Where A Change Is Truly Needed

Given the circumstances the country found itself in as the 2008 presidential campaign was playing out, it is reasonable to doubt whether any Republican could have come out victorious on November 8. But for those Republicans who have not yet brought themselves to do so, it is time to recognize that at a time at which our only – however slim – hope was to put forward one of our absolute best and brightest, our fate was almost certainly sealed by virtue of the fact that John McCain was clearly not the candidate the party should have nominated for president.

Mr. McCain’s service to his country in time of war is certainly admirable, and I personally found myself taking note of this fact every time I saw him on the campaign trail waving to his supporters with arms that he can only raise so high because of what he suffered as a POW. But the election was, for all practical purposes, decided when the party in power at the time of so much turmoil offered to the country a candidate that has spent decades as part of the Washington establishment. It was decided when the party that relies heavily on the support of Christian conservatives nominated a man who had gone to the heart of evangelical country in his 2000 campaign to rail against their influence on the party. It was decided when party whose grass roots believe strongly in the Constitution as written put forward the one member of the party whose name was attached to one of the most blatant attacks on free political speech in memory.

Given these facts, one might wonder how Senator McCain came as close as he did to stopping the Obama juggernaut. Keep in mind that at the time of the Super Tuesday primaries, which effectively sealed his nomination once and for all, conservative Republicans were left wondering what they would do on election day in November, as it was unthinkable to support the Democrat nominee, but distasteful at best to support the Republican one.

At that point, the race was surely shaping up to be a Democrat landslide of unthinkable proportions until Senator McCain made one of the very few wise choices of his campaign – the selection of a true conservative as his running mate that brought thousands of other conservatives to the polls who were thinking seriously of sitting the election out. For all the criticism that has been – unfairly – leveled at her, Sarah Palin saved the McCain campaign much more embarrassment on election night than any she may have allegedly caused during the campaign. There is no doubt that the electoral map would have been much bluer without her than it was with her.

It is a strange phenomenon of this campaign that the Republican nominee for president chose a running mate who was much more appealing to his party’s faithful than he was himself. And therein lies a lesson that should not go unnoticed or unheeded.

John McCain acted wisely in selecting a running mate his party could get behind once he had received the nomination. So why wasn’t the party itself able to select someone for the top of the ticket that it could get behind?

Simple. It wasn’t Republicans who selected the Republican nominee in 2008. It was independents, and perhaps even some Democrats, who voted in the Republican primary who propelled Senator McCain to victory over Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, either one of whom could have put up a much more effective image to counteract young Senator Obama’s nicely-worded mantra of “Change We Can Believe In.”

The fact is that this campaign has highlighted a major flaw in the process used to nominate presidential candidates. Democrats should be allowed to select their party’s nominee, and Republicans should be allowed to select theirs. Just ask any Democrat who was outraged at Rush Limbaugh’s much ballyhooed “Project Chaos” that many were afraid would keep their rightful nominee from receiving his due. Fortunately for the Democrats, their nominee survived the process this time. And though the problem was not an organized movement operating on the Republican side, the problem was there nonetheless, and they were not so lucky as the Democrats.

Granted, there are many in America who are not committed enough to one of the major parties actually become active members, and that is certainly their prerogative. But why should anyone other than a “faithful Democrat” or a “faithful Republican” be allowed to have a voice in choosing either party’s nominee? Both parties should look closely at their internal rules state by state, and strongly consider ending open primaries and closing them to all but committed party members. Only then can they be certain that the process will produce a nominee that has the full-throated support of the party in the electorate. What’s more, it would provide the electorate in general with a much more distinctive choice to make – between what Democrat activists truly stand for, and what Republican activists stand for.

Contrary to many people’s knee-jerk reaction, this would not close independents out of the process of selecting the president, only out of the process of selecting the nominees of the parties which – most would admit – they aren’t committed to across the board anyway.

Random Thoughts

I've long been a believer that socialism doesn't win national elections in the United States, at least when the election is an honestly-contested, fair fight. After all, the most recent Battleground poll data available shows that 59% of Americans consider themselves somewhat or very conservative - compared to 36% who consider themselves somewhat or very liberal.

Nevertheless, as things stand at this moment, the presidential race is being led by one of the most liberal candidates in history, who only a few days ago openly acknowledged to a voter his intent at re-distributing wealth within America. It's not like he can hide who he is anymore - which is normally what is necessary for a socialist candidate to win in this country.

So are current poll numbers reflective of the massive voter fraud that is taking place on Senator Obama's behalf? It's hard for me to believe that this alone could make up for the 23% difference between conservatives and liberals.

Is it the appealing sound that socialist rhetoric has to it during times of economic crisis? Has the left-wing dominated Democrat party finally found the perfect time to throw their achievement-punishing sales pitch to the public?

Is it the cult of personality that has grown up around Senator Obama, that has displaced interest in issue stands?

What's the explanation?

**********

And speaking of the documented voter fraud that is taking place throughout the nation, I find it interesting that, during the last two presidential election cycles - when a Republican won - left-wingers, including those in Congress, howled that the election results were not valid, based on their unverified allegations of voter intimidation and fraud. But now that a liberal Democrat stands poised to carry the day in an election - the results of which many have genuine reason to have little or no confidence in due to documented fraud - the silence from the left is deafening.

**********

I find it striking that Senator Obama's plan for bringing about economic recovery in the United States does not allow for the concept of ecomic growth, or the creation of wealth. His plan - as expressed to the afore-mentioned voter - revolves around taking money/wealth out of the economy and putting it in the hands of the government, so that it can re-distribute the wealth as it sees fit.

It seems that, to the left, prosperity is a zero-sum game, in which there is only an unchanging set amount of wealth in existence, and therefore the gains of some must be offset by the losses of others. So, if somebody's got to win, and somebody's got to lose, why not let the rich be the losers? After all they've got it to spare.

There seems to be no allowance for the idea of the creation of new wealth, in which case there is more prosperity brought into the system, and in which case everyone can indeed enjoy more, as there is a larger pot for every citizen to draw from, based on his willingness to work for it.

The fact is that the amount of wealth in our system never remains static. If it is not growing, which the capitalist system gives it the best opportunity to do, it is shrinking. Take $100 away from a rich man in order to funnel it through the government, it will be something less than $100 that comes out of the other end of the system to be given to some other citizen - unless we can develop a government agency that operates for free.

What's more, penalized enough, the citizen who actually produces that $100 will be incentivized to eventually take all his wealth out of the system altogether, as some heavily-taxed industries have already done in the United States.

Even Senator Obama has been heard to say that he may put off certain tax increases if the economy doesn't strengthen a bit first. Why would he say something like that? Is it because, maybe deep down, he recognizes that higher taxes do not spur economic growth, or even recovery? Why should I vote for a candidate who essentially acknowledges that his plan for economic recovery in the United States doesn't work unless the economy doesn't need to recover?

Still Beating the Horse, Because It's Not Dead Yet

Have we forgotten what a unique idea it was that the founders of this nation had 230-something years ago? After years of living – and languishing – under the authority of a distinct ruling class, a class that was closed off to any not blessed enough to be placed there by chance of birth, these men had the crazy idea that “average” people with a healthy dose of common sense and a reasonable work ethic could manage the affairs of their own nation. These Classical Liberal thinkers decided to kick against the idea that only a select group of high-born people could be trusted to run the affairs of a nation.

Instead, a group of men – with little to no experience running a national government – decided to strike out on their own, even giving a voice to the people of the land in determining who would actually occupy positions of power in the new government. Over time, that crazy idea allowed the development of what is now, and remains – despite its present woes – the dominant nation on earth.

Much of the rhetoric we are hearing in the current campaign for the nation’s highest offices is that one – only one, mind you – of the four candidates on the two major-party tickets is not ready to take up the reins of power immediately, if elected. The candidate’s lack of experience is arguably the one issue that is raised the most by her critics. And, interestingly, the experience issue is raised only with regard to her, with very few exceptions.

Sarah Palin is a natural-born American citizen. She has lived in the United States for the last fourteen years, and she is over the age of thirty-five. As far as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson are concerned, she is qualified to be President of the United States – as is, by the way, Barack Obama.

It is interesting to note the absence of any other qualifying factors for the presidency placed in the original Constitution itself. There is no mention of a required level of education. There is no mention of accepted universities for potential presidents to attend. There is no mention of required years of experience in a particular position.

The idea of additional qualifying factors, such as the ones mentioned, is one that has taken hold in the consciousness of the nation following the passing of the nation’s earliest generations. And it is fascinating to see how so many in the chattering classes, and so many in the general populace, cling to this extra-constitutional idea, especially in view of what it has wrought for America.

Upset about the current financial crisis in the United States? It was brought to you by “leaders with experience.”

Upset about the war America is fighting? It was brought to you by “leaders with experience.”

Upset about the problem with unaffordable fuel prices? It was brought to you by “leaders with experience.”

Dissatisfied with the performance of the President and the Congress, as the vast majority of Americans are? They are, almost to a man, “leaders with experience.”

And yet, despite all this, the American people have been convinced by misguided purveyors of “information” that continuing to keep the same group of people in Washington will somehow magically eventually make things better, even while these same people have been on the watch as the present problems have developed. How can this be?

Because, over time, we have replaced the notion of the necessity being led by the “high-born” with the notion of the necessity of being led by the “high-educated” or the “high-experienced.” Average citizens, despite the ability to run successful businesses, design new technologies, and solve real-world problems have been fed the line that they can’t do the job that their congressmen and presidents do. And they have bought into it, despite the fact that a large portion of these Americans don’t believe the president and congress are doing such a hot job themselves.

The dilemma for those who believe that experience breathing the rarified air within the hallowed halls of Washington is necessary to be able to lead the nation is this: If the American people cannot be trusted – with their lack of experience – to run the nation, how can they be trusted to choose who does?

Those who want to justify their vote this year, one way or the other, based on the experience issue, are standing on very thin ice – logically speaking. On one side, the Vice-Presidential candidate – in the eyes of some – doesn’t have the “requisite experience.” But on the other side, it is the Presidential candidate with the same problem. If this is a disqualifying factor for the one, why not the other? Why is it disqualifying at all?

Hubris?

So it’s hubris when Sarah Palin accepts the offer made by John McCain to be his running mate?

Apparently so, if you accept the interpretation offered by Charles Gibson during the portion of his interview aired on ABC last night. Mr. Gibson offered that someone as inexperienced as her should have had some pause before being willing to accept a position that many – including, apparently, he – feel she is not ready for.

Make sure you understand this – it is hubris when a governor of a state, with an established track record of executive branch experience – is asked by someone else to be on the national ticket, and accepts without agonizing over the choice.

So is it hubris when a first-term Senator with no executive branch experience and a thin record of achievement in the legislative branch decides, on his own, that he should head up a national party ticket?

Was it hubris for the governor of a relatively small rural state to decide, on his own, to take on a sitting president with an incredible resume back in 1992?

Was it hubris for the governor of a rural southern state to decide, on his own, that he was the one to heal the nation’s wounds, taking on a sitting president, again with an incredible resume, who had devoted much of his time and attention to the same back in 1976?

Why is it, in the minds of our elite teachers in the out-of-touch “mainstream” media – which, by the way, is a term that merits some re-thinking, in view of such outlets’ decreasing market share – such questions are only valid when someone like a Sarah Palin is the candidate in question, as opposed to Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter - or Barack Obama?

I think we all know the answer(s) to that question.

Relative Experiences?

Experience.

It is a word that looms large over this year’s presidential election, and certainly merits careful consideration and comparison between the camps involved in the race.

And it is being discussed. Comparisons are being made and talked about. Almost on a daily basis, for example, you can find someone somewhere who is willing to weigh in on the relative experience of Obama/Palin and how it prepares, or fails to prepare, each for the high office each seeks.

On the one hand, there’s Sarah Palin.

Currently, she’s a first-term governor, who has been consistently on the job at the state capital, who has shown willingness to take on corruption in both parties and shake up the established order by taking on wasteful spending in a very tangible way.

Prior to being elected governor, she served in the executive branch of state government, before resigning in protest over corruption in her own party and deciding to take on the incumbent – Republican – governor in an election.

Prior to that, she was a concerned citizen of a town who took it upon herself to get involved, and get elected as the town’s mayor. Notably, all of her government experience has been in the executive branch, which, by the way, does not offer the option of anonymously doing nothing when presented with challenges or tasks.

On the other hand, there’s Barack Obama.

Currently, he’s a first-term senator, who has been vacationing and campaigning for president more than he’s been in the Senate itself. When in the Senate, he has compiled a record marking him as the most liberal member of that body, who has used his time in office to request 330 earmarks, worth nearly a billion dollars, be funded with American taxpayer dollars.

Prior to being elected to the senate, he served in the legislative branch of state government, where he frequently used the option a legislator has to hide behind his desk and vote “present.” Not that the votes he actually did cast do much for his image either – think teaching sex-education to kindergarteners, or refusing to protect the lives of newborn babies.

Prior to that, he was an academic and a community organizer – a position whose responsibilities no one seems to be able to identify with any certainty, the misguided attempts to link it to the Son of God’s work notwithstanding.

You want to talk experience, I’m sure that Sarah Palin welcomes the chance to compare resumes with Barack Obama. Such a comparison is very kind to her.

But wait a minute.

These two aren’t even running for the same office. So why isn’t anyone anxious to compare the experience of Barack Obama – the Democrat nominee for President – to the Republicans’ nominee for President? Could it be because it is generally, and instantaneously, recognized that such a comparison would be even more embarrassing to the young Senator?

It’s understandable that Obama and his supporters don’t want to get into experience comparisons with John McCain. But frankly, they would do well to avoid such a comparison with Governor Palin as well.

Experience can be a fairly quantifiable and tangible commodity. And in this campaign it is clear that, among the four people on the two major parties’ tickets, Barack Obama – Democrat nominee for President of the United States – comes in fourth.