Conservative Donnybrook

It has been one year since the Donnybrook began!  Thanks to everyone for reading, writings and, occasionally, arithmetic!  May there be decades more.

A co-worker of mine receieved this little note from the citizens of Ireland.

An email from Ireland to all of their brethren in the States… a point to ponder despite your political affiliation:

 We, in Ireland , can’t figure out why you people are even bothering to hold an election in the United States.

On one side, you had a pants wearing female lawyer, married to another lawyer who can’t seem to keep his pants on, who just lost a long and heated primary against a lawyer,  who goes to the wrong church, who is married to yet another lawyer, who doesn’t even like the country her husband wants to run!

Now… On the other side, you have a nice old war hero whose name starts with the appropriate ‘Mc’ terminology, married to a good looking younger woman who owns a beer distributorship!!

What in God’s name are ya lads thinkin over in the colonies!  This is a no brainer!

Man, they make me almost wanna support McCain!

Awesome.

I wonder if this will push any paleos towards voting for McCain.

Responding to my previous post, Karl asks, “Should [the Republicans'] time-out occur for the next ten to twenty years? Because that’s what ceding 2-3 seats on the Supreme Court to Obama will accomplish.”

Well, for one thing, I was responding to the argument that Obama represents some kind of uniquely menacing threat to the American way of life, which seems to me silly, at least the “uniquely” part, and to the idea that Obama is any more of a socialist than McCain, who pays lip service to capitalism while supporting every imaginable government intervention in the economy, including the in-progress partial nationalization of the banking industry.

But to address Karl’s point, the issue of judges, I concede that this is the strongest (or only) possible argument in favor of electing McCain. But is he really all that likely to appoint textualists, originalists, strict constructionists, or what have you? Even if he is, will a heavily Democratic Senate really approve the vote to overturn Roe? And it seems that McCain, who delights in knifing conservatives in the back and famously despises those “agents of intolerance,” Christian conservatives, is far more interested in removing limits to executive power than rolling back the judiciary. This is especially so considering his legislative legacy, the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. McCain appointing another Clarence Thomas would be a big surprise. McCain appointing a Sandra Day O’Connor and basking in the praise of the New York Times for his moderation and bipartisanship would not be surprising at all.

It just seems to me that for a conservative searching for a reason to support McCain, the judges issue is an awfully thin reed on which to base a vote for this awful candidate, especially when some time in the wilderness could be a real benefit for the Republican party, which could hardly get any worse. Against the slight possibility of McCain appointing “good” judges, weigh the fact that McCain is much more likely to get an amnesty for illegal immigrants through Congress than is Obama, and thus will push the accelerator to the floor with regard to mass immigration from developing nations, which will further gut the middle class and create (or augment) a vast, servile underclass in the United States and contribute to the fracturing our common culture.

See also the fact that McCain is somewhat more likely to start an unnecessary ideological war with nuclear-armed Russia, but I do realize that some around here regard that as a plus.

In sum, after tallying the “pro” and “con” columns, I have concluded that the two major candidates are roughly equally likely to destroy the world.

Both candidates supported a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to wealthy financial elites in the form of the Wall Street bailout — pardon me, the “rescue plan.” McCain also wants to fix prices in the housing market via a massive mortgage buyout plan. Under this scheme, too, it seems that the banks will make out pretty well. I imagine Obama would do something similar.

All this tells us that both candidates support socialism for capitalists. Or you could call it crony capitalism. How is that different from what we’ve got now?

Obama isn’t any more likely to “destroy the country” than Clinton was.  And the Republican party could use a time-out in the corner to think about what they’ve done.

Charles Krauthammer has been on point during this whole election and with articles like this, he is quickly becoming one of my favorites to read.

Somewhat along the lines of Krauthammer’s article, I would like to submit a statement or two for our readers to ponder and comment on. True conservatives will vote for McCain, not because they like him or even like Palin (although I like her politics), they will hold their nose because an Obama victory will destroy the country. An Obama victory will shake the very foundations of this country to the ground, i.e. capitalism, and it will be almost impossible to rebuild them in a truly American way. McCain must be elected to stop this, after which we can resume fighting amongst ourselves for the control of the Republican Party and conservatism.

First read this outstanding article about media bias.

Then look at the card carrying democrat who wrote it.

I never thought one of their own would get it so right.

Jacob Weisberg has written an extraordinary piece at Slate placing the blame for the financial meltdown on libertarians, and claiming that libertarianism is therefore discredited forever, end of story. Note I didn’t say that he was “arguing” for this proposition; he basically proclaims it to be self-evidently true in the second paragraph, by which time he is already comparing libertarians to Communist bitter-enders during the fall of the Soviet Union.

There are rebuttals to these claims and rejoinders to the rebuttals. But to summarize, the libertarian apologetics fall wildly short of providing any convincing explanation for what went wrong.

Oh, thanks for summarizing! “To summarize, I’m right.” Why waste time having an actual debate over the causes of the in-progress financial collapse when there’s fun to be had sneering at these nerdy, doctrinaire libertoids and their nutty-yet-dangerous theories?

It seems that in Weisberg’s view, the financial crisis is, at its root, about the failure to regulate credit derivative markets. Weisberg places primary blame on three people:  Alan Greenspan, Phil Gramm, and SEC chairman Christopher Cox. However, in the linked Washington Post piece about resistance to increased oversight of the derivatives market, Clinton’s treasury secretary Robert Rubin emerges as one of the chief head-in-the-sand villains. That’s funny, why was he never mentioned in Weisberg’s article? Oh, by the way, Rubin in 2004 wrote a paean to his own brilliance in managing the Clinton economy called “In an Uncertain World,” ghostwritten by one… Jacob Weisberg! So I guess that means Rubin, Rubinomics, and Jacob Weisberg are discredited forever!

Continue Reading »

As if we needed another reason to vote for John McCain, there is this…

This is the strongest argument yet that Barack Obama is dangerous for America.

I believe that this is the video from the debate that Karl referenced dealing with Obama’s plans to “spread the wealth.”  It seems that his tax plan is to take money from profitable businesses and give it to people who make under $250,000 a year. Nevermind that the average small business makes far more than $250, isn’t Obama’s plan a textbook definition of socialism?  Tax cuts should be generated by cutting the size and spending of government not by redistributing private wealth.

I suppose I will say a word about last night’s debate. After all, I wasted my time watching it. I might as well get a little milage out of it.

Earlier today, I left the office and drove to lunch in another part of the city. As I drove I listened to portions of several talk radio personalities discussing “who won the debate.” Almost to a person (the notable exception being Rush, who didn’t express his opinion while I listened) every single one of them said that Obama swept the floor with McCain. Before I put my two cents in, I should probably relate the discussion on Rush’s show, which I think hits it on the head.

Rush made the observation that it seemed that those people who listened to the “experts” opinions after the debate tended to believe that Obama won, whereas those who turned it off before the talking heads took their turns tended to favor McCain. Rush proposed that even (maybe especially) on networks like Fox News where one would expect to have a more balanced reaction (or at least more favorable to McCain) what happens is that each of those persons who are slated to give commentary spend the time prior to their turn trying to think of something that no one else has said. If you’re a commentator on Fox, the natural inclination is to think that attacking the Republican will be the novel approach. So everyone prepares to tear down McCain. In the end, of course, in their efforts to be unique, the commentators wind up indistinguishable.

Several callers shortly after this observation related their experience from listening to the so-called experts. One woman claimed that she was undecided prior to the debate, but found herself leaning toward McCain because of the extended discussion about taxes. When the debate was over, she was firmly in McCain’s camp. Then as one commentator after another came on to talk about how McCain squandered opportunity after opportunity and handed the debate to Obama, she began to have second thoughts. She claimed to have nearly reversed her position because the experts (who know so much better than she) all seemed to agree and hold opinions different from hers. In the end, she decided to go with her own inclination.

I was one of those people who opted to walk away from the television after the debate. I thought McCain CRUSHED Obama. It wasn’t even close in my mind. While I agree with a lot of the talking heads’ contentions that McCain could have said this or said that to win more points, I found McCain’s performance to be excellent.

In particular, the exchange between McCain and Obama which revolved around Joe the Plumber left Obama sputtering and, even better, exposed Obama for what he is. For many years, conservatives have sought to convince Americans that Democrats are nothing more than socialists bent on redistributing wealth from those who have earned it to those who have not. Last night, McCain induced Obama to admit the truth of the allegation. Obama actually looked Joe the Plumber straight in the eye (or, at least straight in the camera) last night and told him that he would take money away from him in order to help his employees have a shot at doing what he proposed to do (start a business – and incur Obama’s confiscatory wrath).

That moment is the single most important and impressive moment that I remember occurring in any presidential debate. Ever.

If McCain had picked up his notepad and walked offstage saying, “my work is done,” he would have been absolutely right. Let us hope that Americans will respond by Obama’s proposal to “spread the wealth around” by realizing that a) the threshold may be $250,000 today, but what’s to stop it from being $100,000 or $80,000 tomorrow? and b) they may one day achieve that level of financial success with the result that they will be targeted by Obama and his Party as a source of wealth that must be spread around.

To reinforce this point, as I drove back from lunch, Dennis Miller’s show was just beginning and his first guest (can’t remember who it was) mentioned the 1972 presidential campaign between Nixon and McGovern where McGovern promised every American with an income under $18,000 (I think) a check for $1,000, he lost big. Americans rebelled saying, in effect, that “One day I hope to be one of those families making more than $18,000.” If we as Americans are anything today like we were when McGovern made his campaign promise, Obama stepped in it big time.

Is that an oxymoron? If trade is free, does it need the coerciveness of enforcement?

For those who watched last night’s debate, Barack Obama said on a couple of occasions that he is in favor of free trade, but he wants “enforceable free trade.” Specifically, he was responding to McCain’s allegation that his vow to “unilaterally renegotiate NAFTA” with respect to purchasing oil from Canada would simply prompt Canada to sell their oil to China.

So I ask, what does enforcing free trade agreements mean? Is he going to send in troops? Raise tariffs against Canadian goods? How does one “enforce” free trade against another nation?

This might be another example of Barack’s “eloquence” that John referred to several times.

The Dodgers, after a really abysmal season, reached the post season.  They mowed down the Cubs with ease.  The Cubs “were the best team in the National league” and the Dodgers should be proud they beat them in three games.  The Dodgers, fighting hard, exceeded expectations this year.  The Dodgers played hard, played well but ultimately lost to Philadelphia in the NLCS tonight 4 games to 1.

In the spirit of brotherly love I say Congrats Philly, you deserve it.  You have my support in the Fall Classic.  Beat the tar out of the American League!

Andrew Sullivan over at the TimesOnline penned and interesting piece.  I went looking for something sympathetic to my anger by Googling “Bush is a socialist.”  What turned up is this great article.

Sullivan starts by saying:

Finally, finally, finally. A few years back, your correspondent noticed something a little odd about George W Bush’s conservatism. If you take Margaret Thatcher’s dictum that a socialist is someone who is very good at spending other people’s money, then President Bush is, er, a socialist.

Sullivan continues:

In five years, Bush has increased it [domestic discretionary spending] 35.1%. And that’s before the costs for Katrina and Rita and the Medicare benefit kick in. Worse, this comes at a time when everyone concedes that we were facing a fiscal crunch before Bush started handing out dollar bills like a drunk at a strip club.

What really struck me is when Sullivan wrote this article, September 2005!  If he was right then, he is surely correct today!  When Bush authorizes the purchase of private bank interests, our brand of capitalism will have taken its last breath.

UPDATE:  Bush said this about 5 hours ago:  “As our nations carry out this plan, we must ensure that the actions of one country do not contradict or undermine the actions of another. In an interconnected world, no nation will gain by driving down the fortunes of another. We are in this together. We will come through it together.”

Indeed, how horrible it would be if capitalism were to work!  We must asure an end to the free market!

Nevermind the smoking ban. Nevermind the ban on handguns in a City where the gun deaths are mounting daily.  A ban on handguns that seemingly runs contrary to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).  Now the City is proposing a new high school, a new public high school, that will cater to gays.  While the Chicago Public School system is struggling to maintain already low test scores, the City has somehow found the money to open this new school.  The logic behind the new school is that a gay friendly school “would provide a safe, “gay-friendly” atmosphere to combat the high bullying, dropout and depression rate many gay and lesbian students experience nationwide, advocates say.”

There is the obvious argument here that public funds will go to promote a lifestyle that many find inappropriate and immoral.  Forget that for a moment.  What about all of the other straight kids who battle bullying and depression in high school?  Remember high school?  Remember the phrase teenage angst?  All high school students deal with depression in one form or another at one time or another.  I would venture a guess that many of them deal with bullies as well.  Where are their special schools?  Perhaps there needs to be a special high school for overweight students or for students with bad complexions.  Essentially, gay students are being singled out for preferential treatment.

On the flip side, isn’t this an odd form of voluntary segregation?  I guess the thinking is, if these kids can’t cope with a diverse student population, we the government, will shield them.  Won’t these kids have to eventually enter a workforce and a world where they are in the vast minority?  Won’t they have to deal with this damn diversity problem eventually?  These liberal elites are always chiming telling the rest of us that we need diverse campuses but when one of these diverse points of view does not gel with their world view that world view is branded as intolerant.  In this case, rather than tout the merits of diversity in the schools and branding the bullies as intolerant, they have merely chosen to cut themselves off from the world by using tax payer funding.

I have been struggling for the last several weeks against the urge to begin referring to Barack Obama as President-elect Barack Obama. All indications are (until today, see awb’s post) that McCain had thrown in the towel, signed up James Baker as his campaing advisor and moved on with his life.

However, saying such a thing would be imprudent for the following reason. If those who are disposed to vote Republican (notice I did not say conservatives) were to disdain the voting booth because the election were foregone (indeed, many people vote only in national elections, but vote in local elections while in the booth), the Senate and House races might be skewed in a Democratic direction. The nation’s future is dependent on Republicans’ ability to filibuster. We are going to lose seats. We are almost certainly going to lose the presidential election. Obama will likely inherit a strongly Democratic House and Senate. Our only hope to obstruct his Marxist agenda is the threat of filibuster. As much as I hate to say it, the Democrats have cleared the way even to our filibustering of judicial nominees. We should take every opportunity we have to obstruct their ascendency. In the meanwhile, it is my fervent hope that our thrashing at the voting place will cause conservatives to reexamine their priorities and reorient them to more traditional modes of governance.

This presidential election may be lost. But, the governance of this country still hangs in the balance. It is important to vote in our local elections. Let us resolve to preserve our ability to filibuster and fight another day. The last two times that a Congress was so skewed as to prevent the filibuster was during the 30s – the New Deal – and during the 60s – the Great Society. Each of those periods profoundly changed the way America operates. We have not recovered from either and there is little hope that we can even roll back the innovations that were wrought even in the latest of those transformations. Vote on November 4. Vote for whomever pleases you for president, but preserve a Republican majority in the the House and Senate.

I beg everyone’s pardon for yet another post of strictly local concern.

On July 25, 2008, I sent the following letter to my state representative, Gregory Porter:

State Representative Gregory W. Porter
Indiana House of Representatives
200 W. Washington St
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Dear Congressman Porter:

I would imagine this is not the first such letter you have received regarding property taxes. I shall be direct. Property taxes must be lowered immediately. Your continued tenure in the Indiana General Assembly depends upon it. I will not pretend that I have ever supported you or cast a vote in your favor. However, by the same token, I have never sent campaign donations to your opponent either.

I have just received my latest mortgage statement and the news is grim. Because of the latest increase in property taxes, my mortgage payment has increased by 33%. When my wife and I were shopping for a house back in the late 90s, we calculated that we could afford a payment which did not exceed $900. We were frugal and purchased a house we knew we could afford. Ultimately, we purchased a house a few blocks from our church which would cost us $571.22 per month plus taxes and insurance. Therein lies the rub. While we knew we could afford a house payment in that range, that was in 1999 when property taxes were low. Since that time, we have seen our property taxes increase 100% (from around $740 per year to approximately $1,480 per year) and then again by an additional 62% (from $1,480 per year to $2,400). As of today, my monthly mortgage payment costs us $1,009.38 per month – far above the amount we originally budgeted. In the last four years, my taxes have increased by an astounding 324%! Nobody anticipates a property grab of such a large magnitude.

I note that, to your credit, you voted for Governor Daniels’ property tax cap. Thank you for that; it is a good beginning. However, I would urge you to sponsor legislation which would accelerate its implementation. Homeowners are feeling the crunch and cannot wait until 2010 for relief. The crunch is especially acute in light of escalating fuel and food prices and a 1% sales tax increase which was not similarly phased in over the course of three years. If anything, the short-term burden on the Hoosier taxpayer has been increased as a result of the “fixes” that were recently implemented.

There are things you can do immediately to begin to curb the appetite of government. Immediately commit to cutting non-public safety spending by 20%. Sponsor legislation which would limit the amount that the school boards may levy against homeowners. The schools represent approximately 50% of property taxes. Assuming this proportion has been relatively constant, that means that of the 324% increase which I have suffered, the schools accounted for 162% of the increase. I would assume that other homeowners in my district have seen similar increases. Meanwhile, there is little to show for the extra expenditures on education. One would expect that with the schools raking in almost three times as much money as they were when I purchased this house, that there would have been a dramatic improvement in test scores and educational outcome in IPS. There has not been.

One of the factors that my wife and I considered when we bought a house in this neighborhood was the fact that IPS schools were abysmal. It was apparent that if we were to have children in this neighborhood, we would be forced to send them to private schools. Of course, we always had the option of purchasing a house in Carmel where the public schools are exceptional, but property taxes in Carmel were prohibitive. However, because property taxes were low in this area when we moved in, we decided that in lieu of paying higher property taxes to obtain adequate schooling, we would make our extortion payments to IPS and spend the remainder on tuition for private schools. The numbers were about even. THEN. Now, if we were to have children, we would be forced to move out of this community.

No. We pay too much and receive little in recompense in the way of government services. Because government services are so poor, it is my view that we should start cutting them. If IPS will not educate our youngsters, we should cut their budget. Spend money where there are positive results – and only where there are positive results. I call upon you to lead the charge to reduce government spending (not just limiting its growth) and to immediately provide relief to property owners in your district. Perhaps a good start would be to slash non-public safety budgets across the board by 20%. Sponsor legislation that limits the school board’s discretion in levying taxes against property. Sponsor legislation that accelerates the implementation of the 1% tax cap to 2009. If you will not, we will find another who will.

Sincerely,

Karl [...]

Continue Reading »

The McCain/Palin campaign has finally come out with an ad attacking Obama’s buddy buddy relationship with Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. In my opinion this relationship as well as Obama’s relationships with Rev. Wright, Franklin Raines, James Johnson, Tony Rezko, etc. have not been exposed as they should have by McCain. Obama’s relationships with these socialist criminals demonstrates his own ideology and flaws in judgment. Hopefully he and Governor Palin dig in and attack Obama for who he and his associates are. Here’s the ad:

The Annals of Improbable Research have issued this year’s Ig Noble awards.  The awards are given to those who have completed real research…on hilarious issues.  This is worth a look!