Conventional Wisdom--Democrats will win the White House in 2008 in a landslide, increasing their majority in the House and picking up the seats needed to end the filibusters in the Senate.
Just makes you want to hide under a rock--I would say leave the country, but that is a Liberal reaction...after all, where would a true conservative go? Anywhere else in the capitalist world is much more Socialist than the US...we really have no choice but to stay (even with Hillary riding a Socialist wave into the White House)! I just wish the whackos that suffer from BDS (see last post--Bush Derangement Syndrome) would have been true to their word and left... we would be so much better off without them...
So, is the CW correct?
There are many reasons why I believe that it may not be a fait accompli--thank the Good Lord--however, I will look at just one now. My homestate of Ohio, in all of its purple splendor!
The magic number is 17...
Seventeen electoral votes switch, we have a tie in 2004, more than 17, Dems win.
So, let's look at the map. Which states are likely in play? Well, let's start with the ones which are most unlikely to move:
DEMS
The following 9 states had at least a 10 percentage point Democrat lead in 2004 (in declining order): DC, MA, RI, VT, NY, MD, CA, IL, and CT
Total: 146 EVs
The following 6 states had between a 4 and 10 percentage point Democrat lead in 2004 (in declining order): HI, ME, WA, DE, NJ,and OR
Total: 44 EVs
REPS
The following 22 states had at least a 10 percentage point Republican lead in 2004 (in declining order): UT, WY, ID, NE, OK, AK, ND, AL, KS, TX, SD, IN, KY, MS, MT, GA, SC, LA, TN, WV, NC, and AZ
Total: 183 EVs
The following 5 states had between a 4 and 10 percentage point Republican lead in 2004 (in declining order): VA, AR, MO, FL, and CO
Total: 66 EVs
THESE WILL NOT BE IN PLAY!!! (there are two possible, but unlikely, exceptions, both of which are not good for Dems--if Guliani is the nominee NJ and CT could be in play )
That leaves 9 states that were within 3 percentage points of switching
MN +3D, 10 EV
PA +2D, 21 EV
MI +2D, 17 EV
WI +1D, 10 EV
NH +1D, 4 EV
NM +1R, 5 EV
IA +1R, 7 EV
OH +2R, 20 EV
NV +3R, 5 EV
Republican states on the brink carry 37 electoral votes--but OHIO is the only one that matters. Even if the Dems keep all the states they carried in 04 and pick up NM, IA, and NV...they can only get an electoral tie (a whole new analysis needed here...).
Now, a Guliani nomination puts PA into play big time, and a Romney nomination puts NH into play as well...so, the chance for an electoral tie is minimized.
It comes down to Ohio--the Buckeye State. On the surface, this seems to be great news for the Democrat party. The Republican brand name there has been badly harmed--and is compounded by the State party's self-inflicted wounds. The combination led to a near-Democratic sweep in 2006 (the Republican candidate for State Auditor was the lone GOP winner statewide, and he took less than 51% of the vote).
So, why am I so optimistic at this point in time (and it is way to early to say that this is difinitive)? Well, I recently read about some polling in Ohio. According to the National Review Online Campaign Spot (emphasis added):
"Rasmussen's latest numbers in Ohio have some bright spots for Thompson, and generally a better outlook for the GOP than one might expect:
Forty-eight percent (48%) of Ohio voters have a favorable opinion of Clinton while 50% have a negative view. On the Republican side, McCain is viewed favorably by 54%. Favorables for both Giuliani and Thompson total 53% while Romney earns positive reviews from 43%. Just 38% have an unfavorable view of Thompson while negative ratings for the other GOP candidates are in the low-to-mid forties . . . Rudy Giuliani and John McCain both “lead” Clinton in Ohio by a statistically insignificant two percentage point margin. Fred Thompson is tied with the Democratic frontrunner while Clinton leads Mitt Romney by eight points. If the Republicans have managed to keep Ohio as competitive today as it was in 2004 (when Bush won by just over 2%), the party is in much better shape than anyone - even the most wild-eyed optimists - have imagined.
Hmmm...
I'll let you ponder this...of course, this is so early as to not really matter much at this point. However, I do believe that the Democrats do not have a lock...Hillary's negatives are just too high. I cannot see how someone with such high negatives can gain enough support to change the electoral map.
In a recent post ("On Genocide and Subterfuge of Democrats" ), my dear brother weighed in with his opinion. John and I will rarely agree on anything (as anyone that knows us will testify); however, I believe that he has contracted a severe case of "Bush Derangement Syndrome" (the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency—nay—the very existence of George W. Bush--see Wikipedia Bush Derangement Syndrome) .
I really have a hard time understanding BDS...
Yes, I admit, I was very critical of the Clinton administration from 1993-2001; however I was able to see President Clinton as a human being (seriously flawed)--not some Incarnation of Evil. I disagreed with many of his policies and viewpoints, but they were just that, disagreements--not some devious plan to undermine the Constitution. Heck, I ameven able to give him props on some things (of course, I believe that most of these that would make a list would be ones that he was dragged kicking and screaming to after the "Republican Revolution of 1994").
My brother's latest incantation--"C'mon...this president wants nothing more than to keep this war going so that he can line the pockets of his friends and family. He is a coward and should be brought up on war crimes." Hmmmm....
Evidence? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Line the pockets of his friends and family. How does the war do this?
Oh, wait...I forgot...
The magic word--HALIBURTON!
Brought up on war crimes...hmmm which war crimes are these? Be careful when answering--most laws of war pertain to REGULAR military (ie uniformed members of a state militia).
Two recent submissions to the list of BDS show me it is alive and well:
During a debate on SCHIP expansion Thursday, Representative Pete Stark (D-CA) showed symptoms of BDS when he said the following on the House floor: "You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."
ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS (of course he apologized yesterday).
And my new favorite: The reaction of the federal government to the wildfires in California compared to the reaction to Katrina shows that the administration is racist!
Really, seek some treatment...
On Wednesday the Indians were up three games to one with one more at home...
--The Tribe had not lost three in a row since mid-August
--In the 65 times that there has been a 3-1 lead in a LCS, only 10 times had there been a comeback
--Momentum was on our side, we just needed to win one--ONE LOUSY GAME
Thirty BoSox runs later...
Good Grief!!
Now on top of The Drive (Browns--1987), The Fumble (Browns--1988), The Shot (Cavs--1989), and The Move (Browns--1996), The Bouncer (Indians--1997), comes a new entry: The Collapse.
It has been 10 years since our last trip to the big dance in 1997, and 59 years since we won the Fall Classic--only the Cubbies have waited longer.
On the positive side, we are a young team in ascendency--we should dominate the Central for the next few years. Maybe 60 years of waiting will be it...
For now, I am just left with the four immortal words (sour tasting as they are)...
What?
You think I am talking about
"There's always next year"
No...the four words echoing through Public Square, the Terminal Tower, across E. 9th Street, through the Jake, across the Cuyahoga and above the wide expanse of Lake Erie--
LET KENNY RUN HOME!!!
Dammit!
On October 10, the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee voted 27-21 passing House Resolution 106 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.res.106:), recognizing the Armenian Genocide of 1915 (more information can be found at http://www.genocide1915.info/).
On the surface, this seems to be the right thing to do. After all, man's inhumanity to man should be subject to the light of truth and it is through our full understanding of history that we may avoid the doom of repetition.
However...
Did you know that there is a long history of our recognition of the Armenian Genocide, including resolutions from Congress, statements of presidents (including the current President), and diplomatic actions in the UN (see findings in the resolution, especially #2, 3, 9-13, 17, 20-25, 27-29).
So...
Why is the House once again bringing this to the floor over 80 years later?
Answer, they are using the suffering of the Armenian people in the past as a strategy to undermine the war in Iraq. What an inhumane use of such a terrible part of history--to forward their subterfuge and deceitful actions. They are unwilling to address their grievances directly (see last post on Hate Crimes) because they fear the electorate, so they find some backdoor way to do what they want...be damned who or what they use and the moral depravity they show in the use of these people.
The current Turkish government does not recognize the Armenian Genocide--BIG DEAL!!! It is generally accepted and recognized throughout the world, and also by former regimes of the Turkish government. The post-World War I Turkish Government indicted the top leaders involved in the `organization and execution' of the Armenian Genocide and in the `massacre and destruction of the Armenians' and in a series of courts-martial, officials of the Young Turk Regime were tried and convicted, as charged, for organizing and executing massacres against the Armenian people.
The US government does not recognize its part in genocide either--in fact, we only signed the international treaty on genocide--the CPPCG (Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide)--with the proviso that no claim of genocide could be brought against the US at the International Court of Justice without its consent. Under the definitions of the CPPCG, the US Government is guilty of the Genocide of Native Americans. I see no resolution in the House to recognize this...
So, the current regime does not recognize the genocide--why bring it up now and put pressure on Turkey?
Answer: The Dems don't like the war in Iraq, but are unwilling to cut funding (the only option available to Congress after a declaration of war that does not take a 2/3rds majority. The other options--peace treaty (2/3 of Senate) and impeachment (1/2 of House, but 2/3 of Senate needed for removal) take super majorities that ARE NOT POLITICALLY VIABLE AT THIS TIME), so we will act with subterfuge and damage the war effort another way.
This is a dishonorable way to undermine the war effort. It is morally reprehensible to use the victims of such a crime in order to get their way. If this passes the House and causes Turkey to rescind its cooperation in the logistical support for the war, the blood of countless soldiers will be on the hands of the Democrats.
First, some housecleaning:
It seems that my posts are averaging twice a week instead of my hoped-for three times a week. I will endeavor to stick to the Monday-Wednesday schedule and add Fridays when possible.
What a wonderful two game series so far. The Cleveland Indians and the Boston Red Sox share the distinction of having the "Best Record in Baseball", finishing the season at 96 wins and 66 losses (.593). Cleveland and Boston split the first two games of the ALCS, just as I thought they would. I believe that Cleveland will take two of the next three games at home (I would love three, but I am a realist) and return to Boston up 3-2. I think we win game 6 and go on to take on the Rockies.
It is high time for the Indians to win the World Series...Our last shot in 1997 against the Marlins was lost by about 1 inch in Game 7 when Marilin shortstop Edgar Renteria hit a bouncer over the pitcher's head. The ball skipped off Charlie Nagy's glove, up the middle and into center field for a hit. One inch lower, Nagy fields it and gets the out at first (or at home), third out, Indians and Marlins go into the 12th inning (of course, no guarantee we win, but...).
In 1997, I was blessed to be able to attend not only the All-Star game (where Sandy Alomar scored the game-winning home run--wow! what a rush!!!), but I also got tickets to the World Series (Game 5, where I got to witness Sandy hitting a three-run home run in the 3rd but just missed another homer in the 9th when he hit to deep right...this would have won the game driving in the go-ahead run.
This is the fourth ALCS the Indians have been in since 1969 when the LCS began (1995, 1997, 1998, and 2007)--winning twice. The Indians have been in five World Series (winning in 1920 and 1948 and losing in 1954, 1995 and 1997). It has been ten years since the Marlin's debacle. It has been 59 years since we have won the Fall Classic, only the Cubbies have waited longer (1908). It is our turn!!
Casper, WY - September 27, 2007 - The Matthew Shepard Foundation applauds today’s passage of the historic Matthew Shepard Act -- inclusive federal hate crimes legislation.
“Today’s Senate vote sends a bold and unmistakable message that violent crimes committed in the name of hate must end,” said Judy and Dennis Shepard, Matthew Shepard’s parents. “The Matthew Shepard Act is an essential step to erasing hate in America and we are humbled that it bears our son’s name. It has been almost nine years since Matthew was taken from us. This bill is a fitting tribute to his memory and to all of those who have lost their lives to hate.”
You have got to be kidding me!
There was nothing bold about the message that the Senate sent on 9/27, but the message was indeed unmistakable...The message was "this legislation cannot stand on its own so we will add it to the Department of Defense Authorization Bill." ???Huh??? What does this piece of legislation have to do with defense authorization?? Of course, the Dems that support this attached this as an amendment in the hopes that the President would not veto a defense authorization bill. Really? I think he will when such unrelated pap is added to legislation. This is why I think there needs to be HUGE reform in Congress as to how legislation is passed. It is also why I support (and always have) a Presidential Line Item Veto (which I believe is inherent--another subject for another time).
As for the MSA--it is not "an essential step to erasing hate in America". No piece of legislation will ever be able to do that. All it does (and any other hate-crimes legislation as well) is gives special consideration to a population. THIS SHOULD NOT BE TOLERABLE IN A SOCIETY WHICH PURPORTS TO SUPPORT EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW!! How is it equitable that if I were to assult and kill a gay man and have "hate" (a very interesting, subjective concept--how is it proven legally?) toward homosexuals that my crime is worth more punishment than if I assulted and killed a straight man? Is the straight man's life worth less than the gay man's? No? Isn't that what the difference in sentencing is implying? Why use a different criteria for one group and not another? This is discriminatory on its surface.
What will qualify as hate? Would my strident stand for protecting the traditional definition of marriage be used as 'evidence' of hate? Would my religious views which classify homosexual acts as sinful be used as 'evidence' of hate? It seems very arbitrary to me.
I hope that this Senate amendment falls off during the conference. If not, I will fully support a Presidential veto of the measure. Enough playing around...if you want this legislation, introduce it on its own merits and pass it as free-standing legislation. You will at least get my admiration for standing up for your beliefs instead of hiding and sneaking around.
Last week I told you that my first subject would be the quote from the Senator's wife, "We are living in a time where we are suffering from a deep empathy deficit."
It turns out that this was not her quote, but a repetition of one of her husband's go-to lines in his stump speech. "There's a lot of talk in this country about the federal deficit. But I think we should talk more about our empathy deficit - the ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes; to see the world through those who are different from us - the child who's hungry, the laid-off steelworker, the immigrant woman cleaning your dorm room.
As you go on in life, cultivating this quality of empathy will become harder, not easier. There's no community service requirement in the real world; no one forcing you to care. You'll be free to live in neighborhoods with people who are exactly like yourself, and send your kids to the same schools, and narrow your concerns to what's going in your own little circle."
So, do we suffer from an "empathy deficit"?
The Senator maintains that this deficit is seen in the lack of government support for the programs that offer relief to those in need. Of course he would look at this instead of the facts.
Americans are the most-generous people in the world...Americans gave almost $300 billion to charity in 2006, setting a new all-time record for generosity. The showing was particularly impressive given that 2005's results benefited from a surge in donations related to Hurricane Katrina and the tsunami in Asia. (2006's results were effected by Warren Buffett's record setting pledge to the Gates Foundation).
Senator Obama (and most Dems) wants to expand the welfare state, to rely on the government for the provision of these benefits. However, there is a great deal of risk involved in this.
First--there is the risk of people reacting to the increased burden of taxation with the attitude of "I gave at the office". Remember, Ebenezer Scrooge's retort to the men seeking to collect for charity:
“...A few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned—they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.”
Forced charity is not the way to go.
Second--increases to taxation will put downward pressure on the economy, and giving historically tracks the health of the overall economy.
According to the Associated Press:
Giving historically tracks the health of the overall economy, with the rise amounting to about one-third the rise in the stock market, according to Giving USA. Last year was right on target, with a 3.2 percent rise as stocks rose more than 10 percent on an inflation-adjusted basis.
Just like almost every other social problem that the government tries to solve, the results of the "War on Poverty" has been a massive disaster. After $7 billion of wasted expenditures (more than twice the cost of World War II!), the number of official poor remains fairly constant.
Human Events has an excellent article on the failure of the "War on Poverty": http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16860, and
the Heritage Foundation has an article which puts the plight of the poor into perspective: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1221.cfm
I believe that what the Senator is talking about is true at some level. Per capita charitable giving among Americans is lower today than during the Great Depression. During the height of the Great Depression, charitable giving averaged 3.3 percent of annual income. It is now at 2% (however, add to that the cost of taxes to support the federal, state, and local programs--is it possible that we are still near the Great Depression levels???). I believe that we are seeing some of the Scrooge attitude with a large proportion of our money forced from our hands to support suspect government programs. "I support those programs (through taxation), they cost enough, the poor must go there".
During the Depression, we did not have federal programs (and few state and local programs) supported by taxation to help those in need, and a funny thing happened. Individuals stepped up and helped their family, friends, neighbors, and even strangers. Even with the huge problem of unemployment and poverty, starvation was not a problem in the 30's. This is not to say that times were not hard and there was not widespread hunger, but many charities filled the gap and provided the needed assistance. The first government programs didn't come on line until nearly four years after the Depression began.
There is another telling signal that our tax burden is hindering our ability to be our brother's keeper..."Many middle class families may believe themselves "too poor" to be charitable. Yet we see those with much more meager incomes are still finding the means and the will to give. Americans who earn less than $20,000 per year have one of the highest charitable giving-to-income ratios of any group in United States. These Americans clearly disprove the notion that charitable giving is the sole purview of the wealthy. " (from Crosswalk.com)
Americans who earn less than $20K are also exempt (for the most part) from taxes. Coincidence?
So, yes, we do have a deficit of sorts. But Senator Obama and other Democrats will find themselves unable to address it since their 'cures' will only worsen the symptoms. We need to free ourselves from the shackles of over-taxation in order to allow us to become more generous. Forced giving is not the solution.
One other thought...would you give to a charity with an overhead cost of more than 60%? This is a very conservative estimate of the cost for providing benefits from the federal government--it is likely only 25 cents of each dollar going to the programs which goes to the direct assistance of those the programs were meant to help. I personally would never voluntarily donate to such a "charity"...in fact, I would hope that the charity would be investigated and shut down.
Here we go!
Thank you for taking time to check out my blog. I have intended to begin this for several months, but have been a little trepidatious about several things, not the least of which is what should I write about and for whom will I be writing. As I am certain that you are intelligent (after all, you are here!), I will dispense with the preliminary introductions and trust that my profile provides enough background. I am sure you will get a clearer picture of me and my views as this blog begins to take shape.
So, what is to be expected from this blog? Well, there are a plethora of subjects which pique my interest, among which are politics, current events, religion, economics, and others. This has been the single largest factor interfering with the beginning of this blog. I have so many issues I would like to investigate through this process through sharing my opinions and beliefs, as well as inviting discussion to help in the development of new understanding, that I have been procrastinating. It will be hard to choose the major topics of interest with which I will begin; however, I will endeavor to be reliable and predictable in my postings--planning to post initially three times a week on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
I hope that you will bear with me as I begin this process and shake out the bugs; I will try to keep it current and interesting. If I am successful in being interesting, please let others know about the blog. Thank you again for spending your time, and I will see you on Friday. I think I have a first subject--the "empathy deficit". Michelle Obama was quoted yesterday saying, "We are living in a time where we are suffering from a deep empathy deficit."
