FoodHot Chocolate (well, we are having way below average temps this week) for thought: Christine Todd Whitman and Robert M. Bostock - Free the GOP: The Party Won’t Win Back the Middle as Long As It’s Hostage to Social Fundamentalists (Via Little Green Footballs)

Four years ago … our central thesis was simple: The Republican Party had been taken hostage by “social fundamentalists,” the people who base their votes on such social issues as abortion, gay rights and stem cell research. Unless the GOP freed itself from their grip, we argued, it would so alienate itself from the broad center of the American electorate that it would become increasingly marginalized and find itself out of power.

At the time, this idea was roundly attacked by many who were convinced that holding on to the “base” at all costs was the way to go. A former speechwriter for President Bush, Matthew Scully, who went on to work for the McCain campaign this year, called the book “airy blather” and said its argument fell somewhere between “insufferable snobbery” and “complete cluelessness.” Gary Bauer suggested that the book sounded as if it came from a “Michael Moore radical.” National Review said its warnings were, “at best, counterintuitive,” and Ann Coulter said the book was “based on conventional wisdom that is now known to be false.” …

In seven of the nine states that switched this year from Republican to Democratic, Obama’s vote total exceeded the total won by President Bush four years ago. So even if McCain had equaled the president’s numbers from 2004 (and he did not), he still would have lost in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina and Virginia (81 total electoral votes) — and lost the election. McCain didn’t lose those states because he failed to hold the base. He lost them because Obama broadened his base.

This is where I usually get into one of those long posts where I barely know when to stop (and get myself flayed), so I’ll try and be brief.

This is something that I have mentioned a few times over at Pirate’s Cove, as well as here at McCain Blogs and at Stop The ACLU. The two authors of the column call it social fundamentalists, which, quite frankly, is a bit insulting, even though I am not one. Me, I call it the moralists. In my political opinion, most moral issues do not belong as part of the core agenda of the GOP, particularly at the national level. These issue mostly should belong to individuals and to private groups. There is nothing wrong with having high morals, but the GOP as a party seems to be pushing these issues over the ones that were established per the Constitution: keeping the country running.

I guess, for me, it goes back to the fact that the Conservative movement is based on Classical Liberalism. There are 3 cores to the Democratic political model: the economic, the moral, and the political. In Classic Liberalism, the model states that government stays out of those cores as much as possible. The government that governs least governs best, but gets involved when necessary. Social Democracy is when government gets massively involved in economic issues. Classic Conservatism is when government gets involved highly in the moral core, and somewhat in the political core.

Personally, I rarely get involved in the main social focuses of the day. For instance, gay marriage. Personally, it is not a hot button issue for me. If I had to vote, I would probably vote against gay marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. But, but, I see no reason to stop homosexuals from having civil ceremonies and being considered domestic partners. If 2 people love each other, who the hell am I to stop them? This is America. Freedom. And Prop 8 is the perfect example of how it should work. Private citizens and groups doing it, rather then the national GOP pushing it in Congress.

Now, let’s look at stem cell research. The big issue is embryonic stem cell research. Certainly, the backing of this research by Liberals is because of its implications to abortion on demand, another big moral issue, obviously. This is an issue that is a hot button one for me. I think it is despicable that the Left pushes ESC research simply for abortion issues, and, the GOP has opposed the research, mostly on moral lines. Should the GOP push legislation and block federal funding for ESC research on moral lines? Yes, to some degree. But, it is a loser method. Like with abortion, the Left has won the morality of the issue by using non-offensive language, such as “the march of progress” and “blocking potential cures.” They did this with abortion with terms we all know, such as “choice,” “reproductive rights,” and “a woman’s right to choose.” Funny how under Obama’s health plans, you will be forced to get a health care checkup, loosing your “choice,” but, I digress.

We should not forget the morality of the ESC issue, but, the political party should fight it on mostly non-moral grounds. For instance, ESC research has provided no cures, no medicines, and no treatments without massive issues, usually known as “teratomas.” Monster tumors. Adult stem cell research, and now placental stem cell research, have been providing cures, medicines, and treatments. I just posted one earlier. Which is why private industry is spending lots of money on them. If ESC was so great, they wouldn’t be whining to the feds for money. The GOP should block the use of federal money for the ESC research because it is a waste of money.

Abortion is, of course, the big issue. And one I personally rarely get involved in. I hate to say it, but, it is not one of my hot button issues, except in terms of late term abortions, which are, per the doctors that perform them, performed mostly because the mother decided very late that she doesn’t want the baby, and not for medical reasons, and the issue of parental notification. I could go on and on on these issues, but, for brevity, I won’t. Just consider, though: if a minor gets busted for, well, pretty much anything, the parents must be notified! But, here we have a massive life changing medical procedure, and in many states parents do not have to be notified. Just. Plain. Wrong. The GOP could certainly fight on legal grounds on these two issues, rather then moral grounds.

Abortion on demand has been turned into a privacy issue by those who support it. And, it is the Democrats number one all-encompassing issue, make no doubt about that. So, how does the GOP fight that? They mostly don’t, not as a Party. Again, let the individuals and private groups do it. They managed to get abortion on to several State ballots, and, if we stay true to our conservative roots, that is where it belongs. 9th and 10th Amendments. Limited government, particularly at the federal level. Certainly, the national party should fight if Democrats try to expand abortion on demand.

Certainly, many people will disagree with me. Hey, it’s America, that’s your right. My opinion is that the national Party, and even the State Party’s, should ease off the moral issues that have become so prominent, and focus more on our core ideals: limited government, continued low taxes, national security, individual rights and individualism, and a government that empowers and enables, not one that does it for you.

To wrap up (got a bit long winded), I should say I am no big fan of Whitman. Didn’t care for her when I was living in NJ, and still don’t. But, to me, she is making some sense. We shouldn’t expand our base by being a be all say all Party which stands for virtually everything, at least in rhetoric, like the Democrats. We should expand our voting base by being a Party of ideas, and holding our elected officials to those ideals.

Let’s see: we had the biggest two days drop since 1987 on Wall Street, occuring the two days after That One was elected. On the flip side, you might want to pick up some stock for companies such as Walther USA, H&K, Smith and Wesson, Glock, Baretta, Browning, and others who manufacture guns. Can’t wait to see their earnings reports for the 4th quarter!

• Fears of gun restrictions trigger increased sales
• Fears of a Dem crackdown lead to boom in gun sales
• Enthusiasts Flock To Buy Guns After Obama’s Win
• Election ignites locals to purchase firearms
• Gun Sales Up in Kern County Since Obama’s Win
• In Fort Worth, Obama’s election prompts run on guns and ammunition

And locally here in Raleigh

Barack Obama said he would improve the economy. Turns out he already has, at least in one retail niche: gun sales.

Starting in the days before the election, gun shops across the state have been mobbed by buyers who fear that Obama and a larger Democratic majority in Congress will restrict firearm sales.

Many were stocking up on things such as assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and handguns that they think would be the most likely targets of new laws, though practically everything related to shooting has been selling more quickly.

As I mentioned yesterday, I went and applied for my handgun permit. And the Wake County Sheriff’s office was packed with people of all ages and races. There was a little old blue hair, and she was applying for 3 licences. Heh! Do I need a gun? No. I approve of ownership of most (it is certain bullets that I am against, as they are not “arms”), but I have never felt a need. I will not keep it in my nightstand 10+1. I may or may not get my concealed permit in time. But, I would rather get one now before the Democrats hose our Right to own one.

Do I think it will happen right away? No. But, I also do not think it will be big, sweeping legislation. A bite here, a bite there, and soon the flea has eaten the buffalo.

And down in Athens, Georgia, a few people freaked out over a sign.

By now, you probably heard Senator Barack H. Obama (using his middle initial is racist, BTW) say it was selfish to not pay higher taxes. We already knew it was unpatriotic to want to pay lower taxes, thanks to Senator Foot In Mouth. For those who missed it, here ya go

Special, eh?

Let’s take a simplistic overview of what McCain and Obama say they are going to do with the tax rates. Now, if you hit 10 different websites, you will find 10 different answers to how much people will pay or save on taxes. But, the salient point is that McCain says he will not change the tax rates, except to lower a few. Obama says the same thing! Unless you are making $250K or more (which is certainly up for debate based on his and Biden’s talk of late,) Obama says he will not change the tax rates either. How many times has he promised (and you know what a Democrats promise on taxation is worth) to repeal the “Bush tax cuts on people making $250 and above?”

In essence, both McCain and Obama are promising “more of the same,” with more perks and breaks, which is the norm during a political campaign, as you well know. You can check out the marginal tax schedule for 2009 here. Interestingly, while Barry sneers at “more of the same old Bush tax policy that has hurt the middle class,” let’s say you are true middle class, making $45,000 a year. You are $506 over pre-Bush taxation in 2008. Calculate it for yourself.

What Obama promises: Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples. In fact, he is talking about doing this for upwards of 150 working people. Depending on how the figures work out, that is about $40 to $50 billion in “tax cuts.” Since he plans on not reducing your rates, I’d call that welfare. Granted, if he sends you a check, and you are in the 25% tax bracket, the check would be larger then a rate cut of 1 to 2 percent. Many are probably saying “Hey, Teach, if I make $50K, and you drop me from 25% to 24%, I will save that same $500.” Unfortunately, taxation doesn’t work like that. I mention this not to insult anyone, but, because so many are not aware that you pay taxes not on the overall income you earn at one rate, but at multiple rates. If you are making $50K, you only pay taxes in 2008 on the income from $32,551 to $50,000.

Anyhow, Barry is going to hand you a check, and, I do not want you to be considered selfish. So, a few ideas to help you out if he wins and actually manages to convince Nancy and Harry to not only NOT repeal the “Bush tax cuts” in full (prediction: Nancy tries to repeal them by mid-February), but give out these welfare checks.

First, you can take the welfare check and redeploy it to a Republican interest, such as the RNC, the Republican Senatorial Committee, a Republican politician (hint: SarahCuda 1012), or a Conservative group.

Second, you could use the money to build a Rightroots Movement, as John Hawkins recommends. Think about tens of thousands of right-o-sphere bloggers and readers taking $500/$1,000 checks and putting them towards building a Conservative answer to (Never)MoveOn. Our own 527. Our own PAC.

Third, you could buy one of these before Barry makes the regulations so burdensome that it will be darned impossible to purchase

One would think that with a title like Obama Avoids Partisan Rhetoric, Focuses on Unity, the Washington Post would have a flowery “gee, ain’t he just swell!” article to follow the headline up. The flowery part is there, but, it subtlety makes the point that Barack H. Obama is not Mr. Unity

On Barack Obama’s march through the red states, there is no inclination to examine the philosophical differences between the political parties.

There’s no point, he says. “We’re all in this together,” the Illinois Democrat assures the crowds who flock to his events, including one Sunday in the Colorado capital that drew between 75,000 and 100,000 supporters. “We don’t have the luxury of relying on the same political games and the same political tactics that are used every election to divide us . . . by who we are or what policies we support.”

And people are buying the kool aid in massive amounts. What, exactly, has Barack H. Obama done to bring everyone together? Can anyone name one thing he has done that crosses Party lines? That is acceptable to both Left and Right, even the closer to center Right? Anything? How does he work with those on the other side of the aisle, not withstanding his voting with the party line 97% of the time? Are there any of the “policies we support” that are acceptable to Republicans and Conservatives?

You know, at least with Kerry, I could find a few things that I liked. I thought his policy stance on the environment was wonderful, better the Dubya’s. Personally, I liked that Kerry was a beach kinda guy, and liked hockey. He may have been a bit pompous and elitist, but, at least he tried to connect with the inner sports guy, despite a few foul ups, such as the “Lambert Field” gaffe. But, with Obama, I can’t find anything. Like with Kerry, I have read all his policies. Cannot agree with anything. Can you? I can’t connect with Mr. Hope and Change on a personal level, because he seems divorced from modern day Americana. I’m not looking for a dynamic authoritarian leader, which seems to be what the Obamazombies want.

But, I digress

“Policies we support” might seem an important distinction as voters face this historic election, but it appears Obama would prefer the examination not extend beyond him and his Republican rival.

And, guess what, WP? You have contributed to this non-examination of Barack H. Obama, in what I call journalistic malpractice..

Yet, in his recent speeches in early-voting states that went for President Bush four years ago, Obama never mentions a future in which Democrats run Washington. Instead, he seeks to reassure voters that what comes after Nov. 4, if he is successful, will not be a revolution but more of a reconciliation.

“Together, we cannot fail,” he says. “Not now. Not when we have a crisis to solve and an economy to save.”

Obama, in his short tenure in the Senate, has rarely crossed Democratic orthodoxy, and McCain says his opponent cannot point to a significant issue on which he disagrees with the Democratic congressional leadership.

Words, just words. It’s easy to talk the talk, but, Obama has never walked the walked, and, if he wins, will not walk the walk, either.

There is no “together,” though. People have different opinions. And, based on the thuggery by his campaign and his supporters, if you disagree with The One, you will be destroyed. Personally. Change you can be silenced by.

LaborPains.org brings up a good point from the 3rd debate between Mitch McConnell and Bruce Lunsford

But when it came time for the candidates to pose questions directly to each other, we learned that Bruce Lunsford is more than willing to fight for the rights of terrorists but not Kentucky workers. It’s hard to believe, but unfortunately it’s true.

Lunsford has been an avid supporter of the deceptively-named Employee Free Choice Act, which would strip workers of their right to a private vote when it came to the issue of unionization.

Guess who else is not only a supporter of the Employee Free Choice Act, but has promised to immediately sign the legislation if elected? That’s right, Barry!

Of course, Obama has been all over the map on the terrorist surveillence operations. First he was against it, then for it, then against it, then voted for the FISA bill which kept telecom immunity. If elected, where will he stand?

That is the question that The New Republic asks, and attempts to answer. After six paragraphs of leadup and discussing John McCain, the writers finally get to their defense of spreading the wealth

But let’s get back to this apparently controverisal phrase–which, I gather, is going to remain prominent in McCain’s campaign rhetoric over the next few days. What, exactly, is so awful about “spreading the wealth”?

Government performs certain essential functions, from education to national defense. It must raise money to do that. Charging everybody the same tax rate might sound simple. But it would actually impose a much harsher burden on the poor, since they end up spending much–if not all–of their incomes on the basic necessities of life, such as food, clothing, and shelter. As one famous 18th century philosopher argued,

“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expen[s]e, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

Another rationale for progressive taxation is the fact that random chance has profound effects on everybody’s financial well-being. (A guy named John Rawls once wrote a thing or two about this.) Mandating economic equality–i.e., carrying out a truly socialist agenda–would obviously be wrong. But there are compelling moral and economic arguments for asking the fortunate to pay a little more in taxes, in order to blunt the influence of chance on people’s lives.

That’s it. That’s what they got. The famous 18th century philosopher is Adam Smith, a name that probably a good chunk of people may have heard, but, with todays education, do not know what he stood for.

Anyhow, government has certain functions, and some people are luckier then others, so, we need to redistrubute success. That is their argument, which, to be honest, is more then any other liberal/progressive outlet has attempted. Most of them have focused on Joe the Plumber, as we all know.

Yes, government has certain functions, but, one of them, per the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, is not to play Robin Hood. It is not there to punish success. Yes, Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to lay taxes, but, nowhere does the Constitution suggest that people who work hard, do well, and succeed should have to pay a disproportionate portion of the fruits of their labor to people who sit on their buts watching TV most of the day.

Should we help our fellow citizens? Sure. Works a whole lot better when it is handled by State government, local government, and local organizations, such as churches. But we should not help at the expense of others, performed at the barrel of a jail cell.

Well, I can find this story in international papers, and small U.S. ones, but, none of the big U.S. news sources, other then the Washington Post. I wonder why?

The commander of US military forces in Iraq has accused Iran of trying to bribe Iraqi legislators into rejecting a security deal with the US.

Gen Ray Odierno told the Washington Post that many intelligence reports suggested “pay offs” were being made, but that he had no definitive proof.

The US and Iraq governments are negotiating a security pact to allow US forces to stay beyond the end of 2008.

See, now, if I was one of the Reality Based Community, I would probably blame this on Obama, and suggest that the Obama campaign is behind this, in order to damage what we are doing in Iraq. But, I’m not. What we are seeing is the continued attempts by Iran to impose influence over Iraq. Imagine had we followed the “redeployment” plans of Obama and other Democrats.

And, how about Obama’s no preconditions for talks buddies in Iran think about talks?

Vice President for Media Affairs Mehdi Kalhor said on Saturday that Iran has set two preconditions for holding talks with the United States of America.

In an exclusive interview with IRNA, he said as long as US forces have not left the Middle East region and continues its support for the Zionist regime, talks between Iran and US is off the agenda.

It is the Americans who are in dire need of reestablishing ties with Iran, he underlined.

Iran is not obliged to reestablish ties with the US, he said.

“If they take our advise, grounds for such talks would be well prepared,” he said.

It is stupidity to hold talks without any change in US attitude, he underlined.

Of course, Kahlor is only one voice, and a small one, and even a president Obama wouldn’t be that dumb to listen to those conditions. I hope. One never knows what kind of surrender post-Vietnam Democrats will accomplish.

Exaggeration? Or the reality of the pressure brought to bear by the House leadership, as well as potentially the Senate leadership and the White House? You decide

And Sherman is a Democrat. Bet Nancy Pelosi was a wee bit pissed off.

Apparently, The Grey Lady got the same email blast from the Barry Camp like I did

Senator Barack Obama this afternoon urged Treasury and Federal Reserve officials to include four conditions that he and other Democrats are seeking in the proposed $700 billion federal bailout for financial firms – though he stopped short of saying he would vote against the bailout if his terms were not met.

Adding some specificity to proposals he has already made, Mr. Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, called for a payback plan for taxpayers if the bailout succeeds; a bipartisan board to oversee the bailout; limits on any federal money going to compensate Wall Street executives; and aid to homeowners who are struggling to pay their mortgages.

Hmm, why does all that sound suspiciously like what Democrats have been talking about since Friday? But, now it is Barry’s plan? As far as it goes

1. Paying back the taxpayers? That will never happen. You know it, I know it, Barry knows it. But, it sounds good. Put it in writing, in clear, easy to understand language, Barry, and I’ll back it
2. Bipartisan board? You mean like the 9/11 Commission?
3. The money should not go to Wall Street execs, I’ll agree, but, a limit can’t be put on exec pay. Talent should be rewarded. Meanwhile, why don’t you tell your advisor Franklin Raines to give his golden parachute back?
4. Why not have Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, and Tim Howard, all your advisors, Barry, give the money they got from companies they ran into the ground to homeowners, especially considering they were part of the creation of the housing problem.

If those four objectives are not met, Mr. Obama told reporters at a news conference here, he would recommend that federal and Congressional negotiators “go back to the drawing board” to restructure the bailout plan.

Well, thanks Barry. Glad your seniority and excellent attendance record in Congress is being put to good use.

But, what does a financial writer for the Times think?

Imagine, then, what it’s like to be in Congress this week. Most members of Congress have no expertise in the byzantine details of mortgage finance — or even have aides on their staff with such expertise.

“The problem here is none of us has that kind of advice,” Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, who knows more about Wall Street than most of his colleagues, told me.

The blind leading the stupid. And here comes the shot at Barry’s “plan”

Their best shot at success depends on keeping the debate tightly focused on the questions that matter most. There are really only two: What steps are most likely to solve the immediate crisis? And how can the long-term cost to taxpayers be minimized?

Everything else — reducing executive pay on Wall Street, changing the bankruptcy laws, somehow slowing the descent of home prices — is either a detail or a distraction.

In other words, all the hot air flowing from Barry is not necessary at this time.

Anyhow, the article does do a good job of explaining how it should work, and why people should not get caught up in the price tag, but in the cost of the assets. What percentage of value will they be purchased at, so that they can turn around and sell them.

There has been a constant bleat from the Obama campaign and many compliant and complicit media outlets to announce to the American people that Barack Obama would decrease taxes for 95% of the American people. Beyond the fact that that would be impossible, this begs the question, since the Barry camp wants to deal with non-distractions, what rates does Barry propose?

Web CPA, which is concerned, rightly, about job and income loss for CPA’s, has this to say

Obama also is pushing to repeal the Bush administration’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts - at least the part of those laws that gave relief to upper-income taxpayers. But in order to “protect tax cuts for poor and middle-class families,” he has proposed limiting the rollback to taxpayers with incomes of $250,000 or more, as well as permanently extending marriage penalty relief and simplifying the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Obama has been against making the Bush tax cuts permanent for years. And, as John Feehery points out

History: When it comes to cutting taxes, Barack Obama is a virgin. He has never voted for a tax cut in his legislative life. He has had 94 opportunities to vote for a tax cut in his Senate career, and he has voted no each and every time. When you have a long history of voting to raise taxes, you can’t convince voters that you are a born-again tax-cutter. Sorry. Nice try.

Now, Barack has all sorts of refunds ($500 for singles and $1,000 for families) and stuff going on in his plan, but, consider: here are the tax rates for 2000

And for 2008

Let’s consider what this means. The average American income in 2007 was $50,233. So, in 2000 you would have paid $14,065 in federal taxes. In 2008 you will pay $12,558 (and people say tax discussions are boring?) A difference of $1,506. Of course, we are not considering any deductions and other tax wonkiness, just straight numbers.

So, Barry let’s the Bush tax cuts lapse. What does he replace it with? Will he actually keep the rates for those who are making less then $250k as families and $200k as individuals in place? Will he go back to Clinton era tax rates? Those are the questions. Because giving a rebate is not a tax cut, it is just giving you your own money back. And people rarely pay attention to the actual tax rates

And that does not even get in to the capital gains taxes Barry wants to double, nor shifting the tax burden to the middle class as “the rich” start spending less and sheltering their money, nor the raise in Social Security taxes.