Red State

It has become very obvious over the last month or two that Barack Obama is on the verge of a monumental landslide, and the democrats in congress are poised to push the envelope on supermajorities as well. We are looking at a one party state, and not only that - its one that has been thirsting for power and will have a great deal of it in January.

Because of this reality, I think it is more than appropriate that we consider what has happened in the past when one party has taken over control of all levels of government. This is important, because whenever one party gets beat that badly, they always feel as though the world is ending, and they will be permanently relegated to irrelevance.

What is interesting, though, is that this is hardly the case. When you look back at history, one party dominance does not maintain itself for very long, and it often leads to utter disaster for the party that commands said unbridled power.

Why is that? Perhaps its because the party in power over-reaches, believing they have more support of the American people than they actually do - as detailed here. Perhaps it is because the minority party ends up looking at themselves in the mirror and diagnosing their issues, actually addressing the problems that caused them to be so roundly defeated - as I recommended here. Perhaps its a little of both.

But one thing is for sure - one party controlling the government is not something that the American people tend to like very much. Lets take a gander at some examples.

Republican Dominance 2001-2006

This is slightly inaccurate because of all the weirdness of the Senate between 2001-2003 in that first session, but for all intents and purposes, the republican party was the only viable, real party operating in the United States for this period. Democrats were widely demoralized, weak, leaderless and on the run - with the 2004 election marking their lowest point, as President Bush was re-elected as the first president to receive over 50% of the vote since 1988, a Senate packed with 55 republican senators, and a house that was 232-201 republican as well.

But, even despite the fact that viable leaders didn't really emerge (outside Howard Dean at the DNC) this utter domination wouldn't last. We can blame it on any number of reasons, but for the purposes of this article it doesn't matter. What does matter is that this domination wouldn't even last through the next election.

After only five years of practical governance, the domination of the republican party died in the 2006 midterm elections.

Personally, I believe this five year period would have been a lot shorter had September 11th not happened, and the republican party not so effectively used the incident to convince people to vote for them for two election cycles.

Regardless, the complete domination of the White House, Senate and House didn't last for very long.

Democratic Dominance 1993-1994

Boy it sure must have felt great to be a democrat around November of 1992. Bill Clinton, in a three way race against an incumbent president and the most magnetic third party candidate in decades, managed to capture 370 electoral votes, and register a historic win. Democrats had won 57 Senate seats, and the House sat comfortably in democrat hands by a 258-176 margin.

Wow - those numbers look eerily like what 2008 might look like. Interesting.

Regardless, for all the pronouncements in 1992 that "The Reagan Revolution was dead" and all the articles about a permanent liberal realignment, that couldn't have been further from the truth. This unbelievable and monumental victory was short lived (again, for any number of reasons).

Only 2 years later, President Clinton had failed in a major initiative (Health Care), his approval sat at 42% and Newt Gingrich and company stormed onto the national scene, crafting what became known as "The Republican Revolution", winning 54 Senate seats, and 230 seats in the House.

The permanent liberal realignment was dead only two years after it had been declared. The typically bad year for the president's party in midterms (a historical trend that goes back decades) was especially bad for Clinton and company, and all their dreams disappeared in favor of divided government.

Two years - not exactly a permanent movement.

Democratic Dominance 1977-1981

This one really looked permanent. In 1977, the democrats had already had a stranglehold on congress unbroken since 1955 and added to their majorities with 61 Senators (there is that dreaded supermajority) and a whopping 292 House members (that's 67% of the House - another supermajority). Jimmy Carter, the genial southern governor had won nearly 300 electoral votes and defeated the incumbent president Gerald Ford.

On top of all that, the republican brand was utterly destroyed. The country still had the memory of Watergate fresh in their mind, and the stain of Nixon was all over republicans everywhere.

But there's more. At this point in the country's history, since the 1932 election democrats had won the house out of 21 out of the last 23 times, the Senate 21 out of 23 times, and the presidency 8 out of 12 elections. When republicans won the White House, it was moderates like Eisenhower and Nixon, and when they won in Congress - it was an aberration.

Seeing Carter elected in 1976 with two supermajorities in Congress must have been devastating. Honestly at that point, I don't know how republicans didn't just give up - Carter was a nice guy with command of a unified party that had domination over the entire country. Kind of puts what it is to be a republican today in a bit of perspective.

But alas, it is always the darkest before the dawn, and as depressed as republicans were in 1976 - they would be rewarded with adulation in 1980 as Ronald Reagan won 489 electoral votes and the republicans recaptured the Senate.

4 years. Yet another domination by a single party that ends in ruin within only a short time. This one was especially noteworthy, because the figure that emerged from the carnage of the republican party in 1980 became a transformative figure that conservatives have since latched on to as their political hero.

Previous One Party Domination

I'm not going to detail every single instance where one party controlled the entire government, but some of the others at least deserve mention.

From 1961 through 1969, democrats controlled the White House, the Senate and the House. This spanned the entirety of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, and ended when Richard Nixon won in a landslide in 1968.

That was a relatively successful period of party dominance - it lasted eight years. Yes, a long time, but still it isn't exactly unbearable for a minority party. That "unbearable" period would come a little further in our past.

Before the Kennedy / Johnson years, Dwight Eisenhower enjoyed an electoral sweep in 1952 as the republicans re-entered majorities in Congress and retook the White House for the first time since Herbert Hoover.

Sadly, this only lasted for two years - during the mid-term 1954 election, democrats retook Congress, and would build on their majorities every election thereafter.

But easily the most astonishing period of one party dominance in the 20th century was the period between 1933 and 1947 - a fourteen year window of absolute, total, complete control of every level of government under one of history's most noteworthy presidents, Franklin Roosevelt.

This period was somewhat unusual, and driven by the earth shattering change to electoral politics instituted by FDR, coupled with the second world war and its "don't change horses in mid-stream" logic.

Lessons Learned

I think it is clear that the Armageddon many people are predicting is not exactly as devastating as it could be. In the past, many one party periods in our history have seen more dominant majorities - and they still go down in 2-6 years.

Liberals can claim that this election is some kind of permanent realignment if they want, but history has shown us that such levels of control are not tolerated by the American people for very long, and the minority party almost always makes important adjustments to its strategy and message to be more appealing to the electorate.

So republicans, stock up on your whiskey and vodka for November 4th, but try not to drink yourself into a coma. The aftermath of this election may in fact be what we need to reset this party on a path of sanity that it has been lacking for years, even when it was in the majority.

My advice? Take a look at the domination of Congress by the democrats between 1933 and 1995 and say to yourselves, "never again". The White House is important, but I believe congress is more important. The best economic management we had in the 20th Century was with a republican congress and a democratic president - so its clear that control of congress will allow the party to reign in the excesses of a democratic president. No such balance occurs when a republican is in the White House and there is a democratic congress. I would focus all of my efforts on retaking congress and keeping hold of it this time.

But whatever happens, take solace in the fact that some time within the next decade republicans will in fact come roaring back, and the democrats will have a turn at feeling depressed.

This, like most things political, is cyclical.

---

NOTE: Cross Posted at Political Capital and TheNextRight

The 2008 election could usher in for the first time in our history a government without any checks and balances which is precisely the reason that our Founders in their great wisdom provided three branches with specific duties and freedom of the press all of which are supposed to work together to ensure that our government works for ALL of the people AND is subject to the will of the people.

With the distinct possibility of all three branches falling under complete liberal control AND the media who is so obviously in the tank with Democrats and favor liberal ideas and dogma any sense of balance in our government may fully disappear with the election of Barack Obama.

Some will try and present the argument that when President Bush was elected he also had a majority in the House and Senate. While this is true, three facts that may present themselves through this election did not apply to the Bush White House combined with a Republican majority in Congress.

First the Supreme Court. While the GOP headed both the Executive and Legislative branches, until Bush's second term the Supreme Court leaned to the left. Even in the second term the Court is actually closer to a balance between conservative and liberal judges which has the distinction of decisions that meet with disappointment on both sides of the political spectrum.

Second the Congress. Although the GOP had majorities in both the House and Senate during the first Bush term, the majorities were not enough to pass legislation without the help of members of the other party. As such though a GOP majority, Democrats still had a strong voice in legislation and the ability to delay legislation in order to kill it. A move they used quite often and with some success.

Third the Media. Throughout the four years of GOP majorities with a GOP White House the media was decidedly stacked against Republicans. As they are so blatantly showing in this election most of the media leans left. With the decided media bias during the first Bush term with a majority in Congress, nothing attempted during those years was missed without great criticism by the left leaning media who have always shown a strong dislike for President Bush. This is not to say that during those four years the GOP did not deserve criticism, the large increase in government spending for conservatives was a source of great bitterness toward the GOP, and the press hailed it and criticised it at the same time even with the left leaning toward Democrats who love to spend and in whom Republicans mirrored in Bush's first term.

How then if an Obama Presidency becomes the result of the 2008 election will our government have no checks and balances ? Citing the same criteria used above in showing that the balances were present during the first Bush term with a GOP majority, I will show how the balances disappear if Obama is elected.

First, the Supreme Court. As we wait the results of this years election so are certain members of the Supreme Court who are advanced in age and waiting to retire with a Democrat in office. Five Justices are at least seventy with a sixth being 69. Of those only Scalia and Kennedy are not considered liberals though Kennedy as the Courts loan so called moderate sides more with the left than he does the right. So an Obama Presidency certainly will appoint at least two if not four Justices. Replacing liberals with liberals and possibly replacing one moderate and one conservative with liberals.

Also in the court make up their is the possibility of the liberal Obama following the FDR example of stacking the court to ensure that decisions go in his favor. The Constitution does not provide for an absolute number of Justices. In our history we have had as few as five and as many as ten. When FDR could not get much of his New Deal passed through Congress he proposed raising the number of Justices to fifteen and planned on stacking the court with appointees who favored his ideas to spearhead Constitutional challenges. With a completely liberal Congress Obama while not increasing the number of Justices will have the ability to stack the court in his favor as Congress will approve all liberal nominations he makes. Until the retirement of those aged Justices he can increase the number to meet his needs if necessary with a liberal Congress happily approving the additions.

Second the Congress. The main difference between the first Bush term and a possible Obama first term is the make up of the Congress. If the House does not change, Obama will have a strong and clear majority in the House. Most however, believe that the House majority will increase on November 4. The Senate is close to a balance but two changes could take place. The first is that the deciding Vice Presidential and President of the Senate vote if the Senate remains somewhat balanced if Obama is elected will be Joe Biden who will side with Democrats. Second more GOP seats are up for grabs this year and also more GOP Senators are not seeking another term. The distinct possibility of a super majority exists in the Senate which could provide a completely liberal House and Senate. The GOP Minority would be reduced to only a troublesome, "fly in the ointment," without even the strength to counter legislation that they disagree with.

Third, the Media. As has been stated above the media is decidedly liberal leaning with some blatantly so. If Obama is elected and if the Democrats gain seats in the majority giving them full legislative power, the check that the free press media should provide in non-biased journalism seeking the revelation of abuse and other types of supposed or real problems in Washington will disappear almost completely. Evidence this by the almost total positive coverage of the Obama campaign and the almost as equal negative coverage of the McCain campaign. So much so that negatives about Obama have received little or no coverage and in most cases when covered are mentioned as only right wing attacks against the media messiah. This type of coverage will continue if Obama is elected and the Congress becomes a liberal mecca.

The Framers of the Constitution designed our government structure to be balanced as all three Branches have distinct responsibilities which should not blend into one ideology or political presentation. Additionally the idea presented by the Framers of a free press was thought to be an additional check for the government as journalism was thought to be the conscience of the people.

Journalism because of its obvious bias to the left has lost all credibility as the conscience of the people and its ability as an avenue of balance in our Constitutional Republic. Combining this with an unfettered liberal White House, Congress and Supreme Court could and likely will change the fabric of our society and the fundamental principles that have made this Nation great. We fought a Revolution to be a free and independent Republic from European Socialism so that the people ruled the land NOT the government. An unfettered liberal government promises to return us to that Socialistic slavery. NEVER what our Founders intended nor the Framers of the Constitution presented as the governing laws of our society.

Ken Taylor

John is ready to lead America out of their economic crisis, their fuel and health care problems and down size the Government. He will stand toe to toe with the politicians (their earmarks), the lobbyists, the special interest groups and shysters who continue misusing and abusing our tax dollars.

John and Sarah will shake up the government and their way of doing business. The government, meddlers(special interest groups & lobbyists) and peddlers (the liberal news media) have led us on a merry chase of lies, political propaganda and daily thumb their nose at us showing an extreme bias.

America should once again become the "voice," and restore our Nation to it's once strong foundation. Parents, grandparents and concerned citizens need to know what our Government Representatives are doing at all times, who is spending our money and why - someone needs to get a handle on the "Supreme Court" and their outlandish shannigans must be stopped.

First, we need to address the Berg versus Obama lawsuit, which is going to be a noose around America's neck, if Obama does in fact win the Presidential Election.

The very dangerous times for us will be from November 4th until Inauguration. You know the "Obama First Act" is getting long and boring; the fact that he is ashamed or scared of his past makes one believe that his last 20 years are in fact misrepresented.

He's the only one in history, who serves 8 years in the Illinois Senate and says," there aren't any records, I wasn't a very good secretary or may they're lost."

Probably one of a very few who went from a low "C" at Coumbia and magically ended up in Harvard Law School

He's the one who pretends the middle class and poor are his priorities, when in fact his voting record shows his disdane for small businesses, college students, women, babies, farmers and the list keep compiling.

He's ashamed of his employers and refuses to disclose his employment records with anyone.

His US Senate voting record stinks and full of "no shows" and present. When he did vote, it pretty much was against cleaning up the government or helping the 'Private Sector."

So thank goodness for people like Mr. Berg who are willing to address important issues - "How can parents, grandparents, senior citizens and college students elect a man to lead our country, if they don't know who the man really is...

As far as anyone knows, he hasn't any leadership ability, his campaign funds shows many ficticious and foreign contributors (FEC will verify this - just go to their website.)

Obama is the only Presidential Elect in the history of our United States who places himself above our laws and refuses to work under the dictates of our US government.

My question is this - why would anyone vote for this man without questioning his whereabouts and past? Why would anyone intentionally allow a stranger in our midst to lead our country?

He could be a terrorist, working with Bin Laden or a communist - none of us know anything about this man! "May God Bless America."

Visit me at: http://www.yourannie.com for more political editorials

As Always, Annie

I hope all posters can take time to post to us about some of key races in battle for Congress happening here. Please give us some updates of what you see happening on ground and what is key themes in each race.

In Particular If anyone can share info on these it would be excellent:

CT Shays

PA Altmire, English, Kanjorski, Murphy, Carney

MI Walberg, Knolleberg

OH Chabot, Schmidt, Open Price, Open Regula

NV Porter

CO Musgrave

MN Open Ramstad, Bachmann, Waltz

AZ Open Renzi, Shadegg, Mitchell, Giffords

NJ Open Ferguson, Open Saxton

NY Open Fossella, Open Walsh, Hall, Gillibrand, Kuhl

NH Porter, Hodes

VA Open Davis

FL Diaz Balart Brothers, Feeney, Keller, Mahoney

GA Marshall

NC Hayes

TX Lampson

KS Boyda

AK Young

WY Open Cubin

ID Sali

OR Open Hooley

WA Reichert

CA McNerney

KY Yarmuth

NM Open Wilson

WI Kagen

IL Open Weller, Kirk

IN Hill, Donnelly

Lets Talk Congress races!

Democrats Have Time to Choose New President Elect. To all Hillary supporters, there is time to do several things to help. Here are several things to do: 1. Call your government representatives – tell them to ask Obama to step down. When Berg filed the suit against Obama, Obama merely did his Attorney shuffle and asked for dismissal instead of bringing forth important documentation requested by Berg. In other words, Mr. Obama has by default admitted that Berg’s lawsuit is correct.

1. Get online, contact Hillary @ www.hillaryclinton.com/ or go to clinton.senate.gov/ ask her to unite the Democratic Party by allowing them to replace Obama as Presidential Elect to Hillary Rodham Clinton.
   

2. Contact Phillip J. Berg for copies of the lawsuit filed against Barack Obama or email him: philjberg@gmail.com another option is to place obamacrimes.com into your browser for the real story.

3. Americans don’t want to wait until after election on the 4th of November to get this critical problem corrected. If in fact, we wait until after the election – America will have one more major problem thrown in their laps. Below, you can read the basic structure of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama.

4. Now’s the time for Hillary and Bill Clinton to step forward for their country and give Americans the assistance that they need before the “Presidential Election.”

Philip J. Berg, Esquire stated in his lawsuit that Senator Obama: 1. Is not a naturalized citizen; and/or 2. Lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia; and/or 3. Has dual loyalties because of his citizenship with Kenya and Indonesia.

Berg stated: “I filed this action at this time to avoid the obvious problems that will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated. There have been numerous questions raised about Obama’s background with no satisfactory answers. The questions that I have addressed include, but are not limited to:

1. Where was Obama born? Hawaii; an island off of Hawaii; Kenya; Canada; or ?

2. Was he a citizen of Kenya, Indonesia and/or Canada?

3. What was the early childhood of Obama in Hawaii; in Kenya; in Indonesia when he was adopted; and later, back to Hawaii?

4. An explanation as to the various names utilized by Obama that include: Barack Hussein Obama; Barry Soetoro; Barry Obama; Barack Dunham; and Barry Dunham.

5. Illinois Bar Application – Obama fails to acknowledge use of names other than Barack Hussein Obama, a blatant lie. If Obama can prove U.S. citizenship, we still have the issue of muti-citizenshipwith responsibilities owed to and allegiance to other countries

This attachment is at: http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachment/001filed 10/21/2008

Calling all Democrats to step forward and correct the Obama problem at this time – two choices here remain: (1) Prove his citizenship immediately before all Americans, or (2) Make Obama step down and nominate another Democratic Candidate for President Elect.

As John McCain has done many times in his service as a US Senator, reach across the table for All Americans and their families – help us restore our once strong foundation. Give us a reason to believe in you once again. "May God Bless America." Stop in @ http://www.yourannie.com

As Always, Annie

If you start on this diary entry, please finish it. I solicit feedback from converts and dissenters alike.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.

Declaration Of Independence, July 4, 1776.

Well did Thomas Jefferson write that the powers which government possesses must come from only one of two sources: the consent of the governed; or from the sword. To understand the remainder of this diary entry, you must keep this in mind: our government’s powers are given to it from the citizens themselves.

In 1968, Former Secretary Of Agriculture, Ezra T. Benson, gave a speech wherein he outlined the proper role of government. In his talk, Secretary Benson said: “The important thing to keep in mind is that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first place.” He concluded by stating: “This means, then, that the proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act.” But what does this mean? I can best illustrate it by an example:

Suppose three individuals were hopelessly marooned on a large Pacific island. Soon afterwards, they began planting seeds and tilling the ground for their inevitable long stay. In sum, they become island farmers. Over the course of time, disputes arose, and the first farmer accused the second farmer of stealing his seeds and wrecking his thatch hut. The second farmer likewise accused the first of running through his fields and ruining his harvest. Soon these individuals realized that they could not stay awake at all hours of the night watching over their crops and homes, so they appointed the third farmer to act as a sort of watchdog. Each promised to pay the third farmer a portion of their harvest if he would–in lieu of farming–keep an eye on their respective plots and property. At this precise moment government is born.

The two farmers acknowledge each other’s respective right of self-defense, and the defense of their property, and through the third farmer they have delegated this right. Logically then it follows that they could not possibly delegate to the third farmer a power which they themselves could not rightfully do alone. It is this concept which underlies our Declaration of Independence–government gets its power solely from the consent of the governed and one cannot consent to give it a power that he does not possess himself.

Therefore, in addressing what powers our federal government may exercise, and understanding that its powers come from the governed, we must ask ourselves: “Absent government, could I demand this of my neighbor?” If I have no right to break down the door of my neighbor’s house in order to take his property to pay for my health care, then how am I able to delegate such authority to my government? The answer is simple: I cannot.

Not only our Declaration of Independence, but also our Constitution recognize this principle. With this in mind, consider the myriad of government programs now in effect and while looking at them ask: “Could I demand that my neighbor pay for such a thing in the absence of government?” If not, then government cannot demand it either.

Both political parties have lost this concept. One or both must return to it or a collapse is inevitable. I am confident that a few good people will come forward and espouse the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and thus serve to check the growth and power of a government without restraint.

iding underneath the recent political radar is a proposal being looked at by House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington to remove tax breaks given to people who invest into their 401k.

The plan is based on ideas from Teresa Ghilarducci, professor and analyst for the New York School for Social Research.

The proposal centers around forcing people from from the market, where roughly two trillion was lost over the past few weeks in volatility, and into (surprise) government programs.

Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation. The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated. “I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.” Under the current 401(k) system, investors are charged relatively high retail fees, Ghilarducci said. “I want to spend our nation’s dollar for retirement security better. Everybody would now be covered” if the plan were adopted, Ghilarducci said.

Democrat leadership seems to be very interested in the proposal.

“This [plan] certainly is intriguing,” said Mike DeCesare, press secretary for McDermott. “That is part of the discussion,” he said. While Miller stopped short of calling for Ghilarducci’s plan at the hearing last week, he was clearly against continuing tax breaks as they currently exist.

What does this mean to you? It means that if you want to continue investing in your 401k plan it will be taxed into nonexistance. It also proves that more than ninety five percent of Americans will be paying additional taxes. If Senator Obama wins the Presidency with a Democrat majority in Congress there will be no check, look for more programs like these which focus on taking more money out of the private sector and forced into the government.

Ok, so the editor of the "Commentary" section posted an article claiming that Sen. McCain was profiting from the myths and misconceptions of his foreign policy experience. The writer claimed McCain was basing this expertise based upon 1) time as a POW; and 2) being to Iraq several times. Here is my response, hope y'all enjoy!!

To the editor:

In “Candidates examined through VP choices, inconsistencies,” James, with great ignorance, absurdly proclaims of Senator McCain, “He is profiting from the myths and misconceptions that portray him as an expert in foreign policy, which he is not. McCain is supposed to be a foreign policy expert for two reasons: first, because he was a POW; second, because he has visited Iraq several times.” After reading his idiotic commentary, I could not help but say, “Damn, that’s four minutes I’ll never get back.”

Perhaps a more responsible commentary would have included McCain’s leadership role within the Senate Armed Services Committee. Indeed, twenty-plus years of briefings by the State Department, the Pentagon, the Intelligence community, along with joint committee hearings with the Senate Foreign Policy Committee, better portray McCain’s true experience and “expertise” of foreign policy, rather than egregious inferences by a person whose dislike for a particular candidate clouds his judgment.

Moreover, this commentary ridiculed Senator McCain’s foreign policy experience as nothing more than “the word Iraq, a verb, and the name ‘General Petraeus.’” Well, truth be told, Senator McCain could find less qualified advisors than General David Petraeus, who holds a Ph D. in International Relations, has been named to Foreign Policy magazine’s list of the top 100 intellectuals, and who just happened to be the commander in charge of Iraqi operations that called for the “Surge,” which Obama hailed, “succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

While our list of grievances towards this article is long, we can only laugh at the author’s hypocrisy. James stated, “McCain has referred more than once to the ‘common border between Iraq and Pakistan’ when such a border does not exist.” What he fails to tell you is the context of the quote. Indeed, Sen. McCain misspoke, but it is clear that he was referring to Afghanistan, which was the focus of the interview, and not Iraq.

However, if “Such a mistake is not a minor one or a simple exchange of consonants” as James claims is so noteworthy, would it also be relevant to address Sen. Obama’s call for translators in Iraq be immediately redeployed to Afghanistan, considering the languages of the two lands are completely different? The people of Afghanistan do not speak Arabic, Kurdish, nor Turkoman, but instead, Dari and Pashto. Would it also be important to reveal that Sen. Biden referred to Iranians as Arabs, which is considered an insult to Iranians?

By the way, James, you claim that McCain has made this mistake “more than once,” we challenge you to provide the sources of these “other” occasions!

In the end, it is troubling that the author assumed that the readers would simply take his word, without conducting further research. This absolute disrespect to the intelligence of the student body is an insult, and frankly, and indictment upon James' integrity. So next time you decide to spew your nonsensical assertions, please do so in a manner that is intelligent, truthful, and somewhat responsible.

I think I am supposed to be skeptical, react to this like I did when Donato Dalrymple said he might seek higher office. But no, listening to the man speak, Joe Wurzelbacher is for real.

He told radio talker and fellow cancer survivor Laura Ingraham today that he might run for Congress in 2010. Against Ohio Democrat Marcy Kaptur.

Ingraham herself said she would immediately volunteer for his campaign and help him with campaign advertising and PR. Meanwhile, the National Republican Congressional Committee said they would welcome Wurzelbacher's candidacy with "open arms.”

"We support Joe the Plumber and people like him everyday with our support for lower taxes and energy independence," NRCC spokesman Ken Spain said.

Kaptur's office responded by blaming Joe the plumber for recent layoffs at the local Jeep plant.

It looks like conservative populism is here to stay, and it is definitely something the party wants to encourage in the future. Grassroots activism. (There is a community blog designed for this sort of thing, but I, oh I forget its name offhand.)

I'd give you the URL at which to donate to Wuzelbacher's campaign, but it does not exist yet. I'll be back with you on this in a year or so.

So if it were not for ABC's Blotter page WE the public of the United States of America would never have known that Mahoney

The only PROOF you will ever need to show the media is in the TANK for the Dems!

• had a mistress

• had a second mistress

• pimped out his first mistress

• used campaign cash to payoff the mistress

• is being investigated by the FBI

It is SO VERY SICKENING how the media wing of the Democrat Party has not had this story cover to cover and I just cannot begin to think of what to do.

This CANNOT continue to stand anymore.....there must be a means to FORCE them to report this story....it was Edward's first so that he could continue to run and DEFRAUD his contributors, knowing eventually the story would come out BUT this is just BLATANT BIAS and I am so DISGUSTED by the media silence that I WANT the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE instituted when McCain/Palin wins the WH for the MSM and only the MSM.

About that $150,000 that the RNC spent for campaign appearances sake on Clan Palin...

The liberals and their captive media outlets, MSDNC in particular, have been howling like lonesome coyotes over it. They don't seem to think that the $5 Million and change that was spent to move Barack Obama's acceptance speech from Denver's Pepsi Center to Invesco Field at Mile High Stadium was in any way aa audacious as dropping a mere $150K on Gov. Palin and her family. Okay, we can play that game. Forget the Night of The Greek Columns.

By the strangest of political coincidences, $150,000 turns out to be exactly the same amount that Al Gore's 2000 campaign paid Big Al's fashion consultant Naomi Wolf. Team Gore cut checks to Ms. Wolf to the tune of $15,000 a month for about 10 months - from January through October of 1999. Then Donna Brazile took over the campaign and trimmed Wolf's paycheck down to a paltry $5K per month.

So, the Dems spent $150K (not counting the actual clothes) putting Gore in earth tones, and the GOP spent $150K on fancy duds and other stuff making the Palins what ZZ Top would call "a sharp dressed clan." I don't think Al's suits were put up for auction like the Palin clothes will be, but let's not quibble over the small stuff. It's a wash.

Now the donkeys and their media flies should please stop their braying and buzzing. Their hypocrisy has been outed.

h/t: FReeper Doctor Raoul

• JP

“The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." -Abraham Lincoln (17 September 1859, speech in Cincinnati, OH)

“It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." -United States Supreme Court in American Communications Association v. Douds

The abandonment of first principles, established by the nation’s founders, is apparent with the stark choices before us this election season. Few times in U.S. history has such a wide chasm separated the factions contending for primacy at this level of enmity.

True enough, we have had citizens at odds with each other over the mechanisms of government from the beginning. The Anti-Federalists opposed ratification of the Constitution in 1787 because they argued that centralized power would become despotic. Mark this well, although the ratification of the 10th Amendment in 1791 addressed this concern, the centralization of power since the turn of the 20th century has rapidly progressed.

"…working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day and a little to-morrow, and advancing it's noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. ... when all government ... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." -Thomas Jefferson (1821)

Thomas Sowell, in Conflict of Visions, explains the basic philosophies that have been contending for primacy in society for centuries. The constrained vision and unconstrained vision he describes fuels our differences about what government is supposed to do. Those with the constrained vision (conservatives, classic liberals) see society as fallible, acknowledge trade-offs as necessary, and recognize humans are in need of incentives to appeal to their natural individuality. Those of the unconstrained vision (modern liberals, socialists, progressives) see society as perfectible, and work to mold it to their concept of perfection to the negation of individuality.

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption for authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." -Daniel Webster

How did we get to this state of affairs? A lack of knowledge and application of first principles that are vital to the process I call Maintenance of the Republic. Just as a machine whose preventive maintenance has been deferred will eventually require a costly overhaul; the government of this republic now requires an overhaul to return it to the founder’s specifications. We conservatives generally have an idea what those specifications are; others either have no clue or are certainly determined to change them. If we educate and guide the clueless and refresh ourselves on these points, we can prevent our opponents from altering our republic beyond what the founders would recognize.

“There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it ever come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence.” -Daniel Webster

Where, then is our owner’s manual? I submit that no one document fulfills that purpose. The Constitution forms the legal basis of our government. It is so central to U.S. citizens that the military, federal officials and employees pledge their loyalty to it. The Federalist Papers may be seen as the philosophical basis of our government and the Constitution itself. Certainly the Declaration of Independence is the ultimate philosophical basis of our nation. The statement that the moral basis of our government (and indeed our society) is The Holy Bible will cause dissent today, but the founders would find no fault with it.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams

“I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable, in which the principles of Christianity have not a controlling influence." - James Madison

“Do not let anyone claim to be a true American if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics.” -George Washington

The founders based their morals in the belief of a Supreme Being, and likely had no inkling the day would come that masses of citizens have abandoned this concept. Can you doubt the strength of their faith in God when Deity is referenced four times in the Declaration of Independence and once even in the Constitution? Although being men of faith, they recognized the individual’s right to believe or not and worship as he sees fit. Thus the 1st Amendment prescriptions to neither establish nor prohibit free exercise of religion. For those among us who abstain from religion, or whose faith is based on other than The Holy Bible; I do not wish to impose it on you, but rather recommend it for its cultural and literary contribution to our nation. If for no other reason, so that when you see one of our members here at redstate refer in a reply to “Balaam’s Ass”, you will know he is not talking about a congressman’s posterior.

Are there other documents which guide us in maintaining the republic? I invite your response to this question. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and certainly his 2nd Inaugural Address bear scrutiny in this regard.

There are instances when we have succeeded in proper maintenance, such as when FDR was thwarted in packing the Supreme Court. I am sure you can list others of equal or greater import, and I invite you to do so.

As for failure to maintain, the instances that come readily to my mind this election season are those that occurred in the first half of the 20th Century, particularly in the Progressive Era. Three of the four amendments to the Constitution in this era are examples of egregious undermining of the concept of Federalism. I speak of the 16th Amendment, which gave us an income tax to enable further usurpations and depredations by the central government.

"To lay with one hand the power of government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it on favored individuals ... is none the less robbery because it is ... called taxation." - United States Supreme Court in Loan Association v. Topeka (1874)

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” - Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813 Edinburgh University)

I also refer you to the 17th Amendment, which further eroded the power of the states by removing the role of selection of U.S. Senators from the state legislatures. The 19th Amendment, which gave us Prohibition in an imposition of the good intentions of some upon all, contributed to the establishment of organized crime. There are many other unintended consequences which flowed from the excesses of Progressivism, chief of which is the Great Depression. The sin of Progressivism was not confined to one party; TR, Hoover, Wilson, and FDR all subscribed to its tenets. The Democrats like to blame Hoover as contributor to the Depression because of his Republicanism. His Progressivism was the real culprit, while FDR’s Progressivism deepened and prolonged the crisis.

Let me interject here that I have often heard moderates and proponents of the left fiercely deny they hold liberal or Socialist views. Those two labels have been used so often as epithets that they run from such characterization in order to hide their intentions. On the other hand, I have never heard one deny or shrink from the label of “progressive”. Perhaps because it seems so admirable, since the root word is “progress”. Who can be against progress, after all? Well fine, then! Let them embrace progress – the first definition of progress in my American Heritage Dictionary says: “movement toward a goal”. I will grant them their charming label as long as we get to scrutinize the goal they seek, and most importantly assign them the legacy of their forebears.

The Progressives of times past had an affinity to Fascism; if you doubt their connections I direct you to Three New Deals by Wolfgang Shivelbush and The Roosevelt Myth by John T. Flynn. Jonah Goldberg has further identified the Fascist strains in the modern Progressives with those of the past in Liberal Fascism. I don’t bring up Fascism in order to appeal to your prejudices or emotions, emotions are the province of the Progressives and those of the unconstrained vision. I appeal instead to your reason and discernment, to illustrate that the goals of our opponents are far removed from the goals of our founders and are incompatible with our goals as Conservatives. Emotion is a dangerous sentiment, and the unbridled emotion of the Progressives could well unleash excesses to rival the Jacobins of the French Revolution. I sense it in their rhetoric already.

I invite your comments, from all quarters. If you disagree or think me wrong, say so – and correct my error. If you agree, add to what little I have just contributed to our discourse and build up our brethren.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/24/congress-rips-greenspan-for-crisis/

Congress rips Greenspan for crisis
Ex-Fed chief concedes to 'flawed' faith in markets

---

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/24/kennedy-secretly-crafts-health-care-plan/

EXCLUSIVE: Kennedy secretly crafts health care plan
Turns 'cause of his life' into '09 bipartisan bill

---

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/24/beijing-pays-little-heed-to-rhetoric-in-us/

Beijing pays little heed to U.S. rhetoric
Sees stable ties after election

---

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/24/pension-rescue-chief-says-fund-ready-to-meet-crisi/

Pension-rescue fund seen as still strong

---

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/24/americans-driven-by-a-sense-of-history-may-boost-o/

ANALYSIS: Obama's 'firsts' may make history, and victory

---

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/24/congressional-races-tight-in-the-midwest/

Congressional races tight in the Midwest

---

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/24/good-old-joe-lifts-the-curtain/

PRUDEN: Good old Joe lifts the curtain

---

Maria Stainer
Assistant Managing Editor
Continuous News Desk
The Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com

Honolulu—In what could only be interpreted as a direct slap in the face of liberty, Senator Barack Obama, D-IL, has eyed Bill Ayers, putting him on a short list as his Homeland Security Chief.

The move came as Obama scurried to be with his ailing grandmother in Honolulu, as well as using any means possible to silence anyone that dares to speak out against his birthright as an American.

Bill Ayers Eyes As Obama's Homeland Security Chief

The political motto of John Murtha. Following the philosophy is paying off for him in the expected fashion:

Two veteran warriors battling to represent the 12th Congressional District appear locked in the closest race in the district in years.

Democratic Rep. John Murtha leads retired Army Lt. Col. William Russell by a little more than 4 percentage points, within the Susquehanna Poll's 4.9-point margin of error. The poll of 400 likely voters was conducted for the Tribune-Review on Tuesday, amid uproar over Murtha's statement that some of his constituents are racist.

Stanley Shemanski, 67, a retired meat cutter who lives in Apollo, said he's undecided about the congressional race. He doesn't know much about Russell, but he's upset with Murtha's comment that racism in the district could hurt Democrat Barack Obama's chances.

"I didn't like that at all. He shouldn't have said it," Shemanski said.

[. . .]

Russell moved to Johnstown within the past year. He said he decided to run after Murtha's 2006 statement that a Pentagon investigation into the deaths of Iraqi civilians in Haditha would show that Marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

Russell repeatedly has criticized Murtha for not apologizing for the remark after seven of the eight Marines charged in the killings were cleared of wrongdoing.

It would be sweet justice if Murtha lost. He is one of the most arrogant pork-barrelists in Congress and he has no filter between his brain and his mouth. Murtha has never been much of a statesman and these days, it is clear that he isn't much of a politician either.

About two years ago, as people will recall, Murtha's colleagues in the House Democratic Caucus rejected him for the position of Majority Leader despite the efforts of Nancy Pelosi to vault Murtha over the current Leader, Steny Hoyer. Now that we know that his fellow Democrats don't want any part of Murtha's "leadership" and now that we are seeing that increasingly, his own constituents are rebelling against the kind of representation--or lack thereof--that Murtha offers them, it is high time to put this old warhorse to pasture. He has stayed in Washington well past any period in which he was useful.

Why don't the Republicans ever make an issue about the heavy voter fraud that goes on in Philly every four years? This is well known and even some Deomocrats are willing to admit this. Some districts in the Philly area report more people voting then there really are and know one makes an issue of it. Now that's really sad! Ca any tell me what the plan is to prevent this from happening again this year?? If there is such plan. If the Democrats continue to launch their secret weapon, theft and fraud, then they may win Pennsylvania. They complain about voter fraud in republican areas but not when it benefits them.

More goodies to expect from a Democratic president and Congress:

-Elimination of tax breaks for 401(k)s in favor of a government system.

-Bailout for Obama's buddies in the ethanol industry. (Yes, this one comes from Bush's Agriculture Department...but just remember that McCain is Big Ethanol's least favorite Senator, while Obama is its favorite).

-Obama says that taxes are bad, so he has a plan to reduce state and local property taxes by sending $25 billion to state and local governments. He will get the $25 billion from...voluntary charitable donations?

-Eliminating year-end bonuses that provide the bulk of compensation to employees on Wall Street and the backbone of the tax base for New York State and City.

-A replay of the foreign policy blunders of the early Kennedy years all the way down to the management style.

H/t to Jason Pye

Hot off the presses:

Democratic Rep. John Murtha leads retired Army Lt. Col. William Russell by a little more than 4 percentage points, within the Susquehanna Poll's 4.9-point margin of error. The poll of 400 likely voters was conducted for the Tribune-Review on Tuesday, amid uproar over Murtha's statement that some of his constituents are racist...

About 54 percent of voters among those polled say it's time for someone else to represent them in Congress. About 35 percent say Murtha deserves to be re-elected.

"The most important variable here is that a decisive majority say it's time for a new person," said Jim Lee, president of Susquehanna Polling and Research. He attributed some of the unhappiness with Murtha to the congressman's recent comments.

It's tough to know how big a factor that is, though, because little attention had been paid to the race, Lee said. Political analysts didn't expect Murtha to be vulnerable.

Murtha's last few challengers didn't come close to toppling him. He won by more than 20 percentage points in 2006 against Washington County Commissioner Diana Irey. He was unopposed in 2004.

This year, according to the poll, it's different.

"This is clearly a winnable race for Russell," Lee said.

I'm disappointed that the article doesn't provide details on the poll, but a re-elect number of 35 percent means that Murtha right now is a dead man walking. You can be sure that the DCCC is about to rush money to western Pennsylvania to help a man who holds our armed services in contempt, thinks his constituents are racist, and who disgraced his office as far back as his involvement in Abscam. Help Lieutenant Colonel Russell retire Murtha by donating here.

Today Red State recognizes Sen. Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, who is pushing for a new "Fairness Doctrine." Should Barack Obama get himself elected, there will be, rather than checks and balances on a Democrat congress determined to bring radical change to this nation, a willing accomplice and cheerleader in the White House. Among the many new measures sure to be passed by the congress and signed into law by a President Obama will be the Doctrine.

We can already see what NBC's concept of "fairness" is on its cable news network MSDNC. It's all DNC talking points all the time, with the possible exception of one token "conservative" in the person of former U.S. Rep. Joe Scarborough. In that same spirit, Mainstream Conservative presents its own preview of internet life under the "Fairness Doctrine" by giving "equal time" to guest blogger Rev. Jeremiah "Che" Leftowitz, who explains why he is voting Democrat.

• JP

Why I am voting Democrat

I'm voting Democrat because I believe the federal government will do a better job of spending MY MONEY and YOURS than you and I would. I think when you spread the wealth around it is good for everybody! Why, it’s positively patriotic!

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. Profits are by definition evil and should be confiscated for redistribution by the federal government.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that MORE government regulations and higher taxes on business will stop business from exporting their jobs to countries with fewer government regulations and lower taxes.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe terrorists should be allowed to have trials in U.S. courts with the same rights as American citizens. Their ACLU lawyers should be able to subpoena top secret documents, soldiers, government officials, etc. to cross examine for their defense.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe gay marriage should be the law of the land and will be a positive influence in our society on the children of straight people who are so arrogant as to believe they can raise them by the teachings of the foolish superstitions they call "religious beliefs" and "moral codes."

I'm voting Democrat because I believe English should not be the official language of the United States. I don’t mind pushing one for English when I use the phone, and I don't mind the extra money which will be spent to convert all of our road signs and the like.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe partial birth abortion of an innocent infant is just fine, but water boarding a terrorist is a disgusting procedure.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe having a domestic terrorist like Bill Ayers as a friend, neighbor, co-worker and influence is a good thing. It's great practice for having cozy relations with foreign terrorists.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe in FREE government universal health care. I believe doctors, nurses, hospitals, drug companies, etc. will gladly make sacrifices in their time, products, services, facilities, etc. for a better system. I don't mind waiting for months or even years to see a doctor or get to the operating room. I believe the federal government has done such an outstanding job of everything else it has taken on that running a national health care system should be child's play for it.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe in and support trial lawyers, frivolous lawsuits and outrageous jury verdicts. I don't believe the court system has enough demands on it, and it should be able to handle to increased load with no problems.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe 9/11 was an inside job to con the American people to go to war for oil. Just look at all the oil we've gotten out of it so far!

I'm voting Democrat because I believe Social Security is solvent and will remain so, thanks to that Social Security lock box. I don’t for a moment believe that Social Security is a ponzi scheme.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe MOST AMERICANS are bitter and cling to their guns and religion. Let’s rid our country of the bitterness by ridding it of guns and religion! Then we can all have the cheerful and optimistic attitude displayed by Michelle Obama.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe illegal aliens deserve all the rights of ordinary Americans, plus some additional rights Americans do not have. Let's open the borders and let everybody in! Our federal treasury is just bulging with enough cash to pay their bills until they get on their feet.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe all of those evil corporations should pay higher taxes. I believe higher taxes on business will make the price of their products and services LESS EXPENSIVE and creates more jobs.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe groups like ACORN who register felons, drug addicts, winos, homeless drifters, illegal aliens, dead people, children, fictional Disney characters, etc. makes my vote count more and is a tribute to all that the Founders risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe celebrating the winter solstice shows compassion for the small minority of those who do not celebrate Christmas.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe hard core murderers and rapists deserve life and that the innocent unborn deserve death. It’s a choice I can live with.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe Bush caused Hurricane Katrina and he blew-up the levies in the ninth ward of New Orleans.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that anyone who is not partaking in one of the many wonderful programs the federal government provides obviously has too much money and should pay higher taxes.

I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq the terrorists will be happy and now think of us as good people. We will not have reason to fear any further harm from them.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe our soldiers are AIR RAIDING villages and killing innocent people.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe China and Russia should be allowed to build up their military forces and weapons systems while we cut back on ours. We have no reason to fear them.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe sex in the Oval Office with an intern is a private matter and that everybody lies under oath about sex.

I'm votin Demokrat becuse I wus edumkated at a publick sckrool. I tink th Natsionel Edukatshun Assoseeashun haz maid owr sckrools bettur!

I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as it does not offend people. Can’t we all just get along?

I'm voting Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits are wrong. I believe higher taxes on oil companies will produce lower prices at the pump.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe we need to rid ourselves of dependency on foreign oil, but I am AGAINST offshore drilling for oil and natural gas, drilling in ANWR, building nuclear power plants and clean coal technology. Cuba should be allowed to drill for oil off the coast of Florida, but Amerika should not. they won't harm the fish or spoil the beaches, but we will. In the same spirit, Russia should be allowed to drill in the Artic, but we should not. They won't harm the polar bears, but we will.

And finally, I'm voting Democrat because I believe Rev. Wright when he said “G#DD#MN AMERICA” and “OUR CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST”. Hey, chickens are animals, so they have rights too! Besides, after the federal government is through picking our pockets, all we will have left is chicken feed.

Why are you voting Democrat?