Civic Duty

On my way to the train today I stopped into my neighborhood polling place to vote. The line was longer than usual today and turnout seems heavy. It's good. Regardless of the outcome of this election it really has seemed to drive some turnout and gotten people to engage in the process and in the issues.

Though I'm not sure if I will agree with the outcome (based on last minute polls), I'll accept it as will most of us and wait to see what our elected officials wreak. I'll concede that the possibility of a black man as POTUS is a big deal, and for this reason alone, this election is historic. What is more interesting to me, and perhaps of greater historical importance is that if Obama wins, then this country has taken a huge turn from its history. Bigger, more intrusive government is definitely on the way. The United States seems to be swinging towards Socialism as it never has before.

Granted, many among us are war weary (though impending victory in Iraq should be curing that), scared by the near collapse of our financial system (precipitated in no small part by the Democrat party and their liberal allies) and annoyed at the stupidity of the Republican party (has a party been more inept at the PR game than the current makeup of the GOP?). These things, however, are not reason for me to hand the keys over to the Democrats. I don't see how more government is going to help us -- name one large event of the last three years helped by large government. The Democrats are certainly not free from special interests (labor unions, greens, abortion rights people, welfare-statists). Sadly, more government is what we're going to get if the Republicans can't hang onto the White House -- losing congress is a foregone conclusion . . .

It's our decision, we'll live with it, we (though not I and many close to me) chose to go this way, and though I neither agree nor understand why, that's the great power of our system and our society. Change happens, we have a say in it and we can enact change. I'm just not sure we truly understand what we've asked for.

Suburban Demographics

The below is quoted from "The Search for The Next Soccer Mom" in the Wall Street Journal (2/28/08). The article highlights several trends being watched by demographers that may play a role in the 2008 Presidential Election. Given that I'm a suburbanite, this portion of the piece, among others, caught my eye:

The suburbs are the contested terrain. According to Robert Lang of Virginia Tech, Thomas Sanchez of the University of Utah and Alan Berube of Brookings, Republican voters used to dominate the suburbs, but "with these areas becoming larger scale, quasi-urban environments, they are highly contested spaces that contain some of the nation's most important swing districts."

"Density equals Democrats," they argue, because the social environment and housing types in these areas tend to draw more Democratic leaning voters. Conversely, the farther out you get from the urban core, the more voters lean toward the GOP. Hence, strong Mr. Bush and GOP performance in the emerging suburbs and exurbs that lie on the fast-growing metropolitan fringe (52% growth between 1990 and 2005, compared to only 11% in the innermost suburbs).

But in 2006, the Democrats were more competitive in the metropolitan fringe and dominated the rest of suburbia. As Messrs. Lang, Sanchez and Berube put it, "The metropolitan political battle line is not neatly split between city and suburbs, but instead now mostly lies in the transition areas between mature and emerging suburbs." In 2006, the Democrats pushed that battle line fairly far out into the emerging suburbs. In 2008, the battle may turn on whether they can hold that line or whether the GOP can push it back into the mature suburbs.

Concerning Obama's Ascendancy

Currently, I'm between contract gigs. I'd had something lined up but it fell through as so often happens when contracting with small, interactive-inexperienced agencies. I've been beating the bushes and reading a ton of stuff about the presidential primaries. I did my civic duty and voted last week, casting a meaningless vote for a once-hopeful but now former candidate (who was still in when I voted).

Things have certainly changed quickly over the past week and now, in light of the VA/MD/DC primaries it looks increasingly as if Barack Hussein Obama has a pretty legitimate shot at the Democrat nomination. I qualify "legitimate" because it's not apparent that the Clinton Machine will actually acknowledge the ground rules of the primary to which they agreed before all of this madness started. Who would have thought that BHO would give Ms. Rodham such a run for her money, and actually beat her? I've had a feeling since late summer that he would -- she's too strident, too divisive and, frankly, too unappealing -- but I'm not sure that I would have wagered my kids' college savings.

He's a heck of a speaker, and charismatic but listen to what he says. He doesn't say much except to say how lousy, how unfair, and Dickensian the whole country is. When he's not being negative he's speaks vaguely of what he stands for and showers his crowds with bromides about "change" and "yes we can!" First of all, he's taken a page from The Commonwealth's very own Governor Deval Patrick, and his campaign motto of "Together we Can." As I wrote after Patrick's election in 2006:

It's a terrific marketing line. It says much and says nothing. It's brilliant and permits the reader to finish the line and therefore believe that the coming administration will fulfill his or her governmental dreams. The Patrick campaign never permitted itself to be defined, to take a stand or to declare its beliefs. Instead, it used its brilliant slogan to make the electorate believe that anything is possible. It's a great message, it's a great slogan but unfortunately the lack of substance, and the apparent lack of a plan behind the slogan don't bode well. . .

To be fair to Gov. Patrick, his campaign motto was better than BHO's. As the father of a toddler-boy I get my fair share of "Bob the Builder," whose motto is, "Yes We Can!" Just like the Democrat front runner for that party's presidential nomination Bob is not overly deep. Despite BHO's willful opacity, and his pseudo-positivity the more he speaks the more his true, negative view of America, his absolute lack of knowledge about foreign affairs emerge from the shadows. During my recent, unfettered, stroll around the blogosphere I've found some scary things popping up -- video and photographic evidence of, if not his true colors, then his lack of patriotism (I know, I know, don't questions the Democrats' Patriotism -- though the below pictures can only make one do so).

Here is BHO refusing to salute the flag last fall in Iowa.


Here is a shot from his newest campaign office in Houston.


He won't wear a flag on his lapel. He won't place his hand over his heart during the National Anthem, and Che's face and the Cuban flag fly in one of his offices. Once the people who sought the office of the presidency seemed to have some sort of love for this country or were compelled to serve out of some sense of duty. What inspires BHO, and what is it that inspires his followers to such levels of enthusiasm? There is a definite cult of personality around the man and that is not a good thing in my book, especially not given his seemingly ambivalent view of America.

Disenfranchisement Rejected

Following up "Change, Right . . . " a Nevada court rejected the suit brought by Clinton supporters and the NV Teachers' Union to ban casino-based caucus places. This ban would have disenfranchised Black and Latino employees of Casinos and other companies along the Las Vegas Strip. The suit was filed on behalf of the Clinton campaign in the wake of the powerful Service Workers' Union endorsement of Barack Obama.

How is it that the Clintons get away with this stuff, and why are they such darlings of the main stream media? Are there any less attractive people than these people (and I'm not referring to physical appearance)? They are rotten to the core. Is the country really ready for at least four more years of ugliness?

I have only questions, and no answers.

Change, Right . . .

Lest anybody think that the current election, as currently campaigned by the Democrats, is about changing government and saving the working and middle classes of America, read John Fund's opinion piece in today's WSJ.

. . . [I]t was only last week [the Democrats] argued before the Supreme Court that an Indiana law requiring voters show ID at the polls would reduce voter turnout and disenfranchise minorities. Nevada allies of Hillary Clinton have just sued to shut down several caucus sites inside casinos along the Las Vegas Strip, potentially disenfranchising thousands of Hispanic or black shift workers who couldn't otherwise attend the 11:30 a.m. caucus this coming Saturday.

D. Taylor, the president of the Culinary Workers Union that represents many casino workers, notes that legal complaint was filed just two days after his union endorsed Barack Obama. He says the state teachers union, most of whose leadership backs Mrs. Clinton, realized that the Culinary union would be able to use the casino caucuses to better exercise its clout on behalf of Mr. Obama, and used a law firm with Clinton ties to file the suit.

How lovely, is the nakedly aggressive pursuit of power.