Let them die.

As much as I hate to admit it, I have been somewhat on the fence about the Big Three Bailout, for purely selfish reasons. Due to my pure fiscal conservative roots, I am generally against any government intervention in the markets, but the direct impact that bankrupcy of GM, Ford, and Chrysler would have on an already beaten-down Michigan economy gave me pause.

But then I came to my senses. This industry is the posterchild against a bailout like this. These companies have a long history of mismanagement, squandering of almost religious customer good will over their asian competitors, historic levels of inefficiency, and complete and enduring lack of vision (not to mention a string of mind-bogglingly unsustainable union contracts). To reward them with another $50B dollars on top fo the $25B we gave them a year ago is madness. We already dump billions of good dollars after bad into an organization that continues to fail miserably, year after year, by nearly every possible measurement. It's called our education system.

The truth is, GM bankrupcy will be painful in the short term, but actually much better in the long term. Reorganization under Chapter 11 would allow them to invalidate the smothering union contracts that they were bullied into, dissolve unneeded brands and eliminate dealerships, broker deals with their suppliers, and still retain the vast majority of their manufacturing capacity and market share.

George Will (in the top two thinkers of our generation, by the way) summed it up perfectly here.

This train is bound for glory...?

Emmanuel as chief of staff was apparently just the beginning. Barack Obama named Tom Dachle as the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Yet another example of "change we can believe in", huh? Dachle was the most partisan of partisans during one of the most partisan periods in recent American political history.

Obama's campaign was one of the most discplined in recent memory, although Dubya's first campaign in 2000 was a close second. Religiously on message 24/7, and impervious to leaking of any information, they were like a gestapo of liberalism (forgive the unfortunate analogy). That is, until they floated HRC as the next Secretary of State. Choosing possilbly the most polarizing politician in the past ten years (save for Mr. Rodham himself), and unconcerned about the inevitable baggage that her husband brings with him everywhere she goes. "No Drama Obama?" On the contrary, it seems as though Mr. Obama's talk of a new Politic was nothing more than just talk.

Look I know that all candidates make promises they have no intention of keeping if elected, but during the primary season, he was pretty tough on HRC, his talking heads pointing out she had little foriegn policy experience, not to mention repeated implication that having Hilary as the nominee would be a step into the past politics of partisanship. How's that for a 180?

Interestingly, if ever there was a president-elect who could appoint centrist advisors with very little risk of political fallout it is Obama; his party has a real shot at 60 seats in the senate pending results of a recount in Minnesota and a runoff in Georgia. He has a unique opportunity to appear bipartisan while not having any real need to do so - he can pretty much name his agenda and the sheep in the Senate won't even wake up long enough fromt thier after-election hangover to put up a fight. So why wouldn't he at least appear non-partisan as he repeatedly promised during the campaign?

Instead, the train keeps on rolling down the track, a full head of steam headed east tot he Whitehouse, but every stop more bloated liberal baggage is packed into the boxcars. Soon, I fear, the momentum of a momentous election will have been spent repaying the far-left liberals that just won't leave this guy alone.

Free Market of Ideas?

Several recent items struck me as prime examples of "Ridiculous Media Oversimplification of a Complex Issue that Becomes Conventional Wisdom in the Face of Evidence to the Contrary". I know I've got to come up with a catchier name for this, but that will come later...

• Oil is down to below $60 a barrel. When gas was $4.29 a gallon and oil was $140 a barrel, the evil oil companies were reaping obscene profits. The popular theory was that a handful the "big oil" executives meeting in a smoke-filled room in Dubai three years ago to fix prices at levels so they could use some of their obscene profits to buy another Gulfstream for the house in Aspen. With prices down, they must have all gotten together again and decided that profits were no longer important, simultaneously coming to their senses and decided to emulate Mother Theresa. Or maybe supply is up and demand is down - wait that's crazy talk!


• The latest nonsense: apparently oil and gas prices dropping is a proof positive that the economy is tanking. I'm not sure which economist developed the theory that "the economy" and "gas and oil prices" have a direct positive relationship. By extension then, last year when prices were at historic highs the economy must have also been at an all-time high. So why were Hillary and Obama constantly ranting about how bad the ''Bush Economy" was last year during the primaries? Hmmm...


• Global Warming is causing more and more violent hurricanes. This assertion was second only to the Law of Gravity for absolute irrefutable laws of science after the Katrina hurricane season. Funny how I haven't heard any "global cooling" theories spring up since we've had some of the least active hurricane seasons on record since

And so it goes that Groupthink rules the American information age. I continue to be amazed that as more and more media and information outlets arise, there are fewer and fewer dissenting opinions presented. There is a rush to make unsubstantiated grand proclamations as iron-clad fact, and to the the first to do so. Presenting an accurate picture of a complex issue is completely unimportant - all that matters is providing and uninformed opinion first. The result is that each outlet just imitates all the others in a rush to be the first to be wrong to the exactly the same degree as the rest.

GRANHOLM?!? - Honestly, of the literally hundreds of people that he could have had on stage with him at his first presser as president elect, and he chooses the chief executive of the state with the single worst economy over the past five years of ANY STATE OF THE UNION? As a resident of Michigan who has personally felt the sting of a one-state recession for the past half decade, I really hope he appoints her energy secretary - terrible for the country, but good for Michigan. Anything would be an improvement in my home state.

For a president elect so perpetually aware of image and symbolism, this can only be described as baffling!

Quick Hits

THEN IT BEGINS - Harry Reid's recent threat to remove Joe Lieberman, who votes the vast majority of the time with the Senate Democrats, from his chairmanship of the (ridiculously named) Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee is a small reminder of what the "healing of America" and "working together to get things done" is going to look like under his tutelage. Brace yourselves.

"BRIDGE TO THE LATE 20TH CENTURY" - Barack Obama, in the spirit of "changing the tone in Washington" and "doing away with the partisianship of the past" has chosen for his chief of staff and his principal confidant for the transition team... wait for it... Emanuel and Podesta? Wow. That sure is turning the beltway insiders on their head, eh?

VOTER TURNOUT? - Repeating the "Obama has inspired historic voter turnout" mantra over and over apparently doesn't make it so. Preliminary data show that turnout is up only slightly over 2004, mostly due to a general increase in US voter population numbers. And the great youth movement of 2008 looks like it was a victim of the same apathy that it has succumbed to in the past.

DID MCCAIN EVER REALLY HAVE A CHANCE? - Byron York perfectly illuminates the fact that a McCain win would have been a truly remarkable accomplishment, considering everything he was up against.

INSPIRED ELECTORATE? - Raw voter numbers indicate that Obama's victory this election was less about an electorate inspired by a change candidate, and more that McCain failed to inspire his base. Consider- Bush got 62 million votes in 2004, and McCain got 56 million this year. We've been told over and over that in 2004 Bush won because the "Republican Machine" was able to get out the right-wing evangelical Christian vote. If true, then there were very few crossover voters in that election. So, what happened to the 6 million Bush voters in 2008? Obama may have inspired a hundred thousand new voters, but if McCain gets his base out this year, this election is a whole new game. His collosal risk with no return of Sarah Palin didn't get it done. Thanks to Seth of Morning in America for triggering this thought.

WHO AM I ? - I am the multi-racial son of a black man, raised in a middle class household. I have reached the highest pinnacle of my profession, where only white men of distinguished family pedigree and great family wealth have ever reached. While some African Americans had small successes, the thought of a black man dominating my highly competitive profession as I have was virtually impossible only a few years ago, and the speed at which I have climbed to the very top has been a complete shock to even the most optimistic of my proponents. My arrival triggered great resentment among the old guard, but my single-minded focus, work ethic, and refusal to accept defeat have. I've been referred to as "the savior" and "the chosen one" and I have inspired a whole new generation of followers and supporters with backgrounds as varied as that of the people of America, and even beyond. Who am I?

Who is the real Obama?

I have yet to have anyone, either a partisan Democrat or a previously undecided voter who was wooed into voting for Obama, precisely define how his policies will benefit the economy? The exit polls clearly show that the economy was the bellwether issue and the was the primary motivator for new voters. So, what is it, exactly, that makes them believe that an Obama White House and Pelosi/Reid near supermajorities in the Congress can heal our economy? Who is the real Obama - the one who ran and won or the one who has been in the senate for the past two years? Consider...

• Obama and his surrogates ran from the "liberal" label as fast as they could - and it is assumed that most of those who voted for him did not see him as one. But by just about any measure, he has been one of the most liberal members of the senate in his short time there, and his record in the Illinois legislature has been clearly far to the left.
• Obama won by running as a tax-cutter (for those earning below $250k, or $200k, or $150k...). His record in his limited time in public office has been that of a tax-and-spend liberal.
• Obama won by running as a bridge-builder, with exactly zero actual real-world examples of reaching across party lines. McCain has reached across the aisle to a nearly infinitely greater degree than he has, and yet the electorate was willing to believe Obama with no evidence rather than McCain with an actual record. Who is the real Obama?
• Obama won by running on a "get out of Iraq now" ultra-left liberal. McCain went against his party and staked his political fortune on the then unpopular troop surge, which worked to a degree beyond even his wildest expectations... McCain was right, Obama was wrong. What will Obama do now to appease the far left who he promised immediate withdrawal?

Who is the real Obama? It is a matter of gross professional malpractice that the media at large never even attempted to answer this question, and in fact suppressed others ability to ask it. But that is water under the bridge. We are bound to have our answer soon enough...

History Before Our Eyes

It is an amazing thing, an African American being elected POTUS. The Barack Obama story is the great American story at it's very best.

A truly historical day for America, Obama, and the Democrats. From segregated restrooms to a black POTUS in less than half a century. Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcom X, Thurgood Marshall, Jackie Robinson, etc., etc., etc. are all smiling tonight. Defeating the Clinton machine, avoiding the pitfalls of Ayers et al., winning the presidency and pulling significant gains in the House and Senate along with him. In some ways America is greater today than it was yesterday.

I am, of course, disappointed in the result of this election, but immensely proud that our nation has officially moved beyond the tumult of the civil rights movement; that that we have elected a black man as our President in the so few years from when his father could not take basic human rights and dignity as a given. The issues that the great civil right leaders of the beginning to middle of the last century battled over - basic equal rights and dignity, simple equal protection under the law, voter intimidation, access to education and health care and the legal system - seem almost quaint today, don't they?

Like most winning campaigns, this election was won with an incredibly organized and disciplined campaign, some good timing and good fortune, but mostly on the strength of an immensely talented candidate. Congratulations to the Obama campaign. Please make America proud.

Is America Red or Blue?

Liberals will conclude that the landslide wins that the Dems have made indicate a mandate for Liberalism. That America, having voted in the past several elections to be a center-right nation, has now changed to a center-left one. True, the overwhelming story tonight is the significant gains for Democratic and Liberal sensibilities in virtually every office and demographic. Most would agree that this wave of "blueness," if you will, came as Obamania swept across the nation.

I contend that America is still center-right.

If we can give Obamania credit for bringing millions of new participants into the political process then we must look at how he did it - He presented himself as a center-RIGHT politician, running from his actual record every chance he got. In short, he made himself appear as America IS. He ran as a tax-cutter, as a bridge-building-across-the-aisle-reacher, a reasonable regulator. Isn't this a description of reddish America? So many new voters bought into the package of Obama as moderate, I wonder how they will react when they find out how liberal he really is. When he got off the teleprompter, the true Obama came out, the "spread it around" liberal, the San Francisco intillectual, so much more enlightened than the masses of regular folks who "cling... to their guns and religion."

I've made two political predictions that I am particularly proud of.

• First, that the election of Bill Clinton in '92 would be very good for the Republican party. The Gingrich revolution was the result, as America showed little tolerance for a government where the House, Senate, and Presidency was controlled by one party.
• Second, upon Obama's keynote at the '04 convention, I predicted his rise to national office, calling him a political superstar. I couldn't have been more accurate, although his meteoric rise was even faster than I thought it could be.

My next prediction: I believe that the '08 election will have much the same result as Clinton's win in '92. It will sting for the next 4 years, and America will be worse off in the short term. But when Obama is revealed for the tax-and-spend, ultra left-wing social liberal that he is, the true Conservative movement will ultimately benefit. The '10 mid-terms will begin to show this result, and by '12 the presidency and the senate will return to the Republicans. .

A Blog is Born

This Blog was born at the exact moment that it was clear that Barack Obama won the presidency, specifically when Pennsylvania was called by Fox News as an blue state, and when John Sununu and Liz Dole were both defeated in their senate bids...

New to blogging, I'm not sure what this is to become. More to come...