Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of The 1st Amendment, Finally

NRO has started doing a number of daily emails, one of which I highlighted yesterday--Jonah Goldberg's The Goldberg File.

NRO's Jim Geraghty, better known for his coverage of elections, has started something called Morning Jolt. Whatever you think of the respective names of these daily email newsletters, the content is pretty good.

For instance, here's Geraghty's survey of reactions to yesterday's SCOTUS ruling which strikes down key parts of McCain-Feingold (good riddance) and strengthens the 1st Amendment.

AP: "The 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said companies and other outside groups can be prohibited from paying for ads to back or oppose a federal candidate." The guys at Cato are thrilled: "In short, the Citizens United decision has strengthened both the First Amendment and American democracy."

Most conservatives were pretty cheery about the decision; generally on the right folks conclude that you can't restrict political spending without restricting political speech, and if the First Amendment is supposed to mean anything, it's supposed to protect your God-given right to declare as loudly and widely as you want that those who govern you stink to high Heaven. Otherwise, you end up with a First Amendment that somehow protects lap dances but not political advertising close to an election.

Ed Morrissey: "In the first challenges to the BCRA (McCain-Feingold), the earlier court appeared to accept the notion that one has to break a few First Amendment eggs to get a clean-elections omelet. This court has apparently decided that Congress should amend the First Amendment if it has grown tired of it, rather than pass laws that contradict it. The fact that only five of the nine justices could reach that rather obvious conclusion shows how much judicial activism and Congressional overreach have in common -- especially the sense that they can manipulate clear boundaries of power for whatever end they seek."

Michelle Malkin: "Yes, unions will benefit from the ruling and spend more money. But sunlight is the best disinfectant. Full, transparent, accessible disclosure is the ultimate campaign finance reform. As for viewing the decision through the 'political plus' lens: I don't. The Constitution matters more than electoral consequences. Too bad more in Washington don't see it that way."

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics," declared President Obama, who was elected with the assistance of hundreds of millions of dollars in donations from unions, trial lawyers, Hollywood, academia, Goldman Sachs, and environmentalists. Despite what you might think from that opening sentence, he disapproves of the decision.

At Bench Memos, Bradley Smith makes short work of the legislative responses introduced by Rep. Alan Grayson, the Floridian who represents Daily Kos in Congress: "That these proposals are clearly unconstitutional doesn't matter much to Mr. Grayson, who only has eleven months left in Congress to make his reputation and gain that slot guest hosting for Keith Olbermann. It's highly doubtful they could ever pass, anyway."

Caleb Howe watches Olbermann so we don't have to, and he finds Keith saying that the Supreme Court decision on campaign finance was "worse than slavery."

Anyone else shocked Keith Olbermann still has a job?

Ps. Don't forget: Sign up for Geraghty's Morning Jolt.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Massa-Freakin'-chusetts Elects Republican, Scott Brown, To The Kennedy Family Senate Seat!!1!!eleventy!!!

Never thought I'd see the day.

A year ago, in the darkness that was the winter after the armageddon of the 2008 elections, all us lonely conservative, John McCain-voting people commiserated and said we'd be back and hopefully sooner than people predicted.

No one predicted this quick of a turnaround.

Nope. Gotta give credit where it's due.

First, I'd like to thank President Obama for deferring to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi on his legislative agenda.

Second, I'd like to thank Martha Coakley for running a bad campaign.

Ditto New Jersey governor Jon Corzine & former Virginia governor-hopeful Creigh Deeds.

Thanks also to Reid & Pelosi for their own special brand of incompetence and idiocy. Couldn't have done it without you two.

2010 is shaping up to be a good year for conservatives & Republicans generally. It is poetic that the cause of liberty vs. tyranny was taken up, once again, in MA--the site of the original tea party.

Obama, Reid, Pelosi, the nutroots--none of them understand what happened last night. They still think people hate GWB and will vote for them accordingly. You know what? I hope the remain in their ignorance. The longer they believe they have all the answers, the longer they'll continue their lemming-like march into irrelevance and the better chance Republicans will have of winning big in November.

Indeed, maybe "dirt moving" Clint Didier has a chance vs. Patty Murray in the Washington Senate race after all.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

My Man Mitt

In 2008, I supported John McCain in his campaign for POTUS vs. Barack Obama, but it wasn't without reservation. He has always been unreliable, often discarding conservative principles in favor of currying favor from the press.

On balance, I thought, he was a far better alternative to the inexperienced, very liberal, Barack H. Obama.

And he was.

But there was a better one, and his name was Mitt Romney.

Sure, he had a few missteps, was mistrusted by some religious/social conservatives, but he was right on all the important things--foreign policy (Iraq, War on Terror, NKorea, Iran, etc.), fiscal policy (less government, lower taxes, less regulation, etc.), and the social issues (family, marriage, abortion, stem-cell research etc.).

So he was a "convert" on the last point (abortion), so what? So was Ronald Reagan. Don't we want to persuade everyone to value the rights of the unborn? Anyway, that's an old argument. Hopefully one we've moved past.

At CPAC, Romney gave an excellent speech. I wrote a bit about it in my review of CPAC Day 3.

You can read the full text of his speech here.

NRO's editor, Kathryn Jean Lopez, wrote an excellent article about the state of conservatism and some of the dustups between Michael Steele, Rush Limbaugh, and others. But most of the article is about Mitt and the possibility that he runs for President in 2012.

It's tough to look 4 years into the future; if we face the same problems we are today--that is to say, if we have yet to fully overcome them--Mitt could be part of the solution. I like Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin. But how about Romney-Petraeus?

Does that sound like a ticket you'd be interested in?

I don't think anyone else could put forward two more qualified people to deal with all the many problems this country faces right now. Seriously, does anyone have any confidence that Obama can lead us out of this economic quagmire?

The markets sure don't seem to think so. Their daily tracking poll (a constant downward spiral) leaves little doubt. Mitt Romney made a career of this sort of thing. Balancing budgets, restoring profitability, rooting out waste and inefficiency--that's his niche.

And though the model has been derided, how confident would you feel if Petraeus, in the Dick Cheney mould of VP, helped to shape our long- & short-term foreign policy goals? Instead of a complete idiot--Joe Biden (God love 'im)--you would have the guy who literally wrote the counter-insurgent book and has spearheaded our warfighting effort in Iraq and now, Iraq & Afghanistan. Do you think anyone knows how to defend America better than General Petraeus?

Most of this is just rambling speculation and wishful thinking, clearly. Right now I'm focused on 2009--hoping for a Republican win in New Jersey--and 2010--House, Senate & nationwide gubernatorial races.

With any luck, 2010 will look a little like 1994, and 2012 will resemble 1980. Remember, Ronald Reagan lost in the 1976 Republican primary before finally winning it all in 1980.

Romney could do a lot worse than following Reagan's example.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Rush Limbaugh To Colin Powell: 'Stuff It'

A lot has been made of Colin Powell's interview last week in which he called for wholesale changes in the Republican party. Of course, this comes from a man who has never really been a Republican. RINO/moderate Republican, maybe, but even then, has anyone ever heard him defend anything like a conservative principle? Apart from the fact that his career has been advanced by Republican Presidents--Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43--he hasn't ever been politically conservative.

And really, folks, are you surprised that a liberal would want to change the Republican party--make it less conservative, make it more like the Democrat party? This surprises you? More importantly, does this really persuade anyone?

I intended to post something about this earlier, but American Thinker makes a persuasive case for Rush Limbaugh as a leading American intellectual--not the pseudo-intellectual that populates the places I frequent--but a genuine intellectual in the sense that he sorts through all of the crap and makes sense of and explains the world. (note: by "places I frequent" I mean higher education in general and not the specific universities I've attended and especially not the professors with whom I have worked.)

Rush Limbaugh is far closer to the great tradition of Western intellectuals than anybody in the celebrity freak-show of the Left. It is the Rush Limbaughs who became Socrates and Plato in the ancient world. They composed the Psalms and the Book of Proverbs. They were not professional scribblers. They did not found a revolutionary cult designed to overthrow all the good traditions. They were talented talkers, and even better listeners. All good thinking starts from dialogue.

Read the article, it's very good.

Back to Rush & Powell.

Powell says, essentially, get rid of the social cons, Sarah Palin, they're dragging down the party. Rush responds:

Here is Colin Powell telling the Republican Party what to do after he voted for Obama! [...] The Republican Party nominated Powell's perfect candidate. The guy's going after moderates, independents, Democrats, a guy who is not conservative at all, McCain, didn't stand up for much conservative [...]

Colin Powell ... insists that conservatives and Republicans support candidates who will appeal to minorities like I guess McCain who led the effort for amnesty. He insists that conservatives and Republicans move to the center like McCain, who calls himself a maverick for doing so. General Powell insists that conservatives and Republicans provide an open tent to different ideas and views, like I guess McCain, who repeatedly trashed Republicans and made nice with Democrats. I mean, their tent's big, they just don't want us in it. John McCain is and was Colin Powell's ideal candidate. All these moderates that crossed the aisle and voted for Obama, they got their ideal candidate, and they got their ideal campaign in McCain. Once McCain was nominated as the Republican candidate, largely by independents and Democrats voting in Republican primaries, Colin Powell waited 'til the last minute, when it would do the most damage to McCain and the Republicans and endorsed Obama.

So if we try to understand Powell's thinking, which is difficult since it's incoherent, we should have all voted for McCain in the primaries, and once he was nominated, we should have voted for Obama for president. [...]

What's going on here with this Colin Powell thing is that the Washington establishment -- Powell's not a Republican. McCain's not a Republican. These guys are not even mavericks. They are Washingtonians. Washingtonians have their own culture and their own desires, and it is to matter. They don't care who's in power, they just want to be closely associated with whoever is. That's the name of the game and they want press adulation. They want to be loved and adored by the media, they want fawning treatment, they want to be thought of as something special, unique, dignified and so forth, and that's the Washington establishment. [...]

As long as you are a Republican, but you buy into an endless array of liberal causes, global warming to amnesty for illegals, and somebody who has the same fetish for compromising principles that you do, then they are going to love you. Then you turn around and you stab this person in the back by endorsing the most liberal Democrat candidate ever nominated days before the election, General Powell? [...]

I also have to question something here. How can he say he's a Republican? He gets the perfect Republican nominee, exactly the kind of candidate he wants, it's McCain, and then he sabotages McCain a few weeks before the election by endorsing Obama. How can you even claim to be a Republican, General Powell? When have you ever stuck your neck out for Republicans and conservatives? Never. I mean sabotage George W. Bush with the Armitage leak and Scooter Libby, that's just one thing, but Ronald Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43 all helped advance General Powell's career.

[...] I've noticed on the one hand General Powell claims to stand above politics as a big claim to fame. Yet, on the other hand, he jumps in from time to time, but only to attack the conservative base of the Republican Party. When's the last time, the first time, when is any time he has let loose or criticized a liberal Democrat on any issue? Now, here's the problem. General Powell, and folks, this problem I think is systemic in the Republican Party in Washington. People like General Powell seek to ingratiate themselves with the people who despise the Republican Party and despise the conservative movement. They're out there preaching moderation all along the way, when instead you should be preaching principle.

Principle is what got you where you are. Moderation is what keeps you where you are with this great reputation, great image but no substance, no principles, no core belief. If somebody had to tell you who Colin Powell is, what would they say? What does he stand for? What does General Powell stand for? ... You don't know. There aren't any core beliefs you can go rat-tat-tat down the list and say, yep, this is who they are. Was Abraham Lincoln great because he saw compromise during the Civil War or was he great because he insisted on total and complete victory? Great people take stands on principle, not moderation. Some of us think that individual liberty, limited constitutional government, and increased support for the military by civilians are principles worth defending. Maybe General Powell can enlighten us, since he's failed to do that so far on the great liberal or moderate Democrat principles that seem to intrigue him. What is it about Obama that intrigued him? What are these principles? Or was it the way Obama speaks?

[...] One of the things he said is he resents Sarah Palin because she kept talking about small towns. He said nobody lives in small towns and that's why they're small. "I'm from the Bronx. Something wrong with my values?" he asked. What is this hatred for conservatives and small town people and Sarah Palin? It's because they are effective. They represent challenges to the Washingtonians' control of the Republican Party. I know a lot of people that are from the Bronx, General Powell, and if you think the values there in the Bronx today reflect the ones you grew up with, take a trip back and see if the street corners and the activities there are the same as when you were growing up, General Powell.

(emphasis added)

There's a lot more there, I just quoted (generously. fair use, right? right.) from some of the best stuff. I can see why the left hates this guy so much. He is smart and persuasive and very, very good at deconstructing the elaborate myths of the left and laying them bare for all to see.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Success In Iraq (UPDATED, x3 & Bumped)

Most everyone I know wrote off Iraq sometime in 2006 or 2007. I'll admit, it was rough going and things looked bleak--especially in summer and fall 2006 ahead of The Surge.

But General David Petraeus and his #2, Ray Odierno and all the many brave soldiers in their command executed the principles of The Surge masterfully, with the result being that Iraqis (and Americans) can begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel. As I've mentioned numerous times before, John McCain deserves a lot of credit for supporting it early, consistently, and to his detriment.

George W. Bush deserves the lion's share of the credit. He could have succumbed to his Democrat critics and pulled out of Iraq, leaving American military and domestic morale in a shambles and handicapping our influence for at least a generation. But he didn't.

My suspicion is that in 40 years, fair-minded historians will treat W's presidency with far greater equanimity than either today's opinion polls or pundits. I would guess that even many of his more sober critics would probably admit that they agree.

Thanks to Branden B. for the tip: Click the link and view a solemn reminder of some of the costs of victory in Iraq. The WSJ graphic shows the coalition troop losses over the course of the war. Best of all is the "biography" option which allows you to click on the dots (which represents soldiers who died) and read a short biography.

My fear (shared by many) and probably the greatest danger, is that Barack Obama will seize defeat from the jaws of victory by pulling coalition forces out of Iraq before Iraqis are able to defend themselves from interior and exterior threats. They are on the path to that goal, but they are not there yet.

To leave before they are ready would waste the sacrifice and work of thousands of brave American and coalition soldiers and would amount to the single greatest American defeat since the fall of Saigon to the North Vietnamese. It would be an unmitigated disaster that would destabilize the entire region.

UPDATE 11:50pm BST: Steve M. writes:

Sometimes in life we have to finish a job that was started by someone else or in error, but it must be finished in order to not marginalize, minimize, or totally negate the sacrifice of others.

Sorry, but I spent two years living in South America under a dictatorship and watched people suffer from the autrocities of oppression. Regardless of whether this was to fight the war on terror (which I believe it was, but our liberal friends have no concept of how to bring an unseen enemy out of the shadows to fight), or to keep control of oil, it can and has created a country where people have the freedom to choose their direction. Who are we to say they aren't worth that effort. What if we were the ones oppressed, wouldn't we welcome the restoration of our liberties? Or would we refuse the help because it was too hard and continue suffering?

UPDATE 18 November 2:54am BST: More good news from Iraq, this coming from General McCaffrey's AAR:

THE BOTTOM LINE:

a. The United States is now clearly in the end game in Iraq to successfully achieve what should be our principle objectives:

• The withdrawal of the majority of our US ground combat forces in Iraq in the coming 36 months.

• Leaving behind an operative civil state and effective Iraqi security forces.

• An Iraqi state which is not in open civil war among the Shia, the Sunnis, and the Kurds.

• And an Iraqi nation which is not at war with its six neighboring states.

b. The security situation is clearly still subject to sudden outrage at any moment by Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) or to degradation because of provocative behavior by the Maliki government. However, the bottom line is a dramatic and growing momentum for economic and security stability which is unlikely to be reversible. I would not characterize the situation as fragile. It is just beyond the tipping point.

• Daily attacks hit a high of 180+ in July of 2007--- they are now down to 20+ per day.

• Civilian deaths dropped from 3700 per month in Dec 2006 --- to 400 + in October 2008.

• US military deaths dropped from 110 in May of 2007---to 10 in October 2008.

• Iraqi Security Forces KIA dropped from 310 in June 2007--- to 50 in October 2008.)

Like his denunciation of Nafta, I hope Obama's promise to 'withdraw, regardless of conditions on the ground,' was just empty primary campaign boilerplate, designed to get the anti-war moonbat wing of the Democrat party on board, and not, you know, his grown-up position.

(thanks to Ace)

UPDATE 18 November 1:38pm BST: VICTORY IN IRAQ DAY: Alright, folks, this Saturday is Victory In Iraq Day. The day in which we celebrate the triumph of the American military over its many foes in Iraq and the establishment of a free democracy in the Middle East--by my count, the 2nd such democracy in that part of the world.

As you'll read when you click the link: don't expect the media, or either the outgoing (just trying to keep his head down) or incoming (didn't think it was possible, owes early success to our struggles there) Presidents.

Save the date and celebrate it. Thank members of the military wherever you see them for their hard work and sacrifice.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

More Examples Of Liberals Being Ubertolerant

Another one of the many myths of liberalism is that they, and only they, are open minded and tolerant and enlightened in the glory of their many graduate degrees and minorities (both racial and sexual) and on and on, etc., amen.

Of course, the truth is that they are only tolerant if you share their doctrinaire liberal beliefs. Otherwise, you might get "crucifixed."

Consider the response of one girl's classmates to her "McCain Girl" t-shirt, worn, unbeknownst to them, as a social experiment. This experiment was conducted in Oak Park, a suburb of Chicago.

"One person told me to go die. It was a lot of dying. A lot of comments about how I should be killed," Catherine said, of the tolerance in Oak Park.

But students weren't the only ones surprised that she wore a shirt supporting McCain.

"In one class, I had one teacher say she will not judge me for my choice, but that she was surprised that I supported McCain," Catherine said.

If Catherine was shocked by such passive-aggressive threats from instructors, just wait until she goes to college.

Yup, those liberals, so tolerant and open minded.

Look, see how enlightened they are compared to the redneck, backwoods, no-nothing, conservatives living in flyover country.

The message from these liberals (like some of the gay liberals) is clear: Join us in our dogmatic groupthink, or else.

(h/t Amanda B.)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

More Evidence Sarah Palin Didn't Lose The Election

Don't listen to David Brooks. He doesn't like Sarah Palin and doesn't like social conservatives. You know this before you read his column. This is his bias. Dick Morris hates the Clintons and wants to win. This is his bias. Here's his read on Sarah Palin's effect on the election:

Sarah Palin made a vast difference in McCain’s favor. Compared to 2004, McCain lost 11 points among white men, according to the Fox News exit poll, but only four points among white women. Obama’s underperformance among white women, evident throughout the fall, may be chalked up, in large part, to the influence of Sarah Palin. She provided a rallying point for women who saw their political agenda in terms larger than abortion. She addressed the question of what it is like to be a working mother in today’s economy and society and resonated with tens of millions of white women who have not responded to the more traditional, and liberal, advocates for their gender.

Add this to the numbers Palin drew to her campaign events--literally tens of thousands of people showed up. She rivaled Barack Obama. Nobody turned up to listen to Joe Biden. And John McCain didn't pull those kinds of numbers and the base wouldn't have turned out to GOTV for him either.

Don't believe the haters. Palin isn't responsible for the loss and McCain supposed "hewing to the right" didn't do it either.

On what positions, pray tell, did McCain go right and lose? Drilling? Polls throughout the summer showed Americans in favor of drilling, 70-30%.

Similarly, on immigration, Americans are opposed to amnesty and in favor enforcement. But McCain pretty much didn't say anything about immigration because he's personally in favor of amnesty.

Oh, and all that stuff about Palin supposedly believing that Africa was a country, and not a continent, get over yourselves, it was a hoax. Who's the idiot now?

Obama did in 2008 what Tony Blair did in 1997--he coopted traditionally conservative principles--like fiscal responsibility and tax cuts. How in the world could McCain let Obama steal tax cuts? But he did, by proposing "tax cuts" for 95% of Americans. On foreign policy, Obama even out-hawked John McCain with regard to Pakistan (proposing bombings and special forces incursions).

John McCain did not lose this election by being too conservative or adding Sarah Palin to the ticket.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Sarah Palin Remains Awesome

Thanks to Jim Treacher for sharing.

Thanks also to Batton Lash.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

They Called Ohio (UPDATED)

With Ohio being called for Obama, we can pretty much conclude that this thing is over. I can't remember seeing a single scenario that had McCain losing Ohio, but winning the election.

Keep an eye on the Senate. Republicans need to maintain the filibuster in order to stonewall radical liberal change in this country. Some of the worst kind would be single-payer, so called "universal" or government administered health care and "card check" unionization. These things are bad and only a Republican filibuster can keep us from them.

One other thing to keep an eye on is the popular vote. I still don't believe this is a "sea change" election in which the political orientation of this country has changed. A relatively close popular vote would confirm that.

I'm going to keep banging this drum until people get it into their heads: The Amazing thing about this election is how well John McCain has done despite the many things stacked against him: Bush, general dislike of Republicans for past corruption issues (see 2006), credit crisis/economic issues, Iraq (though diminished), Democrat GOTV & new voter registration, did I mention Bush?, voter identification--on all these things, Republicans have been at a disadvantage. Despite it all, McCain has done well.

Look, folks, you want to talk about a party without ideas? How about this: The policies we have heard about most from Obama are conservative issues. Tax cuts for 95% of Americans. Yeah, that idea is straight out of the conservative playbook. And it has gotten more play than almost anything else. Obama has also run as fiscally responsible, with promises to balance the budget. Yup, that one too is also a conservative policy. He even had the audacity to attack John McCains economically sound health care plan by calling it a net increase in taxes. Does that sound conservative or liberal to you?

Where are all these "new ideas" that have propelled Obama to victory? Anyone? Anyone? He has even adopted a hawkish position in support of Israel and on Afghanistan and Pakistan. On Pakistan, in particular, he out-hawked John McCain.

Now, I'm not saying that I believe that he actually believes or will hold to these positions, but they are the ones on which he has campaigned and which brought him this win.

Going forward, it is important that conservatives and Republicans draw the right conclusions and learn the right lessons from this loss. A wrong conclusion would be to say that Sarah Palin was the cause. This will be the clarion call of liberals and "moderate" Republicans. Because they don't like her. Don't believe them. She's part of the reason it's as close as it is. Without her, no one would be GOTV'ing.

UPDATE 4:14am BST: One bit of good news, it looks like Republicans will maintain their Senate filibuster. Assuming Democrats don't blow up long-standing Senate rules, this should keep them from adopting radical things like card-check unionization and government health care.

A simple thing like the filibuster means we don't have to rely on President Obama to moderate Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi--a scary proposition, indeed.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

More Examples Of Voter Fraud

Dateline Dixville Notch, New Hampshire:

Democrat Barack Obama came up a big winner in the presidential race in Dixville Notch, N.H., where the nation's first Election Day votes were cast and counted early Tuesday.

Obama defeated John McCain 15-6. Independent Ralph Nader was also on the ballot, but received no votes.

The first voter, following tradition established in 1948, was picked ahead of the midnight voting and the rest of the town's 19 registered voters followed suit in Tuesday's first minutes.

Town Clerk Rick Erwin says the northern New Hampshire town is proud of its tradition, but says the most important thing is that the turnout represents 100 percent vote.

19 registered voters, but somehow Obama defeated McCain 15-6? Huh?

They can't even stop voter fraud in a ward with just 19 registered voters.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Electoral Torture

Rudy Giuliani:

Mel Martinez once told me something about John McCain and these elections, he said, 'if you've been through the Hanoi Hilton, this is a breeze.'

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

5 (Actually 6) Reasons To Be Optimistic For McCain

These come from a lecture I attended last week at my MA alma mater, UCL. The lecture was given by Adam Smith, the professor who taught my Lincoln course. He is a sharp and savvy observer of American politics both in the contemporary sense and historically. He is also a liberal supporter of Barack Obama. Like pretty much everyone else in higher ed.

Without further ado:

5 (really 6) reasons to be optimistic for John McCain:
- Obama's weak finish in the primaries (ed. note: performing 2.8% worse than he polled)
- The U.S. is still a conservative country.
- A relatively high number of undecideds (ed. note: who look like they're breaking towards McCain)
- race (ed. note: by this he & liberal pundits mean 'Americans are racist,' but a better way to understand it is that people don't want to be perceived as being racist, so they say they're voting for Obama when really they're voting for McCain. The so-called "Bradley Effect" or some derivative thereof.)
- older voters may determine outcome in OH, FL, IN, CO (ed. note: most of the people I've spoken with during my GOTV calling have been seniors. And they all said two things: 'I already voted' AND 'I voted for John McCain.' Small sample, whatever.)
- focus on taxes narrowing polls (ed. note: he couldn't have seen it, but those just tuning in have seen Obama the "Redistributor." And, Obama's desire to "bankrupt" the coal industry can't play well in Pennsylvania & Ohio.

There you have it, Smith's 5 (nay, 6) reasons to be optimistic for McCain. He gave 5 reason for Obama too, but I don't want to be a buzzkill. And I'm an eternal optimist, so there's that.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Vote For McCain: My Last, Best Shot

For the last 10 months, I have been blogging, thinking, reading and talking a lot about this election. My guy, Romney, didn't make it past the primaries. But that's OK, I'm pretty happy with the one we've got.

Much of the case I have been making over the last few months has been against Barack Obama. It's important because I don't think he is qualified on any number of levels--experience (he has none), judgment (opposing The Surge, his Chicago friendships), etc., and because I don't like his politics. His policies reflect the most socialist agenda this country has seen FDR. He wants the government to take more of your money and in exchange, he'll take over your health care, your mortgage, and more.

Long story short, Barack Obama is in favor of expanding the nanny-state. This is a move that will include more hand-outs and goodies, but which encroaches on individual liberty. It is a worldview against which I am firmly opposed. Additionally, I cannot abide Obama's pro-abortion position.

But this election is more than an opportunity to vote against Barack Obama, it's a chance to vote for John McCain. Whatever else you know about John McCain, know this: John McCain is a real American hero. He's not a hero just because he was a POW, he's an American hero because of how he responded to that 5-and-a-half year hell. They offered to have a doctor treat his multiple injuries if he would give up secrets and denounce the war, he refused. He was in solitary confinement for 2 years.

Like Fred Thompson said at the RNC, "John knows something about hope, that's all he had." Given the opportunity to leave early, ahead of those who had arrived before him, John turned them down flatly, out of honor. They broke his ribs and teeth in punishment. Instead of giving up secrets while being beaten, John gave them the o-line of the Green Bay Packers.

These experiences reveal something to us about John McCain: When the times are tough and painful and there seems to be very little hope, John McCain will do the right thing.

For me, personally, nothing exemplifies this better than John McCain's support of The Surge. When everyone else was jumping ship to save their political lives, John McCain argued forcefully and persuasively in favor of The Surge. Almost alone, John stood up for the troops who have fought, bled and died in Iraq. He ensured that their sacrifice would not be for nothing. Against the odds and to the surprise of Obama and others, The Surge has been wildly successful. Iraq should now become a peaceful, democratic ally of the United States. In large measure, we have John McCain to thank for this development.

John McCain has shown, in a small hut in North Vietnam and in the United States Senate that he is willing and able to make the right choice, regardless of how it may hurt him personally and politically. He will always do what is best for this country. He has always served and loved this country.

Much to the chagrin of many conservatives, John McCain has often partnered with Democrats to craft legislation that we do not like. I don't say this to persuade Republicans, but to persuade Independents and reasonable liberals. Those who argue that John McCain is a "right-wing nut" or has adopted extreme positions, either doesn't know what they are talking about, or is so far left politically, that moderate positions have become extreme to them.

Senator McCain is a conservative, but conservatism is probably not his guiding political principle. I believe his overarching, highest order principle is honor. In all things John McCain is honorable. If he says he will do something, you can take that to the bank. It is as good as done. You can count on John McCain.

I don't agree with Senator McCain on everything. I'm frustrated by tendency towards populism and strongly dislike his co-sponsored campaign finance reform. But I know that he doesn't take these positions (populist though they may be), that he hasn't passed this legislation, because it is popular or designed to get him elected. I trust John McCain to do what he says and to always act in good faith. I do not similarly trust Barack Obama.

Senator McCain sees this country the way Ronald Reagan did--as a city on a hill, a beacon of liberty and freedom, a land of opportunity and goodness. Sure, John and I will both admit, we--collectively speaking of America--have our problems, but America is not fundamentally flawed and in need of the wholesale change Barack Obama has promised. We do not need to adopt new, foreign ideals. We do not need to change the notion of the American dream.

We simply need to return to original principles and ideals--ideals and principles which were laid out clearly in the Contitution--a document which limits government and guarantees individual liberty--and the Declaration of Independence--a singular work that derives our rights as Americans as being endowed by our creator, being, in essence, things which could be neither given, nor taken away by any government. They cannot be taken away and are not government-given because they are our inalienable, God-given rights.

This is John McCain's vision of America--fundamentally good and often great, a beacon of hope, liberty, and opportunity.

This is the America I see and the one in which I believe.

For this reason and many more, I urge you to join with me in voting for John Mccain.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

From The Desk Of John McCain

My Friend,

From the time I entered the Naval Academy at age seventeen I have been privileged and honored to serve my country.

Throughout my years of service, I've been faced with challenges where I could have taken the easy way out and given up. But I'm an American and I never give up. Instead, I choose to show courage and stand up and fight for the country I love. Today, I am asking you to stand with me and to fight for our country's future.

Our country faces enormous challenges and our next president must be ready to lead on day one. My lifetime of experience has prepared me to lead our great nation. I'm prepared to bring solutions to our economic challenges, bring our troops home in victory and improve our nation's healthcare system.

Time and time again, my country has saved my life and I owe her more than she has ever owed me. I have chosen to show my gratitude through a life of service to our country and tomorrow, you will have a choice before you.

I humbly ask you to make the choice that will allow me to serve my country a little while longer by casting your vote to elect me as your next President of the United States.

Finally, I ask that you never forget that much has been sacrificed to protect our right to vote. We must never forget those Americans who, with their courage, with their sacrifice, and with their lives, have protected our freedom. It is my great hope that you will exercise your right to vote as an American tomorrow.

I thank you for your kind support, your dedication to our cause, and most importantly I thank you for your vote.

With sincere appreciation,

John McCain

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

A Few More Reasons For Optimism

John Podhoretz of Commentary identifies 10 reasons John McCain might just be able to pull this thing off. I chose my favorites. Click the link to see the rest.

1) One poll has undecided voters at 14 percent on the last weekend, which means most of them probably really aren’t undecided, that they are either going to stay home or vote preponderantly for McCain and pull McCain across the finish line.

2) Most pollsters are claiming the electorate this year is six to nine points more Democratic than it is Republican. That would be an unprecedented shift from four years ago, when the electorate was evenly divided, 37-37, Republican and Democratic, and a huge shift from two years ago, when it was 37-33 Democratic. A shift of this size didn’t even happen after Watergate.

3) Obama frequently outpolled his final result in primaries, which might have many causes but might also indicate that he has difficulty closing the sale.

4) The argument in the past two weeks has shifted, such that many undecided voters who are now paying attention are hearing about Obama’s redistributionist tendencies at exactly the right moment for McCain.

8) What happened with the Joe the Plumber story is that Obama has now been effectively outed as a liberal, not a moderate; and because liberalism is still less popular than conservatism, that’s not the best place for Obama to be.

9) The fire lit under Obama’s young supporters in the winter was largely due to Iraq and his opposition to the war. The stunning decline in violence and the departure of Iraq from the front page has put out the fire, to the extent that, like the young woman who made a sexy video calling herself Obama Girl and then didn’t vote in the New York primary because she went to get a manicure, they might not want to stand on line on Tuesday.

In case you didn't know, because you're not a long-time reader, another of my biases is my native, eternal optimism.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Obama: Generous With Other People's Money

[ed. note: in case you missed this because I ran it in the middle of the day on a Saturday]

Remember how I asserted that conservatives--especially the religious type--were more generous than their liberal progressive counterparts? I pointed out the obvious fact that liberals would rather be generous with government handouts than they would with their own money to the guy on the street.

Yeah, this has been empirically proven.

I'm sure there are exceptions to this data--specifically, the liberal-progressive readers of this blog. I'm sure they're very generous with their money.

But this isn't just true empirically, there's also anecdotal evidence very close to home, as it were, in the person of Joe Biden.

Joe pays practically nothing in charity. Just read Byron York:

In nine out of the ten years for which tax returns were released, the Bidens gave less than $400 to charity; in the tenth year, 2007, when Biden was running for president, they gave $995 out of an adjusted gross income of $319,853.

And these guys, Joe & Barack, have the gall to call Americans who want to pay fewer taxes, "selfish."

As reader Branden B. points out, this latest "progressive critique of the capitalist system" is, well, pure socialism.

It's worse than I thought. He isn't a liberal with socialist tendencies. He is the "socialism" Wikipedia entry himself.

Give your money to Barack & Joe and they will spread it around "fairly" and "equally," as they see fit.

Another reader, reminds me of some great literature. Their comments in full:

Jake, interestingly enough after sending you that article I went into the library and picked up my old copy of Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" and this is the first thing I read which I highlighted 5 years ago:

"Socialism is not a movement of the people. It is a movement of the intellectuals, originated, led and controlled by the intellectuals, carried by them out of their stuffy ivory towers into those bloody fields of practice where they unite with their allies and executors: the thugs."

Who would you categorize as the two separate and distinct demographic groups that are voting (read fanatical) for Obama?

Let me continue with Ms. Rand and you will see an errily similar motive and comparison with one of our presidential candidates......

"What, then, is the motive of such intellectuals? Power-lust. Power-lust--as a manifestation of helplessness, of self-loathing and of the desire for the unearned. The desire for the unearned has two aspects: the unearned in matter and the unearned in spirit. These two aspects are necessarily inter-related, but a man's desire may be focused predominantly on one or the other. The desire for the unearned in spirit is the more destructive for the two and the more corrupt. It is a desire for unearned greatness; it is expressed (but not defined) by the foggy murk of the term "prestige."

Compare and contrast the earned greatness of a man like John McCain v the unearned prestige of Obama.

(emphasis in original)

Can we make it more plain than that?

Obama bribes the poor with the rich's money, using the "intellectuals" in the ivory tower for legitimacy (believe me, I see it every day) and the thugs in the street to try to get himself elected.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

You Gotta Question Their Assumptions

About turnout and voter registration and party ID, that is.

More encouraging words from ACE:

THE PATH TO VICTORY FOR McCAIN IS IN OUR HANDS

The media polls are heavily weighted towards Democrats in terms of Party ID. With that kind of heavy weighting, it would be impossible for McCain to show any lead even if he had a small led among independents. For example, Rasmussen currently assumes the following party id break down: Democrats 40%, Republicans 32.8%, and Independents 27.2%. He is assuming a whopping 7 percent advantage in party id for the Democrats. This is a big barrier to overcome in these polls. If we assume a 85% Democrat support for Obama and 85% Republican support for McCain and a 50/50 breakdown among independents (ignore undecided and third party candidates) this would translate to a poll finding of 52.5% for Obama and 47.5% for McCain which incidentally gives the same 5% spread as in the current Rasmussen poll.

Note that all of this is simply from the 7% party id advantage. If we reduce the party id spread to 3%, the numbers would change to 51% for Obama and 49% to McCain. Now if we assume that McCain picks off more Democrats than Obama does Republicans, 85% Democrats for Obama and 90% Republicans for McCain then the outcome will be 49.3% for Obama and 50.7% for McCain, a clear LEAD.

What this simple analysis shows is that there are two crucial things for McCain victory:

a) HIGH Republican turnout.

b) HIGH PUMA (Democrats against Obama) turnout.

I strongly believe that both are very achievable. It all comes down to TURNOUT, GOTV, and ENTHUSIASM. This is why Obama and his media acolytes are working overtime to demorialize and suppress the turnout among Republicans and PUMAs. We have to keep working hard, ignore their propaganda, and get out and vote.

One final thing. Rasmussen has been steadily increasing his Dem party id advantage over the last three months. I suspect the same with other pollsters working for major media news organizations. However, the Republican base and the PUMAs are as energized as the Dem base and may in fact be even more energized. In addition to this, if last minute deciders go overwhelmingly against Obama as happened during the Democratic primaries in the swing states, McCain should win by an even bigger margin. The media and their pollsters are in for a huge surprise.

From an ex-Democrat turned independent supporting McCain/Palin '08.

Come on folks, join me in making the calls for McPalin. Click the link and copy and paste it and mail it to all your McPalin-supportin' friends and family. Write up a note in Facebook and paste a link there encouraging your friends to do the same. Make it your status on Facebook or MySpace.

This is the word: We can still win this thing.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Surveying The Case For McCain (& Against Obama)

NRO Editors, 2 columns by Thomas Sowell, 1 by Rich Lowry, & 1 by Charles Krauthammer:

NRO editors:

This election does not present Americans with a straight-up choice between conservatism and liberalism. This is not so much because John McCain is a moderate, although he is, as because liberals are likely to have effective majorities in both houses of Congress. Thus the choice we face is, in most respects, between a liberalism that is checked and one that is not.

We have no doubt that if McCain is president we will find much to criticize. But we will be confident that we have the right commander-in-chief and that liberals do not have a free hand to remake our country. In this election we support Senator McCain and urge all conservatives to do so as well.

Thomas Sowell - "Obama, Powell, & Popularity":

Among the reasons given by Secretary Powell for supporting Barack Obama is that Obama can restore America’s standing with foreign countries.

The idea that the United States must somehow rehabilitate itself in the eyes of the United Nations or NATO or “world opinion” is staggering, even though it is an idea very popular in the mainstream media.

The first duty of a President of the United States is to protect American interests — of which survival is number one — regardless of what others may say.

[...]

Despite the media hype that we need to rehabilitate ourselves in the eyes of the world, the United States of America remains the number one destination of immigrants from around the world, some of whom take desperate chances with their lives to get here, whether across the waters of the Caribbean or by crossing our dangerous southwest desert.

Even when dozens of governments around the world join the United States in coordinated efforts to fight international terrorism, the media will call our actions “unilateral” if some demagogues in France or Germany spout off against us.

The American nuclear umbrella has enabled Western European nations to escape responsibility for their own military survival for more than half a century.

Lack of responsibility has bred irresponsibility, one sign of which are unionized troops in NATO and NATO bomber pilots who have office hours when they will and will not fly, not to mention NATO troops letting American troops handle the really dangerous fighting in Afghanistan.

Maybe the time is overdue for NATO to try to rehabilitate itself and for Americans to stop trying to be “citizens of the world.”

Needless to say, I don't buy this argument about "rehabilitating America's image abroad." They don't hate us any more now than the "Peace Movement" of the 1980s hated Ronald Reagan. These are the fruits of playing policeman of the world.

Charles Krauthammer - "Further Left than LBJ":

McCain is just the kind of moderate conservative that the Washington/media establishment once loved — the champion of myriad conservative heresies that made him a burr in the side of congressional Republicans and George W. Bush. But now that he is standing in the way of an audacity-of-hope Democratic restoration, erstwhile friends recoil from McCain on the pretense that he has suddenly become right wing.

Self-serving rubbish. McCain is who he always was. Generally speaking, he sees government as a Rooseveltian counterweight (Teddy with a touch of Franklin) to the various malefactors of wealth and power. He wants government to tackle large looming liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare. He wants to free up health insurance by beginning to sever its debilitating connection to employment — a ruinous accident of history (arising from World War II wage and price controls) that increases the terror of job loss, inhibits labor mobility and saddles American industry with costs that are driving it (see: Detroit) into insolvency. And he supports lower corporate and marginal tax rates to encourage entrepreneurship and job creation.

An eclectic, moderate, generally centrist agenda in a guy almost congenitally given to bipartisanship.

I have a lot of so-called "moderate" friends. They have always complained about the supposed extreme right-wing nature of Republican politics. Alright, guys, you got what you asked for. John McCain is the most moderate candidate since Bill Clinton. He's the Republican party's equivalent of Bill Clinton, minus the womanizing.

Will you vote for him?

Rich Lowry - "Redistribution You Can Believe In":

Obama proposes a dog’s breakfast of tax credits, including a $500 refundable work credit that applies even to people who owe no income taxes. The Internal Revenue Service would cut them a $500 check every year. This essentially is a government payment dressed up as a tax cut. It will be partly funded by new taxes on the top 5 percent. So Obama is redistributing wealth, but in an eminently salable way. Call it “redistributive change we can believe in.”

Obama’s plan wouldn’t, like cuts in marginal tax rates, increase the incentive to work, invest or save. In fact, the opposite. As tax credits phase out, they increase marginal tax rates. But for Obama, his plan is a matter of justice rather than economics.

When in a Democratic primary debate Charlie Gibson of ABC News pointed out to Obama that increasing the capital-gains rate in the past has initially reduced revenue, Obama replied that he wanted the increase “for purposes of fairness.”

But how unfair is the American tax system? It’s already steeply progressive. IRS data show that the top 1 percent of filers paid 40 percent of federal income taxes in 2006. The top 5 percent paid 60 percent. The top half paid 97 percent.

Robbing the rich to bribe the poor. This is Obama's idea of "social justice." Social justice is a joke.

True justice is not taking money from those who earned it and giving it to those who did not.

Thomas Sowell - "A Perfect Storm":

Policies that he proposes under the banner of “change” are almost all policies that have been tried repeatedly in other countries — and failed repeatedly in other countries.

Politicians telling businesses how to operate? That’s been tried in countries around the world, especially during the second half of the 20th century. It has failed so often and so badly that even socialist and communist governments were freeing up their markets by the end of the century.

The economies of China and India began their take-off into high rates of growth when they got rid of precisely the kinds of policies that Obama is advocating for the United States under the magic mantra of “change.”

Putting restrictions on international trade in order to save jobs at home? That was tried here with the Hawley-Smoot tariff during the Great Depression.

Unemployment was 9 percent when that tariff was passed to save jobs, but unemployment went up instead of down, and reached 25 percent before the decade was over.

Higher taxes to “spread the wealth around,” as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and the production of new wealth has been stifled by a lack of incentives.

Open your eyes, folks.

If you think you've got it bad now under Bush, just wait until you see the craptastic future Obama has in store for you.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

My Kind Of Seahawks

From an article in today's Seattle PI, more reasons to like Matt Hasselbeck and now-retired Mack Strong:

Last year after Matt Hasselbeck and Mack Strong gave President Bush an honorary Seahawks jersey at a $1,000-a-plate fundraiser for Rep. Dave Reichert, they took all kinds of heat.

Hasselbeck received nasty texts and e-mails, with one man saying, "I hate you, I'll never wear your jersey, I'll never like the Seahawks again." The meanness surprised him. His coach's wife, Kathy Holmgren, a staunch Democrat, was also upset about the two players giving Bush a jersey.

I miss Mack Strong. My dad, brother, and I met him at Seahawks training camp in the Summer of 2005. He was friendly and took time to shake everyone's hand and sign everything that anyone had for him to sign. He's a real class act.

Of course, Elizabeth Hasselbeck is Matt's sister-in-law. Good family. With any luck, I'll be voting for Matt for Senate from the state of Washington someday soon.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Obama: Generous With Other People's Money

Remember how I asserted that conservatives--especially the religious type--were more generous than their liberal progressive counterparts? I pointed out the obvious fact that liberals would rather be generous with government handouts than they would with their own money to the guy on the street.

Yeah, this has been empirically proven.

I'm sure there are exceptions to this data--specifically, the liberal-progressive readers of this blog. I'm sure they're very generous with their money.

But this isn't just true empirically, there's also anecdotal evidence very close to home, as it were, in the person of Joe Biden.

Joe pays practically nothing in charity. Just read Byron York:

In nine out of the ten years for which tax returns were released, the Bidens gave less than $400 to charity; in the tenth year, 2007, when Biden was running for president, they gave $995 out of an adjusted gross income of $319,853.

And these guys, Joe & Barack, have the gall to call Americans who want to pay fewer taxes, "selfish."

As reader Branden B. points out, this latest "progressive critique of the capitalist system" is, well, pure socialism.

It's worse than I thought. He isn't a liberal with socialist tendencies. He is the "socialism" Wikipedia entry himself.

Give your money to Barack & Joe and they will spread it around "fairly" and "equally," as they see fit.

Another reader, reminds me of some great literature. Their comments in full:

Jake, interestingly enough after sending you that article I went into the library and picked up my old copy of Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" and this is the first thing I read which I highlighted 5 years ago:

"Socialism is not a movement of the people. It is a movement of the intellectuals, originated, led and controlled by the intellectuals, carried by them out of their stuffy ivory towers into those bloody fields of practice where they unite with their allies and executors: the thugs."

Who would you categorize as the two separate and distinct demographic groups that are voting (read fanatical) for Obama?

Let me continue with Ms. Rand and you will see an errily similar motive and comparison with one of our presidential candidates......

"What, then, is the motive of such intellectuals? Power-lust. Power-lust--as a manifestation of helplessness, of self-loathing and of the desire for the unearned. The desire for the unearned has two aspects: the unearned in matter and the unearned in spirit. These two aspects are necessarily inter-related, but a man's desire may be focused predominantly on one or the other. The desire for the unearned in spirit is the more destructive for the two and the more corrupt. It is a desire for unearned greatness; it is expressed (but not defined) by the foggy murk of the term "prestige."

Compare and contrast the earned greatness of a man like John McCain v the unearned prestige of Obama.

(emphasis in original)

Can we make it more plain than that?

Obama bribes the poor with the rich's money, using the "intellectuals" in the ivory tower for legitimacy (believe me, I see it every day) and the thugs in the street to try to get himself elected.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.