Wednesday, October 15, 2008

A Blue Election

"Sometimes in life your the windshield and sometimes your the bug."

Today I cast my vote (via absentee ballot) for the man who I hope, but seriously doubt, will be the next President of the United States of America, John S. McCain. McCain is not perfect. I think he is wrong on some important issues like taxes and debt. But he is right on the imperative ones; those two being life and national security.

Anyone who can read and who has a basic grasp of math (my grasp has never been more than basic), will note the spreading ocean of blue on any of the various election maps that all of the news services are putting up. If you want red (oddly, the Republican color) you are in for a disappointment. Senator Obama is not only firmly in command of all of the usual blue states and a majority of those states often touted as battleground, but he also holds leads in a number of states that are traditionally Republican.

No Republican has ever won the White House without carrying Ohio. Right now the odds of Ohio voting Republican are somewhere between slim and none. And I think that was slim I just saw on the bus heading out of town. Add to this mix states like Michigan Florida and Pennsylvania which are all either solidly in Obama’s camp or leaning in that direction and it looks ugly. But it gets worse.

Look down from Pennsylvania a bit and you will see Virginia and N. Carolina.. These are two states which have been reliably Republican for decades. How reliable? The last time Virginia voted for a Democrat was when they went all the way with LBJ in 1964. For the benefit of those of us who are mathematically challenged a TV talking head explained that was 44 years ago. Or put another way Virginia has never voted for a Democrat for President in my lifetime (plus two years).

Right now Virginia and N. Carolina are leaning strongly towards Obama. This is starting to look like we could be facing an electoral landslide the likes of which we have not seen in decades. And I am not talking just about the numbers but about a fundamental shift in the political landscape and out look of the American people. The last time we saw an election that could be a bellwether for a major shift in the political pendulum was probably 1980. That was the year Ronald Reagan thumped Jimmy Carter and announced in his inaugural address that government was not the solution, it was the problem. From that election up to now traditional big government liberalism has appeared to be safely dead and buried.

And yet here we have one of the most reliably conservative states about to vote for the most liberal member of the United States Senate who also happens to be African American for president! The joy which I think anyone should feel at the sight a black man about to carry at least three states out of the old southern Confederacy (Virginia was home to their capitol city) must be tempered by the implications of this election. Big government liberalism is poised to make the biggest comeback since John Travolta’s return from the dead.

Not only is McCain likely facing a historic pasting (Dick Morris, no friend of liberals, thinks McCain’s home state of Arizona might go blue), but the Congress is likely to be reshaped by this election as well. Herein lies the sign of a bellwether election. You may well have both the presidency and the Congress in the hands of an overwhelming liberal Democratic majority. Although I doubt the Senate will see enough of a shift to give the Democrats a filibuster proof majority they could come close enough to make the threat of a filibuster more or less empty. What does this mean? Think Great Society the sequel. And as Jim Cramer is wont to observe, the sequel is always worse than the original.

* Federal Legislation Enshrining Abortion Rights
* Higher Taxes
* Massive Federal Spending
* Increased Debt
* Surrender in Iraq
* Liberal Judges
* Extension of Same Sex Marriage Benefits

I could go on but I am guessing the point has been made.

Unlike the last two presidential elections, the suspense this year will not be over who is going to win, but rather how much he will win by. Barack Obama will likely be called the winner before the polls even close in California. What we will need to watch closely is how big the Democrats win in the House and Senate.


Wordsmyth said...

Higher taxes for whom? Everybody? I thought Obama's plan was to cut taxes for people who make less than $250,000 per year. Maybe that's just income taxes ...

Ad Orientem said...

There is no such thing as higher taxes just on one small group of people. Higher taxes on companies are passed along in the form of higher prices to consumers. Higher taxes on the wealthy mean fewer people they can hire or less money they can spend on things that create jobs.


Wordsmyth said...

I agree, but I don't understand why so many people go into a frenzy when taxes are mentioned. It's a cost, and everything I consume, use, purchase has a cost. I pay for water, gasoline, peanut butter ... the list goes on. It seems like people don't get bent out of shape when those costs are manipulated in favor of the seller, even when there's not really an alternative.

Big corporations exhibit the same evils as big government. Maybe evils that are worse because often the motivation is profit. At least in theory, government's motivation is service to the people.

Generally speaking, as long as my taxation is accompanied by substantive representation, I don't get bent out of shape. If taxes are raised, I should reap some sort of benefit (e.g. better schools, better roads, more police, body armor for soldiers).

I never had the impression that "tax" was a dirty word, but it seems that so many people feel that way.

Greg DeLassus said...

Higher taxes on the wealthy mean fewer people they can hire or less money they can spend on things that create jobs.

Surely this is plain nonsense, no? President Bush slashed taxes on the wealthy and on corporations, and yet he has the rather dubious distinction of being the only president to preside over an economic recovery that did not result in job growth. We had higher taxes and higher employment rates before Bush. Jobs have declined even as taxes have declined. Clearly, then, higher taxes do not equal fewer jobs.

Anonymous said...

Some people are very naive regarding the insight of rich people. Some even regard rich people as having some deeper knowledge of reality compared to themselves. Some regard them as morally superior.
Some of these people regard themselves as religious...but when they don't even question the propagandistic pablum spewed forth from the demon's mouth but accept it as golden streams of truth...there's little to do but pray.