E!!

CEI’s Iain Murry corrects (UK) Times‘ writer Danny Finklestein on our recent election and American politics.  Worth reading no matter which side of the Pond you reside on.

The comic genius and killer sarcasm of Iowahawk knows no bounds.  He’s supercalifragalistic, folks!

Read about it here on Boston.com.

Like many Americans last week, I tuned in for the 30-minute Barack-o-mercial. 

In between the anecdotal close-ups of struggling American families – a widow working two jobs and raising two kids; a husband and father worried about his job at the Ford plant – I noted that Obama’s megacommercial failed to present hard data on the cost of his proposed programs and said nothing about our huge federal deficit and the corresponding budget pressures he will face once in office. 

Obam’s description of his health care plan – which “includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions, and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year” – sounds very nice, but there has been no independent economic analysis confirming that costs will really be reduced by that (or any) amount.

Obama simply Hopes that spending $50 billion on his proposed Changes over the next five years will save the system money.  But even if his optimistic estimates prove out, Obama’s plan does not stipulate that the net savings by insurance and health care providers will result in lower premiums for consumers.

And then we have Obama’s promises to “cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year…  Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee they hire…  Eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas…  Help homeowners by freezing foreclosures for 90 days… Provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open…”

Independent analysts have estimated that combined with our current budget shortfalls, these and other of Obama’s proposals will likely result in a $1 trillion deficit next year.  That being unthinkable, some purging will be necessary.  But which of his programs will Obama cut, and why has he been promising all of them if he knows at least some must go?

Though much of his infomercial focused on the “hard realities” of life for select American families, Obama seems unwilling or unable to face reality himself.  It seems he could stand to learn something from that widowed mother of two who has to settle for half instead of whole gallons of milk when the money runs short – and doesn’t promise her family otherwise on the way to the store.

This post is very well done.

Hat Tip:  Conor Friedersdorf @ Culture11

Don’t miss Joe Carter’s post on Culture11. And (most of) the comments are worth reading, too. It is interesting how people see these things – and to note the corresponding assumptions they make about what “everyone” else thinks or believes.

I’m grateful to blog for an online magazine that encourages these kinds of discussions. Thanks, Joe!

Many are saying this election was a failure of Conservatism.  Not so.  It was the product of poor Republican leadership and big government policies.  Fiscal discipline went out the window.  Earmarks were snatched up eagerly.  Corruption scandals sprang up too often.  Communication and message management were poor.

In short, the Republican party became undisciplined, greedy, weak and ineffective.  This dirtied and eroded the Republican brand such that it became unrecognizable and uninspiring. 

We need new leadership.  We need new voices and/or the renewing and rejuvination of existing voices.  Our elected officials need to stop concerning themselves with power grabs, pandering, and placating.  We must unapologetically and unashamedly stand on True Conservative values.

We need to get back to basics and get on message, recognizing that effective and persuasive communication matters.  As Laura Ingraham said today, “We must cultivate a new generation of leaders who are both proud of their conservative beliefs and comfortable articulating them with vision, clarify and optimism.” 

I hereby invoke part of Russell Kirk’s introduction to Ten Conservative Principles:

Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.

The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”) A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers.

I have always loved Kirk’s Ten and that intro.  Not an ideology but ”a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the social order.”

Conservatives are skeptical of change for its own sake and will always pause to ask, “but what are the unintended consequences?”  Conservatives value that which has been good, and is good, and are not eager to dismiss that good in favor of untested new ideas.  Conservatives are open minded but cautious.  Social experiments are looked upon with great skepticism.  As Kirk later writes:

Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.

Just so.

It should be acknowledged that The Pew Research and Rasmussen Reports polls had the presidential race right at 52 to 46 percent, a 6 point spread.

The polls at Gallup and Reuters/Zogby had the race at an 11 point spread which is outside the margin of error so problematic.  ABC/Washington Post and CBS had Obama up by 9 which is just at the +/- 3 point margin of error. 

NBC/WSJ and IBD had a spread of 8 which isn’t bad, and CNN and FOX had the spread at 7 points which is/was close enough for me.

Source:  Newsmax

Forgot to mention that Rove’s electoral map prediction was the closest of any I found in my internet and blogosphere travels.  He called it perfectly with the exception of giving Indiana to McCain (so had called it 338 – 200).  Impressive.

(If you know of a site, blog or map that had it 100% right, please let me know.)

In light of his promises to be a new kind of president running a new kind of White House, Obama’s choice of Rahm Emanuel for White House chief of staff is surprising.

It is said by those who have worked with him, or know people who have, that although Emanuel is a brilliant mind he is also viciously partisan, aggressive, and impatient. Why, then, would Obama choose him for a job which primarily entails managing people and facilitating decision processes?

Obama needs staffers who can and will help him be decisive, and Emanuel can do that – but at what cost? If Emanuel is as expert at alienating and offending as is reported, he will be helping in one way but hurting in another.

Surely there were better choices?

I assume most have checked the state election results by now, so here are some random thoughts:

– With 28 seats in the Assembly, a majority in the Senate, and just a couple of Republican votes the Dems can override a veto by Governor Jim Gibbons.  He is now officially a lame duck.  Or, in light of the constant trouble and controversy surrounding him, maybe just plain lame.

– In light of the above, expect a tax hike in Nevada as legislators contemplate a budget shortfall of (at least) $250 million.

– My condolences to Senator Heck (R) who lost to Breeden by 801 votes.  But, as Chuck Muth pointed out during this morning’s panel discussion on KNPR, Heck’s campaign ignored his advice to court the Libertarian active voting block (which by all counts was larger by far than Heck’s loss margin).  A few calls and mailers to Libertarian types and who knows what could have been?

– Incumbent Senator Bob Beers (R) was outspent and outslimed by a Democratic machine that did not hesitate to twist, lie and libel.  And somehow it didn’t seem to matter to voters that his opponent, Allison Copening, ducked most debate and interview opportunities throughout the campaign. 

– I was dissatisfied with both Beers’ and Copening’s pre-election responses to my “what will you cut, or what taxes will you raise, specifically” question in re: to Nevada’s budget shortfall.  Beers said we’d have to do one or the other (duh!) and Copening said she’d figure it out when she got to Carson City.  These answers are not good enough.  Voters have the right to know what their candidates plan to do before they cast their ballots.

– Congrats to Chad Christensen who is “my” Assemblyman.  A lot of people thought he was done, including Jon Ralston.

– Memo to Senator Raggio:  Please do what you can to convince your fellow senators to cut the budget and raise taxes as little as possible.

Lisa Schiffren has a great post on The Corner.  She posits that McCain deliberately held back in the campaign.  Here’s part of it:

…some McCain aides had felt for a while that their candidate had had a deep reluctance to impede the election of the nation’s first African American president. That he had, perhaps, pulled punches and failed to strike as hard as necessary to win this thing, for that greater good. [This] was infuriating, since more depended on the election than changing the race dynamic — which, it must be said, has been changed for some time, and did not require this particular symbol to validate it. To be sure, McCain must have known that his campaign was losing — and did not want to swing blindly. And maybe he didn’t like being called “erratic,” “desperate”, and a “racist” every time the inconvenient facts of Barack Obama’s short past came up for discussion.

But all Republicans who watched their candidate these past few months, must have been struck, as I have been, by the sense that he was holding back. I wondered, too often, how it could be that no one at the campaign could frame and muster the arguments that were clear to all conservative writers here and at the other publications and blogs that share our view. When the arguments were made, they were too little, too late, and garbled enough to drain their force. The campaign had it’s (very serious) flaws, but it seems that the reluctance to aim and shoot cleanly, was due to the candidate’s internal conflict here.

I’m not sure what I think about this.  But I also often wondered why, with so many brilliant minds and writers at his disposal, McCain did not do a better job of articulating his message in speeches, interviews, debates and ads. 

How is it possible that McCain’s campaign could not manage to patch together a persuasive narrative?  Lisa’s post may explain at least some part of it.

Obama mastered both in his campaign and this election.  Now we will see what they are worth when it comes to the office of the POTUS and the serious task of governing in perilous times.  For all our sakes, I hope there is substance where ’til now there’s been mostly sparkle. 

What a great discussion on KNPR this morning (audio will be loaded this afternoon). Dave Berns is a class act. I commend him not only for his stellar moderating skills but also his general commitment to fairness.

Frankly, when I first started going on KNPR I didn’t expect the questions and discussions to be so fair and balanced. I was wrong, and I’m glad to have been proven so.

Here’s a shot of the Muthster and me from today’s broadcast:

Fox called Virginia for Obama a few minutes ago.  Not that it matters.

No results for the Nevada races yet.

The Crum household is talking about how the Dem controlled Congress will screw things up so badly that in 2 years there will be significant GOP gains and in four years we’ll be putting a conservative in the White House.  I guess that means we’re conceding that Obama has won this.

I was holding out hope.  (sigh)

We occasionally check the news networks to see what they are saying and doing.  ABC is showing wide angle shots of the staging at Grant Park in Chicago.  It’s so Hollywood.  And my most unfavorite part of our politics.  Governing should be about principles and ideas, not who can gussy up the best stadium setting.

they hadn’t called Ohio with only 15% of precincts in. We’re sitting here debating whether or not the election is “over,” and it all hinges on whether the Ohio call is right.

Well, if that proves out it’s not looking good for McCain. The numbers are nearly impossible with both PA and OH in Barack’s column. And no Republican has ever been elected while losing Ohio (as Rove just pointed out).

Jeez! I just yelled “what are you talking about?!” at Brit Hume on Fox News because he said they were calling Ohio for Obama. He corrected himself a half minute later. Only 3% of the precincts are in there.

They’ve called PA for Obama at this point. (Darn!) I thought maybe the Murtha thing and the coal industry thing would help esp. in the western parts.

NC too close to call yet they say.

No matter who wins tonight, all of this needs a full audit and the full attention of the public.  It is ridiculous and shameful that our election processes should be so fraught with ineptitude and/or corruption.  America can do better.

It’s almost 7:30 back east so the polls – if running on time – are now closed in Kentucky and Indiana as well as VT, parts of NH, VA, SC, GA, and FL. 

MSN’s map (a pretty good one – interactive and clickable and fun) is showing Indiana with McCain at 50% and Obama at 49% with 10% of precincts reporting. 

Kentucky is coming in as expected; it will be red.

I’ll be blogging all night but it won’t be every 5 minutes.  I think The Corner will be blogging pretty frequently, so I suggest going there and checking back here maybe every 30 to 60 minutes.

So there’s your E!! inside look at the KNPR studio. (Left to right: host Dave Berns, Chuck Muth, Steve Sebelius, E!!, and Jon Ralston)

Here’s the link to the KNPR page featuring this morning’s State of Nevada all star line-up of Nevada analysts, panelists, pundits, and me. You can read notes, listen to the broadcast, and see a few in-studio pics.

Note: I did very little talking during the first hour, so you’ll find most of my brilliant insights in Part 2. (kidding: everyone there was much smarter and wittier than I am)

It was great to meet Jon Ralston, Geoff Schumaker, and Patricia Cunningham for the first time.  And Chuck Muth and Steve Sebelius were their usual interesting selves. Interpret that as you will.

There’s been some confusion about where/how to find my election predictions among the many in the Symposium on National Review Online, so here it is:

Elizabeth Crum
Like everyone who is willing to be honest about it, I have no earthly idea what is going to happen today in the presidential election so I’m going with the most interesting, historically significant (and actually plausible) outcome I can imagine:   

Nevada, Colorado, Michigan, and Pennysylvania go to The One; New Hampshire, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida go to McCain; and the electoral college is tied at 269. Ten thousand attorneys descend upon these eleven toss up states like one of the great plagues of Egypt. Obama wins because he has more money and more lawyers to defend the fraudulent votes cast by dead people and out-of-staters. 

In Nevada, Democrat Dina Titus will beat John Porter in our Distict 3 congressional race. Many feel that Porter deserves his loss: He has not been a reliable conservative in D.C. and ran a terrible campaign.   

The most interesting and controversial Nevada initiative — to raise our room tax by as much as three percent to fund public education — will pass, even though economic analysts have warned this will harm our already struggling tourism industry. And our educational system will no doubt continue to be ranked among the worst in the nation due to our Board of Education’s general hostility to fiscal responsibility, reform, and charter schools. 

— Elizabeth Crum is a freelance blogger in Nevada. 

I just love Mark Hemingway:

Anne of Idaho writes in with the following:

I am always pleased to be able to vote, and to do so in an orderly and civilized manner.  When we lived in Spain (’68 – ’70), we were warned not to discuss politics (i.e. Franco) when in the bars or talking with Spanish residents.  And they weren’t allowed to discuss politics, either.  They talked sports and lottery and (according to some of my Navy friends) had a kind of code in which they voiced their opinions to one another.  But most people were genuinely cowed and simply “stayed out of politics” altogether rather than risk a visit from La Guardia Civil.  If they held elections, I wasn’t aware of them.

It was much the same during our time in South Africa.  People simply didn’t talk about the way the country was run, especially those who were nowhere near the seats of power (white or black).

Once a country starts to slide toward despotism, the people hunker down and concentrate on their personal lives and simply endure what the leaders do.  They don’t approve but they become passive and at first unwilling, and then unable, to engage politically with any force.

So we are still very lucky to live in the USA, where dissent is, for the moment, allowed and even encouraged.  But it wouldn’t take much for this to change, and a Democratic President and Congress can make inroads that could well be permanent, barring an armed revolution.  So if Obama is elected, freedom-loving people everywhere need to speak up and take risks no matter the consequences. 

I didn’t mention Dean Heller’s congressional race in my prediction blurb because he’s going to crush Democrat Jill Derby and I assumed everyone knew that.

ARLINGTON, VA – Today at 2:00 p.m. EDT, the McCain-Palin presidential campaign will hold a press conference call with Senior Advisors Brian Jones, Ed O’Callaghan and Deputy Campaign Manager Christian Ferry to discuss Election Day voting irregularities.

Since I couldn’t make this call, I’m just waiting to hear what was said from my peeps over at Voter Fraud Squad (or anyone else who dialed in).

I surely must be dreaming…because my election predictions made NRO along with those of Kenneth Blackwell, Alex Castellanos, editor Kathryn Jean Lopez, Rob Long, John Miller, John Pitney, Lisa Schiffren, and the great Mark Steyn.  (Mine is the third blurb down.)

What an honor.

Now if only my prediction is wrong and McCain wins handily, I can go home and really enjoy that bottle of champagne that’s chilling in the fridge.