Ultimately, the biggest problem with nationalizing health care (let’s not kid ourselves, that’s what these bills do, and that’s the objective) is that it pits Americans against one another. In passage of the Stupak Amendment, the pro-choice lobby has just learned a bitter lesson (well, actually, they received a lesson, but I don’t think they learned it), which is that they may not get to control the benefit packages. This will be true everywhere, though. Under nationalized care, you want my grandmother to die (or at least we can say that you will benefit if my grandmother dies, and one’s desires tend to follow incentives), because your costs go up if she’s kept alive with expensive care. That other guy wants your baby to die (or be aborted - will Catholic Bishops learn the true lesson of their triumph this week when they have to decide on the final bill?) rather than live with birth abnormalities that require expensive health care. The reality of human nature, noted by Adam Smith more than 200 years ago, is that we take a prick on our own finger much more seriously than the deaths of thousands halfway across the world. Thus, the reality of government health care is that people will want theirs from the common pot, and they will vote to get it, whatever it does to their neighbors.

The more one digs into Tuesday’s election results, the worse they look for Democrats.  Let’s start by reviewing once again the three high profile races: New York’s 23^rd Congressional District special election, and the gubernatorial in New Jersey and Virginia.

The Democrats have to know that NY-23 was a fluke – they can’t count on gross Republican miscalculation in 2010.  Meanwhile, Democratic efforts to write off the New Jersey and Virginia losses by blaming them on bad candidates simply don’t ring true. 

In Virginia, Creigh Deeds was not a bad candidate.  In the primary, despite being vastly outspent, he hammered the powerful Terry McAuliffe.  He had the endorsement of the Washington Post, which argued that of three strong Democratic primary candidates, in the general election, “Deeds’ moderate platform would have the broadest appeal.”  On liberal blog sites, Deeds was the overwhelming favorite as the best candidate, the one most likely to win the general election.  

Jon Corzine was not a bad candidate, either – he could self-fund his race, an enormous advantage, and outspend any opponent 3 to 1, as he did to Chris Christie.  He had been elected statewide twice before.  What Corzine was, was a bad governor.  And why was he a bad governor?  Because he followed the same type of policies that the Democrats are now pursuing on a national level.  Maybe someone will notice that.

It has been noted lately that the Democrats plan to hold on next fall is to go negative, and to do so early – to “vaporize” opponents, as Harry Reid says.  But that is exactly what both Deeds and Corzine tried to do.  Corzine, who won by 11 points in 2005, lost by 4 this year.  Deeds, who lost to the same man in the attorney general race 4 years ago by fewer than 350 votes, this time lost by 18 percentage points.  Meanwhile, President Obama embraced and campaigned with both men.  Yet McDonnell won by the biggest margin for a Republican ever, and Christie by the largest margin for a Republican in 24 years.  Thus, the Democrats’ two key strategies to hold on in 2010 (other than pray for a better economy) failed miserably – Obama couldn’t save them, and relentlessly negative campaigning couldn’t save them.  These men were not bad candidates, as their past success and praise for them suggests – rather, they were running on bad issues in a time in which Democrats are increasingly blamed for the nation’s difficulties.

In the other Congressional special election, California’s 10^th District, Lt. Governor  John Garamendi won by 11 points after heavily outspending his opponent in a district won by his predecessor in 2008 by 34 points, in which Democrats have an 18 point edge in voter registration, and which Obama carried by 31 points.  Not much to crow about.

Down ballot, in races for lower offices, including state legislatures and mayors, it gets worse. 

Read More →

If you live out in California’s 10th Congressional District, east of the Bay, remember there is a special election today for Congress.  Democratic nominee John Garamendi has run an all out, down the line liberal campaign, including a hearty embrace of the most liberal health care reforms.  The district has been reliably Democratic for over a decade, and voted over 60% for Obama, but Republicans do win some down ballot races and the GOP candidate, David Harmer, has run a good, well-financed campaign.  Harmer is a solid conservative who once worked at the Heritage Foundation and has published with the Cato Institute.  A Harmer win would be a big upset, but it’s not at all inconceivable.  A win by Harmer - or even a strong showing - might do more than anything in the East Coast races to send moderate Democrats fleeing the Pelosi/Obama agenda.  If you’re out there, be sure to vote, make some calls, send some emails, and drag some friends to the polls to vote for Harmer.

I understand that for many conservatives, Chris Christie wasn’t the first choice for New Jersey Governor.  I understand that a lot of people have problems with the fact that Christie used to be pro-choice, and has only recently converted to a pro-life stance.  Doesn’t matter - if you live in New Jersey, do something - volunteer, donate, write a letter to the editor.  If you live elsewhere, send money. 

After Christie led all summer, this race has essentially become a deadheat, thanks to New Jersey’s Democratic electorate and Jon Corzine’s millions.  Corzine has outspent Christie about 10-1 over the summer, and is still outspending him about 3 to 1.  The polls are now showing this even.  Quinnipiac has Corzine up a point, his first lead in any poll this year.

A win for Christie is important, not only because he’d be a better governor than Corzine, but because a win will help in candidate recruitment, fundraising, and voter enthusiasm for the GOP.  The more signs there are that 2010 looks good, the more donors open their wallets, and potential candidates step up (meanwhile, the opposite happens to our friends on the Blue side of things).  So a Christie win is important for more conservative candidates in other races. 

Go here

Granville High Schools gave students a choice of watching the President’s speech or attending their regular classes.  We have a 17 year old, V, living with us this year:

Me:  Did you go to the speech?

V: No, I decided I did not want to hear Obama.

Me: How many kids went?

V: I would say most.

Me: What did the kids who went say about it after?

V:  Most of them just wanted to get out of class.

Marty Peretz of the New Republic is usually a thoughtful liberal.  I enjoy the New Republic.  That’s why I was rather stunned by this article.

Some parents don’t like the idea of the President beeming his image into every school in the country on Tuesday.  I think a lot of people have gotten carried away with criticizing the president on this, but I’ll admit that I dislike it, too.  I dislike it not because the President’s speech is too political, but because it is not political.  As I note here, the President really has  nothing to say about government policy.  Here’s the speech in a nutshell:  “Welcome back to school.  Stay in school, work hard.”  

My kids don’t need to hear that from the President.  This is a President who once again shows that he has no idea of the proper role of government.  If the President wants to talk about governmental affairs, great.  I’d love for him to stop by our school to do so.  That would be a great experience for the kids.  But I do not want the President trying to raise my children.  When people ask, “how can you object to the President urging kids to stay in school,” I ask them what they’d think if I stopped by their house one night, uninvited, to tell their kids how to behave.

But Marty Peretz takes the cake.  You know what Peretz thinks?  He writes, ”it is almost disloyal to refuse any children the right to hear him.  Disloyal and nutty.”  Well gee, Martin, thanks for the “almost,” at least on the first try.  

Where’s Hillary when you need her?

Thanks to the glories of YouTube, we can watch as the government mandates the destruction of perfectly good automobiles to “help the economy.”  Here is a very nice 1990s Dodge Dakota 4X4 being destroyed.  It is a much better vehicle than my pick up truck. 

This is a Corvette that looks to be in pretty good condition.  Black, pretty sharp car.  I’m sure there are a lot of young men crammed into 2001 Nissans who would have liked this car.

In this video, a ‘98 Cadillac DeVille with less than 80,000 miles meets its end.  Just 68,000 miles on this Chevy Caprice wagon.

A nice looking 2001 Mazda light truck with 75,000 miles bites the dust here.  Here’s a good looking Volvo prematurely destroyed.  This SUV would look at home in any tony U.S. suburb.

Really, you ought to look at at least a couple of these videos, and the hundreds more like them on YouTube.  Are these “clunkers?”  Can it really help the economy to destroy perfectly good assets?  Are the people running the government the most economically illiterate bunch since FDR ruled the roost?  Or are they dumber?

One element of the economy hit particularly hard by the recession has been the restaurant industry.  Superchef Gordon Ramsey’s restaurants are in a “free fall.”  The industry as a whole is facing especially lean times as people eat more at home.

Following up on the popular “cash for clunkers,” the government has created a plan to save the restaurant industry while attacking America’s growing obesity problem.  It’s called “Rebates for Recipes.”  Under the program, individuals can take a meal to a restaurant.  If they order a new meal at the restaurant that has at least 20 percent fewer calories, the government will provide a rebate of between $3.50 and $4.50 (depending on the savings in calories) for any entre priced at $45 or less.  The restaurant is required to destroy the trade in meal (which must be edible at the time you enter the restaurant) by putting it down the disposal.  Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs said, “there is no end to cross subsidies with catchy slogans that we can create.  And destroying perfectly good assets seems to be a proven way to improve the economic health of the nation.”

Senate sources say they expect the projected cost of the program to treble within a week.

Earlier this year, at Supreme Court oral argument in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the government raised eyebrows by arguing that it believed that it can constitutionally ban the publication of books (if, as is always the case, the publisher is a corporation) that contain even one line arguing for the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.  The government based its belief on the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld a blanket ban on corporate political spending in order to prevent “distortion” of campaigns.  Faced with the full constitutional ramifications of Austin - for the government’s position flows naturally from Austin - the Supreme Court asked the parties to reargue the case on September 9, to consider whether Austin should be overruled.

Austin was based on the assumption that the government could limit some speech in order to enhance the voices of others, although the case tried not to frame it that way.  Rather, the Austin Court argued it was dealing with a “different type of corruption, the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth… .”  To most people, that sounds like an egalitarian argument, not one about “corruption.”  Which would be fine - it is perfectly acceptable to favor things on egalitarian grounds - except that the First Amendment to the Constitution appears to forbid the government from making such determinations.  As the Supreme Court stated in in the landmark case Buckley v. Valeo, “the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment, which was designed ‘to secure “the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources,”‘ and ‘”to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.”‘”

Thus, Austin has long been the odd man out in campaign finance jurisprudence, the case that doesn’t fit the mold.  And apparently the government now agrees, for rather than defend Austin, the government has apparently decided that the best defense is a good offense - in it’s brief, filed last week, it now argues that it not only can ban books published by corporations - it could ban books even if published by individuals.

As Richard Hasen notes, the government’s supplemental brief makes no mention of the “distortion” argument that underlay Austin. Instead, the government argues that it can regulate even independent speech because such speech might influence elections and might make officeholders feel some sense of gratitude to those who make such expenditures.  Such a rationale runs directly counter to Buckley and other Supreme Court precedents, including Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission and Federal Election Commission v. National Conservative Political Action Committee. The Buckley Court held that independent expenditures could not be regulated because, by nature being independent, there was less opportunity for an exchange of legislative favors, and because, simply put, allowing regulation of independent spending would carve a swath through the First Amendment too broad for even a Court writing in the immediate aftermath of Watergate to swallow.  Austin, clumsy and disingenuous as it is, nonetheless only alters that rule for corporations, and presumably unions.  Now the government seeks to alter the rule for all, allowing it to regulate all political speech that supports or opposes a candidate’s election.  Under the government’s proposed rule, not even actual gratitude is required before the government can limit speech - it is enough that the government thinks that in some cases legislators might feel gratitude.

If the Court was worried that Austin had no logical stopping place short of banning corporate published and distributed books and movies, we don’t think that the government’s new approach is going to be any comfort.  But hey, when you’re way behind and the clock is finally running out, why not throw the Hail Mary?

Cross Posted at Center for Competitive Politics, www.campaignfreedom.org.

The Supreme Court has long recognized that Campaign finance regulation (“reform”) limits the ability of citizens to speak on political matters, in apparent contravention of the First Amendment rights of speech, press, and assembly.  The only justification that the Supreme Court has recognized for upholding campaign finance regulation despite the limits it imposes on First Amendment rights is to prevent, “corruption or its appearance.”  Moreover, limitations must be “content neutral” — that is, not aimed at particular viewpoints.  “Reform” cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny if it is just an excuse to silence disfavored voices. 

I don’t think much of the anti-corruption rationale for upholding restrictions on political speech, on either theoretical or empirical grounds, but let’s let that pass today. In September, in Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court will hear argument on whether to overrule Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that allows a complete ban on all corporate political expenditures.

Naturally, the “reform” community is up in arms. Why? Well, here is what Austin supporter Professor Rick Hasen, owner of the influential Election Law Blog, had to say in the immediate aftermath of the Court’s announcement on Austin:

If Republicans were wondering how their 2012 presidential candidate is going to compete against President Obama’s $600 million fundraising juggernaut, the Supreme Court seems poised to provide an answer: unlimited corporate spending supporting the Republican candidate, or attacking Obama.

Here is National Journal’s Eliza Newlin Carney, an ardent and long-time advocate of “reform:”

The bottom line: Already-influential corporations would win vast new powers — something that arguably couldn’t come at a worse time.

Campaign finance “reform” lobbyist Fred Wertheimer, President of the pro-regulation organization Democracy 21, expresses his concern that:

Overruling the Austin decision — and finding that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited sums of corporate funds to influence federal campaigns — would fundamentally undermine our democracy and change the character of federal elections. It would allow the immense wealth of corporations to drown out the voice of the American people.

Does this sound like these influential commentators are interested in “content neutral” legislation? Or does it sound like they want to silence a point of view that they associate with corporations, and, at least in Hasen’s case, with Republicans?

E.J. Dionne, The Washington Post’s syndicated Democratic columnist, adds similar thoughts:

[D]o conservatives on the court see an opportunity to fight the trends against their side by altering the very rules of the electoral game?

Is Dionne admitting that the law is intended to suppress pro-Republican voices?  Dionne goes on to quote Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.): the ruling, says Schumer, “would dramatically change America at a time when people are feeling that the special interests have too much influence and the middle class doesn’t have enough. It would exacerbate both of these conditions.”

So it is about forcing disfavored (by Senator Schumer) influences to keep quiet?

Finally, to drive the point home, there is this timely diary titled “Can We Make Campaign Finance Reform a Priority Yet,” at the far left blog site, Daily Kos, posted July 12: When the voices of ordinary citizens compete with those of corporate lobbyists with big donations, we lose every time.

Again, a lot of assumptions there about what constitutes speech, the ability of voters to process information and make decisions, what voters “really” want, and who constitutes ”ordinary citizens” (certainly not the millions who own shares in corporations!), etc., but the bottom line seems to be pretty clear -what Professor Hasen, Carney, Dionne, Senator Schumer, and the Daily Kos’s anonymous diarist all agree on is that campaign finance restrictions are needed to silence the left’s enemies so the left can win political victories.  The fact that they call their opponents “special interests” and accuse them with unsubstantiated charges of “corruption” is merely an effort to camouflage that fact.

Judge Sotomayor has had many favorable things to say about campaign finance reform in the past.  Let’s hope she gets some questions on it this week.

The Connecticut Office of State Ethics (OSE) is poised to investigate and penalize the Diocese of Bridgeport for having the temerity to exercise at least four of the five sections of the First Amendment (religion, speech, assembly, petition).

The story begins earlier this year when Connecticut State Senator Andrew McDonald proposed legislation (S. 1098) that would have forced the Catholic Church, contrary to the church’s doctrine, to relinquish control of parish finances (for those from congregationalist traditions who may not be aware of the organization of Catholic Churches, the Catholic Church, by doctrine, is very hierarchical, with Bishops responsible for all the parishes within the bishopric, and those Bishops reporting on up the line, ultimately to the Vatican.  Unlike most protestant demoninations, local parishes exercise little governing control.  This is not merely an issue of secular control but one of theological doctrine deeply entwined in the Catholic Church’s views on the role of clergy, the papacy and the church in fulfilling God’s mission).  Naturally the church opposed this incursion into its governance and doctrine, with the Bishop urging Catholics to contact their legislators and the Church supporting a mass rally in the state capital.

So the state struck back.  From the American Spectator story by Lisa Fabrizio:

It seems that our Diocese of Bridgeport — which in March was forced to marshal the faithful to defend itself from unconstitutional government interference — was notified by the Connecticut Office of State Ethics that it is under investigation for possible violations of the state’s lobbying laws.

Bishop William Lori sent a letter to the OSE challenging the investigation. He describes the activity that led to the investigation:

Following the surprise introduction of Bill 1098, a proposal that singled out Catholic parishes and would have forced them to reorganize contrary to Church law and the First Amendment, our Diocese responded in the most natural, spontaneous, and frankly, American, of ways: we alerted our membership - in person and through our website; we encouraged them to exercise their free speech by contacting their elected representatives; and, we organized a rally at the State Capitol…

On April 23, 2009, the Diocese received a letter from Thomas K. Jones, Ethics Enforcement Officer for the OSE, stating that it was “the subject of an Office of State Ethics evaluation,” which was “being conducted to ascertain whether the Diocese had violated [Connecticut General Statutes Sections] 1-94, 1-95 and 1-96 by failing to register as a lobbyist in Connecticut, by failing to submit all other appropriate lobbyist filings, and by failing to follow all applicable registration procedures.”

The OSE claims the Diocese acted as a “lobbyist” by: participating in a March 11, 2009, State Capitol rally against Raised Bill 1098 (the unconstitutional attempt to reorganize Catholic parishes contrary to Catholic teaching and tradition); making statements on its website urging its members to contact their elected representatives to oppose Raised Bill 1098; and making statements on its website urging its members to contact their legislators to oppose another bill, Raised Bill 899 (regarding same-sex marriage).

The subtext to all this is that the underlying legislation itself appears to be retaliation for the Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage (Sen. McDonald and lead Connecticut House sponsor Rep. Michael Lawler are both gay). 

It’s hard to imagine that in a country with the First Amendment protections we are supposed to enjoy, it should even be a matter of discussion whether it is legal, without government approval in advance, to hold a rally at the Statehouse and encourage fellow citizens to contact their elected officials. Such is the state of “reform” and “ethics” that we do in fact have to have these discussions.

(This post adopted w/ permission from a post by Sean Parnell at the Center for Competitive Politics.

I stopped briefly by the Columbus Tea Party, which began on the State House lawn at 6:00.  I’d estimate the crowd at about 1500 to 2000 and still growing, albeit slowly, at 6:45.  It was pretty easy to calculate that there were 400 to 500 on the State House steps, and from there estimate the numbers on the ground.  That struck me as a pretty good crowd for a weekday evening, with thoroughly rotten weather.  The temperature was in the low 40s, the sky completely overcast with a very light rain that kept a sort of steady mist in the air.  It was the kind of cold that chills you to the bone.  Has been like that all day in Columbus.

A couple other observations that stood out for me:

Read More →

Why has Tom Daschle been paid over $4.5 million in the four years since losing his Senate seat (not to mention his wife’s lucrative career as a lobbyist)? Because it is believed - correctly - that Tom Daschle can get you government contracts; or spare you from government regulation; or get the government to regulate your competitors.

This influence peddling is going to get worse - much worse - under the Obama regime. You can’t double the Federal government’s discretionary spending in one “stimulus” bill, and propose to nationalize health care (as Mr. Daschle wants to do), nationalize the auto industry (as has just about been done), nationalize the banks (already nationalized in all but name, with the President yesterday announcing plans to dictate their lending policies), and think people aren’t going to flock to Washington and pay big bucks to the Tom Daschles of the world to help them get their share of the loot.

These are not unintended consequences of the policies of big government. They are the essence of big government. The cash floating around Washington and being lavished on the Tom Daschles of the world is exactly what Democrats have longed for - money follows power.

Read More →

Richard Winger’s <a href=http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/12/09/republican-share-of-us-house-vote-is-lowest-for-either-major-party-since-1976/>Ballot Access News</a> has tallied up the total vote for the U.S. House.  The Democrats received 53.9%, the Republicans just 43.0%.  This is the lowest total for either party since 1976, when the Republicans won just 42.0% of the popular vote.  The last time the Democrats polled this low in the total vote for U.S. House was 1928.

Republican vote totals are also trending downward, from 50.6% in 2002 to 49.9% in 2004 to 44.8% in 2006, then this year’s 43.0%.  (In 1994, Republicans won 52.0% of the Congressional vote.)

In <a href=http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/12/11/us-senate-election-results/>Senate races,</a> Democrats won 52.1% of the vote, to the Republicans 44.6%.  Six years ago, when these same seats were up, the GOP candidates won 50.3%.

For 11 Governor’s races, the Democrats picked up 50.2% of the total vote to the Republicans’ 47.3%.

Obviously, the House statistics are most interesting, since they cover the country.  These numbers, of course, show real erosion and danger for Republicans.  But one can notice one upside: the last time the Democrats polled so low as this year’s GOP was 1928; four years later they elected Franklin Roosevelt in a landslide.  The last time the Republicans polled so low was 1976 - four years later they elected Ronald Reagan and won Senate control for the first time in 28 years.

Still, not a pretty picture.

Voters across the nation were asked to decide 153 state ballot measures on Tuesday. On balance, these results actually indicate an electorate that did not want a lot of “change.”

Lots of info on what passed and what did not below the fold.

Read More →

Not surprisingly, the GOP also lost ground in state legislatures on Tuesday. However, given the circumstances, the losses were relatively modest: we lost 76 state senators and representatives, out of a grand total of 7380 nationwide. Speaking simply in terms of our own, we lost a net of 8 of 897 state senate seats held by Republicans, and 68 of 2398 state representatives.

For more, hop below the fold.

Read More →

There seems to be broad though not unanimous agreement that Sarah Palin will eventually make a play for the White House. Dan McLaughlin lists her as a darling of the “culturally conservative” wing of the party for a possible run in four years. And certainly during the campaign, the MSM routinely defined her as appealing to the socially conservative wing of the party. Nor is there much doubt about her appeal there.

Now, there are libertarians who disagree with this assessment, such as the talented young Ryan Sager, who saw the Palin pick as cementing the GOP as, “a southern-centered party based on social division and cultural resentment;” or Reason contributing editor Cathy Young, who sees in Governor Palin a “GOP in thrall to troglodytes.” But this is the careless language of the young. There are others, many others - I think a solid majority of libertarians, really - who agree that Palin’s libertarian critics are letting an immature hostility to all things religious, or a cosmopolitan animosity to Palin’s distinctly non-cosmopolitan aura, blind them to the type of Governor Palin has been. If you watch Palin’s debates from her Alaska political career, or her ads in the race for Governor, or look closely at her record at Governor, as Denver Post libertarian columnist David Harsanyi has, it becomes pretty clear that Palin has both campaigned and governed as a small government libertarian; secure on social issues but consciously not allowing them to define her campaign or her administration. Her campaigns, and her governance, focused on taxes, spending, market oriented health care change, market oriented environmental policy, and gun rights. It was a liberty agenda, including support for school choice and home schooling, less emphasis on the drug war, more talk of freedom. Indeed, her Vice Presidential run is interesting because it, too, was not dominated by the so-called “social issues,” but rather more focused on the general need to limit the size and scope of government.

In this, Palin represents, I think, the best tradition of Reagan - a blend of libertarianism and social conservatism that unites the wings of the GOP: the virtue and liberty candidate. Palin is a social conservative, but recognizes the limits of government power to enforce virtue. She is no intellectual, but she is smart and seems to have strong libertarian instincts.

In retrospect, it seems that Palin might have benefited from not being chosen by Senator McCain this year. She might have done better to have finished her term, won a landslide re-election, and introduced herself to the nation at her own pace and with her own message, not Senator McCain’s, which she carried loyally throughout the campaign. But she was certainly the most electrifying thing to hit GOP circles in this campaign. In any event, I hope that Governor Palin returns to Alaska, works hard, and gets that landslide re-elect that would force the scoffers to do something of a reappraisal. She is very young and has a great deal of time - she would be just 52 in eight years. Libertarians who have turned on Palin - mainly, it seems to me, from a visceral cultural reaction rather than a serious appraisal of the woman - should take another look. And conservatives such as Red State editor McLaughlin should also not be too quick to pigeon hole Palin. Palin certainly has the potential to appeal to the whole GOP coalition.

Libertarians and social conservatives need one another: both exist to resist the omnipotent state. As a result, they often don’t realize it, but their political destinies are inextricably linked. They cannot be enemies and hope to achieve their objectives.

Let’s hope Governor Palin plans her future carefully, continues to polish and improve her act, and returns to the national stage at the appropriate time.

Well, before we start all the recriminations and the strategerizing, or even the post-mortems, lets just look at what we’re left with; what do we hold from which to plan a return?

The picture here this morning looks surprisingly like the picture in the aftermath of the 1992 election.

Senator Obama appears to have won the popular vote by about five points - it will probably be closer to six when all the votes are totaled. He has won somewhere between 349 and 376 electoral votes, depending on the outcome in Nebraska’s third congressional district, Missouri, and North Carolina. Using present vote totals, Obama would take North Carolina out of that group, to finish with 364 electoral votes.

In 1992, Clinton beat Bush by 5.3 percentage points in the popular vote, and finished with 370 electoral votes. Yes, there was a big difference - the presence of Ross Perot - but Clinton almost certainly would have won with or without Perot, and probably by very similar margins in both categories. Bottom line is that Democrats won in 1992 presidential just about what they won in the 2008 presidential.

If fact, even the electoral college map looks quite similar; depending on who wins North Carolina and Missouri, between just nine and eleven states will differ from 1992 to 2008. Most of those were extremely close this year, too, notably Montana and Georgia, which went Democratic in 1992 and narrow Republican in 2008, and Florida, Indiana, and Virginia, which went Republican in 1992 and barely Democratic in 2008.

After the 1992 election, the Democrats held a 56-44 edge in senate seats. After 2008, including the two independents (Lieberman and Sanders) who caucus Democrat, and assuming Republican margins in Alaska, Oregon, Georgia and Minnesota hold, the Democrats will hold a 56-44 edge in the Senate.

After the 1992 election, the Democrats held a 259-176 edge in the House. After 2008, it currently looks like the Democrats will hold about 252 seats in the House - there are a few races still hanging that could add a couple more seats to their margin.

After the 1992 election, the Democrats held a 27-21 advantage in governorships, with two liberal independents. After the 2008 elections, the Democrats hold a 29-21 edge in governorships.

In short, the party split in federal offices and governorships as we enter 2009 will be almost exactly what it was entering 1993.

Of course, there are differences - the Republicans actually gained 9 House seats and broke even in the Senate races in 1992, for example. But my simple point is that Republicans, though we took a thumping last night and are clearly in minority status, retain a considerable base from which to mount a comeback - indeed, a base almost identical to that held two years before the smashing election victories of 1994. And last night was not the complete wipe-out some feared. Most people thought the Democrats would win at least 57 or 58 senate seats. Most predictions I saw had the Democrats gaining closer to 30 House seats, not 20. A slightly better showing in Washington and North Carolina and the GOP could have actually gained a governorship last night. I haven’t been able to compare all the state legislative results, but again, it wasn’t a total blow out last night: Republicans took control of legislative chambers in Oklahoma, in Tennessee, maybe North Carolina. I don’t know where all else we had bright spots, but I’m sure their were many - for example, efforts to target two GOP Justices on the Ohio Supreme Court failed miserably, and the Court remains 7-0 Republican.

We’ll save for later discussion of how to best go about recreating a 1994 type win for 2010. Obviously, there are underlying facts that make 2008 different from 2009, some for the better, some for worse. But for now, just use these numbers to take heart. We’ve been here before, and come roaring back.

My good friends at Reason have taken their quadrennial presidential “poll” of contributors and other libertarians. (I passed on an opportunity to participate.) Of those who would reveal their preference, there were 14 for Obama, 4 for McCain, 13 for Libertarian Bob Barr, and 1 for Ralph Nader.

I respect the folks responding to Reason, and many of them I know personally and consider friends. But when I read the infatuation of these libertarians with Barack Obama, I simply have to conclude that they are not thinking seriously.

For example, one common reason for the choice was to “punish” Republicans. Science fiction writer John Scalzi typifies this sentiment: “I think the GOP need [sic] a moment or two in the Time Out corner, don’t you?” Ron Bailey says, “The Republicans must be punished and punished hard.” Author David Brin argues that if the GOP is “utterly … sent into exile,” then, “perhaps sincere men and women may remember Barry Goldwater and resurrect some kind of healthy, libertarian Conservatism.”

Let’s leave aside the question of which party could really stand for some time in time out (Us!? What about them!!) The problem with this theory is that such “punishment” simply doesn’t yield the desired results.

Read More →

These are comments, lightly edited, that I posted as a Contributor to The Arena feature over at the Politico yesterday:

I would like to endorse Barack Obama. I really would.

Like many Republicans, I’ve been unhappy with my party on many fronts over the past decade. Moreover, given that John McCain has publicly called me “corrupt” and more, there’s not a lot of personal affinity there to fall back on. I don’t mind the tone of Senator McCain’s campaign - I’ve seen worse, and overall it is no more negative, disingenuous, or unfair than Senator Obama’s campaign has been: Politics is a rough sport. But I’m not much interested in many of the issues that Senator McCain has chosen to campaign on. And I believe that Senator Obama is a very smart man, and personally a decent man, and there are good things that might come from an Obama presidency, most notably in healing some of the remaining racial divisions in our country.

But if Senator Obama’s economic platform were a book, it would be “‘101 Tips for a Healthy Economy,’ by Jimmy Carter, with an Introduction by Herbert Hoover.” Staring into an international financial crisis, Senator Obama wants to raise taxes (say Hoover, FDR, Great Depression), spend money to try to maintain purchasing power (the failed strategy of both Hoover and FDR in the Great Depression) and put new trade barriers into place (a junior league Smoot-Hawley). In the face of high oil prices caused by high worldwide demand and a constricting supply, he wants to increase taxes on oil producers and subsidize oil consumers (Carter). His idea of economic stimulous is to pull savings out of the economy and dribble it back out to consumers who are supposed to save the economy by increased demand (can you say “Carter” and “stagflation?”) He seeks massive new entitlement spending on health care, thinly disguised by a somewhat incremental approach aimed at reaching what he has stated is his true belief, a mandatory, single payer system. His support for “card check” to deprive workers of the right to a secret ballot on questions of unionization shows he either doesn’t understand the realities of the American workplace or, where the interests of his political allies are at stake, doesn’t care. Moreover, he has not shown the interest or the kind of determination necessary for one to think he would check the equally or even more liberal impulses of Democratic Congressional leaders, not only Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid but powerful Committee Chairmen such as John Conyers, Charlie Rangel, and Barney Frank.

I am pro-life but his support for some abortion rights I could live with if there were other compelling reasons to support the man. But his support for government paid abortions and his opposition - very avid opposition - to restrictions on even partial birth abortion, I cannot stomach.

Whether as a student at Harvard Law, as a backbencher in the Illinois legislature, or as a U.S. Senator, Obama has shown no inclination to work “across the aisle” to find solutions. His approach has been to get past the “old debates”, to use a phrase Senator Obama sometimes does, by conquering his opponents, not by the concilation he promises on the campaign trail. An Obama presidency won’t ruin the nation - as I said, there will probably be some good to come of it, he is a decent man, and this is a very sturdy nation. But as a conquerer, not a divider, he leaves little for people like me.

“Barack will never let you go back to your lives as usual,” declared Michelle Obama last spring. That is exactly what I don’t want in a politician - someone who won’t let me get on with my life. That statement was the equivalent of a declaration of war on all Americans who just want to live a good life, make their own choices, and live with the consequences - in other words, on all those who believe that every man and woman has an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

For all his flaws, John McCain is no Barack Obama. I think that, more or less, he will let me get on with my life as usual. That’s all I ask from a politician.