Barack Obama, President-Elect

It's over now. Barack Obama decisively won yesterday's Presidential Election, as I predicted months ago would be the case. As of this morning, he has 349 electoral college votes to 162 for John McCain, with Missouri and North Carolina still in the balance. Obama's victory was decisive--he captured every swing state that he contested; Virginia, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Colorado, Florida and turned states that weren't supposed to be swing states into ones that John McCain had to defend (eg., North Carolina). He won 52% of the popular vote, become the first Democrat to capture that high a percentage since LBJ in 1964. This was no fluke and it was no upset.

So, the question becomes "Now what?", not only for the Republicans but for the country in general. The Republicans have been given a thorough beating in this election. In addition to the Presidency, they lost 20 House seats. They have lost at least five Senate seats, with several still being decided. The RNC needs to examine its strategy as to what it did wrong here, because it can't all just be blamed on Bush 43 or the economy. The primary process itself needs to be evaluated, because forcing people to constantly appease certain interest groups obviously isn't working.

As far as the country is concerned, well, I've been pondering the question as to how I feel about this. I just posted an entry about 40 minutes ago or so on Little Green Footballs where I said that I wasn't sure what to think. My initial thought was "Obama won, so he's MY President, too", but then I thought about all the comments I have heard from people on the left over the past eight years about how Bush 43 was not their President, and it gave me pause. I don't know if that type of thinking is helpful, but I certainly understand it now.

I guess that I'll end by saying this: President-Elect Obama is going to have a tough road down which he will have to travel to earn my confidence. He has made many promises, and I don't know how he'll be able to keep them. But, I'll be watching to see if he does. And, if he DOES keep them (without hiking my taxes to absurd levels or bankrupting the country), I'll give him credit. If he doesn't, I'll certainly point it out, and I'll keep my eyes on the prize, which is the next General Election, in November, 2012..........

Disneyworld

My self-imposed break from blogging is over, at least temporarily. I am with the BHG family, as well as mother- and father-in-law BHG, at Disneyworld. Mrs. BHG and I haven't been here in 11 years, and it's the first time we've been here with the little heathens--I mean, the little BHGs. We're staying at the Polynesian, where I last stayed almost 29 years, when I was 14 years old. I love this place. It may be campy, it may be dated, but it never loses its appeal for me. The kids are thrilled so far, if a little hyperactive from sitting on the plane for 2 1/2 hours.

I'll post updates as I find the time. On tomorrow's agenda: Animal Kingdom.

To answer an inevitable, non-Disney question, I will post an entry on the Presidential/General election at some point while we are here. I just don't know when.

Why I think that it's (almost) over

The fat lady may not have started to sing for the McCain-Palin Presidential campaign, but it appears as though she has finished warming up and is waiting just offstage. Tracking polls are giving the Obama-Biden campaign a nearly insurmountable delegate lead: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5. Most of the so-called toss-up states are leaning the Democrats' way. As well, it looks to be more or less certain the Republicans will lose even more seats in the Senate and the House. While it is unlikely that the the Democrats will get to the 60+ seats they need for a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (they're going to come very close, though), they will add to their majority in the House of Represntatives, probably by at least 10-15 seats.

Republicans will talk for years about this election the same way our grandparents talked about the 1932 election.................

Moonbat electioneering, Canadian-style

A Liberal Candidate runing for Parliament in a Winnipeg riding is catching justified flack after a column she wrote as a freelance journalist came to light. In the column, she claimed that the Mossad and CIA knew in advance about the 9/11 terrorist atacks, and that Jewish-owned businesses had gotten out of the Twin Towers before they were attacked: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/09/25/hughes-liberal.html.

I don't know what motivates these conspiracy theorist wackos, but there are far too many of them and they are far too prominent.

It affects us

With all of the focus on OUR election, another very important campaign is taking place north of the 49th Parallel. Canada is holding its own general election in October, and the results there will have a significant impact on the United States: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/canadian_consensus.html. For one thing, the current Conservative government has been a strong supporter of the NATO mission in Afghanistan. The opposition Liberals (along with the smaller NDP and the Quebec separatist party, the Bloc Quebecois) are in favour of an immediate end to the Canadian participation in the mission, despite the fact that the Liberals are the party which committed to it in the first place. As well, the Liberals have a long history of having thorny relations with the United States.

The bottom line is that for those of us who like to see relations between the two countries go smoothly, we had best hope for a Conservative win.

From the "Sky is Blue" Department

Apparently, even the nitwits who run MSNBC have realize that the average American, let alone those on the conservative side of the political spectrum, can't stand Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews because of their incessant cheerleading for all things Democratic and Barack Obama-related specifically: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/08/msnbc-hosts-olbermann-matthews-booted-from-political-night-duties/. So, Olbermann and Matthews are out as hosts of MSNBC's election night coverage. Apparently, even other liberals at the network were put off by the over-the-top behaviour of those two clowns.

All I can ask is, "What took so long?"

Why the Republicans are in trouble

Because their primary voters insist on doing stupid things like trying to send indicted Senator Ted Stevens back to the Senate, and potentially doing the same with House of Representatives member Don Young: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121988277457878041.html?mod=djemEditorialPage. If Young eventually secures the Republican nomination for Alaska's lone House seat and then loses in the general election, no big deal. However, the nomination of Stevens virtually guarantees that the Democrats will take his Senate seat, especially given that his trial is supposed to start just six weeks before the election.

Honestly, could they have been more stupid? In a year where even the most partisan Republican has to admit that the electorate is trending Democrat, they nominate an ethically-challenged octogenerian who is reviled by even his fellow Republicans? Way to go!

Another entertainment figure "speaks out"

This time, it's Madonna's turn. While on tour, she had a video running in which an image of Republican Presidential Nominee John McCain was interplayed with an image of Hitler: http://www.mahalo.com/Madonna_McCain_Hitler. Democratic Presidential nominee, Barack Obama, on the other hand, was portrayed as being a virtual saint.

I know that the entertainment types can't help themselves, as they really are (for the most part) that left wing. I just hope that the American public will be so repulsed by these despicable analogies that they reject the Democrats' message entirely.

The battle no one is discussing

With all of the focus on the Presidential race, the electoral battle that no one is discussing is the one for the control of the Senate: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121936710710962237.html?mod=djemEditorialPage. I don't think that this receives anywhere near enough attention, because if the Democrats gain a filibuster-proof majority (60 or more Senate seats)--a very real possibility given the general mood of the voters and the simple mathematical fact that the Republicans are defending a lot more vulnerable Senate seats than are the Democrats--we could have a Harry Reid-led majority which could set the agenda for the entire country. As well, if you tacked a President Obama on to that filibuster-proof majority, you could have the most "progressive" (translation: LEFT WING) government this country has ever had, including the New Deal Congress.

What the Angry Left has in mnd for the U.S. as of January, 2009

Lest anyone think that they're kidding, well, they're not: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjcxOTZiNzVhMTYzNmM4MGQ1ZDgwNmIzNzgwMDliYmI. The Angry left WILL put this country through "Nuremberg-style" War Crimes trials (their words, not mine) for everyone associated with the Bush 43 Administration, from President Bush on down.

We've all heard the expression "Payback's a bitch". Well, if we have a President Obama accompanied by solid Democratic majorities in both houses, there will be blood flowing in the streets................

Not so even Stevens

Alaska Senator Ted Stevens has been indicted on corruption charges, a very ominous development in a year where Republicans are already looking at a potentially poor showing come November: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121737532663995153.html?mod=djemEditorialPage. Stevens of course is famous--or should I say, infamous--for the "Bridge to Nowhere" for which he secured funding. This incredibly expensive bridge connects two islands in his state that no one wanted connected.

Stevens may still decide to run for reelection in November, and he is already promising that he will fight the charges which have been filed against him. Either way, he will be an albatross around the necks of every other Republican running for office in the upcoming election.

A Liberal takeover of the country

John Fund has a fascinating and frightening examination of how George Soros and his ilk have quietly but effectively mobilized "grassroots" organizations who in turn are gradually taking over key battleground states in advance of the 2008 Election. He uses examples of how so-called Progressive groups have successfully pushed their agendas or managed to get their candidates elected in states such as Colorado and Michigan, two states that both parties are targeting in the upcoming election: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121581650524447373.html?mod=djemEditorialPage.

If Fund is right, Republicans may be in for an even tougher election year than they imagined............

Not looking good

A Quinnipiac University poll has given Barack Obama a decent edge in three of the major "swing states" in the upcoming election, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/18/poll-3-key-swing-states-put-obama-over-mccain/. This is the first time that Obama has led McCain in Florida, a state which many thought would be certain to go for McCain given his military background and the large numbers of military personnel who live there. If Obama sweeps those three states, you can stick a fork not only in John McCain's presidential hopes but in the Republican Party in general.

It is shaping up to be a LONG night in November for the Republicans......................

Obamanation

Now that he's officially clinched the Democratic nomination for the Presidency, the media hoopla over Barack Obama can REALLY get going: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-03-clinton-delegates_N.htm. It's going to be very, very difficult for John McCain to beat Obama, and if those persistent rumours that Obama will make Hillary Clinton his Vice-Presidental nominee come to fruition, I think that McCain is toast in November no matter what he does. Look at the numbers now in the so-called battleground states (courtesy of Realclearpolitics):

Pennsylvania
Obama +5.8
Michigan
McCain +3.0
Ohio
Obama +1.3
Wisconsin
Obama +2.0
Iowa
Obama +6.4
Virginia
McCain +1.3
Florida
McCain +8.3

Those are NOT good numbers for the Republican nominee, who absolutely needs Ohio to have a shot at the Presidency. If Hillary Clinton joins the Obama campaign, the Democrats will have pretty much a lock on the female and minority vote.

It's looking like it will be a very, very ugly November for the Republicans.........

An unbeatable ticket?

There is increasing mumbling on the street that Hillary Clintont will be on the ticket in November as Barack Obama's Vice-Presidential nominee: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121236324804036403.html?mod=djemEditorialPage.

If that is the case, then look out Republicans in general and John McCain in particular. The Democrats would have a hammer lock on the Black vote, the female vote AND probably the Hispanic vote as well. What would that mean? The way I see it, a Democratic landslide the likes of which the country hasn't seen since 1932.

Shortsighted pandering

There is a very real reason that Congress' approval rating is lower than even that of the President. It's because it does shortsighted, stupid partisan things like changing the rules in the middle of a debate on a free trade deal with Colombia: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121124379355805567.html?mod=djemEditorialPage.

The system had worked wonderfully for over 30 years........until Nancy Pelosi and her union sycophants took the reigns of power in the House of Representatives. They've now killed the "fast track" authority that enabled the Bush 43 Administration to negotiate the free trade deal with Colombia. Why? Ostensibly, it's because of "human rights concerns", but the reality of the situation is that it has everything to do with cozying up to the Democrat's union base as we approach the November General Election. The fact that this move will harm relations with a key strategic ally in an area of the world where we don't have that many friends matters not at all to Pelosi et als.

Super in name only

My old friend Dr. Patrick James has written in very detailed fashion on how the whole "superdelegate" issue could potentially prove to be the undoing of the Democratic Party in November: http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/05/12/superdelegates-democrats-politics-oped-cx_pja_0513superdelegates.html.

When you think about it, their presence has already proven to be an albatross circling over the party's collective head. Unless they commite "en masse" to Obama and soon, the party will continue to spend money that would really be better spent on battling the Republicans in the fall, and if they do go in favour of Hillary Clinton, the very real possibility exists that Black Americans will sit out the election in November in protest. That would doom the Democrats' chance at recapturing the White House.

A stereotype

That's what Washington State Congressman James McDermott is. He is the prototypical "Angry Left", blame America first type. Don't believe me? Look at this revealing article, which admittedly comes from McDermott's future opponent in the 2008 Congressional election, Steve Beren: http://www.berenforcongress.com/rainier.html.

McDermott, as you will recall, was one of the Congressmen who went to Baghdad right before the start of the Iraq War in 2003 to propagandize for Saddam Hussein's regime. Now, it comes out that he really doesn't think very much of either this country (we are running "gulags" in Guantanamo Bay and in Iraq), and our troops are "mercenaries" who are either felons or too stupid and/or poor to know better than to enlist in the army.

Shame on the State of Washington for continuing to send this man back to Congress.

Iraq as Vietnam

The Democratic Party seems to have made that connection long ago, rightly (or as I believe) wrongly. Now, we are about to fight an election which, the economic issues aside, will be largely about the future of American policy in Iraq: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120718399181985179.html?mod=djemEditorialPage. Do we pull out quickly? What kind of presence will we keep in the country, if any? So many questions. I wonder, though, if the Democrats fully understand the prospects of a precipitous withdrawal. This is NOT Vietnam. There was never any danger of the Vietnamese coming over here and blowing up buildings or people. That very frightening prospect does exist with respect to Iraq.

Republican dirty tricks

We're still seven months away from the 2008 General/Presidential Election and Barack Obama has not yet secured the Democratic Party nomination, yet already so-called Progressives are screeching and whining about how the election could or might be lost because of racist Republican dirty tricks: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=conservatives_hate_based_campaign_against_obama. Yup, if Obama loses, it could only be because he is Black. It could never be because, say:

1) People realize just how far to the left he is;
2) He is soft on terror;
3) Americans don't want their taxes hiked;
4) He would effectively surrender in Iraq, something that would be very bad in the long run for the United States;
5) He is in favour of socialized medicine, something most Americans do not want (though they certainly do want health care reform);
6) His views on abortion are out of touch with the views of even most abortion supporters;
7) His ambivalence (and I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt by using the term "ambivalent") towards the State of Israel, the only true American ally in the Middle East, is out of touchwith the views of most people in this country, as they actually seem to like Israel (which poll after poll shows);
8) Americans are rightfully leery of someone who would talk without preconditions to the likes of Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Basher Assad, something even Hillary Clinton won't do;
9) His threat to essentially tear up the NAFTA agreement would hurt the United States in the long run.

Those nine reasons came to me immediately. No doubt, if I gave it some more thought, many more would come to mind. But, that would go against the self-hating rhetoric of the left in the country, which has already decided that this is a horrible, racist country, no matter what anyone may say.