Rebuild the Party

From Rebuild the Party.com

As Republicans, we face a choice.

Either we can spend the next several months -- or years -- trying to figure out what just happened, excusing our defeat away as a temporary blip or the result of a poor environment, and waiting for Barack Obama to trip up. Or we can refuse to take this defeat lying down, and start building the future of our party now.

2008 made one thing clear: if allowed to go unchecked, the Democrats' structural advantages, including their use of the Internet, their more than 2-to-1 advantage with young voters, their discovery of a better grassroots model -- will be as big a threat to the future of the GOP as the toxic political environment we have faced the last few years.

The time is now to set in motion the changes needed to rebuild our party from the grassroots up, modernize the way we run campaigns, and attract different, energetic, and younger candidates at all levels.

There is much more. Read it all then join in on the effort.

Intellectualism: thinkers vs. doers

The problem with some intellectuals, usually professors and pundits, is that they think being smart and showing how smart they are is enough to change the world. It isn't. To change the world and make life better for your fellow men and women requires a good idea that is actionable, followed by the hard work necessary to act, and the resolve to endure adversities and resistance to the goal. Most elitists do not understand this and thus tend to look down on the doers as being inferior intellectually.

I am reminded of this in medicine. In the field of medicine there are two kinds of doctors, proceduralists (like surgeons) and non-proceduralists (like internists). Internists tend to think they are smarter than surgeons and tend to look down on surgeons as mere technicians. But it is actually harder to become a surgeon (grades and skills) than to become an internist. I am not saying internists aren't smart, just that the impression they hold of their own intellectual superiority is incorrect.


Related post: Political Elitism

Mainstream Media

In the lead up to the invasion of Iraq the MSM was pretty much committed to promoting the invasion. Afterward, they became rather critical of their lack of critical evaluation of the justifications for war. More recently the MSM promoted the candidacy of Obama without much critical evaluation of who he is and where he stands on the issues. I wonder how long it will be before they come the regret their Obama worship.

It is not MSM bias that should concern us all. Everyone has bias. I am certain even they are aware of their bias. What should concern us all is the fact that the MSM are so gullible. Or perhaps even worse, that they know it and still feel compelled to go forward.

My Political Party

As part of my on going “back to the blackboard” rethinking of everything (political), I want to work out some ideas on what and how I want my political party to work. When I say “my” what I mean is the party I want to be a part of rather than having my own political party.

Firstly, I want to know what are our core principles. I want these principles enshrined in the party's charter or its constitution. The principles that matter to me, and ones that I also believe to have broad appeals are:

Strong National Defense
Small Government in Society
Conservative Fiscal Policy
Fair Economic Opportunity
Culture of Personal Responsibility
Traditional Family Value

These may not be new ideas, but they are great ideas have made our nation great and should continue to guide our nation forward. The current issues and challenges should always be considered, referenced and debated on these core principles. While these should be our principles, our actions should remain decisive, ethical and magnanimous. Our means must be compatible with our goals.

Secondly our spending priorities should be:

1. Fund our party organization and groups on all college campus. They will be the future of the party. Even if they don’t, an educated voter is much preferred over an ignorant one.
2. Develop a 50 states effort. If we give up states like California, Washington, and New York we will never win.
3. Fund election campaign. How much funding support should consider the candidate compatibility with party principles, appeal to party members, and electability.
4. Fund charity projects. Our ultimate goal through politics is a stronger and better America, but crisis will develop that will transcend politics. We have to demonstrate we care for more than political power.
5. Fund research projects. We need proof that our principles as applied to the issues are actionable, effective and beneficial.

Thirdly I would like the party to interact more with its members. The party cannot be just about fund raising and votes. I would like to see that every year (or every other year) a convention is held for party members. During this convention current stance in response to current issues and challenges should be addressed. Proponents and opponents should debate where and how the party should respond. Then the members (those present and over the net) votes and thus party positions delineated and updated. Politicians can also make announcement for the upcoming year.

Fourthly political candidates for the party should be judged based on how close they are to the core principles of the party. Their appeals are determined through a series of state level election. The states should be grouped regionally; one state from each region would then hold its primary election each month. Allow a few weeks for the candidates to debate, retool, hold rallies, and then repeat with a new set of states, again one from each region. The states within each regional group can decide among themselves what order they shall hold their primary election. Likely I would prefer that each primary election is limited to party members but at the same time, each primary election should also serve as recruiting opportunity for non-members to join up and thus vote.

What I do not want my party to be a hateful opposition party. When they other party cannot do something, we should take no glee if the America would suffer for it, we should say we can do it. When they do something right, we don’t say that it was no good, we say we can do better. I also do not want my party to be into identity politics. We should court Hispanics because they share many of our principles of small government, conservative fiscal policy, and economic opportunity. We should reach out to African-Americans because only through returning to traditional family value, accepting a culture of personal responsibility, and embracing economic opportunity can they be strong and free. We should stop bashing gays. We should be pro-immigration and come up with a new term for “illegal immigrants.” We cannot be viewed as an anti-minority or anti-immigrant party.

The funny thing is that I have never truly identified myself as a Republican until this election. I voted for W and have been fairly happy with him (I am primarily a Strong National Defense guy) and since he won, I could remain an independent. I was never really all that into McCain until Palin. Now that the Democrats are in power I figure the best way get them out of power is to throw my lot in, for now at least, with the Republicans. And if the Republicans do not offer me participation other than my vote, then I will still judge each candidate based on my party platform and vote appropriately.

Conservatives & Republicans

Conservatives and Republicans are not synonymous. The contentious line between the two will only be highlighted with this election losses. There has been consideration for Republicans to build a bigger tent to get more independent voters. Conservatives have considered moving to form their own party that better represent their thoughts. And then there are the Libertarians, with many similar ideologies.

I believe the Republicans should continue to be a political machinery to elect candidates. I believe the Republicans should be a party of strong national defense, sound fiscal policies, small government, personal responsibility, economic opportunity, and family value.

I believe if people can identify personally with 3 or 4 of these six platform, then they should be welcomed into the party, as long as there will not be compromises on the other 2 or 3 platforms. Then we can have that big tent without driving away conservatives or independents. I do not believe there needs to be or should be a split between Conservatives and Republicans. I also believe that it would be a good thing for the Republican Party and conservatives to continue to have some differences of opinion as a contest of ideas can only make both stronger.

I believe the party should also reach out to Libertarians for similar reasons.

Nov 5, 2008: The Day After

Well despite my best hope and wishes, my candidate did not win. First thing first, congratulation to Obama for a historic win. I can only hope he will do his best for this country. Now on to the analysis.

Why McCain lost.
1. He could not effectively communicate his hopes and goals for America under his leadership.
2. He ran a bi-partisan campaign in a partisan election.
3. He was a foreign policy expert when the country needed an economic expert (he should have voted against the bail-out bill)
(4. Bush failed to effectively explain his actions and allowed his good work to be misrepresented)

Why Obama won.
1. The country was ready for change, and bought his message.
2. He effectively presented himself as a template for voters to leave their own impression on who he is
3. He had the money to win.


What comes next.
1. The Democrats do not have super majority in the Senate or the House. This is the brightest spot for Republicans and Conservatives.
2. The Republicans will need to regroup for 2010. There will be finger pointing and there will be skirmishes. I will look more into this later.
3. Sarah Palin will have to decide what she wants to do regarding 2012. If she wants to run for the nomination, then she will have to start the preparation now, define her her political philosophy, gather her supporters, build her network, accumulate both foreign policy and economic credentials, and start thinking strategy and tactics for 2012. In many way, as a Palin supporter, I do feel that last night loss will allow Palin to campaign as an outsider running against the DC establishment in 2012. This is a small bright spot. Currently, if she does win the party nomination in 2012, I think she should pick a reform minded congressman or senator from California or Florida, perhaps a Hispanic? I will definitely have more thoughts on Palin in the next 4 years.


Again, last night was a huge disappointment. But there are also opportunities to be grabbed for the future.

Final thought. The biggest problem with racism in the US is not bigotry but the culture of victimhood when you are a minority. i hope that with Obama's win there will be less "woe is me because America is KKK."

2008 Presidential Campaign Analysis

This post from Malstrom is absolutely the best thought out and insightful analysis of this presidential election campaign i have ever read. It is long but all great.

Highlights:
On polls and political analysis:

One thing that is very different about this election is the omnipresence of polls and how polls are the axis around all political analysis is conducted. This has never been the case in previous elections. Real political analysts (meaning not hacks or unprofessional pundits), use historical trends, demagraphical data, and other ‘truths’ of past elections. Much of this cannot be translated into a chart or graph. It is a myth that analysis is done via math or graphs or computer models. The original economists, for example, used only words and essays. Political analysis is not about math. Political analysis is about people. To analyze politics, you must be able to analyze people. In other words, the poet and novelist becomes the political analyst, not the mathematician and software engineer. Politics is all about people.

On what drives conservatives to vote:

One of the reasons why Democrats lost the elections of 2002, 2004, and won in 2006 so handily is the appearance (and disappearance) of the phenomenon I refer to as ‘Broken Glass Conservatives’. Conservatives are generally apathetic and have been lately about their candidates. While Bush was a Republican, he was not a conservative. He was conservative on a few things, the things that mattered most to conservatives (foreign policy, judges, taxes), but Bush has no interest in the conservative movement and doesn’t want to ‘lead’ it unlike Reagan. So conservative support for Republican candidates have been very soft (as illustrated in 2006). But if a Democrat or the legacy media (who conservatives believe are the same) insult or attack conservatives or what they believe, the result is ‘broken glass conservatives’ meaning the apathetic, soft Republican (or Democrat) conservative suddenly turns enraged and will literally walk over ‘broken glass’, if need be, to vote. ‘Broken glass conservatives’ phenomenons are all easily prevented if someone had some sense. An example of a ‘broken class conservative’ scenario would be Congressman Murtha (twice) declaring western Pennslyvania as ‘racists’. Remember, Murth’s district is mostly Democrat, and they know about Murtha’s shenanigans (the idea of ‘he’s a crook, but he is OUR crook’). But conservative Democrats took the insult personally and, out of the blue, Murtha’s safe seat suddenly becomes competitive . In 2004, the ‘broken glass conservatives’ were generated by, what conservatives felt, media bias in that veterans who served with Kerry were never had the spotlight shown (which they resorted to their own ads which became the ‘SwiftBoat Ads’) as well as Dan Rather and the forged memos.

In 2008, there are more phenomenons of the ‘Broken Glass Conservatives’ than I have ever seen…

-Conservatives believe the media has been outrageously fawning over Obama and doing everything it can to protect him. This has enraged them even more than in 2004.

-Obama’s comment of people in rural areas were nothing more than ‘bitter clingers’ who cling to guns and religion have caused lingering outrage at him. This comment, alone, is one reason why Pennslyvania turned on him.

-The Bail-Out Bill enraged many and was when conservatives finally abandoned Bush. But Bush is not on the ticket anymore so that doesn’t matter. Rather, the enragement is aimed at Pelosi and Reid, the leaders of the House and Senate.

-Media treatment of Sarah Palin generated many ‘Broken Glass Conservatives’ and even overlapped to the Hillary Clinton supporters.

-Joe the Plumber. At first, Joe the Plumber recieved much amusement and delight of the electorate since it was funny to watch the presidential candidates refer to some citizen and even talk directly to ‘him’ on the camera. After the debate, naturally the press put up photos of the ‘conversation’ between Joe and Obama in amusement as well (amusement in how this citizen somehow ended up as the topic in the third debate). Then, Obama and Biden mocked joe the Plumber and said plumbers could never earn $250,000, and this followed with news came out about Joe’s salary, his marriage, his driver’s license, his taxes, his lack of a plumber’s license, and him ultimately being fired by the plumbing union. This enraged people like I have never seen before. Joe the Plumber became the ‘John Galt’ icon. I heard stories of visible Obama supporters being rattled by this such as SoCal voters peeling off their bumper stickers and uprooting their Obama signs.

-Socialism. People who are over 50, who either fled a socialist country or was in the military to help liberate socialist countries, find the thought of any presidential candidate, even ‘warm’ on the ideas of socialism, to be deemed ‘unelectable’ and are outraged it took to the Joe the Plumber incident to discover what, they believe, Obama’s true motives are.

On why McCain will win PA:

Pennslyvania has been grossly misreported on this election cycle. During the Democrat primary, union bosses approached Hillary Clinton and said, “Promise us you will not put Obama as your Veep and you will have our support.” The moment Obama become the nominee was when he lost Pennslyvania. Obama has been spending money like a drunken sailor in the state, blasting the state full of advertising, but it isn’t working. The famous Philly machine won’t be at Obama’s disposal as the governor, Rendell, is a Clinton supporter , and he has been hinting at Pennslyvania going red by the mysterious leak of the Obama internal campaign poll of PA being +2 a couple of weeks ago and publicly asking Obama to come back to the state as well as saying that things are ‘tightening’ there. The evidence that PA is going red should be with how the safe Democrat seats are becoming suddenly competitive. Rendell is a Democrat and doesn’t want to lose house seats which is another reason to ask Obama to come back.

Pennslyvania is not a New England state, it is a mid-atlantic state. It is mostly a rural state. Obama likely thought Philly and Pittsburgh would be enough to carry the state (Obama is relying on cities to swing entire states his way). But Kerry could barely hold the state even with the Philly machine and the Democrat base on his side. And McCain and Palin are far more popular, campaign wise, than Bush and Cheney were in 2004.

Obama does not have the Democrat base solidified behind him. In states that massively swung to Clinton, such as Pennslyvania, a sizable number of Hillary Clinton supporters are voting for McCain under the banner of ‘Party Unity My Ass’ or ‘PUMA’s. In McCain Campaign offices throughout Pennslyvania, manning their phone banks, are DEMOCRATS which voted for Hillary Clinton. An unholy alliance has developed between senators McCain and Clinton. Both are friends to one another. Both have a framed picture of the other in their offices. The PUMA story is the biggest one not being told about in this election.

On Palin political appeal.

Palin is appealing to conservatives due to the ‘fire in the belly’ where she is expressing what conservatives want, what they wished their conservative politicians would say and fight back against, in their perception, is a hostile media to them. Palin does not articulate conservative philosophy in her speeches as she appears more populist. Palin is not a female Reagan, but a Truman in a skirt. I’ve been reading much on Truman lately, and I’ve been struck with the similarities. Truman was an ardent outdoorsman, one from a small town and related extremely well with the rural population. Taft, among others, thought Truman was below them and kept referring to him as ‘filth’ and a ‘redneck’. Famously, Truman alone believed he would win his election when everyone else said he wouldn’t and traveled across the country visiting various farms and other small towns. The reporters traveling with Truman noticed that everywhere he went, there were large crowds. The electorate referred to Truman more by his first name, ‘Harry’, with the common phrase of ‘Give em Hell, Harry!’ Truman was not a wordsmith, but he had a fire in his belly and, most of all, his speeches held warmth. At every stop, Truman praised the rural people there and often talked about something in the locality. Truman, by his biographers, is most remembered for his constant energy, how his appearance was always ‘fresh’, how he always looked ‘rested’, and appeared in high spirits most of the time. Truman was constantly made fun of by his rural pronounciation and his non-intellectual demeanor by the press, yet those things endeared him to the rural electorate. In all my life, I have never seen a Vice Presidential nominee out-pull the Presidential nominee or steal his spotlight. Win or lose, Palin will likely have a long shelf life.

On Palin and the Republican Reformation:

McCain’s choice of Palin and push against ‘Socialism’, since the nominee is head of the political party, has swung the party back into the control of the conservatives rather than Republicans. Most of these ‘Republicans’ tend to reside in the Washington loop, and have been there since Reagan, while others are ‘moderates’. The Obama Campaign with its psych-ops of ‘landslide’ polls, have made conservatives giddy in that it is flushing out the Washington Republicans and moderates from the party. For example, Colin Powell, who is pro-choice and for affirmative action, who appeared to be Republican mostly as Reagan made him a four star general, Bush the Elder put him in charge of the Joint Chief, and Bush the Younger put him as Secretary as State, is now forever blacklisted after endorsing Obama. George Will, longtime columnist who has been in Washington for a long time, wrote against the Iraq War (which already put him on thin ice), but now he will be flushed out. Peggy Noonan, long time Washington person since the Reagan years, is now flushed out. Parker, ditto. From the conservative side, they are celebrating as they consider these Republicans to been in Washington too long and are no longer connected to the people. The point is that Palin has become a Conservative Touchstone that, like a wave, has flowed through the party and is revealing who is and who is not a conservative. And these non-conservatives will not be well recieved anymore. (In the case of women, such as Peggy Noonan, I suspect some old fashioned female jealousy going on as well. Remember, Pelosi wanted Hillary Clinton to lose because she wouldn’t be the dominant female in Washington anymore. This might seem strange to guys, but only women exist in women’s world.)

On the campaign.

It is said that at the end of a presidential campaign, the candidate who is campaigning on the enemy’s turf in the final days becomes president. The stories that say “Obama is campaigning in final days in Bush states’ is getting it wrong, of course. Obama has no choice but to campaign in Bush states since there is no other way for him to get to 270. McCain can lose some Bush states and still win. In political analysis, novices measure the election by states. Experts do it by counties. The counties McCain and Palin are visiting, be it Pennslyvania or even Ohio, are democrat counties meaning they went for Kerry the other time. Obama keeps staying in safe urban areas and other Democrat strongholds. Obama’s strategy doesn’t appear aggressive to me (he appears to be getting angry, even emotionally melting down. Such as when he got angry when trick-or-treating. Even today, he gave McCain the middle finger). When we look at the candidates themselves, we see McCain confident and laughing and Obama… being a little theatrical (”I will change the world!”). OK, candidate comparison is a matter of opinion. But there is a tradition that the campaign in the lead tends to share their internal poll numbers in the closing of an election. I’m hearing much about internal McCain polling, however, this might be the campaign’s way to provide an alternative to the way off public polls.

Again, please read it all.

HT: Strata-Sphere

Prediction: McCain wins PotUS

I just voted. Turn out I believe will be high.
I believe McCain will wins for the following reasons.

Major Factors:
1. Obama is a socialist. America will not vote for a socialist.
2. Palin will induce a high turn out for McCain. The base is excited like never before.
3. PUMAs will vote for McCain in substantial numbers, enough to win it for McCain.

Minor Factors:
1. We remain at war against terrorists. McCain will be viewed as better than Obama.
2. Obama's luster will not rub onto the independent.
3. Independence are independent because they do not trust the MSM. The fact that the MSM has been in the tank for Obama will help drive the independent voters toward McCain away from Obama.

Non Factors:
1. Obama's race. Yes most African-Americans will vote for him, but they always vote Democratic anyway. I suspect the increase in turn out for his race will be offset by the increase in turn out against his race.
2. That McCain is defending red states is irrelevant. Because Bush won in 2004, the only way any Democrat can win is to contest enough red states to win. But despite the hype, that will not be as easy as we are led to believe. Not only that, McCain is also contesting blue Pennsylvania.
3. The polls may show that Obama leads, but most of the polls are actually within the margin of error. That means statistically, the race remains a tie.

What Dems say of Obama

Obama contradicts himself

This is why he cannot be trusted. He says whatever it takes to appease his audience. He promises whatever he can to gain votes.

He is a sophist at best, a demagogue at least.

Troopergate: Palin Cleared

from Powerline Blog:

Now, only hours before the election and after endless nonsense in the press, the investigator appointed by the Alaska Personnel Board has cleared Governor Palin, concluding that "there is no probable cause to believe Palin or any other state official violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in connection with the firing." No kidding. Given that the investigator, Timothy Petumenos, is a Democrat who contributed to the campaign of Palin's opponent, Tony Knowles, in 2006, this should finally put the silliness of "Troopergate" to rest.

PotUS: McCain is better than Obama

I've gone back to the chalkboard to consider what should matter in choosing the PotUS. I've considered both the Leadership skills necessary to be PotUS and the Issues and Challenges the PotUS will need to manage. I will now evaluate both McCain and Obama in reference to these considerations.

Leadership Factors.
Good Judgment. Both men are obviously intelligent. Both men have also demonstrated good insight. McCain has demonstrated this by recognizing the problems of Iraq and recommended the Surge. Obama has demonstrated good judgment by recognizing that voting on contentious and difficult issues could hurt him politically and it would be better to just vote present instead. Obama has repeatedly skirted the difficult issues whereas McCain has not. Even if it would cost him political points (not just the Surge but also on immigration), he has acted on his insight. Regarding wisdom, Obama has not demonstrated to me any evidence of having any. McCain by putting the needs of his country first over his own political career has. When it comes to good judgment it seems clear to me that McCain clearly has demonstrated superior judgment over Obama.

Firm Resolve. Both men have convictions, but Obama's convictions are to further his own ascent while McCain's are clearly about furthering the USA. I suspect that Obama believes the US would be better off being more socialistic but he seems to lack the faith of conviction to publicly declare this. When it comes to the grace to admit to being wrong, Obama is the clear loser here for first being stubborn when he declared the Surge a failure before it actually begun, as news of its success began to surface he maintain his belief of defeat, and even after it was widely acknowledged to be a success he still refuse to admit defeat. McCain has demonstrated resolve with the Surge, with his unpopular stance on immigration, and even with accepting public campaign financing against the money machine of Obama. McCain wins hands down.

Persuasiveness. I do not believe either candidate has a true understanding and appreciation for the common man's perspective of life in the US. Both are out of touch. When it comes to both being an effective communicator and being able to inspire others, I believe Obama to be superior to McCain. McCain speaks the truth whereas Obama is full of platitudes. McCain's life is inspirational but he doesn't seem to be able to inspire others, particularly the common man, as Obama has. When it comes to persuasiveness, Obama is much more so than McCain.


Over all, my analysis of Leadership ability of McCain and Obama, McCain will be a capable commander in chief. He has demonstrated good judgment and the resolve necessary to carry out his good judgment. He will need to better communicate them though to the public. Obama lacks the judgment and resolve to be PotUS. Obama's persuasiveness, in the absence of judgment and resolve, make him a sophist not to be trusted.



The Issues & Challenges.

Protecting the US from outside threat. Obama lacks the fundamental understanding of what it will take to protect the US from foreign powers, whether it is a resurgent nationalistic Russia or the stateless terrorists of Islamofascism. Obama wanted to take the Georgia crisis to the UN before he realized that Russia has veto power on the UN Security Council. He also wants to treat the War on Terror as a police action, which means we punish wrong doers rather than preventing acts of terrorisms. Obama is too naive to effectively secure the IS against foreign threats.

Sound Fiscal Policy. Too much taxation inhibits private economic growth. This doesn't seem to bother Obama much as he supports increasing taxation on the middle class, small business and large business. This does not bother him because he is a socialist interested in using taxation to redistribute the wealth and furthering the role of government in our economy. McCain wants to make the Bush tax cut for middle America permanent and reduce corporate taxes so they can remain competitive internationally, as well as keep more jobs here. McCain also understands that a large federal deficit ties up credit that could otherwise be used to grow the economy. He has promised a spending freeze on everything except defense. Because Obama is a socialist, he wants the government to grow, provide more services, and thus will spend more. Given that the increased taxation will limit economic growth and thus limit government tax revenue over all, the federal deficit can only grown under Obama. Over all, I believe Obama's plan to socialize the US economy unacceptable.

Resource Management. Out most national resources are the American people who work to make this country more productive as they work to provide more for our families. Obama seeks to support our labor forces artificially by mandating a rise in the minimum wage (though this will inhibit job growth) and to restrict free trade (which will make out products more expensive in foreign markets). McCain wants to generate more jobs for more Americans by creating favorable economic environment for private enterprises to grow and generate more jobs as well as better products. McCain favors free trade, and for the low end jobs that are subsequently shift to foreign lands due to cheaper foreign labor, McCain has endorsed education programs to retrain our workers for better jobs here.
The other aspect of resource management to discuss is energy policy. McCain wants the US to be energy independent by furthering exploration and refinement of traditional energy sources like coal, oil, and nuclear. McCain also favors building up our green and renewable energy sources. On the green and renewable energy sources Obama agrees, but he would rather we become green even at the expense of continued energy dependence on foreign oil, such as from the Middle East, Venezuela, or even Russia.
While Obama's resource management proposal are well intentioned, I believe McCain's plan is both more practical and better for our nation in the short term and the long term.

Secure Individual Liberties. Obama's actions have raised concerns for me regarding his respect of free speech and opposing viewpoints. On several occasion he and his staff have sent letters threatening legal actions against sources of contrary viewpoints. Obama has also consistently opposed the right of each individual Americans to own and bear arms. McCain has been the opposite. Obama also favors agreeable liberties over security, treating terrorists as criminals to be punished after the fact rather than preemption of terrorist acts. There can be no liberty without security.
But the most glaring example of his disregard of individual liberty is his support of live birth abortion. Make no misunderstanding that this is not abortion because once the fetus has been delivered free of the mom, it is a child. In essence, he supports the legalization of infant murder. I do not care where you stand on abortion, pro-choice or pro-life. We are talking infant murder. The state is supposed to protect its most vulnerable members, not exterminate them.
McCain is both constitutionally and morally superior to Obama.

Overall Governance Theme. Obama sees what is wrong with America and wants to fix it, McCain sees what is right with America and wants more of it. Obama wants to change a failing America, McCain wants to change how DC fails Americans. Obama believes in the American State, McCain believes in the individual American. McCain comes closest to cultivating a culture of individual responsibility (Palin has outright stated this) that I believe America needs to build on and less reliance on the State.


In nearly all aspects I considered, McCain is the clear choice for PotUS. On November 4, 2008, I will vote for McCain/Palin. I hope you will as well. Do not let the socialist get elected.

PotUS: Issues & Challenges

What i expect from my president, in order.

A. Protect the US from outside threats. I view this as the primary responsibility of the executive because this is the essential and historical role of any community leader from a family patriarch, the tribal chieftain, to a people’s King. The constitution sets foreign diplomacy and commander in chief as the responsibility of the President. Performing these responsibilities well is the most important function for the PotUS in a world that remains full of dangerous challenges. Ultimately, regardless of how generous and responsible the US is as a member of the international community, some out there will want to hurt and harm us. Once they believe this is in their best interest, we will not be able to talk them out of it. I want a president willing to make war before we are attacked as well as one willing to talk so we won’t be attacked. It certainly won’t sound fair but I rather have foreign blood spilt than ours, foreign lands bombed than ours. I do not want war all and I want wars prevented within reasons. But I recognize that there will be times when undesirable war is preferable to hoped for peace. But once a war I want us resolved and determined to win. Once won I want to see the US as magnanimous in victory in order to jointly build a new future with our former foes. In short I want our foreign policy predicated on the simple idea of “There is no better friend and no worse enemy than the US of A”.


B. The second responsibility for the executive branch is to maintain a secure environment for Americans to pursue happiness. Here the president will need to lead, direct and set the agenda for Congress to formulate legislations further secure the American pursuit of happiness. Factors essential for a secure American environment are sound fiscal policies, fair resource management, and secure individual liberties.

B1. Sound fiscal policies have three aspects: first is a fair taxation plan that would stimulate economic growth, second would be appropriate federal spending to grow the essential governmental function, and to reduce the federal deficit.

B1a. Regarding taxation, it may seem tempting to tax the rich and give it to the poor, but in practice this just does not work. Firstly, who has the most money? Large businesses. But if for every penny they are taxed, they certainly pass it down to the consumer in terms of higher product cost. Sadly, it is the poor consumer that pays more as a percentage of their income on buying essential products for living than do the rich. If not big businesses then what about medium size businesses? Some of the tax they will certainly pass along to us, the consumer voter. But what tax they cannot pass along will eat into their bottom line and reduce available capital. Less capital means less growth in terms of hiring as well as building a better business. Either way, the community loses. Alternatively the rich individual can be taxed. From the Tax Foundation the fact is that this is already happening, with the top 10% (those making about $109,000) earners paying 70% of the federal income tax revenue. The bottom 50% earners (making less than $32,000) currently pay less than 3% of the federal income tax revenue. Squeezing the rich individual is harmful in three ways. Firstly it makes the rich even more involved in politics to reduce their tax, and once tax issue resolved, they will try to influence the governments in other ways. We cannot afford a plutocracy. Secondly like with small businesses less disposable income due to higher taxes mean less money to spend on personal services, from assistants to maids, cooks, and gardeners. Again the working voters get cut. Thirdly taxing the more financially fortunate is just counter intuitive to the American dream to become more financial fortunate. While my personal bias currently is for a federal flat tax along with a federal sales tax instead of the federal income tax (less tax bureaucracy too!) this is currently not likely. In lieu of this, I am and think we all ought to be opposed to raising taxes on any segment of the public.

B1b. Appropriate federal spending to grow the essential governmental functions covers firstly maintaining an active and competitive military, secondarily a national security program, and a functional transportation infrastructure for internal commerce. Maintaining the military is the primary function of any national government to defend its people and existence. The military must be well trained and well supplied in terms of men and equipment. Naturally we must care for our military personnel as they are serving and once they have served. I support a well-funded program to support the family of soldiers on active service; the families of those who love ones have died in service, and for our veterans after they have served our country. I also believe the best defense is a strong offence and this requires a technologically advanced military. To go on the offense you need accurate and reliable intelligence service. A similarly effective intelligence capability needs to be applied to protect against foreign terrorist acts within the US. There can be no freedom or prosperity without security. And prosperity will also require a well-maintained infrastructure for communication and transportation, especially as the US is structured as a federal union of states.

B1c. The president proposes the federal budget to Congress. If the US government is not in deficit, then it might be alright for the government to spend liberally, but given the size of the federal government, there needs to be limits on non-essential federal spending to reduce the federal deficit. The deficit needs to be reduced because these credits are especially sorely needed elsewhere right now. The first way to reduce the deficit would be to cease the expansion of government services except as above (B1b). The second way to cut the deficit is to increase revenue. This will occur if governmental policy stimulates economic growth. Increasing taxation usually inhibits economic growth. Thirdly, there needs to be a serious discussion with the American voters about reducing welfare.

B2. For fair resource management, the essential resources to focus on firstly is human labor, secondly promotion of trade, and finally energy independence, and promotion of trade. Human labor isn’t just about fair wages, human labor development is about having the opportunity to work and earn a living as well as opportunity for both personal and professional growth through work. The opportunity of work can only come about through a growing economy. And once employed, we need to provide circumstances for the American worker to be both productive and opportunities for advancement. I believe essential to productivity and advancement is a sound education, from grade school through high school (to provide the basic understanding of how life and our country works) as well as appropriate trade and vocational education. As the American voters progress, by necessity we will have others to do the more menial and more labor intensive jobs to others. But by doing so more people will have opportunity for employment and grow the market for goods. This is true whether these lower paying jobs will remain here in the US or is sent across our borders. And if sent across our borders, we need to establish trade agreements with these other nations to make it easier to both allow them to accept our needs for basic labors as well as open their markets for our goods. These trade agreements should be both free and mutually beneficial. But one thing we cannot depend on oversea for is our energy needs. The US needs to become less dependent, or even independent, for our energy resources. Energy is to our economy what food is to our body. The US cannot perpetuate the energy import as we have been. The PotUS needs to take leadership to promote expansion of our traditional energy sources as well as build up more energy resources, both green and nuclear.

B3. Secure individual liberties by preserving the bills of rights and protecting against act of crime or terrorisms. The most important bill of rights are the first protecting freedom of speech, to essentially speak against the government, and the second to keep and bear arms, also to personally defend oneself. But regardless of how the Bill of Rights is interpreted, it becomes meaningless if America is entrenched in fear due to crime or terrorist acts. I do not believe our liberties need to be sacrificed in order to obtain personal security. I believe we can navigate through and preserve both liberty and security. A president needs to understand the significance of both and take consideration of both.


C. Everything thus far discussed, to protect the US against foreign threat and to maintain a secure environment for Americans to be happy, are all practical and earthly responsibilities but won’t be enough without something for the soul and spirit for America. In my opinion the most important them for America to move forward with is the concept of “individual and personal responsibility.” No nation can ever be great if its people do not have the initiative to act or to act without personal accountability or responsibility. Without personal responsibility, then the state becomes responsible for everything. This can only lead to failure. Accepting personal responsibility means accepting that an individual can change the future. I believe this is cause for optimism, for through actions from each and every individual America can be made better and greater. This is what I would like to see for America.

Business: Dems vs. Reps

As an Obama victory looms likely, along with a possibility of a democratic filibuster proof majority, business are stepping in the fray against the Dems. All the more reason to believe that despite the economic crisis, business people believes the Reps are better for business. Is the reason predicated on tax schemes? Actually no. The reason is because the Dems are anti-democratic when it comes to union voters.

Firstly, the Chamber of Commerce acts to shore up GOP Senators:

The nation's largest business lobby, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has raised ire among Democratic leaders for pouring millions of dollars into an advertising push to prevent the party from winning dominance in the Senate next year.

The Chamber says it has raised enough money this year from corporations to spend about $35 million on the election, double its budget for House and Senate races in the 2006 election. The group is supporting pro-business candidates, almost exclusively Republicans in contested Senate races.

Business executives fear that Democrats, bouyed by heavy spending from organized labor, could gain enough muscle in the Senate to spark policies favoring increased unionization, higher taxes, more restrictions on trade and more regulation on the financial-services and housing sectors.

Secondly, individual retailers acts on their store managers:

Retailers are meeting with store managers to warn how a strong showing for Democrats in the Nov. 4 election could cause what they fear would be more economic pain for their companies, in particular by potentially making it easier for unions to organize stores.

The companies are worried about presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama's stated support for the Employee Free Choice Act, which would do away with secret balloting and allow unions to form if a majority of employees sign cards favoring unionization. The legislation, retailers fear, would have improved chances of becoming law under a Democratic administration.

The legislation passed the House last year but died amid a Senate filibuster and a threatened presidential veto. The issue in this election is whether Democrats, who hold a 51-49 majority in the Senate, can win the presidency and gain enough seats to prevent Republicans from using procedural motions, such as filibusters, to thwart legislation.

The bill was crafted by labor as a response to more aggressive opposition by companies to union-organizing activity and as a way to shield workers from antiunion pressure from their employers.

Healthcare Tax & Credit

Obama has suggested that McCain will tax employers contribution to employee's health care cost. This is true. With things as they are, it is actually cheaper for employers to pay for health care than it is for individual to buy health care. If you want more people to buy health care, then you have to make it just as affordable for individuals, the self employed, the part time employed, or those who work in a business that does not provide health care. Thus McCain will repeal the employer's health care tax credit and give it to everyone who pays taxes. Thus this will make health care more affordable to more people. Why not do both, because then it will allow some to double benefit. More here.

I work in health care. I make no distinction between the insured and the uninsured. The health care given are equivalent. I have also seen how government provided free health care is delivered. We do not want government funded health care.

Walter Williams comments:

The Vancouver, British Columbia-based Fraser Institute's annual publication, "Waiting Your Turn," reports that Canada's median waiting times from a patient's referral by a general practitioner to treatment by a specialist, depending on the procedure, averages from five to 40 weeks. The wait for diagnostics, such as MRI or CT, ranges between four and 28 weeks.

According to Michael Tanner's "The Grass Is Not Always Greener," in Cato Institute's Policy Analysis (March 18, 2008), the Mayo Clinic treats more than 7,000 foreign patients a year, the Cleveland Clinic 5,000, Johns Hopkins Hospital treats 6,000, and one out of three Canadian physicians send a patient to the U.S. for treatment each year. If socialized medicine is so great, why do Canadian physicians send patients to the U.S. and the Canadian government spends over $1 billion each year on health care in our country?

Britain's socialized system is no better. Currently, 750,000 Brits are awaiting hospital admission. Britain's National Health Services hopes to achieve an 18-week maximum wait from general practitioner to treatment, including all diagnostic tests, by the end of 2008. The delay in health care services is not only inconvenient, it's deadly. Both in Britain and Canada, many patients with diseases that are curable at the time of diagnosis become incurable by the time of treatment or patients become too weak for the surgical procedure. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown plans to introduce a "constitution" setting out the rights and responsibilities of its health care system. According to a report in the Telegraph (02/01/2008), "What this (Gordon Brown's plan) seems to amount to in practice are the Government's rights to refuse treatment, and the patient's responsibilities to live up to what the state decides are model standards." That means people who have unhealthy habits such as smoking, heart sufferers who are obese or those who fall ill because of failure to take regular exercise might be refused medical care, even though they pay taxes to support government health care.

Taxes: McCain & Obama

From today's WSJ:

When it comes to taxes, the difference between Barack Obama and John McCain is arguably as wide as it's been in a presidential race since Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale battled in 1984. Sen. Obama is proposing to raise taxes more than any recent candidate, while Sen. McCain wants to cut them substantially. Most of the campaign debate has been over whose taxes would be raised, and whose cut.

Here are the facts:

My personal stance on Taxes.
1. Some taxation is necessary to protect and maintain the function of our society.
2. Too much taxation inhibits economic growth.
3. Taxation cannot and should not be used for income redistribution.

In review, as this article evaluated, McCain's taxation is better for our country.

As a reminder as to the impact on the average American family:

Palin & Immigration

Here are excerpts from a recent interview of Palin on Univision

Governor, let me ask you about immigration. How many undocumented immigrants are there in Alaska?
I don't know, I don't know. That's a good question.

As governor, how do you deal with them? Do you think they all should be deported?
There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant -there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants- not only economically is that just an impossibility but that's not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration.

Do you then favor an amnesty for the 12 or 13 million undocumented immigrants?
No, I do not. I do not. Not total amnesty. You know, people have got to follow the rules. They've got to follow the bar, and we have got to make sure that there is equal opportunity and those who are here legally should be first in line for services being provided and those opportunities that this great country provides.

To clarify, so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?
I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.

Speaking as a legal immigrant and a proud naturalized American, I whole heartedly agree with Palin on no to amnesty for illegal immigrants but yes a legal path for legalization of their status. I already believed this before I saw this today.
I hope it help them gain hispanic votes.



from the same interview, i thought this reasonable as well:

Do you think that we should talk about birth control with our teenage sons and daughters?
Yes. Use me as the example of why you should, even more admittedly. My daughter, of course she is 18 years old, but has really been forced to grow up very quickly now and starting her own family and you know, life has changed so quickly for her. And she is a good and responsible and a very kind hearted young strong woman, and she is going to be just fine. But if we can use this, and if my daughter Bristol can use her story as a kind of teaching tool for others, then so be it. Let us do that.

VP comments: Biden & Palin

Today Biden commented on Obama's readiness to be president.

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Not only will the next administration have to deal with foreign affairs issues, Biden warned, but also with the current economic crisis.

"Gird your loins," Biden told the crowd. "We're gonna win with your help, God willing, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It's like cleaning the Augean stables, man. This is more than just, this is more than – think about it, literally, think about it – this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy."

The Delaware lawmaker managed to rake in an estimated $1 million total from his two money hauls at the downtown Sheraton, the same hotel where four years ago Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., clinched the Democratic nomination. Despite warning about the difficulties the next administration will face, Biden said the Democratic ticket is equipped to meet the challenges head on.

"I've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I'm not being falsely humble with you. I think I can be value added, but this guy has it," the Senate Foreign Relations chairman said of Obama. "This guy has it. But he's gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us."

"There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'," Biden continued. "Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."

Basically get ready if Obama gets elected because our enemies will feel emboldened to test him for his inexperience.
and

If Obama becomes President his popularity will sag and he will make unpopular decisions widely viewed as unsound.

Nice!



Meanwhile, some are asking whether Palin is advocating a federal marriage amendment based on this quote:

She says: "[I]n my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage."

Commenting on Roe v. Wade, Palin said, “I’m, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas.”

By being a "federalist" it seems to me she supports state right to make the decision rather than the federal government.

from wikipedia for "federalist":

In contemporary usage, as articulated by president Bush's New Federalism, federalists advocate the principle of greater regional autonomy within the United States—usually by allowing individual states to set their own agendas and determine the handling of issues, rather than trying to impose a nationally uniform solution.

When she says "I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage" i do not read this as suggesting she wants a US federal marriage amendment.

Political Elitism

Wikipedia describe Elitism as

the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern

When applied to the political arena, it suggests that the elites are best able to comments on or lead politically. I find this particularly amusing because most elites are either degreed intellectuals or the trust-fund rich. The problem with these people being in charge of politics is that they are usually out of touch with the goals of politics. Too often these elites are in it because they think they know better, or because of some misconception of Noblesse Oblige. In other words, they enter politics (either as a politician or as an expert on politics. This is not the goal of politics in a democracy such as the US.

The goal of politics in the US is to serve the average citizens. It is the average citizens that make this country great. They do so by working and toiling to provide for their family. The product of their toils is the productivity of the engines of our economy and national wealth. The even more precious product of their toils are young men and women willing to fight and die to protect this country, willing to continue their parents productivity to maintain this country, and generate entrepreneurship and innovation to advance this country. Thus it is the average citizens who makes up and continue the weave that make this country great.

Being richer than the average citizen does not give the elites a mandate for leadership in politics. Being smarter than the average citizen does not give the elites a mantle of leadership in politics. I am in no way suggesting that being rich or being smart disqualify a person for political leadership. Certainly being smart is of great value for any political leaders but it is even more important to know whether that intelligence has been employed to the benefit of the average citizen directly. "What have you done to improve the lives of those around you?"

I believe in political merits, that service has been rendered to help others should be the requisite for political leadership or positions. I want political leaders to be judged based not on what they want to do along. Anyone can promise the moon. I want political to know how the average citizens have benefited from what actions of the politicians. I am particularly tired of politicians and pundits who feel their intelligence and wit allow them to judge others based on elitist concepts without significance for the average citizen, even worse when they belittle and insult the average voters.

Black Civic Leaders: Political Intergration vs Economic Independence

From today's WSJ.

For more than a century, black civic leaders have tangled over whether to pursue economic independence or focus their energies on integrating political, corporate and educational institutions. W.E.B. Du Bois, author of the groundbreaking 1903 treatise, "The Souls of Black Folk," argued for the latter, while his contemporary, Booker T. Washington, said "political activity alone" was not the answer. In addition, insisted Washington, "you must have property, industry, skill, economy, intelligence and character."

Since the 1960s, the black civil-rights leadership has sided with Du Bois. Between 1970 and 2001, the number of black elected officials in the U.S. grew from fewer than 1,500 to more than 9,000. And while impressive socioeconomic progress has been made, wide black-white gaps remain in educational achievement, homeownership rates, labor-force participation, income levels and other measures.

Nor should we conclude that civil-rights laws are responsible for the black progress that has occurred. For example, up until the 1950s, and in an era of open and rampant racial discrimination, the jobless rate for blacks was much lower than today and similar to that of whites in the same age group. In fact, blacks had higher labor-force participation rates than whites in every Census taken between 1890 and 1950. And in the decades preceding the 1960s -- that is, prior to the passage of landmark civil-rights bills and affirmative-action legislation -- there were sharp rises in black educational achievement, both absolutely and relative to whites.

The economist Thomas Sowell has spent decades researching racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. and abroad. And his findings -- in books like "Race and Culture: A World View," "Affirmative Action Around the World" and "Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?" -- show that political activity generally has not been a factor in the rise of groups from poverty to prosperity.

Many Germans came to the U.S. as indentured servants during colonial times. And while working to pay off the cost of the voyage they studiously avoided participation in politics. Only after they'd risen economically did Germans begin seeking public office, culminating with the election of presidents Hoover and Eisenhower.

A similar pattern can be found among Chinese populations in southeast Asia, the Caribbean and the U.S. In Argentina, where English minorities have done well financially and played a major role in the development of the economy, they've played almost no role in Argentine politics. And so it goes with Italians in the U.S. and Jews in Britain: In both places economic gains have generally preceded political gains. "Empirically, political activity and political success have been neither necessary nor sufficient for economic advancement," writes Mr. Sowell. "Nor has eager political participation or outstanding success in politics translated into faster group achievement."

Black Americans might keep in mind that in those rare instances where the political success of a minority group has come first, it has often resulted in slower socioeconomic progress. The Irish immigrants who came to the U.S. in the mid-19th century hailed from a country where 80% of the population was rural. Yet they settled in industrial centers like New York, Philadelphia and Boston and took low-skill jobs. Their rise from poverty was especially slow -- as late as 1920, 80% of all Irish women working in America were domestic servants -- despite the fact that Irish-run political organizations dominated many big-city governments.

"The Irish were fiercely loyal to each other, electing, appointing and promoting their own kind," writes Mr. Sowell. "This had little effect on the average Irish American, who began to reach economic prosperity in the 20th century at about the same time when the Irish political machines began to decline."

I have read this divergence of ideas before and I remain convinced that it remains true today. The choice for black civic leaders years ago to pursue a political path rather than economic independence was a tragic error. The current result is an astounding economic dependency of Blacks on Government with resulting dissolution of the black family. Too many black mens have become absent fathers and too many black boys grow up without adequate male role models. And like most dependencies, it only grow with time. I admire the few Black leaders who try to speak out against this trend, Bill Cosby for instance, but too often they are derided and their message lost.
I do not necessarily believe this was the intent of the Democratic party but certainly the Democratic party political agenda of more government services will not make things better. Certainly Obama as part of the Democratic establisment will only further this process.
It is a tragic consequence of choosing the wrong agenda years ago. It reminds me of similar bad choices in the Palestinians rejecting a separate states along side Israel decades ago. It also reminds me of the difference between the growth of cities like New Orleans compared to Houston.
Bad political choices have lasting consequences and the hole gets deeper and harder to come out of. I hope it does not happen to the US should Obama gets elected.