bad. Obama with a liberal/socialist supermajority in congress and four years of unfettered power.... terrifying.