Tales of the Heliosphere

When George W. Bush was President, his opponents were beside themselves with fear over the Imperial Presidency. There was hyperventilation over the so-called unitary executive and alleged suppression of speech and dissent. Fear-driven opponents of President Bush took to calling him names, Bushitler, for example.

Even government officials were not immune. Lawrence Wilkerson, an aide to Colin Powell, once accused President Bush and Vice-President Cheney of running a "cabal" that had hijacked America's foreign policy. (Here at my former blog.) Think about that. The only two nationally elected officials in the United States government were accused of hijacking foreign policy. But that's what elections are about. In a democracy, if we don't like what the present government is doing, we elect new leaders to take charge and do things differently.

That's what happened in 2008 and the country chose Barack Obama to take over and do things differently. One change that hasn't come to America, however, is cutting back on the power of the Imperial Presidency. On foreign policy, President Obama is following a similar path to that walked by President Bush. The new President has appointed special envoys, George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke, answerable directly to him, to handle the Middle East and Afghanistan, respectively. This tactic allows the new President to bypass Congress because neither envoy requires Senate approval. This tactic also allows the new President to bypass the State Department, run by his former rival, Hillary Clinton. This tactic ultimately allows the new President to have direct control over these foreign policy matters.

I have no problem with this. I believe in the oh-so-scary unitary executive theory. All that theory holds is that the entire executive power defined by the Constitution is granted to the President. (Here.) It's not granted in pieces to lesser officials in the Executive Branch. Whatever authority lesser officials in the Executive Branch may have comes to them through the President from the Constitution. So, if the new President wants to retain direct hands-on control over foreign policy by appointing special envoys and bypassing the Cabinet, well, that's his prerogative.

The Politico.com has a very good analysis of President Obama's executive power play. (Here.) He's not just bypassing the Cabinet in foreign policy. Every issue that matters to him has a policy czar in the White House.

But don't hold your breath waiting for the brave dissidents against Bush's presidency to start accusing the new President of executive overreach. Their tasks today are to disparage Congressional Republicans for not supporting the President, and to demonize talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh. From 2001 to 2008, dissent was the highest form of patriotism. In the new era of hope and change, it's now the lowest.

The more things change ...

-tdr

Labels: America, Elections, Obama, Politics, Society

United States Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been preventing Roland Burris from taking a Senate seat because the Illinois Secretary of State had not signed Burris's appointment order. Reid's legal position was farcical.

The other day the Illinois Supreme Court helpfully explained to Burris that he could pay to get a copy of his appointment order to the Senate from the Secretary of State. That copy would be affixed with a seal and signed by the Secretary of State, all official-like. It appears that Burris may have taken the court's advice.

"Yesterday, Burris' lawyers carried to the Senate an additional document bearing a state seal, an affirmation of the appointment and a mass-produced signature of Secretary of State Jesse White. Those documents, combined with the governor's original papers, led the secretary of the Senate to deem Burris' credentials satisfactory. Burris would be eligible to serve through 2010." (Here.)

How much was that signature? Who knows? The news story doesn't say. Who cares? Getting to watch Reid's embarrassing failure of leadership on this issue was worth any price.

-tdr

Labels: America, Elections, Politics

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled, on January 9, 2009, that Roland Burris's appointment to the United States Senate did not require the signature or seal of the Illinois Secretary of State to be valid. (PDF here.) So Burris's appointment is valid and the Secretary of State's refusal to sign, or affix a seal to, the appointment order has no legal effect.

The legal analysis on the last page of the opinion is entertaining and ironic, especially since Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is being impeached over "pay to play" politics. It turns out that if Governor Blago and Burris want a copy of the appointment order signed and sealed by the Secretary of State, they can pay for it. So says the Illinois Supreme Court on page 9 of its decision.

"There is one final point we feel constrained to mention. While the Secretary of State has no duty under Illinois law to sign and affix the state seal to the certificate of appointment issued by the Governor, he does have a duty under section 5(4) of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5(4) (West 2006))

'to give any person requiring the same paying the lawful fees
therefor, a copy of any law, act, resolution, record or paper in
his office, and attach thereto his certificate, under the seal of
the state.'

"The registration of the appointment of Mr. Burris made by the Secretary of State is a “record or paper” within the meaning of this statute. A copy of it is available from the Secretary of State to anyone who requests it. For payment of the normal fee charged by the Secretary of State in accordance with this statute, Petitioners could obtain a certified copy bearing the state’s seal. Because such relief is possible, no order by this court is necessary or appropriate. See People ex rel. Devine v. Stralka, 226 Ill. 2d 445, 450 (2007) (for mandamus to issue, the petitioner must be without any other adequate remedy)."

-tdr

Labels: America, Elections, Politics

Before 2008, California, much like the rest of the United States, limited marriage to different-sex partners. California followed much of human history in that regard. Marriage may have included multiple partners in some societies but its normative characteristic throughout history has been its heterosexual nature.

But earlier this year four California Supreme Court justices outvoted three other justices and held that it violates the California Constitution to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. Last month, 52 percent of California's voters passed Proposition 8, which overturned the decision of the four justices, and amended the Constitution to reinstate the normative definition of marriage as being a relationship between different-sex partners.

Because of the type of society we live in today, California's voters might not have the last word on the matter. The California Supreme Court will decide a case next year brought by same-sex marriage supporters who believe it violated the California Constitution to let the voters decide what marriage is.

Although California's Supreme Court has not been asked to decide this issue, some believe the vote violated the principle of freedom from the establishment of religion. For instance, University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone:

"Proposition 8 was enacted by a vote of 52% to 48%. Those identifying themselves as Evangelicals, however, supported Proposition 8 by a margin of 81% to 19%, and those who say they attend church services weekly supported Proposition 8 by a vote of 84% to 16%. Non-Christians, by the way, opposed Proposition 8 by a margin 85% to 15% and those who do not attend church regularly opposed Proposition 8 by a vote of 83% to 17%.

"What this tells us, quite strikingly, is that Proposition 8 was a highly successful effort of a particular religious group to conscript the power of the state to impose their religious beliefs on their fellow citizens, whether or not those citizens share those beliefs. This is a serious threat to a free society committed to the principle of separation of church and state." (Here.)

That's right. The decision of the voters in California to return marriage to its normative definition as a relationship involving different-sex partners is a threat to a free society. Letting four judges change the definition of marriage for 37 million Californians? No threat to a free society at all. Let's hear it for the wisdom of higher education.

Rather than seeking to impose their religious views on others, it's more likely that California's voters decided marriage should reflect certain biological facts about human reproduction and childood development. Humans reproduce sexually and children are dependent on their parents for years. Marriage helps to ensure that a child's family will, in most circumstances, include his or her mother and father by binding the parents to each other and their children through a public, legal commitment.

As to whether the decision of California's voters to return marriage to its normative definition is a threat to a free society, Abraham Lincoln's words from 147 years ago about letting the Supreme Court decide certain policy matters have resonance today.

"At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." (Here.)

-tdr

Republished twice (a record!) to fix typos: missing words.

Labels: America, California, Elections, Law, Sex, Society

Sarah Palin's faith and her expressions of it have rankled the Christophobes in this country. This quote from her about a possible future run for higher office will no doubt push more buttons among them:

"'I'm like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door,' Palin said in an interview with Fox News on Monday. 'And if there is an open door in '12 or four years later, and if it is something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plow through that door.'" (Here.)

The AP story interprets Palin's quote this way:

"Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says she wouldn't hesitate to run for the presidency in four years if it's God's will ..."

That's not exactly what she's saying. What she's actually saying is that she'll run for higher office again if she concludes that it's good for herself, her family, her state, and her country. When she talks about God, she's talking about God showing her the right path. She's talking about enlightenment.

Palin's prayers are for enlightenment so that she can make a decision that will do the most good. She's praying that God shows her when an opportunity arises so that she can seize it, if it's the right thing to do. She's not saying that she'll run for President if God wills it, nor is she saying that if she does run for President it will be because God wills it.

-tdr

Republished once to fix egregious grammatical error.

Labels: America, Elections, Politics, Religion

Barack Obama's campaign staff ran a very disciplined operaton. Rarely, were they off-message. I don't know what message the Obama family's wardrobe sent on election night but look at the photo here. Every member of the family is wearing red or black or both. Their clothes complement each other. It's a message of unity, perhaps. The choice of clothing can't be an accident. No detail was too small for that campaign.

-tdr

Assuming that fair use applies to permit posting it, here's the photo as published in the San Diego Union-Tribune on November 9, 2008. Photo credit goes to TIMOTHY A. CLARY / Getty Images.

Labels: America, Elections, Politics

The Minnesota Senate race is headed for a recount. Senator Norm Coleman leads former comedian Al Franken by a narrow margin after the machine count. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune is covering the story. (Here.)

Because all the ballots will now be counted by hand, metaphysics and mind-reading will guide the vote counters as they attempt to discern the mysterious "intent of the voter." For the vast majority of voters who follow the rules and cast legal votes, the intent will be clear. Those voters filled in the bubbles to cast their lawful vote.

For a small number of voters who didn't fill in the bubbles but made other marks, the Minnesota Secretary of State has created a graphic to show the kind of marks that now will count as votes. The graphic is reproduced by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. (Here.) It's worth looking at the examples to see the kind of non-votes that will be counted as votes because "the voter's intent is clear."

Six examples are shown and only two are clear examples of voter intent. In the first three examples the voter, rather than filling the bubble, circled the bubble, circled the candidate's name, or put a check mark in the margin next to the candidate's name. These marks are persuasive evidence of voter intent only if the voter did the same thing for every other candidate on the ballot. If the voter voted correctly in every other race, the marks are less likely to be votes and are more likely indications that the voter was unsure and put a place mark on the ballot as a reminder to make a decision after voting in every other race. The fact that the bubble wasn't filled in indicates that the voter chose not to vote in that race.

The fourth example is a check mark in the bubble. Again, if the voter filled every other bubble correctly, a check mark shouldn't count as a valid vote. It only indicates voter intent if the voter put a check mark in every other bubble.

The final two examples are the only ones persuasive of voter intent. In those examples a bubble next to one candidate is filled in, but another candidate has a bubble filled in then scratched out, or filled in and partially erased. That is persuasive evidence that the voter changed his or her mind. But what the evidence doesn't explain is why the voter didn't get a new ballot to correct the error.

If it were up to me, I wouldn't count improperly cast votes at all. The process of voting isn't hard. You fill in the little bubbles with the pen provided. If you don't fill in the bubbles but instead circle names or use check marks, or what have you, you're not voting, you're playing games, you're wasting your time, the state's time, and taxpayer money. And if you make a mistake, you ask the poll worker for a new ballot. It's not hard to do. We should expect more from voters.

In baseball, a balk is not a pitch. In politics, an improperly cast vote should not be a vote. Only properly cast votes demonstrate the voter's intent beyond doubt. Letting election officials count incorrectly prepared ballots as votes gives those officials the power to cast votes and to decide the victor in close races.

-tdr

Labels: America, Elections, Politics

The rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are not the greatest gifts the Founding Fathers bequeathed us when they wrote the Constitution. Instead the greatest accomplishment of the Founding Fathers was writing into our Constitution a system for peacefully transferring political power through regularly scheduled elections. Since its founding the United States has lived up to that constitutional mandate and never missed an election. Tonight America continued that great tradition and elected a new President. A new President whose policies run 180 degrees in the opposite direction from those of the current President. Despite those political differences the outgoing Administration has been working on the Presidential transition for almost a month. (Here & here.) Come January of 2009, political power will pass to Barack Obama from George W. Bush. Obama was not my candidate but he will be my President.

-tdr

Labels: America, Elections, Politics

You may have heard that there's an election Tuesday. Here's a voter's guide for cancelling my vote. My choices and why.

Elective Offices.

President --- John McCain: the devil we know. Barack Obama is the biggest phony to run for office in my lifetime. Okay, John Edwards ran twice. Point taken.

San Diego City Attorney -- Jan Goldsmith: an attorney for a change. Four years of the Wrath of Aguirre is four years too many. San Diego doesn't need more than one mayor at a time.

California Propositions.

No on 1A because high speed rail is a boondoggle. High speed rail for California is an idea whose time has not come. It's touted as a way to reduce pollution, traffic, and use of oil. A more effective use of state money would be to expand existing rail lines to take on more freight. Freight trucks waste fuel and pollute more than cars. America's cargo should ride on trains not on trucks.

Yes on 2 because we should treat farm animals humanely before we kill 'em and eat 'em. This initiative requires farmers to give livestock more room to move around.

Yes on 4 because parents should be told when their children seek a major medical operation. This initiative requires parental notification, not consent, before a minor has an abortion.

No on 5 because California can't afford more voter-mandated spending. This initiative limits the authority of criminal courts to punish drug offenders and expands California's existing drug treatment alternative. The proposition requires minimum spending on drug programs. California can barely pass a budget every year. Part of the problem is automatic spending mandated by voter-approved initiatives, like this one.

No on 6 because California can't afford more voter-mandated spending. This initiative increases spending on law enforcement and mandates a minimum amount every year. California doesn't need more automatic-pilot spending programs.

Yes on 7 because government-run utilities should follow the same rules as privately-owned utilities. Among other things, this initiative requires government power companies to use renewable energy the same as private utilities. If California is going to mandate renewable energy, it should do so fairly.

Yes on 8 because kids deserve a mom and a dad. This initiative restores the historical definition of marriage as a heterosexual institution. Marriage exists so that, in most circumstances, a child's family will include the biological mother and father. No child born into a same-sex marriage will ever grow up with both the biological mother and father.

No on 9 because California's criminal laws are harsh enough and our prisons are already overcrowded. This initiative is a grab bag of increased criminal penalties.

Yes on 10 because dirty and wasteful diesel trucks should get off the road. This initiative authorizes bonds to fund alternative energy power plants and rebates for purchases of alternative fuel cars, consumer trucks, and most important, large freight trucks.

Yes on 11 because voters should pick their legislators not the other way around. This initiatve takes redistricting away from the legislature and puts it in the hands of a new commission staffed by citizens.

-tdr

Labels: America, California, Elections, Politics

The George Washington University/Battleground national daily tracking poll has the race for president stagnated. Barack Obama is stuck at 49 percent after coming down from above 50 percent. John McCain is stuck at 46 percent after coming up from the low 40s. Undecideds are stuck at 5 percent. (Here.)

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict the national popular vote next Tuesday will be 50-50. My other prediction is that 4 out of 5 undecideds will break for McCain, the devil they know not the one they don't. My third prediction is that turnout will combine with sloppy voter registration procedures to cause chaos at polls around the country, which leads to my fourth prediction. November 2008 will look and feel a lot like November 2000.

-tdr

Labels: America, Elections, Politics

So, criticize Barack Obama for his association with William Ayers and one response will be that Ayers was Chicago's Citizen of the Year. It's true, but here are some facts.

Ayers was chosen Citizen of the Year because he was instrumental in securing a $49.2 million grant for school reform from the Annenberg Foundation. (Here.) The money was used for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

So what did all that money buy Chicago in terms of education reform? Not much.

"The results of an August 2003 final technical report of the Chicago Annenberg Research Project by the Consortium on Chicago School Research 'suggest that among the schools it supported, the Challenge had little impact on school improvement and student outcomes, with no statistically significant differences between Annenberg and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain, classroom behavior, student self-efficacy, and social competence.'" (Here.)

So, students didn't benefit but Ayers got himself a veneer of respectability.

-tdr

Labels: America, Elections, Politics

Barack Obama's promise to give tax cuts to 95 percent of working (oops, sorry, workin') families is finally getting a tiny bit of scrutiny. His plan relies on refundable tax credits to reach the 95 percent figure because fewer than half of workers make enough money to pay income tax. (Here and here.)

A refundable tax credit is one that gets paid back to all workers who qualify, even those whose income tax liability is less than the refund. It's a kind of income support for lower income workers. Those workers who don't pay income tax do pay Medicare and Social Security taxes. The implication of these facts is that, if Obama's plan is enacted, the federal government will be returning Social Security money to workers. (Here.)

Fortunately for us, the Social Security Trust Fund sits on a solid financial foundation. Oooh, wait, that's not right. Nice plan, Senator.

Obama's victory depends on large turnout among young people, the most unreliable voting demographic in America. The most reliable voting demographic is senior citizens. You've got to wonder which candidate seniors would vote for if they understood the implications of Obama's tax plan.

If John McCain really wants to win this election, he'll start scaring the pants off of grandma and grandpa about Obama's risky scheme to steal money from Social Security. If he's lucky, their fear will trickle down to the workin' class voters who don't make a lot of money and stand to benefit from Obama's giveaways, but who also need Social Security to be solvent when they start to retire.

-tdr

Labels: America, Elections, Politics

Colin Powell is no conservative, so his endorsement on Meet The Press today of Barack Obama for president is not as surprising as the apostasy of those conservative pundits who have fallen for the Phony Senator from Illinois. But his endorsement may affect the election more because of the statute Powell enjoys in American society. The timing so close to the election will make a difference also.

You can read Powell's reasoning in the Meet The Press transcript. (Here.) He goes on at some length.

My impression of Powell's endorsement is that it seems based mostly on the personal characteristics of the candidates and only partly on the issues. Powell compares the behavior of Obama and John McCain during the past 7 weeks of the campaign and prefers Obama's confident demeanor. So, put Powell in the same category as those who believe Obama's demeanor denotes moderate policies. Wishful thinking not based on any apparent facts but time will tell.

Powell also questions the choice of Sarah Palin. He believes she is not ready to be president. He also claims Joe Biden is ready, "on day one" as he put it. At least Powell should be given credit for making the right comparison here: Palin versus Biden, not Palin versus Obama, the way most people do. However, there is little in Biden's career that suggests he is ready to be president. His strong suit is experience but that experience hasn't stopped him from being wrong, wrong, wrong on serious foreign policy issues. Most famously, his partition plan for Iraq. To put it plainly, the Dufus of Delaware is a foolish man. He's a man of average intellingence who believes himself smarter than most everybody else. If Obama and Biden win the election, I will get down on my agnostic knees every day and pray that Obama serves his full term.

To the extent, Powell's decision is based on issues, he chooses Obama as the anti-conservative choice. For example, Powell says he is concerned that a McCain presidency will result in two more conservative justices on the United States Supreme Court. Thanks for coming clean about that, General. It's true, that result is more likely with a McCain presidency, but it's not a certain result by any means. I'm not confident that McCain would recognize the difference between a conservative and a nonconservative justice.

In the end Powell's endorsement is a personality choice. Powell has long been a moderate within the Republican Party. He sees Obama as the moderate candidate. It's a leap of faith on Powell's part. Obama's history is not one of political moderation. Even if it were, Obama will have Nancy Pelosi leading the House and Harry Reid leading the Senate. Don't hold your breath waiting for moderate policies to come from that troika.

-tdr

Labels: America, Elections, Politics

Another conservative hand wringer has come out against Sarah Palin. Heather MacDonald appeared on the Laura Ingraham radio show yesterday morning.

She spent 12 and a half maddening minutes dissing Palin and praising Barack Obama. This, from the queen of anti-illegal immigration.

First, she complained about Palin bringing the Republicans into identity politics. Then she complained that Palin is not ready to be president and said that Obama gives her confidence in his judgment. Yet she couldn't name a single issue that she agreed with him.

Her comparison between Palin and Obama is a false one. If McCain is elected, we'll have an inexperienced vice-president a heartbeat away from the presidency. If Obama is elected, we'll have an inexperienced heart beating in the White House. There's a big difference.

Ingraham fought the good fight, trying to get MacDonald to see that Palin and McCain are closer to conservatism than Obama and that the election is a zero-sum game with only two choices. MacDonald's comeback to that was to say, "I think that conservative principles can survive the election."

There's that foolishness again about how losing isn't such a bad thing. Doesn't any conservative pundit remember anything about history? Conservatives lose big now, like they did when Lyndon Johnson creamed Barry Goldwater, and they'll be spending another generation trying to dismantle more new programs built into the welfare state.

The Corner at National Review Online has the audio. Listen to the whole sorry thing here.

-tdr

Labels: America, Elections, Politics

The Bad Astronomer has been taking issue with John McCain's references to Barack Obama's earmark request for "the overhead projector" at the Adler Planetarium in Chicago. (Here.)

The Bad Astronomer is right that astronomy is really cool. And McCain's use of the term "overhead projector" doesn't come close to describing the complex piece of machinery used by the planetarium. Also funding the Adler Planetarium is worthy as is replacing its projector. But all that doesn't mean the funds have to come from an earmark in the federal budget. It will benefit Chicago if the planetarium's projector gets replaced. But it's no great loss to the country that the Adler Planetarium didn't actually get the federal money that Obama tried to steer his hometown's way.

Chicago is a big and world-class city. Or so I've heard from all the Chicagoans living here in San Diego. Even accounting for the ex-pats here in sunny Southern California, Chicago has lots of people still living there, many of them quite wealthy. There are many business there, some of them quite big. Better the people who live in the area, and the people who use the planetarium, pay to replace the projector than the federal taxpayer.

McCain has a point about the problem with federal budget earmarks. There are millions of projects in the United States worthy of funding. The federal government can't fund them all. The earmarks process results in funds going to those projects supported by politicians and their powerful friends. It's only happenstance that the project is worthwhile.

So, the Bad Astronomer does a public service by including a link on his latest post for sending private donations to the Adler Planetarium. Think of your donation as a private earmark. This is something I'm sure McCain himself would endorse.

In that same spirit, here's a link to San Diego's Air and Space Museum and here's one to San Diego's Reuben H. Fleet Science Center and here's another. Both museums in San Diego promote science, astronomy included, technology, and space and air flight. Both are worthy of your private earmarks.

-tdr

Labels: America, Astronomy, Elections, Politics, Scienceism

As the presidential campaign enters its last weeks with John McCain trailing Barack Obama, dissension is growing among conservatives. Several have jumped ship to support Obama, the latest being Christopher Buckley. Others have rejected McCain from the beginning. George Will is notable among those. Conservatives who support McCain, Victor Davis Hanson for one, are beginning to chastise the conservatives who jumped ship.

Ross Douthat at The Atlantic weighs in on his blog. This is his conclusion:

"Even if Brooks and Noonan and Buckley and Dreher and Kathleen Parker and David Frum and Heather Mac Donald and Bruce Bartlett and George Will and on and on - note the ideological diversity in the ranks of conservatives who aren't Helping The Team these days - are all just snobs and careerists who quit or cavil or cover their asses when the going gets tough and their 'seat at the table' is threatened, an American conservative movement that consists entirely of those pundits with the rock-hard testicular fortitude required to never take sides against the family seems like a pretty small tent at this point. And if I were Hanson or Levin or Steyn I'd be devoting a little less time to ritual denunciations of heretics and RINOs, and at least a little more time to figuring out how to build the sort of ship that will make the rats of the DC/NY corridor want to scramble back on board, however much it makes you sick to have them back. Who knows? It might just be the sort of ship that swing-state voters will want to climb on board as well." (Here.)

Douthat's last point seems doubtful. It's also doubtful that there's anything that can be done to bring the defecting conservatives back on board. It seems unlikely they are jumping ship so they can be popular in the liberal cultural milieu where the live and work. They have jumped ship for ideological or political reasons.

Some of the ship-jumping conservatives support Obama. Buckley is a prime example of this type. They believe Obama will be a moderate leader because he's got such an even tempered demeanor. His moderate temperament must mean he will practice moderate politics. There's little evidence of this. Take two issues on which Obama has announced moderate positions.

Obama says he opposes same-sex marriage. Yet he also opposes anything that will stop same-sex marriage from spreading nationwide. He opposes the Defense of Marriage Act. He also opposes a constitutional amendment clarifying that marriage is a heterosexual relationship between one man and one woman. He also has praised the California Supreme Court's decision finding that same-sex couples have a state constitutional right to marry. As a constitutional scholar, Obama must know that without a constitutional amendment, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution will require states to recognize same-sex marriages enacted in other states. His opposition to same-sex marriage turns out to be words, just words.

Obama also says that he believes the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms. Yet his support of gun rights is limited to sportsmen. He supports the right of hunters to own guns. The right to own guns for self-defense or other purposes? Not so much. He has supported anti-gun legislation throughout his political career. His campaign never gave a straight answer to the very simple question whether Obama supported Washington D.C.'s unconstitutional gun ban that was struck down this year in the Heller case. Again, his support of the Second Amendment turns out to be words, just words.

Conservatives who believe Obama will advance moderate positions once in office are taking a huge leap of faith based on little more than wishful thinking.

Other conservatives don't support Obama but they oppose McCain because the Republican candidate is not a true conservative. Well, that's true enough. But he's more conservative than Obama and there isn't a viable third option. That doesn't matter because these conservatives prefer to lose this election and have the GOP and the conservative movement spend some time in the wilderness. They believe this will benefit the party and the movement by forcing the two to reconcile to each other, return to first principles, and come up with new ideas for new times. It's a foolish notion.

When Goldwater lost big and Johnson won we got the Great Society and conservatives have been trying to dismantle that for a generation. Politics is a zero-sum game. You either win or you lose. If McCain loses it will be conservatism's loss as much as it is the GOP's loss. Conservatives who let their quibbles with McCain and Sarah Palin get the better of them, will get an Obama administration with Nancy Pelosi in charge of the House, Harry Reid in charge of the Senate, and two to three vacancies looming on the Supreme Court. That's one hell of a price to pay to force the GOP and conservatism to reform themselves.

-tdr

Labels: America, Elections, Politics

Mark Steyn defines the Phony Senator from Illinois for a pair of young Obama supporters to no effect.

"Traditionally, when an unknown politician emerges on the national scene, it’s a race to define him. Governor Palin is a good example: within days, the coastal sophisticates were mocking her as a chillbilly ditz with a womb that spits out inbred kids faster than the First National Bank of Welfare Swamp issues subprime mortgages. That’s politics as usual: Define your opponent. But Obama is defined by his indefinability. When I pointed out to my Vermont gals that he lives in a swank pad that was part of some shady real estate deal with a convicted fraudster (Tony Rezko), that he entrusted his daughters’ entire religious education to a neo-segregationist anti-American nut who preaches that the government created the AIDS virus to kill black people (Jeremiah Wright), that he attended fundraisers with a political patron who’s an unrepentant terrorist proud of plotting to blow up young ladies just like them at a dance at the Fort Dix military base (William Ayers), when I pointed all this out, they looked at me as if I’d brought a baseball bat to a croquet match. Mere earthbound politicians are defined by their real estate deals and sleazy buddies, but Obama is defined only by his vibe. As his many admirers in France would say, he has a certain je ne sais quoi. And, if you try to pin down quoi precisely, then they don’t want to sais." (Here.)

Ronald Reagan was often called the Teflon Candidate by opponents frustrated that nothing negative ever stuck to him. Senator Obama appears to have the same quality. Reagan was a conservative politician whose ideology was masked by a genial disposition. Obama is a leftie whose ideology hides behind equanimity.

-tdr

Labels: America, Elections, Politics

Race is emerging as an issue in the Presidential election but not in ways that are supported by the facts. National Public Radio had a segment Friday morning about union leader Richard Trumka's personal crusade to persuade his white, working class members to vote Obama.

"In a speech before the national convention of the United Steelworkers in Las Vegas in July, an emotional Trumka said, 'We can't tap dance around the fact that there are a lot of white folks out there' — a lot of them are good union people, he added — who 'just can't get past this idea that there's something wrong with voting for a black man.'

"In the speech, Trumka went on to say that while there are many reasons to vote for Obama, there's 'only one really, really bad reason to vote against Barack Obama. And that's because he's not white.'

"A recording of that speech has been widely circulated, thanks to YouTube. Since then, Trumka has repeated it at union halls around the country.

"Trumka is white. Asked why he is giving this speech, he told the story of a conversation he had the day of the Pennsylvania primary in his hometown of Nemacolin in the southwest corner of the state.

"'This woman walks up to me. I'd known her for a long time, and I ask her 'Have you decided who you gonna vote for?'

"'There's no way I'd ever vote for Barack Obama,' the woman responded.

"Trumka said he pressed her as to why. First, she said it's because Obama is 'a Muslim.' Trumka responded that Obama is actually a Christian.

"Then, she told him Obama never wears an American flag pin on his lapel. Trumka told her that, too, is false, then asked her why she wasn't wearing one if that is such an important issue.

"Trumka said he continued to push, until 'her eyes dropped down and she said to me, 'Well, he's a black man.' "

"Trumka said he told her to look around at their town, the mining community where they both had lived for so long. 'And I said to her, 'This town is dying — literally dying.' "

"It's a line that he includes, verbatim, whenever he delivers his speech.

"'Our kids are moving away because there's no future here,' Trumka said in the United Steelworkers convention address. 'And here's a man, Barack Obama, who's going to fight for people like us, and you won't vote for him because of the color of his skin? Are you out of your ever-loving mind?'

"The audience erupted in applause." (Here.)

This story fits nicely into the conventional belief about people of pallor in America, especially pallid working class whites. It's also based on a type of information called anecdotes. Another type of information, known as data, reveals that racial consciousness is not much of a factor to the vast majority of Americans. And when it is a factor, it may be less of a factor among whites than it is among non-whites.

The same week that NPR aired its story about Trumka's personal crusade, the Gallup Poll published a report that showed for the vast majority of voters, white or not, Barack Obama's race did not matter. (Here.) In fact, among all voters, his race is a net plus by 3 percentage points.

Now it's true that breaking those numbers down reveals that among whites, Obama's race is a net minus by 1 percentage point. However, among non-whites, John McCain's pallid complexion is a net minus among voters of color by a whopping 8 percentage points.

Here's some of the data from the Gallup poll.

Among all voters, 6 percent are less likely to vote Obama because of his race while 9percent are more likely. His race makes no difference to 85 percent of all voters.

Among white voters, 7 percent are less likely to vote Obama because of his race while 6 percent are more likely. His race makes no difference to 86 percent of voters of pallor.

Among nonwhite voters, 13 percent are less likely to vote McCain because of his race, while 5 percent are more likely. His race makes no difference to 81 percent of voters of color.

The Gallup poll breaks down voters' racial attitudes in other ways. Gallup's conclusion from the data is this:

"The data analyzed here -- based on voters' self-reports -- show that the impact of Obama's and McCain's races appears to cut both ways. Enough voters, particularly nonwhites, say they are more likely to vote for Obama because of his race to offset the small percentage who say they are less likely to vote for him because of his race. And the same is true in reverse for McCain: the impact of nonwhites' saying his race is a negative is offset by those who say it is a positive."

Check the data yourself. (Here is the link again.) Then decide for yourself what the numbers reveal about racial matters in America.

-tdr

Labels: America, Diversity, Elections, Media, Politics

So, the controversy coming out of the second Presidential debate is what it meant when John McCain referred to Barack Obama once as "that one." Oooo, so disrespectful and maybe even racist. Yeah, that's it. Must be racist. The crazy talking heads on The Mess at NBC are going off the deep end psychobabbling about McCain for that one comment. Meanwhile, the transcript shows that McCain referred to his opponent as Senator Obama 27 times. (Here.) How dare he disrespect Senator Obama so! Doesn't he know the correct term for the reincarnation of Jesus is "The One?" Senator McCain, have you no shame, sir?

-tdr

Labels: America, Elections, Media, Politics

"Barack Obama was a community organizer, like Jesus, who our minister prayed about. Pontius Pilate was a governor." -Representative Steve Cohen (Here.)

Meanwhile, in the real world, this just in from Nevada on how community organizers operate, specifically, ACORN, the organization associated with The One.

"Nevada authorities seized documents and records yesterday in a raid on the Las Vegas headquarters of a community organization that works to get low-income people to vote.

"Secretary of State Ross Miller said the raid was part of a months-long voter fraud investigation of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, which he said submitted fraudulent registrations, including forms for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys football team." (Here.)

-tdr

Labels: America, Elections, Politics