In true "Poltergeist" fashion . . .  Theyyyy'rrreee   Baaccckkk,

The proponents of "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," that is.

During the fall of 2007 the pro-immigration forces of the left, joined with the sympathetic forces of the right (Bush, McCain, Graham, etc.), and came within an eyelash of passing a thinly veiled "amnesty" bill.  Only a ferocious public response lead by the voices of talk radio, stirred enough opposition to defeat the proposed legislation.  That was when Republicans held the White House, and a near tie in the Senate.  The numbers are different now.

Obama supports sweeping immigration reform, as do Pelosi and Reid.  Republicans have no numbers in the House, and they spot the Democrats at least two, and probably four votes in the Senate.

In other words - this time, "Immigration Reform" will happen.

The only bargaining chip left for those that oppose blanket amnesty, is to attempt to gain some measure of restriction on immigration in return for making the legislation appear "bi-partisan."   This isn't much, but it may be enough to get at least some concessions from the Democrats to hopefully retain some restrictions on immigration and amnesty.  The question, this time is not win or lose, it is - What can we do to limit the damage ?

This blog comes from a different point of view than many conservatives on this subject.  Having lived and worked near the Texas / Mexican border for more than two decades, this writer has had mostly positive experiences with Mexican immigrants - both legal and illegal.  San Antonio, for example,  has had a majority Hispanic population for decades, yet remains one of the countries most popular tourist destinations.  Similarly the city of Laredo is populated with over 90% Hispanics, yet is as hospitable and friendly to Caucasians as any city in the world.  Despite the recent problems of violence in neighboring Nuevo Laredo, one would be hard pressed to find a city that boasts a more industrious and productive population than found in Laredo.  The point here, is that this writer does not believe that increased Mexican immigration is - in itself - automatically a bad thing for America.

That is not to say there are not problems.  There are. 

The problem is "Assimilation".

We simply don't do a good job of requiring recent immigrants to assimilate to our culture and values.

Ironically, we have the same failure with our own youth.

Our schools don't only do a poor job of teaching American traditions, values, and goodness to immigrants.  They don't do a good job of teaching such things to our own youth. 

Could we possibly address both issues at the same time ?

Most conservatives don't like the idea of a Federal Department of Education.  But we have one, and it seems unlikely to go away any time soon.  If we are going to lose the immigration debate, perhaps we can leverage what little bargaining power we have to gain some ground in the "assimilation debate."  In return for supporting immigration reform, we should require that every 6th grade student pass a full year long course that studies the "Federalist Papers", and that every graduating High School student pass a full year long course on "The Constitution of the United States."  The requirement should further condition the design of the course work to follow a fairly concise curriculum that would preclude anti-American interpretations of these historic documents. 

If every graduating High School Senior was taught specifically of the struggles and arguments that make up the founding documents of our country, and the unique value of the individual liberties designed to be protected by, not in fringed on, by our Government - it would matter very little if the graduate were Hispanic, Caucasian, Asian, or Black.  Perhaps it's a pipe dream to think that Department of Education could be legislated into requiring students to learn an accurate and vital aspect of American History.   Most High School graduates currently don not even know that the "Federalist Papers" exist.  Many are taught the 3/5ths clause of Constitution as an example of inherent racism, rather than the truth of its origin and purpose. It seems imperative, if the conservative movement has a chance to survive, it will need to get a some control over the liberal indoctrination process we now call "Public Education."  This seems as good an opportunity as any to do so.

It would appear to be politically difficult for Democrats to oppose a "Comprehensive Education" requirement as a concession for "Comprehensive Immigration."  It is, after all - "for the children."  Additionally, if the public debate could be steered toward the subjects of "Federalist Papers" and "The Constitution" perhaps it might inspire some adults and educators to take a moment to read these documents, and realize the extent to which our precious liberties and individual freedoms are at risk.


 

Audio version Pt. 1
Audio version Pt. 2
President Barack Obama's stimulus bill has so far, done little to stimulate anything but debate about the efficacy of Keynesian economics.  The proponents of the "Stimulus Bill" argue that they are employing fundamental "Keynesian principles", while opponents of the bill are generally arguing that Keynesian priciples do not work.  While the opponents argument may be valid, it's irrelevant - because the "Stimulus Bill" is a perversion of Keynesian theory.

The history of civilization provides us with numerous examples of those who seek power, twisting the teachings of  a legitimate belief system into a tool to serve their own quest for power.  The teaching of Christ, for example, are steeped in peace, goodness, kindness, and even somewhat in  pasivism.  Yet there are countless examples where Christian principles have been the rationale for war, hangings, burnings, or lessor aggressions.  While many will argue that Islam has violent roots, few would argue that it directly teaches the mass murder of innocents - yet hardly a week passes without some demented individual blowing himself to bits in the hope of killing as many others has possible - in the name of Allah.

The current Administration is to Keynesian economics, what Osama Bin Laden is to Islam. or the Salem Witch Trials were to Christianity.

As an undergrad student of economics, this lowly future blogger spent many hours laboring over the writings and works of John Maynard Keynes .  His theory of a Government role in supplanting lagging demand in the private sector during a trough of a business cycle is a reasoned theory, which may be argued convincingly for and against, but it bears no resemblance to the current Administration's "Stimulus Package".   Keynes argued that during periods of economic downturn, productive capacity was abandoned to adjust to the diminished demand, and then later adjusted upward to meet increased demand as the business cycle rebounded.  Keynes saw these shifts in the productive capacity as grossly inefficient.  To eliminate such inefficiency, Keynes  argued that Government should step in, make up for the diminished demand, keep the productive capacity at a high level, then step back out as demand returned.  This is what many Keynesian's  teach as "priming the pump" of economic growth.

Such Keynesian theory is in stark contrast to the current "stimulus" theory.   Elkhart Indiana is where the President chose to shill for his stimulus policy, and it's a great example of the contrast between Keynesian economics and Obama's radical Keynesian Jihadist policies.

Elkhart Indiana is the center of RV manufacturing in the United States.  Demand for such vehicles has been devastated by a combination of economic events.  If Obama were practicing Keynesian economics, he would have taken the podium in Elkhart and announced that the Federal Government has just placed orders for several hundred RV's with various manufactures in Elkhart, and most of Elkharts citizens will be recalled to their old jobs soon.  He would have further announced that by the time all the orders were completed, there were very likely to be enough private sector orders to keep all employed for many years.  Were he to have done so, he doubtlessly would have been cheered mightily and been hailed by the residents of Elkhart as the Savior and Messiah in which they now so firmly believed.  This would be a true Keynesian policy.  While some would still argue against it on pure economic terms, the immediate impact would be significant and positive - at least in Elkhart Indiana.

Obama's policy however, like his answers during the "rally", were quite different,  The lord and merciful did not announce a government order for the productive sector of Elkhart to gear up and start cranking out RV's, rather he spoke of "providing" health care, unemployment assistance, food stamps, and school construction.  Not surprisingly, most of the people of  Elkhart were puzzled and responded with respectful yet limited applause.  In the current administrations perverse adaptation of Keynesian theory, the Government does not directly purchase from producers to supplant lagging demand, but rather it pours money into government sector, social services programs, which are designed to ease the pain of unemployment.  The rationale, in this Keynesian perversion, is that the money spent by those receiving government stipends will eventually increase lagging demand in the private sector.  One need do only a  superficial analysis of this logic to find it to be flawed at best.

There have been study after study showing the inefficiencies of government sponsered benefits.  Even the most optimistic studies concede that about half of the expense of programs such as food stamps and unemployment insurance are absorbed by administrative costs.  Yet the proponents of this Administrations Keynesian Jihad pontificate about something they call "the multiplier."  They then apply this "multiplier" to the program in question to justify the allocation.  Stimulus apologists cite multiplier factors as if they were the imperical equivalent of a proven mathematic axiom.  While in fact,, "multipliers" in an economic sense are an abstract and unprovable theory.  In truth, they probably exist, but not in this context.
 
The multiplier theory in economics is used to explain the differing impacts of various economic activities.  Hard manufacturing is generally thought to provide a high "multiplier."  That is, a dollar spent on manufacturing a tangible product, will be multiplied due to the necessary support industries required by manufacturing.  Service oriented work requires less outside support, therefore has a smaller "multiplier."  The exact  values of these multipliers are the subject of endless debate among people that debate such things, and there is only vague agreement among most about the relative order of  multipliers per type of economic activity.  Oddly, most place "banking deposits" among the highest of economic multipliers, but the administration has used the possibility that tax cuts might just be "saved" rather than "spent" as a reason to avoid tax cuts.

In short the Obama administration has perverted the fundamentals of Keynesian theory to include ALL GOVERNMENT SPENDING - with little concern about on what the money is being spent.  By this definition, money spent by government cannot be "wasted", it can only be spent and it will be returned to the economy in greater numbers due to economic "multipliers."   Even a child can see through this inexplicable logic.  If it were true, stimulation of the economy would be easy and risk free.  Simply announce that every checking account has an extra $1,000.00 in it tomorrow.  If that doesn't effectively stimulate the economy in a few months, just do it again - maybe using $10,000.00 next time.  Even if it doesn't adequately stimulate the economy - it will at least be returning at the "multiplier rate."  No harm done - right.

As stupid as the above proposal sounds, it is quite consistent with the Obama position on stimulus - which is ALL SPENDING IS STIMULUS.  Thus equating to a perversion of Keynesian theory equal to the perversion of Islam to support terroism, and using Christianity to support witch burning. 

In conclusion, remember, Obama' is  not a  Keynesian, but a  radical Keynesian Jihadist.

Audio version Pt. 1
Audio Version Pt. 2
Audio Version Pt. 3

Most believe that the Federal Government should take an active role in hastening the end of the current private sector recession.  While the benefits of government spending are hardly conclusive; there exists an almost unanimous agreement that "something" must be done.  What Congress and President Obama don't seem to understand, is that in the self declared "war on recession"; government has a limited number of "trillion dollar bullets" to fire in this war.  Each such successive "bullet" carries the increased possibility of backfiring into a period of rapid inflation, which could escalate into hyper-inflation thereby devastating the value of the currency.  The total devastation of the dollar would destroy the U.S. as we know it, and possibly destroy civil society world wide.   

One such "trillion dollar" bullet has already been fired with the TARP bailout legislation.  At best it grazed the enemy. Congress is now preparing to aim it's second trillion dollar bullet, (the pending Stimulus Package)  with the third such bullet (a trillion dollar deficit budget) being loaded and readied.  Given that Congress and the President are ignorant of the fact that they are playing with the equivalent of "nuclear economic" options, it is absolutely vital that these trillion dollar bullets be aimed accurately. 

To direct the aim of government spending, it may be educational to review the spending done during the Great Depression.

Much has been made of the role of government spending and it's effect on either shortening the Great Depression or making it worse.  While there is not universal agreement, many economists now believe that the accelerated government spending of the Roosevelt administration, hindered, rather than hastened recovery.  Most that believe the New Deal was ineffective, often claim that the Great Depression was ended by WWII. 

If that is so, what is it about WWII that ended the Great Depression ?

We didn't invade the depression.

We didn't overthrow the depression.

We didn't nuke the depression.

During the 1/21 broadcast of the Rush Limbaugh show, Rush read a letter to a Green Bay radio station from a Green Bay teacher, who is identified only as "liberal anal teacher" (herein after known as LAT.)  The text of the letter is as follows:

"Dear Mr. Bader:  My name is [liberal anal teacher] and I contacted you via phone message earlier today.  I just wanted to put into writing my complete and utter disappointment in your radio station's choices during President Obama's inauguration speech today.  I understand that Rush Limbaugh built his career around his opinion and commentary.  But I thought that even he would have the decency to honor such a historical and momentous event in our country's history.  I am a teacher at a middle school in Green Bay, Wisconsin.  It was highly unfortunate that when our school decided to broadcast Obama's speech over our PA to our student population of 1,200, our administrators randomly selected Mr. Limbaugh's program.  My students were shocked, angered, and saddened by the interruption of what was a respectful event, truly the most momentous moment of their young lives." 

It seems that the esteemed LAT is upset that Mr. Limbaugh injected some editorial commentary during the speech.  Anyone listening to Mr. Limbaugh would have to agree that his commentary, during the Obama's speech was almost non-existent, and certainly not inflammatory.  However there is a peculiar irony to the distress of our dear LAT, and it is  in light of such irony that the following open letter is offered:

Dear LAT,

I'm sorry that you were upset by the freedom of speech exercised by Rush Limbaugh during the broadcast of his own show, which your school chose to rebroadcast throughout the school.   There are, however, several things you should consider while stewing in your victim-hood of the "random choice" of stations from which to experience the "most momentous moment" of your life.

I wondered at first why the school didn't simply tune in TV coverage, but then realized that it would be quite difficult, without having 1,200 TV's, to provide an "equal experience" for all the students.  With TV, some would be sitting close, others far, such inequality could never be tolerated.  By contrast, with radio rebroadcast through the school PA, all students would have an equal experience - and the school has nothing to buy.  Now, only to choose the station.

The choice however is far from random.

 Radio signals are broadcast in two different varieties.  They can be tuned in either by Frequency Modulation (FM) or Amplitude Modulation (AM).  Since most FM stations are music oriented, it's unlikely that there was any choice but to tune into an AM station.  Most schools are made of steel and concrete.  These materials make it difficult for an AM signal to be clearly received inside such a structure, therefore it requires a relatively STRONG AM signal to bring the students the "most momentous event of their lifetimes."

Broadcast signal power is measured in kilowatts (kW.)  There are three AM stations in Green Bay.  They are:

While observing the current media frenzy over the "Historic" aspects of tomorrows inauguration; it is difficult to not recall the similar, if slightly smaller, media frenzy over the "Historic" nature of Major League Baseball's first black Manager. 

Frank Robinson, a certifiable superstar player, was named as manager of the Cleveland Indians in 1975.  The media spoke loftily about the racial breakthrough and positive historical implications this event held for all Americans.  To make matters even more dramatic, Frank Robinson was to be a "player / manager."  That is, he would be managing the team on the field,  and also be playing a position.  This added something to the drama of the first black manager, not only would he be seen in the dugout and walking to the mound, but he would actually be at the plate, taking his swings. 

When opening day came in Cleveland, every square inch of the enormous, cavernous, Cleveland Municipal Stadium sidelines were filled with reporters, photographers, and TV cameras.  Keep in mind this was before the existence of cable and internet news - if such an event were to take place today, the 80,000 person capacity stadium might not even hold all the media .  Indians fans, while enjoying the hype, had more serious thoughts in mind.  The Cleveland Indians were, at the time, perhaps the most discouraging franchise in all of professional sports.  Cleveland fans were filled with "hope" that this "change" would lead their team to new winning ways.

When Frank Robinson strode toward the plate for his inaugural at bat as a manager, the near capacity crowd rose to its feet in a thunderous ovation, camera flashes came from everywhere, the frenzy seemed to have peaked.  Robinson then drove a towering fly ball to left field,  the already frenzied crowd exploded into a euphoric roar as the ball bounced triumphantly behind the fence, and Robinson took his historic "home run" trot around the bases.  Some choked back tears of joy as they cheered their new hero.  Others cried openly, unable to suppress  the overwhelming emotional belief that this single event  marked an emphatic exclamation of racial justice and equality.  Some found themselves once again believing in the goodness of God. 

The Indians went on to win on Opening Day, and the euphoria continued for about 3 months.  But alas, results in sports are objective and empirical.  No amount of "hype" can turn a strike-out into a hit, or loss into a win.  Soon Frank Robinson found himself subject to the same issues all managers face.  After a two and a half mediocre seasons, Robinson was fired.  Nothing much changed in Cleveland, or in baseball for that matter.  Robinson went on to be a mediocre manager for four other Major League teams, twice finishing as high as 2nd, and never managing a post season game.  The Indians continued their poor to mediocre performances until a new Stadium and ownership breathed life into the ailing franchise.  There have been many black managers since Frank Robinson, and their will be many to come.  

The reason that nothing much changed in baseball, was that there was  not any real racial barrier in 1975 to blacks being managers in Major League Baseball.   While there may have been some reluctance on the part of owners to be the first to hire a black manager, the overriding reason for there being no black managers was a simple lack of qualified, eligible, and interested candidates.  When Jackie Robinson became the first black Major League player it did change everything.  There were Negro leagues where hundreds of qualified, capable, black players plied their trade without hope of ever making it to the segregated Major Leagues of baseball.  Once the barrier was broken, qualified black players were steadily welcomed into baseball, changing the game forever.

Such was not the case when Frank Robinson became manager of the Cleveland Indians.  Being a major league manager requires a very narrow set of skills and experiences that can only be acquired over long periods of time.  Since, blacks had only been playing major league baseball for less than 30 years, their were very few blacks that had both the qualifications and the desire to be a major league manager.  By 1975, it was inevitable that there would one day be a black manager, just as it was inevitable that there would one day be a black NFL quarterback, or NFL head coach.  There were no institutional biases to prevent these things, only the lacking of an available talent pool prevented blacks from entering those roles. 

Consequently, while everyone remembers Jackie Robinson, few remember Frank Robinson as baseballs first manager, fewer remember Fritz Pollard as the NFL's first head coach, fewer still remember Marlin Briscoe as the NFL's first black quarterback.  This is because while they were the "first" blacks to reach certain positions, there were no institutional barriers being broken.  Black managers, coaches, and quarterbacks have come and gone since, none of which has had any serious social or professional impact. 

It is likely that much will be the same with Barack Obama.  While, as in the cases of Frank Robinson, Fritz Pollard, and Marlin Briscoe, the media has hyped the occasion of a black rising to a new position as a moment in history; it really is simply the occurrence of an inevitable event, given that there exists no barrier for a black person to become President.  There are not "leagues" of competent black politicians languishing in wait of a break through.  Blacks have been involved at all levels of political activity in this country since the civil rights movement and the unrest of the 60's.  The battles over racial injustice have been fought and won for a long time in the United States.  There has been no institutional, nor significant voter bias against a black President for many years.  Rather to the contrary, the country seemed to bend over backwards to elect the first plausible black candidate to run for President, when no white person could reasonably be expected to be elected with the resume of Barack Obama.

In conclusion, it's likely that the election of Barack Obama reinforces the true reality that few racial barriers exist in the United States rather than to actually break down an existing race barrier.  As a result, it's unlikely that there will be any significant "change" associated with the racial aspect of the Presidency, and once the media hype dies down - we can return to business as usual.   Perhaps even the media will resist  making "race" the issue every time a person of color achieves something.  Now that's a change for which we can all hope.

Just in time to derail the then surging Republican candidate for President, George Bush, Ben Bernanke, and Hank Paulson announced to the world the the United States monetary system was on the brink of catastrophic failure.  Such failure, we were told, could only be alleviated by immediately creating and injecting 750 billion dollars into the financial markets for the purpose of buying "toxic assets".  The Senate recognized the urgency and demanded an additional 100 billion in pork projects to finally pass the bail out bill.  John McCain did his part by reacting to this "crisis" in a totally incoherent and inconsistent manner - but that is the stuff of another post.

We know now that the afore mention three wizards of smart, were either wrong - or lying.  We don't need any outside confirmation to know this.  By there own admission, they did not buy "toxic assets."  The economy did not collapse.

What the hell are we doing ?

-The financial sector needed 750 billion - or we were all dead.
-The auto industry needed 40 billion - or we were all dead.
-Now the Government needs to spend a 2 trillion dollar "stimulus" - or we're all dead.

In the mean time - back on planet earth (which somehow continues in its rotation without additional spending), the U.S. economy "plunged" to a record setting level of unemployment.  That level is about 3% above theoretical full employment.  Most small and medium sized businesses are responding prudently to signals of economic slowdown.  They are cutting non-essential staff, seeking lower cost vendors, and re-focusing their market strategies toward a public with smaller discretionary income.  This is not a crisis.  This is a vital phase of the private sector business cycle.

It seems that the "wizards of smart" are so completely self centered, they've forgotten that they and their predecessors had little to do with the past 25 years of economic expansion.  The people that drove economic expansion over the past three decades are not, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Volker, Greenspan, or Bernanke.  The people responsible have names like Dell, Jobs, Gates, Ellison, Torvalds (sorry couldn't resist), Page and Brin.  This is not to say that government did not play a role - it did.  Howerver, the driving force of economic growth is innovation and production.

That is, a useful item is invented, then it's produced - adding wealth to the economy; and defining the business cycle.  Since 1980 we've created major industry segments that didn't even exist in the 70's.  Personal comupters, cell phones, dvds, dvrs, gps, web servers, mp3 players, etc etc.  These innovations account for billions of dollars in economic expansion.  This is why we have a business cycle.  We have a period of innovation, followed by production, and as the market becomes saturated with the new innovation it reaches a point of maturity.  At this point there is little growth by adding new sales, but sales are sustained by the replacement of old and worn out products.

This is where we're at right now.  Most of the innovations of the past have reached a point of maturity.  That is, most of the people that want personal comupters, cell phones, dvds, dvrs, gps, web servers, mp3 players, etc etc. - have them; and there's been little advances in these technologies in the past two years to entice people to discard their current devices in favor of new ones.  For example, since 1995 it was almost axiomatic that businesses replace most of their desktop computers every three years.  The quickly advancing technology meant that failing to keep pace with the latest technology made it difficult to read, exchange, and communicate with those that did keep pace.  Currently, there is no functional difference between a computer purchased in 2006 and 2009; consequently they'll be replaced when they break not because they're obsolete.

Much the same is true for many industries.  The Government would have us believe that we all went out and bought Ipods and plasma screens because the nation appeared to have a sound monetary and fiscal policy.  Such thinking is abusrd.  People bought Ipods and plasma screen tv's because they're really, really, cool.   It is foolhardy to believe, however, that a prudent person would discard his perfectly good plasma screen tv and buy an new one just because the Congress passed a "stimulus package" that put money in a persons bank account.  

This places our economy in a "trough" of the business cycle - not a crisis.  It must be noted that the current "trough" is deeper due to the simultaneous  bursting of a government induced real estate bubble, and a spike in gas prices that absorbed huge amounts of disposable income.  No amount of "stimulus" is going to cause a prudent person to make an imprudent purchase.  Currently, people are behaving with full rationality by being frugal.  Given that there are few compelling innovations that pique the interest of the consumer and the Government is screaming that we are in a "crisis;" it is completly rational for both business and consumer to remain frugal.

The idea that the Government can embark on a totally irrational spending plan with the objective of spending enough money to cause people react equally irrationally - is nothing short of insanity.

Government's role in a free market economy is to provide a positive business environment by enforcing equitable laws of commerce fairly and consistently throughout the system, and to maintain the quality of the currency through sound fiscal and monetary policy.  That's it.  Such Government actions provide a high level of confidence in both investors (foreign and domestic) and innovators.  It is stability and confidence that provides the proper climate for the innovation that yields economic growth.  When peoples confidence in fair, equitable laws of commerce, fair taxation, a stable currency and financial system returns; so to will innovation and production return.  Only then will we be on our way to recovery and prosperity.

There are those "Keynesians" who insist that the Government must "Prime the pump" with deficit spending.  This is at best debatable.  In any case, one must remember that the "pump"  is the economic climate made of sound fiscal, and monetary policy, buoyed by a sound currency and equitable enforcement of laws of commerce.  Government actions should be focused on correcting deficiencies in these fundamentals of our economy.  No amount of priming will fix a broken pump.

Much has been made in previous weeks about Caroline Kennedy's lack of qualifications for Senate.  She's never held elective office, and she seems to say "you know" a lot.  Ipso facto, so the logic goes....... She's not qualified to be a Senator.

This logic seems rather peculiar.

It seems many have the mistaken belief that there are extensive qualifications required to be a Senator.  Few things are farther from the truth.  There are, in fact, almost no qualifications required to be a Senator.  More importantly, the tasks required of a Senator are breathtakingly simple.  The only thing a Senator actually does, is vote.  There vote is either yes - or - no (or I guess "present" if you're really stumped).  There vote is never more than 1 in 100, and in almost every case the vote is cast along with the already established "Party Position."  To be sure, there are a few "Maverick" Senate votes, but far fewer than one might imagine.  One can vote along party lines more than 90% of the time and still claim to be a "Maverick." 

So, about those qualifications . . .

It seems that by "qualifications" for Senate what is commonly referred to as qualifications is the ability to parlay legislative influence into campaign contributions to further solidify ones political power and stature.  The only other observable "qualification" would be to become adept at guiding mal-invested public funds to ones own state for the purpose of garnering greater public support for re-election.  Is it really so terrible that we might have a Senator that lacks these "qualifications ?"

From a practical standpoint, Caroline Schlossberg is an attorney, she has written extensively, and served on the boards of several non-profit organizations.   While this resume may not be overwhelming, one must also remember that there don't seem to be any bright red flags in the background of JFK's daughter.  She has no apparent history of shady real estate deals with convicted felons, there don't seem to be any admitted terrorists in her "posse", her religious inspirations haven't come from America hating wacko's, and she's not been involved in a U.S. attorney's office sting for trying to buy the Senate seat. 

Face it people, she's as qualified and capable as any of the other pompous, self centered, ego- manical, occupants of Senate.  Besides that, she's not half bad looking.  What's the real problem ?  Many states have customarily made the wife of a Senator the acting Senator in the event of a death in office.  Surely Mrs. Schlossberg is as qualified as most Senator's wifes. She'll have to actually "run" for the office in 2010 - if she's so bad - she'll get voted out.

Let's back off of Caroline Kennedy and rather use the opportunity to explain how there are no real qualifications required to be a Senator, which in turn means; being a Senator for a long time is not really a qualification for anything - especially the Presidency of the United States.

How big is the world ?

How crowded is the world ?

Overpopulation, pollution, carbon emissions, global warming; are we killing our planet ?

We, as humans are somewhat self-centered by nature.  Additionally, it seems we're all biased by our immediate observations.  That is we tend to look at our surrounding environment, and imagine the balance of the world looks much the same way.  This is perhaps reinforced by the fact that we humans often move about from place "A" to place "B" with both "A" and "B" looking very much alike.

For example, one can board a plane or begin a drive in Austin Texas, and travel 1,500 miles to Cleveland Ohio, and observe much the same surroundings.  That is, at both locations one would see a metropolitan area consisting of single family homes, businesses, shopping centers, restaurants, streets, traffic lights, etc. etc.  One would also see people living and moving about in roughly the same density.  That is, about the same number of people per square mile. 

That density changes somewhat from city to city.  New York, for example is characterized by a quite dense population, while Kansas City is much less dense by comparison.  Yet, in either example one would observe several thousand people per each square mile of area.  We tend to develop the perception that the worlds surface is rather uniformly populated with several thousand people per square mile. 

This common perception can be illustrated by asking this theoretical, yet simple question:

If all the worlds population stood shoulder to shoulder, heal to toe (in crowded concert style) how big an area would it take to hold all the people of the world ?

The answers most often heard are; North America, China, half the U.S., or some other significantly large land mass.  When the answer is presented most people are stunned.  Many question it's truth, even when confronted with the rather simple mathematical proof. The answer goes like this:

Assume every person stands in a 1.5' x 2' square.  This can be done quite comfortably.  This allocates 3 square feet per person.  Assume there are 6.75 billion people in the world - this is the estimated population for January 1, 2009.  One can determine the requisite number of square feet by simply multiplying 6.75 billion by 3.  Once that calculation is complete it's useful to convert the number to acres by dividing by 43,560.  Or dividing by 5,280² to get square miles.  Either way one can then consult a common variety almanac to get the area of a particular country, state, county, or city.

Since this writer resides in Travis County Texas, an average sized Texas county, that seemed like a good place to start.  As it turns out, the entire population of the world can fit into about 71% of Travis County.  The calculations are:
-->

World Population	6,750,000,000
Number of sf to stand in	3	sf
World pop stands in	20,250,000,000	sf
(divide to get sq. miles)	27,878,400
Conversion to Sq. Miles	726	sq miles
Travis County TX total area	1,022	sq miles
World Population fits in	0.711	pct.	of Travis County Texas

There, in 3 simple calculations, and two simple fact references (world population and area of Travis County) there is irrefutable evidence - the world is far from overcrowded.

Of course, there are those that will argue that this is purely theoretical, and that we could never really put that many people in Travis County.  This is probably true, but one must also remember that this is all on one level.  Using multi-level structures to hold people is not even considered.  In any event the point is that the common perception is that the worlds population  could cover large swaths of area, occupying large countries or even continents; and that common perception is very, very wrong.

Excerpted from "The Emergency Economic Bailout Act of 2008"

SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are—
(1) to immediately provide authority and facilities that the Secretary of the Treasury can use to restore liquidity and stability to the financial system of the United States; and
(2) to ensure that such authority and such facilities are used in a manner that—
(A) protects home values, college funds, retirement accounts, and life savings;
(B) preserves homeownership and promotes jobs and economic growth;
(C) maximizes overall returns to the taxpayers of the United States; and
(D) provides public accountability for the exercise of such authority.

And so ended the era of free market capitalism.  

That free market era began with a humble upstart nation in 1776.  That nation grew to a world power in the 20th century, and thundered to a roaring crescendo of wealth and productivity at the turn of the 21st century.  Yet, the end came swiftly, and almost without warning.  It came as a result of the greatest attack ever perpetrated on freedom and liberty in history.  The attack was as vicious and premeditated at the 9/11 attacks of 2001 - only wildly more successful.

When the plan was first conceived may never be known, but the first salvo in the attack came with an announcement by President Bush, flanked by Treasury Secretary Paulson.  Many pure capitalists were never comfortable with Secretary Paulson.  The successor to Jon Corzine, Stephen Friedman, and Robert Rubin as CEO of Goldman Sachs, Paulson epitomized the "crony capitalist".   The almost seamless morphing of high ranking cabinet members into Financial Sector CEO's had been going on for at least three Presidential administrations.  Like Corzine, Friedman, and Rubin before him, Paulson made a career of parlaying governmental influence into personal wealth.  He, like his predecessors, relied heavily on his influence rather than his business acumen to achieve business success.

In mid-September of 2007, Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke announced that without the "The Emergency Economic Bailout Act of 2008"; the U.S. economy would fall to ruin within weeks.  The explanation for the urgency of the crisis was the existence of "toxic securities" backed by defaulted mortgages.  This crisis was detailed in some depth here in this blog.  It now seems like it was something of a ruse.  While the pretext of the crisis was plausible, it now seems to have been exaggerated.  In effect, George Bush was "rolled" by Paulson and Bernanke.  The President seems to have regained some economic bearings and talked extensively about the merits of free trade - but the damage has been done.  We are now beyond the tipping point, and well on our way to a centrally planned, rather than a private sector economy.

Worse yet, we're heading into an era where the new President is the most naive, inexperienced, and economically illiterate person to ever hold the office.  To be sure, if the wall street crony capitalists could "roll" George Bush, baffling  Barack Obama will be like taking candy from a baby.

The next wave in the attack on liberty came with the "Auto Bailout" which is still being negotiated.  It will most likely take place in a series of attacks.  With the Senate and the President now showing signs of resisting the creation of US/UAW Motors, and the auto makers decrying their eminent demise with out Federal billions, the likely action will be Paulson and the TARP funds to the rescue.  The CEO's of the "Big Three" are not experienced "car people".  They're finance and securities people.  Nardelli, came from Home Depot, Mulally came from Boeing, Wagoner is a long time GM employee - but clearly a bean counter, not a designer, organizer, marketer type.  These three have essentially given up on the idea of correcting their business models, and chosen to pettition Congress for cash and in return will allow Congress to take over strategic control of the companies.  This will almost guarantee the demise of this domestic industry.

There are two more big attacks currently being planned.  One will be based in Universal Health Care, the other will be environmentally based in "green jobs" and carbon "cap and trade" programs.  The future of Governmental Health care can be seen quite clearly in many current examples.  We can look to Europe, Canada, or our own Medicare system to see the grim future.  Perhaps more importantly, expect medical breakthroughs to come to a vitual halt.  With only a single customer to call on, innovations in treatment, drugs, and equipment will be replaced by hiring the most skilled lobbyists to get Government contracts for medical goods.

The "green revolution" will be the final blow in the destruction of our economic power and failure of capitalism.  With strict Cap and Trade carbon emissions limits in place, coal, oil, and gas, will have to be augmented by solar wind and other carbon free alternatives.  These alternatives won't really produce any electricity, but they'll provide enough carbon credits to run the coal, oil, and gas facilities to serve the shrinking demand.  This results in a gross mis allocation of wealth and resources.  Both public and private wealth will  be diverted to the building of stupid wind farms and solar fields, non of which will produce any reliable power. 

Yes, through all this - fortunes will be made.  Fortunes based not on market and merit, but based on Government selection.   This will eventually devestate the value of the dollar, and plung the U.S. into at least a second tier economic status, and the fortunes based in dollars will become of little consequence.  Our military will follow close behind, and the world - once safe from despotic agression under a vast umbrella of U.S. military might, will once again be in peril.

Can the death spiral of Capitalism and Freedom be stopped ?

Yes.

But to do so, there has to be at least some one left, other than this writer - who believes that it's worth saving.

Perhaps Dr. William Bennett is the most fond of stating with almost smug conviction, "We are still a center / right country."  This phrase has often been repeated in the wake of the most recent election results, usually while citing the vote to constitutionally prohibit gay marriage in California. 

Does no one else see the nonsense of using this as as evidence of a "Center / Right" society ?

In order to make sense of this term, one must consider how far left the center has moved.  In keeping with the example of homosexuals and there treatment in society, let's review the history of the "Center", so to speak. 

In colonial times, homosexual behavior between men was punishable by death.  That was the "center" position.  In 1682, that liberal bastion of Pennsylvania became the first and only one of the colonies to remove homosexuality from it's capital crimes.  Instead, they limited punishment to whipping, forfeiture of 1/3 of one's estate, and six months of hard labor. The law was amended in 1700 to life imprisonment or castration.  Oddly, this "liberal" view of homosexuality was inspired by the prevalence of the devoutly religious Quakers in Pennsylvania who favored forgiveness over punishment.

Take heart dear conservatives, in 1718 Pennsylvania revised it's laws to move back to the political center, and re-instituted the death penalty for homosexual behavior. 

Of course, during this era, the Colonies were somewhat more progressive than the right leaning homeland of England.  In the case of R. v. Jones in 1776, as the defendant was convicted of a capital offense after obtaining money from a victim under the threat of a public allegation that the victim was a homosexual.  During that period in England, simple extortion was a misdemeanor, but extortion under threat of public allegation of homosexuality was considered more deadly than to put a gun to ones head - hence it was robbery, and therefore a capital offense.  In short, in England one could be hanged for accusing one of being a homosexual - if one demanded payment to silence the allegation.

While these laws are difficult to imagine in modern times, it would seem that approximately 1/3 of the sovereign nations of the world have laws prohibiting homosexual behavior, and about 1/7 of the worlds population consider it an offense punishable by death.   Here in the U.S., laws prohibiting homosexual behavior existed until very recently.  In 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court in "Lawrence vs. Texas" essentially ruled that States have no authority to prohibit homosexual behavior. 

The point here, is that the "center," as it relates to homosexual behavior, has moved from hanging offense, to rarely used hanging offense, to felony offense, to rarely enforced felony offense, to misdemeanor offense, to rarely enforced misdemeanor offense, to legal; and now the push is  for parity with traditional marriage.  If the fact that 60% of Californians don't believe homosexual relationships are the complete legal, social, and moral equivalent of thousands of years of traditional marriage is evidence that we are a "center right" society - then it's also evidence that the center has moved way to the left.

Many years ago, the U.S. Government "bailed out" Chrysler.  After 9/11 the Government bailed out the airline industry.  Most recently, AIG, and the banking industry.  Why not, so the argument goes, GM ?

Perhaps because it's too big to save.

It is argued that if GM were to fail, that the economic impact would ripple throughout the world, leaving a long and enduring recession in its wake.  This possibility certainly exists.  What, one must ask, are the consequences of a bailout?

The fact that GM is losing money at a stunning rate is not immediately reconcilable with their market position.  Their products are competitive, their pricing is decent, their marketing is very good, and they sell more cars than anyone in the world except Toyota - and it's very very close.  They hold a commanding market share, and have good production and distribution systems.  What will change with  Government participation ?

The ugly truth about GM is that they represent a microcosm of the United States Economy.  They are being burdened with an unsustainable health care and retirement burden that is the product of decisions made 30 years ago.  Some of the decisions made in the 70's were just plain bad business.  Some of them were sound at the time, but have become damaging because of unpredictable changes in actuarial reality and the cost of health care.  These are the same things that threaten the long term health of the U.S. economy.  GM entered into collective bargaining agreements that obligate the company to pay large pension checks to retired workers, while providing the best health care available in the civilized world.  When GM entered into these agreements, the average worker could be expected to live to 68 years old, and the end of life costs of care were normally small or at least reasonable.  In the current reality, that age now approaches 80.  Most importantly, the medical care costs for those that live beyond 75 are staggering.  In 2002, the "Health Research and Education Trust" published the results of its work on the subject of elderly care and found:

"From 1992 to 1996, mean annual medical expenditures (1996 dollars) for persons aged 65 and older were $37,581 ..."

Clearly, since that time medical care has not gone down.  Currently GM is supporting 2.5 retired workers for every active worker.  With medical costs escalating and operating margins plunging - there seems to be no way for General Motors to sustain the current status quo.  Quite simply, both they and the unions made a bad deal.  The union used poor judgment by asking for too much, and management used poor judgment in agreeing.  The consequence of such poor judgment, in the private sector - is failure.

Yes, the failure of GM would plunge thousands of people onto the public dole.  But is it not better that those on the public dole do so openly ?  Is it not better that they receive the level benefits consistent with social security and medicare rather than the gold plated benefits of the UAW ?  The workers and union are not innocent bystanders in this debacle.  They union made unsustainable demands, the workers voted for the contracts that have broken the company.   

It is unlikely that even a chapter 11 bankruptcy (reorganization) could salvage General Motors.  GM is yet another microcosm of what has become a major flaw in our current market system.  That is:

It is run by retards.

( Ok, that's a bit much - but what the heck, lets enjoy some free speech while we can)

More accurately, General Motors is no longer run by "car people."  Much is the same with every other fortune 500 company.  GM is run by "financial people."  These are a select group of people who rotate from large company to large company much the same way NFL coaches move from team to team.  The "CEO class" isn't particularly adept at any particular industry.  Rather they are adept in manipulation of corporate operations in order to maximize the per/share value of the company's common stock; and then to use that stock as a form of currency to acquire other businesses which in turn can further enhance the company stock value.

Oddly, when this writer attended MBA school - such speculation with either company equity or liquidity  was considered a cardinal sin of business management.  Now it is the staple of industry and the mainstay of the fortune 500.   This is not to say that CEO's are to be financially stupid, but to say that the focus of the company should be on cars, not stock manipulation. 

The dominance in "financial people" is much less so in the Asian auto industry.  For example, Toyota chose San Antonio Texas to locate it's 2,000  acre tundra plant.  For those that are not pick-up truck savvy, the Toyata Tundra is not a small efficient environmentally freindly vehicle.  It's a full sized pick up.  More  accurately, it's a 12 mpg beast.  And it's expensive.  The decision to locate in San Antonio was supported by many demographic and geographic aspects, but it was also influenced by the first hand observation of Toyota upper management, while walking through the parking lot of a Dallas Cowboys game.  After walking past row after endless row of parked large pick-up trucks (mostly Ford and GM), the Toyota management (so the legend goes) concluded - "We've got to build trucks in Texas."   And they did.

In the final analysis, the top management of GM, Ford, and Chrysler made bad decisions - ultimately because they were poor managers.  If their decision making and poor corporate performance was not conclusive enough evidence, one need only look to their reflexive response to the current challenge.  The founders of these companies were captains of industry, rugged individuals, and innovative entrepeneurs.  The current management teams bear little likeness to their founders.  (Umm... is there yet another microcosm here?)   The auto makers look more like Ray Nagin during Katrina than Henry Ford during the depression. 

The solution offered by the "Big Three ?"

Give us money.  Or we'll fail - and you'll look bad.  What's more, you might get voted out of office without labor backing.  This is not capitalism.  This is not wise.

These auto makers must either shed their unsustainable contracts via bankruptcy, or liquidate outright.  In either case, the factors of production must be re-allocated to the control of those that are capable free market industrialists who know the auto business - not a bunch of Wall Street stock manipulators. 

Karl Rove may be a brilliant political strategist.  It seems he's undefeated.  But he's left a scar on the Conservative movement that must be quickly and thoroughly removed.

Rove may not have introduced the concept to the Republican Party, but he certainly expanded and relied on "Identity Politics" more than any Republican in the past.  For those unfamiliar with the term, identity politics is the political strategy of pandering to a perceived segmented identity of the electorate.  While Rove believed strongly in "energizing the base" as a staple of his political strategy, he rejected the concept of persuasion and ideological discourse to attempt to broaden the appeal of the party; and rather opted for the strategy to "pick off" identifiable segments of voters by blatant pandering.

George Bush felt the need to increase his appeal to geezers (er that would be senior citizens).  That brought us the almost incalculable burden of a government backed prescription drug program.  There was the need to shore up the vote among the Ohio/Pennsylvania steel workers.  That brought us the a tariff on imported steel.  There was a potential weakness in the much heralded "soccer mom" segment; and hence we were gifted with "no child left behind."  Perhaps most importantly, seeking a boost from the growing Latino population; there was a desperate attempt to force a through legislation known as "Comprehensive Immigration Reform." 

Traditionally, identity politics has been the domain of the left.  This is why the left is comprised of widely disparate identity groups that often have little in common.  Blacks, gays, latinos, environmentalists, labor unions, homeless, and ivory tower professors often agree on little other than they need to vote Democrat.  Since Democrat philosophy cedes all wealth and power to Government, it is ideologically consistent with the Democrat message to make specific offerings to these seemingly disparate "identities."  By contrast, the Conservative message of limited Government, individual liberty, and limitless opportunity is ideologically incompatible with the pandering of identity politics.

One cannot make a sustained argument for limited Government while promising gifts from the public largess.

John McCain has not through out  his career, and certainly did not during his Presidential campaign, promote the advantages of conservatism as a consistent campaign message.  His campaign was littered with poorly thought out "counter gifts" to voters in response to Obama's virtual Christmas list of free health care, mortgage relief, and education funding.  The muddled message of giving away government largess in a more judicious fashion than ones opponent does little to excite those that believe in true conservative principles.

This is not to say that reaching out to various groups is not important.  It is vitally important to reach out to every citizen in the United States.  The outreach however must be one of persuasion, not pandering.  We must explain clearly that the principles of limited government, and empowered individuals are beneficial to EVERYONE.  We must explain that blacks, gays, latinos, environmentalists, labor unions, homeless, and ivory tower professors alike benefit from being free of Goverment limitations on their own god given abilities, and that the acceptance of largess places burdens on the productive sectors of society that ultimately limit their possibilities to achieve greatness - or even mediocrity.

We must aggressivly deny and denounce every mention of Identity Politics.  We must consistently reinforce the message that conservativism is blind to color, creed, ethnicity and gender.  If we succumb to the temptation of pandering to various groups with competing gifts confiscated from the public coffers, we will continue to be defeated at the polls by Democrats who can do so with greater philosphical consistency and zeal.

Barack Obama out polled John McCain in the only poll that matters last night.  It's hard to imagine the outcome yielding much in the way of things that are good for Americans who hold conservative values.  But, alas, every cloud has a silver lining.

It allows the conservative movement to identify the posers.  Those that don't really have or respect conservative principles but play on the team they believe will win in an effort to enhance their own careers.  (Do you hear me Peggy Noonan ?)  When the political tide turns once again, we can welcome back their votes - but never trust their leadership.

We may have quantified the value of campaign cash.  Obama had the closest thing to an unlimited supply of money as has ever existed.  Still, McCain held his own with the available cash.  It doesn't seem that McCain was as short on cash as he was on a coherent message.  His bungling of the psuedo crisis generated by secretary Paulson may go down in campaign history as a faux paux of that rivals Dukakis on the tank.  Even so, with bunbling funbling message in tow, McCain, buoyied by unlikely support from Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity et al; hung tough until the last day.

I think it's fair to say the conservative base is strong, conservative principles are strong, the conservative media is strong, but the Republican candidate was weak.

In 1968, Richard Nixon defeated Hubert Humphrey in a relatively close election.  It was that year that at ten years old, I began my fascination with politics.  Since that time I've been proud of my ability to "read the tea leaves" and make reasonable projections about upcoming elections.  Though, not perfect, my record is generally good.  But even in cases where I've been incorrect, I've almost always had a "gut feel" for which way things would go.

This year is different.  Quite different.  So much so, that I won't be surprised at any outcome.  It could be Obama in a landslide, Obama by a narrow margin, McCain by a landslide, or McCain by a narrow margin.  Of these possibilities, it is only the "McCain by a landslide" that causes people to react.  To that end, allow me to endulge myself in my perhaps delusional scenario of a McCain landslide.

But what of the polls?  What of all the polls?  They ALL say OBAMA.  Some by a lot, some by a little.  Surely if McCain wins it will be by the narrowest of margins.

This is where the tea leaves become wind blown, and the crystal ball gets cloudy.  The polls have told us for months that the State of Iowa was a double digit win for Obama.  That seems reasonable since McCain has always opposed grain subsidies for ethanol and has never been popular in Iowa.  Yet, in the final days of the campaign, Obama is campaigning in Iowa.

Can it be that Obama can't read the polls either ?

Barack Obama is running ads in California.  The consensus explanation is that he's trying to support the gay marriage initiative - but is that believable?  This is a candidate the told his own party that he wouldn't lend financial support to any others in his party, now we are asked to believe that he is burning money to aid in turn out against a state wide ballot initiative. 

Is it not remotely plausible to conjure a different scenario?

McCain, the senator from neighboring Arizona, has always been popular with Californians.  McCain is also the virtual patron state of Mexican immigration.  The electorate in California is almost 1/3 hispanic.  Hispanics, especially those who've recently immigrated, harbor some of the deepest racial bigotry of any demographic in the country.  Is it not possible to conceive that many of these voters will vote McCain ?  Perhaps even while feigning support for Obama ?

To be sure, an upset in California is unlikely.  Most polls place Obama in a +20% margin over McCain.  But given the historic voting patterns of the State demography, the gay marriage ballot initiative that will energize conservatives, and the fact that McCain is a virtual "Arnold clone" (without the steroids); the possibility of a strong McCain showing should not be completely discounted.  Remember, Obama lost California to Hillary by almost 10 points. 

Even if one discounts a possible California upset, close by Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado share similar characteristics, all the voting models predict a heavy hispanic turn-out, and a heavy support by hispanics for Obama.  At this point I must inject my own subjectivity.  I'm in the construction business in Central Texas.  I spend a good deal of time near the border in and around Laredo.  I deal with Hispanics every day.  As of today, there is not a single blue collar Mexican-American I know that is going to vote for Barack Obama.  This evidence is by no means statistically significant, but it definitely adds to the cloudiness in the crystal ball.  In short, it seems plausible that the voter poll models that identify large Hispanic turn out in western states as a Democrat strength - might be 180 degrees out of phase.

Should any of this analysis have merit, moving from West to East, McCain would sweep the west and mountain states, losing only Washington and Oregon where liberal white guilt and mail-in voting will carry the day for Obama. 

In the mid-west, we have a different dynamic in place; but once again we are presented a voter turn-out model that assumes high "young voter" turn out, "record black" turn out, and a higher Democrat voter ID than Rupublican.  Oddly, while we've been likewise treated to study after study which indicate that stunning numbers of white democrats will never vote for a black person, that is never reflected in polling results.  Accordingly, we have a "turn-out" model that skews way to the Democrat side, anticipates huge black voting (both likely to be true) but ignores any possibility that there may be a counterbalancing segment of the traditional democrat voting coalition.  Those would be the bitter clingers of rural Pennsyvania, and Ohio.  Those are the people who've been told for forty years that the plight of black people is their fault and responsibility.  Those are the people who need just the slightest excuse to abandon the Obama Jauggernaut.

Much of the East is clearly leaning heavily to Obama.  There are a couple of possibilities for surprise though.  New Hampshire stunned Obama in the primary after polls showed him the double digit favorite.  Massachusetts voted for Hillary.  The idea that Massachusetts might vote Republican is absurd.  The final numbers there may be surprising however.  The elderly population of Massachusetts has a very wary support of Obama.  The "Aunt Zetuni" issue fell flat on most of the country, but it hit hard in Boston.  If Massachusetts isn't called by 7:00 Eastern time - it could be a bad sign for Obama.

The Palin factor has been totally discounted.  She's been identified as a drag on the campaign, but seems to be the main reason that the outcome of this election is still in doubt.  This could be something of a "Bradley multiplier."  Some, who support McCain tell pollsters they're voting for a Obama because they don't want to be thought of as racist.  Is it not possible that some women are hiding their support of Palin because they don't want to be thought of as sexist ?

OK, maybe Obama wins in a blowout.  But here's what it takes:

-Youth vote makes a big turnout (this would be a first)
-Black vote increases dramatically (even though in every previous election democrats registered and bussed blacks to the polls by the thousands)
-"Bitter Clingers" suddenly become enlightened
- Hillary supporters remain insignificant
- Few women are secretly enraged at the mocking of a strong successful woman
- Mexicans will shed their bigotry and enthusiastically wait in lines to vote Obama
- Jews completely ignore they're voting for a guy named Hussein
- The Republican base is so demoralized - they stay home.

Of course, that's not to say it won't happen exactly that way - but I'll believe it when I see it.  Right now I'm going out to stand in line at 6:45 am, in a state that is not a battleground, to vote for the man I personally spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours opposing in the primaries, - John McCain

 

Many of us live in "uncontested" States.  It is easy to be drawn to the conclusion that casting a vote is a futile exercise in either direction since, after all, the winner is a foregone conclusion.  If one is a conservative Republican living in California or New York, it is difficult to argue that ones dutiful voting might tip the electoral balance in this election.  Any pragmatic, thinking person realizes that it won't. 

So why bother?

After the votes are counted and a winner is declared, it is "the numbers" that will be used by the victor to claim the strength of his "mandate" to govern.  In a closely decided outcome, the losing party will cite "the numbers" to justify a full throated opposition to the agenda being advanced by the party in power.  It is in these "numbers" that every vote sincerely counts.  At the start of the Bush administration democrats consistently referred to Gore's popular vote totals to support their opposition to the new administration. After the George Bush was re-elected, by a significant margin, the administration began to speak of a mandate to govern. 

In terms of the election at hand, one party is proposing massive "change;" while decrying the "failed policies of the past."  Unfortunately, this party has never been tasked with defining either the specific changes being proposed or what specific policies have failed.  Many fear that what the Democrat Candidate describes as "failed policies of the past" are in fact the very underpinnings of capitalism.  Should the governing coalition of Reed, Pelosi, Obama become a reality, there will be little to resist the move to socialism.

In the event of a REPO (Reed Pelosi Obama) government; their only constraint will be the votes of Congressional members facing re-election.  It is in this scenario that a single Presidential vote is magnified, even if cast in opposition to a winning candidate.  The U.S. Congress is comprised of a few principled individuals, and a majority of politically motivated self serving people who's greatest concern is their own re-election.  When faced with controversial issues, congressmen often refer to the Presidential election results as a template by which to structure their own positions.  The Bush/Kerry results, district by district, precinct by precinct, were used by the Democrats to identify vulnerable Republican seats in 2006.  The majority of Democrat gains were the result of a conservative Democrats running in districts where Republicans were displeased with the spending habits of the current Congress.

It will be important that those Democrats in Congress that will be serving their third term, and have the temerity to resist the leadership, know that the district they represent is likely to vote them out of office if they can be too closely tied to a very liberal REPO agenda.  These Presidential voting results also become the tea leaves that are read by potential conservative challengers in the next Congressional election.  If you are a conservative living in a liberal area, a vote for McCain is smoke signal letting the party know that you are there.  To this end, it may be even more important to vote if you live in a traditionally liberal area.  Your vote may be the difference between having a congressional challenger or having your representative run unopposed.

On a more technical, yet important aspect, the Presidential voting results are likely to weigh heavily in Congressional Districting maps that will be drawn in 2010.  Remember, most Congressional members are political cowards.  Even a Democrat controlled legislature will gerrymander in a single Republican district, if it means the rest of them face easier re-election conditions.

In any event, the vote is important in many ways beyond the simple winning and losing of the Presidency.  The size of the mandate, the signals to your voting representative, and the implications for redistricting are all to be considered before one decides - it just doesn't matter.