My Thoughts the morning after Election Day '08

- A very solid race run by the Obama team. I think it was handicapped by the media to make Obama a clear favorite, but he did want he needed to do, ran a clean campaign, and I have never denied that he can deliver a speech.

- Still "concerned" about his ideas. I am hopeful that a struggling economy forces him to abandon some of his more extreme campaign promises (i.e. universal healthcare, wealth redistribution, confiscatory capital gains taxes).

- This election was bought. Not only did Barack Obama outspend his opponent by at least 3-to-2, and I believe some reports say it's closer to 2-1, but he also bribed 95% of the American people with promises of tax cuts. Now I'm all for tax cuts, but Obama is not going to pay for these tax cuts by reducing government spending, or by stimulating growth in the economy, but by increasing the taxes on the other 5%. That's the worst form of demagoguery.

- I'm glad that we have our first black president. I wish it were someone I agreed with more. I hope this means that we can move past race in future elections.

- On that note, I congratulate Mr. Obama on not playing the "Race Card", and likewise for Mr. McCain. The only references to Mr.Obama's race came from the extremes on either side. Oh, and the fawning by the media in the hours after the election was called for Mr. Obama.

- George Bush will be demonized for years for having lost this election for Republicans across the nation. And history will have a much more sympathic veiw of Bush 43's Administration.

- Michelle Bachman for Senate in '12. 'nuff said.

- I wonder what Sarah Palin's next step is. I suspect she will run for President in 2012, and it will be intersting to see how she handles the primaries.

- Speaking of Caribou Barbie... I hope it as obvious to everyone else that the charges against her in "Troopergate" were strictly political in nature. The investigation was not started until she was already selected as McCain's running mate and she was exonerated mere hours before the election. I hope the individuals behind such blantant political slander are called to answer for what they have done.

Stupid line of the day for Election Day 2008:
Taken from MSNBC.com

In 2004, for instance, exit poll interviews found that 36 percent of
self-identified gun owners said they voted for Democratic presidential candidate
John Kerry, but 63 percent of gun owners said they voted for President Bush.

This seems like a recurring trend. It is odd, but in most races with 2 major candidates, the percentage of voters voting for Candidate A plus the percentage of voters voting for Candidate B equals something close to 100%. Very strange. I think we may need to comission an 18-month research study to delve into the phenomenon a little more.

Warning: Political Content ahead. Read at your own risk.

So I just read an interesting editorial over at Washington Times by Andrew Breitbart.

I think Mr. Breitbart has some very good comments. Myself, I think it's a travesity that the current ecomonic crisis is being pinned on "Bush's economic policies". I think some democrats are exagerating the power of the President to affect a world economy, both in the past and in the future. (That thought, BTW, is why I am merely "highly concerned" and not "Katie, bar the door" freaked out at the impending doom ...er... Obama administration)

What piqued my interest, however, is this comment.

If Barack Obama is elected the next president of the United States on Tuesday, I
hope the Republican Party and conservatives take the higher road. The republic
cannot handle another four years of undeclared civil war while we have real
enemies out there to fight.

While this is true and necessary, why is it that the conservatives are the ones that need to "take the high road"? I think the answer is two-fold. First, for whatever reason, the majority of media (and by media, I mean network and cable TV news, newspapers/magizines, and TV and movie actors, writers and directors) are biased toward the Democratic wing of the government (and the left-wing of the Democratic party). For more information on that, please read this also interesting column. Because of this, the democratic party has a monopoly on framing the debate. The question isn't "Did the President's ecomonic policies contribute to this current economic crisis?" or even "Did John McCain's ecomonic initiatives attempt to prevent this crisis?". The debate has been framed as "How will the next President's policies be different from the failed, evil, silly, *Insert derogatory adjective here* Bush policies?"

Second, the conservative side is represented by Talk Radio. It could be argued that Talk Radio had flourished because of the bias in the media. On the other hand, it could also be argued that the media has turned harder left to counter Talk Radio. Talk Radio started out great, and still has a lot of good providers. There is definitely a market for conservative comments and observations. However, it's success has also led to the negatives. Some personalities have over inflated egos, probably because they see themselves as right and everyone else in the media is wrong, which has a grain of truth in it. People like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have sought to create cults of personality and mutual admiration societies where those who agree are accepted and those who don't are branded idiots or worse. Their commentary has devolved to a constant hum that only serves to annoy those across the aisle. The idea that conservative ideals can stand alone intellectually if they are just explained is lost in a chorus of Ditto-Heads and fanboys.

Of course, the alternative is for the Republicans to back off and let Obama and Co work the country into a crippling decade-long depression. But I beleive the GOP has too much integrity for that. Besides, if the Dem's get their 60 seats in the Senate, it won't matter what the Republicans do, will it?