The Great Hope

The Clintons have bet the primary election on Americans being racist. In case anyone missed it, they began emphasizing the fact that Senator Obama is black. Who knew?

Typical of liberals, they played the race card in South Carolina. They blamed Hillary’s crushing defeat on black voters casting their ballots for Senator Obama only because he is black. They are correct. The black electorate took the opportunity to vote for the first viable black Democratic presidential hopeful.

If Senator Obama was a Republican running in the general election, many traditional black Democrats would cross party lines to vote for him.

It’s natural and predictable to be self-serving. That is how everyone votes. How many evangelicals voted for Governor Huckabee? How many Mormons will vote for Governor Romney? And how many Catholics voted for Kennedy because he was a Catholic?

The Clintons inferred that whites will shun Obama because he is black. Therefore he cannot win the general election. They submit that the Democrats will be defeated if Senator Obama wins the primary election because Americans are racists first and foremost.

The Democrats have played the race card for fifty years. They thrive on racism. They need racism. Most all their social initiatives insinuate that blacks need special protection. The Democrats need blacks to feel dependent—to feel helpless.

In truth, the Democrats have convinced blacks that Americans judge everyone by the color of their skin. The Congressional Black Caucus is a shining example of the Democratic strategy.

It’s emblematic of the Democratic “them vs. us” mentality that pigeon holes blacks as victims.

By promoting racism, the liberals have smothered black opportunity. And that is exactly what the Clintons are doing now.

If Obama is elected, the Democratic Party will be left in shambles. His election would dispel the myth the liberals have perpetuated for decades—that whites overwhelmingly reject other races, especially blacks.

Americans aren’t racists, they are realists. They judge people on their initiative, their values, their moral code, their principles, their education and their success. Senator Obama and his family are a class act. The vast majority of Americans would welcome them to their neighborhood, to their dinner table.

Senator Obama can’t win the primary race without white support. Let’s hope he wins. The greatest benefit his nomination would bring to America is stirring the faith of blacks in themselves. And that’s what is standing between all of us and the end of the race conversation.

Senator Obama is the great hope of white and black Americans. Were he not a tax-and-spend socialist, inexperienced, pro-amnesty and naïve about terrorism, he would win the general election in a landslide. And the recent Kennedy endorsement suggests he will be dragged into the bitterness of the old Democratic alliance.

Were he a Republican, this nation would flourish for eight years.

America and Iraq

The Florida GOP debate held January 22, 2008 was mildly informative.

Senator McCain wobbled on his record, Mayor Giuliani all but eliminated himself from contention, Governor Huckabee reinforced his humanity, and Governor Romney had his best performance to date.

Much to the chagrin of the CNN post-debate pundits, Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman, it was obvious the candidates had made a pact to cage the personal attacks and concentrate on the issues.

The post analysis was more revealing than the debate.

These two leftwing hatchet men were thrilled with the unanimous consensus of the candidates to stay the course in Iraq. With six out of ten Americans opposed to the War, they heralded the candidates’ position as the reason the Republicans would loose in the general election.

Matthews was so gleeful, he questioned and concluded that the presidential hopefuls had left themselves no wiggle room to backtrack. He is absolutely confident that the voters will reject any candidate that supports the merits of a stable Iraq.

Typical of the virulent leftwing crowd, they interpret the poll results as a backlash against all things President George W. Bush. Their hatred is so consuming, they can’t discern the difference between retiring from the battlefield as winners or losers.

Granted, Americans aren’t sure if Iraq was the place this country should have drawn a line in the sand.

But the majority of Americans don’t want the conflict to end with an unconditional surrender to the terrorists. They want terrorism crushed. They may hate the War, but they hate the Islamic Jihadists even more.

Say what you want about most Americans—they don’t prize defeat. Americans aren’t built that way.

It’s a giant leap to believe the poll indicates that Americans are ready to retreat in defeat. Like the success of General Petraeus’ surge, this ignores America’s resiliency and its steadfast refusal to be intimidated or quit.

Senator Clinton’s about face on staying the course in Iraq and Senator Obama’s head-in-the-sand approach to terrorism reek of intimidation. They prefer appeasement; they prefer quitting to winning.

The leftwing pundits, such as Matthews and Fineman, are so inured to the philosophy of rewarding failure, they can’t imagine Americans seeing the difference between winning and losing.

Economic Vampires

The word recession is galloping into the political dialogue. The presidential candidates on both sides of the political spectrum will soon be jockeying for the title of fiscal policy savior.

Even a hint of bad news on the economic front historically helps the party sitting on the sidelines. But this time the equation is different. On this issue, the Democrats are up to their noses in “shared responsibility” with the lingering President George W. Bush.

The Democrats won control of Congress in 2006. With the leftwing’s undying gratitude, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid embarked on an anti-business, anti-wealth, anti-private enterprise campaign.

They blocked the Bush tax cuts from becoming permanent, kicked the AMT quagmire down the street, ignored the looming Medicare and Social Security crises and treated energy independence as an environmental stepchild.

While voicing opposition to the US trade policies, they worked their little hearts out to grant amnesty and entitlements to 12 to 20 million illegal aliens. Then they increased the minimum wage. At best, it compensated for the negative wage spiral created by the cheap, illegal labor pouring across our southern border.

In their spare time, they stuffed $15 billion worth of earmarks into appropriation bills, convened over three hundred investigative committees, attempted to give illegal aliens under the age of twenty-five free medical care, blocked an English Only amendment and surreptitiously tried to remove any reference of God from government documents.

When combined with their thirty attempts to undermine the US military in the Middle East and US electronic intelligence gathering at home, close Gitmo, turn Turkey into a US adversary, they rocked the nation.

Consumer confidence is tanking, unemployment is increasing, grocery and energy costs are soaring and the Middle Class is hemorrhaging.

Americans are alarmed and angry. It’s almost humorous that talk of a recession in 2007 put the Democratic presidential candidates in an awkward position.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have been clamoring for more and fatter entitlements, punishing business and federalizing healthcare. And they are pro-amnesty. Their solutions unanimously begin and end with tax increases.

It requires little imagination to see how their tax prescriptions would further cripple the US economy. It requires no imagination to see that either candidate would eagerly work in concert with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to build a colossal entitlement constituency.

Here comes the hypocrisy of historic proportions. Within forty-five days the socialist dominated Congress and both Democratic contenders will sign on to a temporary tax cut to spur the economy. They know lower taxes will strengthen it.

The Democrats will wait until winning the Oval Office to suck the last drop of blood from America’s workers. The election of Clinton or Obama will usher in the Age of Economic Vampires.

First Victim Status

The primary campaign of Senator Clinton is flailing about because the contest doesn’t center on issues. It would be a challenge to find more than a modicum of difference between her and Senator Obama’s stances on taxation, immigration, economic solutions, healthcare or energy.

Thus, the foundation of her message is rooted in gender and Senator Obama’s is linked to ethnicity. Both are jockeying for the status of First Victim.

Senator Clinton portrays herself as a symbol—a gender model—whose election will free all the oppressed women. Her motto: “You can wear a skirt and not eat dirt.”

Senator Obama’s appeal is more subtle, “I am black, so don’t attack.” This message gives him a well honed edge in the conflict.

Bill and Hillary have an advantage in a take-no-prisoners contest. They are experts at digging in the mud. These two are masters of the ruthless use of surrogates to besmirch their opponents, and they can walk the line of plausible deniability shackled and blindfolded.

But the personal attacks have backfired. The party of affirmative action and diversity won’t tolerate criticism of a black person. Hillary is being hung out to dry on political correctness, the horse she intended to ride into the Oval Office.

She can’t complain because she used the same tactic to undermine her white adversaries—accusing them of ganging up on a little woman during the debates.

Once the mask of inevitability tarnished, the Clinton machine attacked Obama’s lack of experience. This is akin to a turtle comparing its speed to a snail.

Hillary’s credentials are at best vicarious. They’re based on being the wife of an ex-president. Her husband’s reputation as a serial philanderer suggests they spent little time together. It’s difficult to believe they even shared a morning cup of coffee. Her claim of experience is an empty bag.

Senator Obama is getting the free ride that Hillary expected. This darling, young man has snagged the hearts and minds of the national media and the other members of the Democrats’ leftwing constituency. Oh how they love oppressed, wealthy Harvard graduates.

But don’t be deceived. Hillary’s coronation by the Democratic Party is still on track. The majority of its members understand that Senator Obama is a long shot to win the general election. The attributes that have propelled him unto the national stage by the Democrats will be mitigated by their desire to win.

A national contender—even a black Democrat—needs more than a pretty face and great rhetoric to win the presidency. The candidate must have a substantive message and experience beyond a few months in the Senate.

The majority of Democrats, whether it’s just perception, or not, believe Senator Clinton has a better chance of winning in November, 2008. They’re not prepared to loose the election for the sake of defending the sanctity of political correctness.

Reserve Your Sympathy

The state of Michigan is in an economic freefall. The deterioration of its financial system is a shining example of government overregulation, over taxation and the enforcement of right-to-work laws.

The state’s unemployment is the highest in the nation at 7.4%, and its residents are bailing out at the fastest pace in the nation. For every two residents that escape Michigan, only one enters. Including births and the onslaught of impoverished illegal aliens, its population grew a paltry .1%.

This explains why housing prices are plummeting. There is a good chance Michigan will lead the nation in 2008 for having the fastest decline in property values—and the most bank foreclosures per capita.

Like all the top ten states with the highest taxes and uncontrolled spending, Michigan’s residents are experiencing income growth about one-third less, and about one-half the job growth as the ten states with the fastest growing economies.

Michigan is a perfect example of big government’s willingness to defy gravity. To compensate for the declining revenues from state income and property taxes, the crack Democratic troops that manage the state, legislated a $1.4 billion tax increase on businesses.

Of course, this liberal version of an economic solution is a Ponzi Scheme. The scheme works until it runs out of new investors to feed the growth of government.

This is what is happening in Michigan. Business and the productive members of society are abandoning the state. The state is collapsing under the weight of taxation. It’s running out of people and things to tax.

No one would complain if the state government just collapsed on itself. But it doesn’t work that way. Everyone sinks with it; everyone is harmed except the entrenched bureaucrats. The state’s bloated bureaucracy—the non-productive segment of society—won’t suffer any deprivation.

Michigan is a microcosm of the Democratic blueprint for the future of all America. All of its presidential candidates are demanding higher taxes on business, the wealthy and greater regulation of the economic engine driving growth.

The left’s need for greater tax revenues is unquenchable. It’s what keeps the entitlement engine afloat. And entitlements keep the Democrats afloat.

Must people have suffered hard times. It’s natural to be sympathetic to the plight of Michigan’s citizens. But sympathy is elastic. It constricted when the victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans re-elected that scoundrel, Mayor Ray Nagin.

If Michigan goes Democratic in the fall election, they get what they deserve. So reserve your sympathy.

Please note: The statistics were assembled by Michael D. LaFaive, Director of the Morey Fiscal Policy Initiative at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

The Perfect Democrat

It’s an established fact that Senator McCain and his soul mate, Senator Kennedy, pushed every congressional button in their quest to grant amnesty to all illegal aliens. Now that McCain is a Republican presidential contender, he dismisses his heralded effort as a mistake.

In last week’s presidential debate in South Carolina he blamed the electorate’s revolt against any form of amnesty on their mistrust of the government. He claimed—with good cause—they didn’t trust the government to close the border.

Mr. Straight Talk didn’t flip flop when he voiced his willingness to stop illegal immigration at the border. He simply acquiesced to the pressure because he wants to be president. And he is a man of his word.

If elected, he will stem the flow of illegal immigrants through better border security. Then President McCain and his friends on the Democratic side of the aisle will immediately grant amnesty to the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens already here.

Blanket amnesty will suck about $2 trillion out of the taxpayers’ pockets for additional entitlements, education and medical care. This is music to the leftwing’s ear. Senator McCain is the kind of fiscal conservative they can put their arms around.

The Democrats and liberal Independents understand this. That’s one of the reasons they will vote for McCain in Michigan and why they voted for him in New Hampshire. A McCain win undermines the real Republican candidates.

McCain’s vote against the Bush tax cuts also endeared the liberals to him. He is their kind of Republican. He now espouses making these cuts permanent. A flip flop? Not if he changes his mind after being elected.

Both his Republican supporters and the liberals see McCain as a unifier. And these same Republicans believe he is the best candidate to defeat Senator Clinton or Senator Obama in the general election.

The liberals also see him as a man who can stop the partisan bickering that has brought the country to a political standstill. But keep in mind that a liberal’s definition of bi-partisanship is the endorsement of socialism by the opposition.

What does the liberals’ love of McCain tell us?

He has a long history of pulling the Democrat’s wagon. That is why all the leftwing media outlets, such as the Boston Globe and New York Times, endorse him. The Democrats perceive—rightly so—that he is a conservative liberal.

If McCain wins the Republican nomination, nominally, there will be two Democrats running for president in the national election. His nomination is win-win for the Democrats.

On the major issues there isn’t a nickels worth of difference between him and Senator Clinton. And if history is any predictor, this surrogate Democrat will quickly fall in step with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid.

If McCain is selected there is no reason for a conservative or moderate to vote in the fall election.

New Hampshire and Senator McCain

The results of the primary election in New Hampshire are in the history books.

Senator Clinton has a checkmark in the win column despite the polls showing that she would be slapped around without mercy.

What happened? The Independents in New Hampshire—mostly liberals masquerading as free thinkers—confident in an Obama landslide, cast their votes for their second favorite “Democrat,” Senator McCain.

In many ways McCain’s win reeks of a vote against a non-contestant, President Bush, an opportunity the liberals won’t get in the general election. Hillary should send Senator McCain and President Bush thank you notes for siphoning away Obama votes.

Granted this is conjecture, but would anyone be shocked if Senator Clinton invited McCain to run on her ticket? With the nation angry at the partisan intransigence in Washington, it would be a brilliant political move. If he acquiesced “for the sake of unity,” it would guarantee her coronation and be sweet revenge for him.

In fairness, Senator Clinton’s political organization came through for her. She landed the traditional Democrats.

Of course, the citizens of any state that selects her as the Democratic standard bearer will be accused of being covert racists by the leftwing fanatics. They believe Senator Obama’s lack of experience and troops on the ground were/are irrelevant.

In truth, he earned a serious chance because he is an admirable man. But a white person with his credentials would never have made it to the podium. His candidacy reeks of affirmative action, albeit understandable because he is a class act. On merit alone, he still has a good chance of winning.

Senator McCain’s win in New Hampshire carries a bit more gravity than Governor Huckabee’s win in Iowa. Granted, the Senator landed the majority of Republican votes, but many of these votes were spurred by nostalgia and New England’s old Yankee stubbornness.

Governor Huckabee may win the contest in South Carolina, but his and Senator Edward’s names are now just footnotes in the 2008 election. New Hampshire narrowed the race to five candidates.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will duke it out for the Democrats. The Republican race is still between Mayor Giuliani and Governor Romney with McCain as the wild card.

The coming race in Michigan could tip the scales. If Romney looses to McCain in his birth state, where his family has a strong and honorable political history, the odds of a Giuliani win will grow exponentially. If McCain wins in Michigan, we will have to wait for Super Tuesday in February to determine the winners.

If Governor Romney wins in Michigan, he will face Senator Clinton in the fall contest. If Senator McCain is still around, he will be running as Hillary’s vice president. He’ll look great standing between Hillary and his good friend, Senator Kennedy.

A Symbolic Vote

The Iowa primary is in our rearview mirror. Governor Huckabee and Senator Obama may be closer than they appear. This will be determined in New Hampshire.

The polls indicate that 92% of Iowans who voted for them perceived neither candidate as having the best chance of winning the general election in November. This indicates the Iowans voted their feelings rather than making decisions based on cold blooded political assessments.

It appears that neither the Democratic nor the Republican Party faithful gave a hoot about the candidates’ positions on hot issues or experience. Governor Huckabee’s pro-amnesty for illegal aliens is anathema to most Republicans. And Senator Obama’s complete lack of experience was ignored by Democrats . . . a refreshing change.

So what did Iowa tell America?

Iowa is a white, well educated, Christian conclave—the silent majority. For years Christians have watched and heard the elite liberal media ridicule and demean evangelical believers. Although Huckabee is more ardent, both the Governor and Senator Obama are perceived as Christians with religious and moral convictions.

Iowans voted for candidates who publicly stated they share common moral values—they voted for men who proclaimed their faith. In the cold light of day, Iowans voted for themselves. They voted against the onslaught of Christian bigotry.

They ignored the issues and voted for symbols, not for individuals. And Senator Obama also benefitted from racial bigotry. Iowans spoke for the majority of white Americans who are fed up with race baiting, affirmative action and diversity. It was an emphatic statement.

They told the world that in the United States a man’s character, perseverance, education and principles—not his skin color—are the key factors in determining success. But don’t be misled. They voted for a symbol and not for redemption. They weren’t atoning or compensating for past injustices. That time has come and gone.

It was a loud rebuke against those who demand that blacks be judged by different rules and criteria. The refusal to lower the bar of acceptance is not bigotry; it’s the core of America’s strength and determination. Senator Obama’s win in Iowa ratified Middle America’s values and condemned the proponents of a dual society.

America is a Christian society with one set of rules. That’s the message Iowans sent. And the other candidates had better heed this message.

It’s doubtful that the rest of America will vote for symbols. The election will turn on political calculus, especially in the delegate rich states dominated by urban centers. This bodes well for Governor Romney and Senator Clinton.

Yes, Romney is a Mormon. Yet, he is the best qualified “Christian” candidate in the Republican stable with solid credentials. And Senator Clinton has the best political apparatus. The election is still theirs to win.

The Unity Factor

About sixty-five million years ago the dinosaurs disappeared. By my reckoning the current election cycle began shortly thereafter. The end of this epic journey begins in Iowa today.

Within a few months the contest will produce two nominees, probably Senator Clinton and Governor Romney. Maybe Mayor Giuliani will get the nod if his win-the-big-state strategy works.

The elected contenders will no longer be allowed to substitute hazy, innocuous platitudes for answers to specific questions. The public is in no mood for “trust me” responses. Generalizations will be interpreted as not having answers.

Although healthcare will be in the political mix, immigration, taxation and the Middle East will be the frontline issues. Corollaries to these challenges will be English only, balancing energy independence with environmental concerns and political partisanship.

The nation is tired of problems going unsolved. The current bitter intransigence has upstaged political debate. Accusations substitute for honest discourse. It’s no wonder the vast majority of Americans feel the country is headed in the wrong direction.

But in truth our country is better described as rudderless. The nation is drifting while political adversaries scramble to dominate the wheel and compass. And there is no course correction in sight. Four years of this has discouraged the public.

Another four years of political warfare will put the public in the mood to lynch everyone in Washington, DC.

The voters are angry because they feel helpless. And they see the quandary deepening. A vote for Senator Clinton—who forty percent of the nation can’t stomach—all but guarantees four more years of ugly, screeching bitterness.

The election of Governor Romney or Mayor Giuliani will incite Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to disrupt and stall the Republican agenda. The status quo won’t change.

Neither scenario leaves much room for optimism. But it does provide some insight and a measure of predictability into the winner of the presidential contest. The nominee who persuades the voters that he/she can calm the partisanship will win.

A barrage of nasty attack ads by either candidate will destroy the message of hope. This strategy will finally backfire because the nation is desperate for a unifier. All other issues will be dwarfed by the sincerity of an extended hand.

This explains Senator Obama’s surge in the polls. This man with zero experience is a contender because he offers hope. He won’t win, but his standing in the polls is a beacon that the others should follow.