E!!

I agree with every word of this post called “Why I Hate Inaugurations” by the always thoughtful Joe Carter. Here’s most of it:

I cannot bear to watch the religious fervor, the tears and chants and beaming visages, for the promotion of a man or woman to a secular office. We do not live in a monarchy; we do not crown queens and kings in American.

Lest we forget, the President of the United States is the servant of the American people. (Despite what actors like Ashton Kutcher think, we do not serve him.) There is something unseemly, and dare I say, almost un-American, about making such a spectacle about a public servant taking office.

Transition ceremonies should be dignified, graceful, and modest – the exact opposite of all that Inauguration ceremonies have become. For this one, President Bush even declared a state of emergency for the entire city of DC so that taxpayer money could be diverted from the FEMA budget for this spectacle. This disgraceful action by our outgoing President barely raised a shrug from the populace. We no longer question our kings.

Many of our fellow citizens have lost all sense of decorum and perspective about this event. The transition of Presidential power from one man to another does not mark a significant transition in the culture of America. Our worries, fears, and concerns do not abate because there is a different man in the White House. Our dreams, hopes, and happiness do not increase because of who occupies the Oval Office. This change in government does not portend a change in human nature or the hearts of our fellow citizens. America — all that is good and bad about us — remains the same.

Fortunately, the unseemly pageantry of the Inauguration will be over by tomorrow, allowing us to move on to what truly matters in our country. Perhaps then all of us, even those of us in DC, can move beyond the deification of the political to focus once again on what truly matters.

I’m trying not to be grouchy and just let ObamaNation have their fun today, but that’s one hell of a price tag for today’s Festivities. Seems to me we could have had a very nice Inauguration for a lot less.

Check out this post on this report. 

Sum up:  The Institute for Liberty estimated the carbon emission stats for Inauguration Day.  And it would take the average American household about 60,000 years to match the carbon output of Obama’s supercalifrajilistic party.

I’ve been saying all week that in this age of high-def and live satellite feeds, it is ridiculous that between 1 and 2 million people will be going to D.C. to try to “witness” this event.  Most of them will not be able to get close access or even see Obama with their own eyes.  So what is the point?  It’s a collossal waste of time and energy for very little (if any) return.

Every American with a television or an internet connection can stay home and have a “front row seat” to the swearing-in, speeches, poem readings, parades, confetti showers and joyous weeping.

If they can even stand to watch it, which I doubt I can – knowing that at least $75 million in taxpayer funds will be spent on this one-day event.

Read it for yourself. 

Sum up:  This is a blank check from Bush for the inauguration.

The Conservative Muse amuses with a clever poem entitled “An Open Letter to Comrade Obama.”

Don’t miss this Washington Times piece by Gary Shapiro, CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (and thanks to Stephen Dreikorn @ The Pinkston Group for bringing it to my attention).

Shaprio rightly points out that the card check issue is even bigger than worker coercion and forced unionization through the deprivation of secret ballot votes in union elections.  Also at stake are the integrity of our labor laws, the balance of power in American labor-management relations, and possibly our entire economy.

Shapiro reminds us that unions once existed primarily to ensure worker safety, but protections for our labor force are now the law of the land.  Unions today have become more concerned with negotiating above-market wages and benefits for their members, lobbying to block free trade agreements at every turn, and protecting their own power.

When achieved, these three things make companies less competitive.  And companies that cannot compete will flounder or fail, hurting the shareholders and driving jobs overseas while dumping their newly unemployed into the American economy.

Shapiro reminds us that creative innovation is the American way and the best way out of the present situation.  He asks us to realize that the big union bullwhips and our mounting personal and national debt are driving us all into a deep pit that may soon become a mass grave.

Rather than burden companies with heavy tarrifs, big taxes, and too cumbersome regulatory and union restrictions, we should be doing our best to lighten their load so they can be faster and more flexible.  In a global economy that can often turn on a dime, getting around the corner quickly is the difference between keeping up with the pack or being left in the proverbial dust.

Andrea Mitchell/MSNBC, Pajamas Media and Media Blog on NRO are discussing the possibility of Hillary for Secretary of State. 

An SOS appointment is a political dead end; therefore, RHC will say no.  She still has ambition, and she’s just not that dumb.

(The fact that she’s not qualified may have little or no bearing on Obama trying to slide her in – and consequently get her out of his hair in the Senate.)

Ronald Kessler with Newsmax has a good piece on Obama and the courts – and how fast the changes could happen. An excerpt:

Because Democrats dragged their heels on President Bush’s judicial nominations, 14 seats are open on appeals courts or will be by the end of January. Democratic nominees now are a majority on only one of the 13 federal appeals courts, the ultra-liberal U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco. Within four years, Obama could name enough judges to give Democrats a majority on nine of the 13 appeals courts.

RTWT (Read the whole thing)

Far Right Democrat reminds us about George Orwell’s 1984ian government organization, the Ministry of Truth, and wonders how quickly KOS will do likewise in the way of rewriting history (i.e. change the official story) on mandated health care when Obama reverses himself and endorses it.

Of course, the modern day Ministry of Truth – the mainstream media – does this all the time.  As do nearly all politicians, especially during election cycles. 

Revisionist history:  it’s what’s for breakfast.

Unfreakinbelievable.

Brace yourself and then then read Larry Kudlow’s post on Paulson today, various bailout stuff, and the auto industry.

Setting aside the fact that Paulson has changed the whole bailout game, is Obama’s first policy decision really going to be a GM bailout? Maybe, because apparently a UAW rescue is favored by Pelosi and Reid.

Before you decide what you think, consider this amazing stat:

Total compensation per hour for the big-three carmakers is $73.20. That’s a 52 percent differential from Toyota’s (Detroit South) $48 compensation (wages + health and retirement benefits). In fact, the oversized UAW-driven pay package for Detroit is 132 percent higher than that of the entire manufacturing sector of the U.S., which comes in at $31.59.

At $73 per hour, GM ain’t gonna be competitive no matter what is done. Let them cut their wages to industry norms.

King George of the Let Them Eat Cake blog has noted that Obama’s change.gov site invites his beloved citizens to contact him and “share their vision” with his administration. George snarkily suggests how O might process and manage the millions of bright ideas coming in.  You can click thru for his thoughts (which are very amusing) and my cake-inspired sample letter just below his post.

Nicky Cheese clicked around and noted that change.gov also invites people to fill out an O admin job application online.  Nic is super excited about working for the new Obamastration and has already applied and begun apartment hunting in D.C.  This afternoon he forwarded me the touchingly personal note he received from Obama:

“Thank you for your interest in joining the Obama-Biden Administration. Within a few days, you will receive an email with a link to the more complete on-line application. Please be patient, as we are trying to respond promptly to the large number of people who are interested in working in the Administration.”

I am so inspired that I am also going to apply.  Suggest you do the same before all the good jobs are gone.

(Nic ~ can you convince the powers that be to throw up a Blogivists discussion board on this so we can all compare notes?  I suspect we can have some fun with this.)

Obama has created a website laying out his big plans:  http://change.gov/

He might want to have his writers/editors proofread their copy before they post pages to the site, though.  This page:  http://change.gov/agenda/economy/ duplicates paragraphs 3/4 in paragraphs 5/6.

I’m available for hire if none of his staffers have the time or ability.

The dialogue has begun.  Mahmoud informs Obama that the world expects a major “overhaul.”

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!

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?

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. 

Tomorrow afternoon – when the polls have not yet closed and the exit polls are all we have to talk about - let’s not forget that the 2004 exit polls had everyone predicting an easy Kerry win. 

Exit polling is not scientific.  Someone stands outside the poll place and asks voters, “Will you tell me who you voted for?”  People can answer or take a pass.

Historically, exit polls do tend to skew Democratic.  I’ve heard various theories as to why:  some say it’s the bias of the exit pollers; some say conservatives/Republicans tend to be more private so don’t share personal information as easily.

After making a rather sarcastic remark, a reader suggests that I pull down that last post in light of the fact that Obama’s grandmother’s death has now hit the newswires (see his lovely comment for yourself).

I thought about it but don’t think I will.

The nature of a weblog is such that you operate in real time:  you write what you write when you write it…and so it becomes a historical account of news/facts as well as your thoughts and opinions about them at a given time.  

I had no idea Obama’s grandmother had passed away when I wrote that post.  And now that I know, it doesn’t change the facts of the Cali GOP’s complaint.  If Obama used campaign funds for personal use, he violated campaign law and ought to return the money.

My condolences to Obama and his family, though.

Just received a press release from the California Republican Party (CRP) that they have filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission against Barack Obama, Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund, and others citing a pattern of misconduct. 

Specific complaints include the fact that the Obama campaign provided Project Vote a copy of its donor list while hiding the fact that they did so, that Obama flew to Hawaii to visit his grandmother on $100,000 worth of campaign funds (instead of paying for it personally), and that Obama has been promised (and has accepted) “pro bono” legal representation by a law firm that has told its attorneys it will compensate and reward them for helping Obama.  All of these things are either in violation of federal election law or formal FEC opinion.

We’ll see what the FEC does, if anything.

A Vegas voter posted this on Bob Beers’ blog yesterday:

Disgusted with Dems Says:
October 31st, 2008 at 3:01 pm

I went to one of the early voting locations today and when I refused the Copening propaganda her supporters thrust at me in the parking lot, I was called a “b*tch” as I walked away. How dare they treat voters with such disrespect.

In this next case, emailed in by my one of my readers, a partisan person was sanctioned:

I voted this morning at the Lake Meade/Tenaya location.   Probably the most excitement was a guy from the Obama campaign that had on a yellow T-shirt that said “voting questions – ask me” or something like that.  He was sitting along the line of people waiting to vote. 

I didn’t think anything of it, until I noticed that all the poll workers had on blue/white/red shirts.  About that time, the guy was escorted out of the area.  He took off the shirt and then was milling around with the ‘poll observers’.   I was ready to grab my cell phone for a picture if anything exciting happened, but nothing did. 

I waited about an hour to vote.  My hubby was on Channel 3 – they were interviewing people about the early voting process – was it easy, what did we think, etc.

There is not supposed to be any partisan canvassing at the polls.  Also, in re: to situation 1 above, here is what item 3 of the Nevada Voters’ Bill of Rights, as outlined in NRS 293.2546, says about voting:

3. Each voter has the right to vote without being intimidated, threatened or coerced.

That first voter should have complained to the poll workers so they could have asked those Copening people to take their handouts and nasty remarks elsewhere.

During the course of his campaign, Obama has often said that differing judicial philosophies among Supreme Court justices don’t matter in “ninety-nine percent of cases” because the “the Constitution…a statute…or congressional intent is…clear.”  Conversely, he says it is only in about 1% of cases that differences in judicial bent really count.

What a giant crock of intergalactic BS.

As Obama very well knows – Harvard educated constitutional attorney that he is – and as Ed Whelan points out here (and I quote below), the ratio of unanimous decisions on the Supreme Court is nowhere near 95%:

According to the Harvard Law Review’s statistics for the past three terms, cases with dissents accounted for 64.4% (2006 term), 45.7% (2005 term), and 62.0% (2004 term) of all cases.  Indeed, last term, cases dividing 5-4 accounted for over a third of all cases, and the three justices that Obama cited as justices he likes—Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter—agreed in the disposition of non-unanimous cases only 61%, 60%, and 63% of the time, respectively.

Yes, fellow citizens of the Republic:  Obama-Wan Kinobi knows his claims are false.  He knows the appointment of Supreme Court justices is crucial; he knows the fundamental changes he wishes to see in the Constitution and the court; and he knows that if elected he will probably have the opportunity to appoint at least two justices to the federal bench.

So, he passes his hand before our eyes and utters his lie with a smile.  

Will his attempt at a Jedi mind trick lull Americans into thinking the appointment of Supreme Court justices is not really important, and they can therefore let him pass, unquestioned and unhindered?

We will know in four days’ time.

May the Force be with US.

From William Katz:

Here’s Obama in his own words to the Chicago Sun-Times on November 4, 2004: “I was elected yesterday. . . . I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. I’ve never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow I’m immediately going to start running for higher office just doesn’t make sense. So look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that I’m the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois. . . . I am not running for president in 2008.”

Four years later, we may be on the verge of electing this man POTUS.  Unbelieveable.

I just love Mark Steyn.  Here he is on a reference to Charlie Gibson’s query re: Obama’s questionable online donations:

Re: Charlie Gibson Hits Obama On His Donors   [Mark Steyn]

Oh, please, Greg. That’s not a “hit”, that’s a Swedish massage by Princess Fluffy Bunny. That’s Charlie Gibson appearing to cover himself while letting Obama get away with mush. A (Palin-style?) hit would have taken the conversation on a quite different tack:

OBAMA: What I would simply point to is that the way we have raised this money has been by expanding the pool of small donors in this country in an unprecedented way.

INFORMED GIBSON QUESTION: What’s unprecedented is that, unlike John McCain, your website disabled the standard credit-card security system used by almost all reputable online retailers. Why did you do that? And, given that of the record $150 million you raised in September two-thirds was raised under this systemically corrupted Internet operation, isn’t it likely that a significant proportion of your half-hour infomercial was paid for by fraudulent donors? And, as to “expanding the pool of small donors in this country”, what about the way you’ve expanded the pool of donors in other countries who’ve been able to make illegal contributions to your campaign because you switched off the AVS security checks?

OBAMA: I mean, you’re looking the people who are giving $5, 10, 25. Ordinary folks who have gotten impassioned about this campaign in a way that is unprecedented. And that, really, is…

INFORMED GIBSON QUESTION: Also a lot of extraordinary folks have gotten impassioned about your campaign. You’ve received contributions from, among others, a Mr Saddam Hussein, Mr A Hitler and Mr K Marx? How do you propose to return those contributions given that all three “donors” are deceased?

OBAMA: Look, you know, 3.1 million donors would be a pretty hard thing for us to be able to process…

INFORMED GIBSON QUESTION:  Why? I mean, you’ve had no problem “processing” the money, have you? And, if you hadn’t monkeyed with the standard online retail data system, all you have to do is press a button and 3.1 million names and addresses pop right up. Ask Amazon. So why did you switch it off? And, if you yourself did not make that decision, who did?

The Senator terminates the interview to instruct an aide to have state and local officials look into this guy Gibson’s child-support payments, tax liens, etc. Later, it emerges that Charlie the Anchor is not even a state-licensed interviewer.

This morning I heard someone - I think it may be have been Megyn Kelly on Fox News – talking about people buying prepaid credit or debit cards (which have no name or address associated with them) and using those to donate as much as they wish, since Obama’s campaign turned off the credit card security measures on their website.

Who knows how many millions have been collected illegally and/or improperly?  The whole thing stinks, and even though Obama will not agree to release a list of his donors, or turn the online security stop gaps back on, not one mainstream/network media outlet (other than Fox) seems to give a damn. 

This post from John Hood is a winner:

A Joke And What It Reveals   [John Hood]

Speaking in front of a huge audience at downtown Raleigh rally yesterday, Barack Obama threw off a humorous line about John McCain’s accusation that the Obama tax plan is redistributionist:

McCain has “called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class,” Obama said. “I don’t know what’s next. By the end of the week he’ll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.”

Ha ha.

Only, in this passage Obama revealed precisely why he is vulnerable to such charges: he can’t seem to tell the difference between a gift and a theft. There is nothing remotely socialistic or communistic about sharing. If you have a toy that someone else wants, you have three choices in a free society. You can offer to trade it for something you value that is owned by the other. You can give the toy freely, as a sign of friendship or compassion. Or you can choose to do neither.

Collectivism in all its forms is about taking away your choice. Whether you wish to or not, the government compels you to surrender the toy, which it then redistributes to someone that government officials deem to be a more worthy owner. It won’t even be someone you could ever know, in most cases. That’s what makes the political philosophy unjust (by stripping you of control over yourself and the fruits of your labor) as well as counterproductive (by failing to give the recipient sufficient incentive to learn and work hard so he can earn his own toys in the future).

Government is not charity. It is not persuasion, or cooperation, or sharing. Government is a fist, a shove, a gun. Obama either doesn’t understand this, or doesn’t want voters to understand it.

Nevada state senator Bob Beer’s campaign office has been located at 6822 W. Cheyenne Ave., Las Vegas, NV for the last six months or so.  He says that a couple of weeks ago, two doors down, an Obama campaign office opened.  Beers’ staffers thought maybe Obama had adopted a new slogan, but it turns out the previous tenant prepared tax returns and the Obama people neglected to take down the old sign:

I’d like to say a few things about the 2001 Obama interview controversy.  First, here’s a key portion of the transcript, followed by a caller question and Obama’s answer:

One of the…tragedies of the civil rights movement was …the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

Later in the show, a caller asked, “is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place?”  Obama answered, “You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts.”

So those who are saying that Obama endorsed redistribution of wealth through the courts are wrong.  Clearly, Obama thought the means to his desired Ends were social and/or political, not judicial.

And this bears out in his life.  He turned down a job as a constitutional attorney and professor in order to become a politician.  He is running on a platform of social and economic change, one that is – why are we so Surprised? – completely consistent with political progressive/liberal ideology:  the government-mandated needs of the many outweigh an individual’s right to spend and distribute the money he earns as he personally sees fit.  Especially if he earns more than $250,000 annually. 

In progressive ideology, a person’s needs and rights extend beyond mere liberty and security and into quality of life issues.  For Progressives, it is no longer just “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” that are your rights as an American.  You and your children are also entitled to other so-called essentials:  a certain level of income, a certain type of home, a certain type of health care, a certain type of education.

What is so amazing is that many people who say they object to “socialism” or “redistribution of wealth” – and become defensive and angry if you dare suggest otherwise - simultaenously say they believe in every American’s “right to health care,” “right to higher education,” and “right to work.”  The cognitive disconnect is disturbing.  Mandating minimum incomes, health insurance and college educations for all Americans at government (read:  taxpayer) expense IS advocating the redistribution of wealth. 

You cannot say you support taxpayer funding for a brand new set of benefits for the general good of the population and then say you do not believe in ”socialism.”  They are one and the same. 

In closing, let us agree that most people are political socialists to some degree.  We long ago left behind the idea that the government should provide for the common defense and otherwise leave people alone, to succeed or fail, live or die, as they may.

We believe there is good to be done.  We believe we should do more for the very poorest of our neighbors, and we have, and we do:  less and less through local, voluntary charitable giving, and more and more through a centralized government that acts as our designated conscience, collection agent, and community organizer.

The question is, where does it end, and what will America look like when all the social engineering is done?  If Obama and a Democrat majority in Congress are elected next Tuesday, I suspect we will be on the fast track to finding out.