And the numbers are (almost all) in

When I posted my last one last night, only a quarter of the precincts were in. Scott Walker had a better than 60-40 lead. Now, with 99.9% in, the margin is down to 53-47. Still big enough that one can say that the people have spoken and defeated Big Labor, but nowhere near as big a margin as what it first seemed.

It is great to see that in a “progressive” State like Wisconsin, the unions got their come-uppance. And it was even better than that: Tom Barrett, who was the candidate that had to carry their water, was not even their original choice. The unions' favorite candidate didn't even make it through the Democratic primary. She had vowed, if elected Governor, to veto any budget that did not restore the unions all the rights that Walker had taken away; Barrett was somewhat more moderate. So even in the Democratic primary, the Wisconsin public refused to vote the unions' way.

Unfortunately, there was one note that was not so good — many of the Wisconsinites who voted for Scott Walker did so simply because they felt that a recall was going too far and should be reserved for official misconduct, so they are still Democratic-aligned as far as November is concerned, and Obama remains a big favorite in Wisconsin. But Wisconsin is, as I said earlier, a “progressive” State. Mitt Romney does not have to win Wisconsin, and if he wins the presidency, it will probably still be while losing Wisconsin. So those results are not too disturbing. For now, let us just rejoice that — as I said earlier — even in a “progressive” State like Wisconsin, the unions got their come-uppance.

The Wisconsin results

As I write these words, only about ¼ of the vote in Wisconsin has been counted, but Scott Walker's lead seems quite impressive -- over a 60-40 margin. Even if a lot of the vote that comes in later is more Democratic, it does appear that Big Labor's attempt to bring down Gov. Walker has failed. Three Governors have been subjected to recall elections in United States history; the first two were actually removed. But Scott Walker, the third, will serve out his term. It looks as if sanity has prevailed in Wisconsin. And Big Labor has been shown the door. Let us hope that the rest of the year will be as good for the people as this has been.

The volatility of the polls

I don't think I've ever seen the polls as volatile as they are now. Real Clear Politics shows a CNN Poll taken May 29-31, showing Obama leading by 3 points, and a Rasmussen poll taken May 30-June 1, showing Romney leading by 4. That's a difference of seven points, and the polls are supposedly only a day apart with a 2 day out of 3 overlap. Either one of them is selecting poorly (or both are!) or the public cannot be trusted to give their true intentions.

But if the numbers are this volatile, can we put any credence in the polling results? I think that about all we can say is that, as of now, it's close. And a lot will happen anyway between now and November. I'm sure that Tuesday, when Scott Walker either wins the recall election, as most polls say, or loses it to Tom Barrett, there will be some movement in other polling numbers: if Walker wins, people will realize that you can fight Big Labor, for example, while some weak Obama supporters may reconsider their choice. Then the Supreme Court will be heard on Obamacare and the Arizona illegal immigration law. If the Obama administration loses on either or both, will it energize the Left (who might want to redo the Supreme Court majority by giving Obama time to appoint new Justices)? Or will it energize the Right, who will point to Obama's assault on the Constitution and make them even surer they want to get rid of him? And, of course, if the Court goes the opposite way, we would see possible reactions that are mirror images of these.

There is a good chance that, by July 1, the polls will look a lot different from the figures we see today. And certainly by November, a lot of people will change their mind.

What is his problem with Romney?

Rick Bayan is a fellow who runs a blog called The New Moderate, with which I agree on some points and disagree on others. His concept of “moderation” has some ideas that look close to those I hold myself and others I look at aghast. And Thursday I saw a post which is one of those I cannot accept. It was entitled, “Romney Bags the Nomination While a Better Man Drops Out.”

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I've been, in this election cycle, a strong supporter of Mitt Romney. So clearly, you can see why Bayan's title alone distressed me. But I wondered who the “better man” was that Bayan was praising, so I read it and found that he was talking about Charles Elson “Buddy” Roemer III, a former governor of Louisiana who had first sought the Republican nomination, and later, when it was clear that nobody considered his candidacy as a serious one, tried for the nomination of Americans Elect, a quixotic “moderate” group that wouldn't even call itself a party, and foundered when it found that its nomination process didn't work. The timing of Roemer's withdrawal is clear. While he refused to support Mitt Romney, the fact that he gave up his candidacy only two days after the day that Mitt Romney clinched the GOP nomination is clearly a confession that for Roemer to continue can only help President Barack Obama, by siphoning off votes from Romney. (I wish that Gary Johnson, another erstwhile Republican nomination seeker who got about the same amount of attention as Roemer, had come to the same conclusion.)

But Bayan's title for his post says it all: Rick Bayan just can't accept Romney as a voice of moderation. [Among other things he says in the post is “...was Romney the best candidate the GOP could have produced? No again. He wasn’t even the best Mormon candidate. (That honor belongs to Jon Huntsman, who apparently was too sensible and articulate to make a dent among Republican voters.)” Also, “Romney is the kind of moderate who gives moderates a bad name.”] He would have preferred — he actually says this in the post — Roemer.

While Bayan might think that Huntsman or Roemer would have been a better GOP candidate than Romney, it is important to recognize that no politician can accomplish a thing unless he can get elected. Neither Buddy Roemer nor John Huntsman, estimable though they might be in Bayan's eyes, was able to convince any number of Republicans that he had a serious chance of getting the White House back from Barack Obama in 2012. Mitt Romney did. Obviously, though Bayan didn't see in Mitt Romney a credible voice for the American political center, millions of others did.

Certainly, while I like much of what Rick Bayan says, this post of his is not included. And I will continue to support Mitt Romney enthusiastically in the hope of showing Barack Obama the exit from the White House.

One more nail in the coffin of DOMA

A three-judge panel of the First Circuit Court has ruled the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” unconstitutional. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that this will be the end of it; one of the few things I strongly dislike about the current Republican leadership in the House of Representatives is that it has taken up the cause of the homophobic bigots of this country, and has retained legal counsel that will probably appeal this verdict, even though the Obama administration will not. But given that this ruling was unanimous, it gives hope that the Supreme Court will let this decision stand.

I really cannot see any justification for DOMA. Marriage law has historically been a matter for the states, and the only case where the Supreme Court has invalidated a State law has been to keep a State from restricting marriage. (See Loving v. Virginia.)

So far, this is only one more nail in the coffin of DOMA, but there is only one more step available. If it is appealed to the Supreme Court, we will have to await a final decision.

One thing I find somewhat ironical is the stand of a lot of “conservative” columnists, who might in other cases cheer a Court's setting aside of a Federal law attempting to interfere with State prerogatives, but who take the other side here — even taking Pres. Obama to task for refusing to defend DOMA! But Pres. Obama is sworn to uphold the Constitution, and if he believes DOMA to be unconstitutional, he is doing exactly the right thing! (Suppose a “conservative” was in the White House, and a law under attack on constitutional grounds was one that conservatives thought to be unconstitutional. Should the President defend that kind of law too?)

An important month

Tomorrow is the first of June. A June that will be one of the most important months, outside of election-year Novembers, in U. S. political history.

Next Tuesday, of course, will be an election, though only in the State of Wisconsin. But this election will show whether ordinary people can take politics away from Big Labor. Governor Scott Walker has tried to get his state's finances in order, and his method has been to take some of the power that public employee unions have exercised in the State away. This has gotten him the unions' deep enmity, of course, so he is forced to fight a recall election — an extreme rarity in this country. Only two Governors have actually been removed by recall in the history of the United States. (A third was put up for recall, but impeached and removed by that process before a recall election could be held.) But it looks as though he will win. Polls show a majority of Wisconsinites will vote to keep Gov. Walker. They are not going to be puppets of Big Labor.

The other extremely important occurrences that will happen this month will be Supreme Court rulings. Both the Arizona illegal immigration law and “Obamacare” are expected to be the subjects of Court rulings this coming month. Both can have a serious impact on what the powers of the Federal government are considered to be. There is a good chance that both rulings will go against Pres. Obama, which will be important reins on the unfettered Federal domination of power that he seeks. A Mayor of Chicago can override the will of his city's people, and Pres. Obama has tried to do the same on a national level. But he will, hopefully, be shown that there are constitutional limits on his power.

Two referenda

It appears that there will be two referenda on the Maryland ballot this November on legislation that has been pushed by Governor Martin O'Malley. And while O'Malley has gotten behind both of them, and similar groups are forcing referenda on both, I'm of quite different minds on the two. And I expect to vote one way on one, and the other way on the other.

The first is the “gay marriage” question. I will certainly vote to keep the law as it was passed by the Maryland General Assembly (State legislature) and signed by Gov. O'Malley. What reason the opposition has for wanting to reverse this law I do not understand. I have not seen a single point made in opposition to gay marriage that holds up to scrutiny, and it is clear and simple a bigoted attempt to make things difficult for homosexual Marylanders.

On the other hand, Gov. O'Malley is also pushing a State version of the so-called DREAM Act. It would make illegal aliens living in Maryland — without the legal right to do so! — eligible for in-State tuition reductions at Maryland's public higher education institutions. I cannot see why Marylanders' state taxes should go to help these people get an education in Maryland, while, say, a United States citizen who has his primary residence in one of the other 49 States does not get this break. If Gov. O'Malley wished to eliminate the in-State/out-of-State differential, it might be justified. But to put illegals ahead of, for example, residents of Delaware or Virginia makes no sense to me. They have no business even being in the state, for goodness' sake!

Is it justified to describe Obama as a socialist?

Yesterday on the Forbes magazine Website, Paul Roderick Gregory wrote a piece entitled “Is It Within Bounds To Ask: Is Obama A Socialist?” I thought this title interesting, because I've basically considered President Obama to be a socialist, without any hesitation. But I wanted to read Gregory's column, and I think it is so well put that I want to repeat it verbatim:

As campaign rhetoric heats up, pundits and talking-point guys and gals debate what is on or off limits. Can or should the Democrats talk about 16-year-old “bully” Romney or about his “weirdness” (a veiled reference I guess to his Mormon faith)? Can or should the Republicans revive Reverend Wright’s black liberation rants, the Bill Ayers connection, or the President’s youthful drug use, which apparently was prolific.

One such pundit on the democrat side (who and where I forget) referred to “crazies” who call Obama a “socialist.” Such statements are beyond the pale, he declared in disgust. They are on a par with the “birther” claims.

Despite such dismissals, there is strong and legitimate interest in whether President Obama is a socialist. My Forbes piece Is President Obama Truly a Socialist continues to attract many readers three months after it was posted. It showed the remarkable overlap between Obama’s electoral platform and the Party of European Socialists, which represents leftist and socialist parties in the European parliament. My French Socialists Test Drive Obama’s Electoral Platform showed that French socialist Francois Hollande’s and Obama’s platforms are virtual carbon copies, and Hollande is quite open about and proud of being a socialist.

Democrat strategists know that the American electorate reacts strongly negative to “socialism” and are doing their best to discredit any and all who call Obama a socialist. There can be no doubt that Obama is a socialist in the European reform-Marxism tradition. In France, Obama would be the candidate of the French socialist party. In Spain, he would be at home in the Socialist Worker’s Party. In Germany, Obama would be torn between the Social Democrats and Die Linke. In “Old Europe,” the welfare state is well entrenched. Elections are about tinkering at the margin. The United States has still to decide whether it wants the European welfare state or not. Obama does. Romney does not.

Democrat strategists discredit Obama-is-a-socialist claims by equating them with the ludicrous charge that Obama is a card-carrying communist of the cold war tradition. That is not what is being said. European socialists are proud of their rich tradition and heritage that date back to the split with revolutionary Marxism at the turn of the last century. In the United States, however, candidates must conceal rather than openly proclaim their socialist beliefs.

The upcoming November election offers American voters a choice that is starker than they understand. Obama brings to the table a deep distrust of free enterprise and a belief in government as the solution to most problems. Romney offers a vision of faith in private enterprise and a distrust of government intervention. Obama will disguise his views with “fair share” slogans and weak protestations of faith in private enterprise.

Both sides might as well come clean. Obama should make his health care reform a centerpiece of his campaign rather than pretend it does not exist. Romney should explain the insights into American capitalism he gained at Bain Capital and why that qualifies him for the Presidency. Both should state their positions clearly and let the electorate decide. The winner will have a mandate for action.

That’s the way democracy should work. It rarely does. Let this election be an exception.

I cannot disagree with anything Gregory wrote there, except that there are places where he wrote “democrat” with a small “d” and I think should have written “Democrat” with a capital “D”, so I'll repeat it with full credit to him.

The evolution of Memorial Day

When I was growing up, Memorial Day was quite different from the way it is now. First of all, some people called it “Decoration Day,” though both names were common. (See the note on the name on Wikipedia.) And it was before they moved all the holidays to Mondays in 1968, so it was on May 30 every year, regardless of what day of the week it was.

But the biggest change involves what the holiday was all about. At that time, it was still considered to honor the dead of the Civil War, even though at that time three wars had been fought since, and a fourth, in Korea, was going on (although, by the time I was 11, it had ended). It was so much associated with the Civil War that several Southern states did not celebrate it, but had their own “Confederate Memorial Day” holidays (which were not on the same days in all states). (There is a site, at usmemorialday.org, that claims that Memorial Day was converted into a general day for honoring all the war dead of the nation after World War I. My memory says different. Since it only became an official Federal holiday in 1971, I suppose what it meant varied among different people, though.)

Anyway, it certainly has evolved during my lifetime, though it actually goes back to the 1860s.

Gov. Christie's sports gambling plan

Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey has proposed to legalize sports gambling in that State. Currently, however, there is a Federal law that would prevent it. In 1991, Congress passed a law that permitted it in four states: Nevada, Delaware, Oregon, and Montana, which had permitted it by a deadline specified in that act. New Jersey, which had been given the opportunity to do so in 1991, did not. So, on what basis is Gov. Christie challenging the law?

There are two Constitutional provisions that call for uniformity in Federal laws across the States: Art. I, Sect. 8, clause 1 states that “...all Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,” and Art. I, Sect. 9, clause 6 says that “No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.” But there is neither a tax involved, nor an import duty or other port regulation. So all I can imagine is that Gov. Christie is using the text of Art. I, Sect. 8, clause 1 and Art. I, Sect. 9, clause 6 to imply that the Constitution requires uniformity.

Actually, I hope Gov. Christie wins. I'd much rather see governments get their revenue from the voluntary expenditure of gamblers — and there will always be people who want to gamble — than by raising taxes. And I think that Federal laws should be uniform across the States; the differences in State laws is another matter. But I really wonder how the Supreme Court will rule if the case gets to them. Why should New Jersey not be able to do what Nevada is doing? Common sense is in agreement with Gov. Christie. But it's hard to make a case that the Constitution is.

Romney's VP choices

In yesterday's Washington Examiner was a short story from the Associated Press that stated:

Mitt Romney's vice presidential search has entered a new phase: auditions.

As his campaign evaluates potential running mates, Republicans with a possible shot at the No. 2 spot on the presidential ticket are starting to engage in unofficial public tryouts for the traditional vice presidential role of attack dog.

Democratic President Barack Obama is “the most ill-prepared person to assume the presidency in my lifetime,” New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie declared in a speech in Kentucky this week. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio told South Carolina Republicans that there hasn't been such a “divisive figure in modern American history” as Obama.

Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, speaking Tuesday at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library — it's a favorite venue for Republicans seeking more attention — said Obama “wants to take us further in the wrong direction.” In an Alabama appearance this month, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal called Obama “the most incompetent president since Jimmy Carter.”

Not that any of them — or any of the others who may have landed a spot on Romney's list — are talking about becoming vice president. Nor are any of them acknowledging that they're trying out for the role or saying the Romney campaign has asked them to do so. Top Romney aides are sworn to secrecy, as are potential running mates and their staffs — an example of the Romney campaign's closely controlled, no-leaks culture.

Well, it's quite possible that they are auditioning for Romney's VP choice. But it could be that they are simply giving opinions they hold. (Jindal's comment that Obama was “the most incompetent president since Jimmy Carter” is about what I said a few days ago, and I certainly don't expect Mitt Romney to tap me for VP!) But any one of those four could be a good choice, if he is thinking of one of these for VP. So I'm certainly glad to hear their comments.

Barack Obama and LBJ

On March 12, 1968, Lyndon B. Johnson got 49% of the vote in the New Hampshire Democratic primary. Eugene McCarthy got 42%. Such a comparative performance is believed by many to be the reason that Johnson decided not to run for re-election that year.

Fast forward to 2012. Just a few days ago, approximately 40% of the Kentucky Democratic primary voters voted "uncommitted" against President Obama. A similar proportion in Arkansas voted for a Tennessee lawyer that, I am sure, most Arkansans knew nothing about. And a few weeks earlier, in the West Virginia Democratic primary, 41% of the vote went to a prisoner in Texas. Just like 1968, we're talking about Democratic primaries, with a sitting Democratic President defending his record. And at least, in 1968, Eugene McCarthy was a well-known figure. Obama's opposition in those three states was not. (In Kentucky, there was nobody -- just “uncommitted”!)

Perhaps Barack Obama should realize that, even in his own party, voters are dissatisfied with his Presidency. He ought to emulate Lyndon Johnson and retire. But, of course, he won't. He enjoys power too much. (But didn't LBJ, also?) So it is up to the American people to retire him in November.

On Bain Capital and GST Steel

President Obama has been attacking Mitt Romney with the claim that Romney's company, Bain Capital, sucked the blood out of a steel company, GST Steel. Of course, as I posted earlier, Romney had left Bain Capital two years before GST Steel went bankrupt. But I now find out exactly why GST Steel went bankrupt: its unions.This article by Kimberley A. Strassel appeared on the Wall Street Journal's site on May 17:

This week the Obama campaign debuted its attack on Bain Capital, the private-equity firm Mitt Romney founded. Its two-minute ad purports to tell the story of GS Technologies, a Kansas City-based Bain investment that went bankrupt in 2001.

To hear the Obama campaign, this is a tale of greed: GST was a healthy, happy, quality steelmaker until Bain plundered its worth and stripped its 750 workers of their due. "It was like a vampire," laments one former employee in the ad. "They came in and sucked the life out of us."

GST is a tragic tale, though in a different way. The real story of GST is that of a private-equity firm trying to spark some life into a uncompetitive, over-unionized industry. Bain's crime here—if that's what you call it—was giving a dying steel plant an unexpected eight-year lease on life.

When Bain bought the Kansas City mill in 1993, steel was a scene of carnage. Global players were pouring out cheap products, and America's high-cost steel plants couldn't compete. The industry had lost 200,000 jobs in preceding years. In 1992 alone, the six largest U.S. steel mills had lost a combined $3 billion. Armco, the company Bain would buy the plant from, would lose $641 million in 1993.

The Kansas City plant was itself dying. At its 1970 height it employed 4,500; by the late 1980s it was down to 1,000. A year before acquisition, Armco had laid off another 75. Its equipment was old; it faced fierce competition at home and abroad.

B.C. Huselton, a vice president of the business at the time, tells me that in 1990 the Armco CEO held a meeting. "He told us, 'Look, we either try to sell it, or we've got to shut it down.'" Armco had shut down another Kansas City facility, Union Wire Rope, only a few years before.

The Kansas City plant had two product lines—high-carbon rods and grinding media (used in mining)—that it felt could give it a competitive edge. But it needed investment, and Armco was tapped out. Bain nonetheless saw some potential and in 1993 joined other investors to acquire it for $80 million. Management renamed it GS Technologies (which would become part of a larger GS Industries) and poured an additional $100 million into modernization.

The strategy worked for a time. The market firmed up and GSI became a U.S. leader in steel rods. In 1994 it felt confident enough to distribute a dividend to investors. In both 1996 and 1997, GSI would realize $1 billion in revenue.

And then came the tsunami. The late 1990s saw a new outpouring of cheap steel from elsewhere around the globe. The Asian financial crisis walloped the mining industry, cutting demand for GST products. The price of GST's electricity and natural gas skyrocketed. The union dug in, refusing to make concessions. By April 1997, it was on strike, shooting bottle rockets at guards. Labor costs spiked, and by 1999 GSI was reporting $53 million in net losses.

In 2001 it would become one of 31 steel companies that went bankrupt from 1993 to 2003. (Mr. Romney left Bain in 1999.) The steel crash was the economic drama du jour, with Congress railing about "dumping."

At the time, GST's union blamed the company's bankruptcy on the political class, for failing to hamstring imports. "We can't compete against the steel imports that are being sold under cost," said the president of GST's union in 2001. "Our pleas fell on deaf ears in the political arena." The Bush administration would ultimately slap on giant tariffs.

The bankruptcies were led by unionized companies that, like airlines and textiles and Detroit, had negotiated pay and benefits that helped drive their employers under. GST's pension benefits would get passed on to the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., which in 2002 received $7.5 billion in claims from the steel industry alone. The PBGC covered GST's basic pension payouts.

The Obama ad doesn't note that the broader company, GS Industries, employed 3,500 and that the Kansas City plant (with 750 workers) was the only one shuttered. Other plants were bought and operate today. Nor does it mention Bain's other steel investment in the early 1990s, in an Indiana start-up called Steel Dynamics. The firm touts innovative technology and a nonunion workforce. It today reports $6.3 billion in revenue—25 times what it claimed in its 1996 IPO—and employs 6,000.

A private-equity firm looking to quickly strip value from a company—to "suck" the life out of it—does not do so by investing $100 million in modernization and holding on for eight years, through bankruptcy. Bain has surely made its share of mistakes, and one may well have been trying to resuscitate a traditional steel firm in the grip of industry upheaval. The irony, says Mr. Huselton, is that this plant "wouldn't even be in today's news, if it hadn't been the opportunity that came with Bain. Those jobs would have been gone in 1993."

That's a more revealing story—of the pressures of a global market, the dangers of an inflexible workforce, and the opportunities that come with private equity and risk-taking. It's just not one Team Obama wants to tell.

I've said a lot about greedy labor unions. And I could say more. But Obama, bankrolled by the SEIU and its like, doesn't want to put the blame where it belongs. Don't blame Mitt Romney. Blame the union.

The fraudulence of Obama

Yesterday, Peter Wehner wrote a post entitled, “The Fraudulence of Obama” with a damaging critique of our incumbent President. He wrote:

To understand the fundamental fraudulence of Barack Obama, consider just one issue: his relationship with lobbyists.

In arguably the most important speech of the campaign, the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa in 2007, Obama said, “[Lobbyists] have not funded my campaign, they will not work in my White House.” Upon taking office, Obama made quite a show of announcing new ethics rules barring lobbyists from working in the administration on issues that fell under their lobbying bailiwick. Yet Obama immediately allowed waivers for lobbyists working on issues that fell under their lobbying bailiwick.

But that’s not all. During the 2008 campaign, Obama said this:

I intend to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over, that they had not funded my campaigns, and from my first day as president, I will launch the most sweeping ethics reform in U.S. history. We will make government more open, more accountable and more responsive to the problems of the American people.

When speaking about the destructive power of lobbyists in a town hall meeting in Bristol, Virginia, Obama was emphatic: “We are going to change how Washington works. They will not run our party. They will not run our White House. They will not drown out the views of the American people.” And in August, 2008, Obama said this: ““I suffer from the same original sin of all politicians, which is we’’ve got to raise money. But my argument has been and will continue to be that the disproportionate influence of lobbyists and special interest is a problem in Washington and in state capitals.”

Now let’s judge Obama’s words against his actions, with the help of a Washington Post story.

Here’s how the story begins:

Before 9 a.m., a group of lobbyists began showing up at the White House security gates with the chief executives of their companies, all of whom serve on President Obama’s jobs council, to be checked in for a roundtable with the president. At 1 p.m., a dozen representatives from the meat industry arrived for a briefing in the New Executive Office Building. At 3 p.m., a handful of lobbyists were lining up for a ceremony honoring the 2011 World Series champions, the St. Louis Cardinals. And at 4 p.m., a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs arrived in the Old Executive Office Building for a meeting with Alan B. Krueger, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

It was an unremarkable January day, with a steady stream of lobbyists among the thousands of daily visitors to the White House and the surrounding executive office buildings, according to a Washington Post analysis of visitor logs released by the administration The visitor logs for Jan. 17 – one of the most recent days available – show that the lobbying industry Obama has vowed to constrain is a regular presence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. The records also suggest that lobbyists with personal connections to the White House enjoy the easiest access.

Now hypocrisy is not an unknown quality in a politician. But what sets Obama apart from almost everyone else is the lengths Obama goes to in order to portray himself as morally superior to the rest of the political class even as he acts in ways that completely shatter his claims. He reminds me of the minister who cannot help from condemning the very sin to which he is beholden. And so as recently as last month Obama was saying, “A lot of folks see the amounts of money that are being spent and the special interests that dominate and the lobbyists that always have access, and they say to themselves, maybe I don’t count.”

What’s impossible to know is the degree to which Obama is alarmingly cynical or the degree to which he is alarmingly self-deluded. Whatever the case, he is a man whose words mean nothing. Nothing at all.

This is not very surprising. After all, this is the same president who promised that if you were happy with your present health care plan, you could keep it. This is the president who said “There is not a liberal America and a conservative America, there is the United States of America.” (And again: “The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into red states and blue states - red states for Republicans, and blue states for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach Little League in the blue states and have gay friends in the red states. ... We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.”) I could go on. But Wehner has said enough to make the point.

A follow-up to the endorsement of Bongino for Senate

I was just looking at Dan Bongino's website. Interestingly, I can't even tell from it his positions on the “social issues.” But actually, that's the way it should be.

Dan Bongino is running on the right issues. The things that need to be fixed in this country. No need to reconsider — I'm supporting him for the Senate. Read his stands at this site.

Dan Bongino for Senator

In this area, a lot of areas have these events (usually called “Taste of …” and the name of the area in question) where you can sample food from a lot of nearby restaurants. Yesterday was “Taste of Wheaton,” and I went there. Besides the food tables, there were a couple of rows of other tables, put up by various organizations: nonprofits, County agencies, commercial establishments, and both major parties. In fact, they put the Republicans' table right across the way from the Democrats' — whether on purpose or not. (Most people thought this was deliberate!) I went over to the Republicans' table, and by the table was Dan Bongino, the candidate in this year's election for Senator from Maryland. I hadn't supported Bongino in the primary, and I knew very little about him (except that I was likely to support any Republican against our incumbent, Ben Cardin), so I began the conversation asking why I should support him. I did not say anything about my own political beliefs, because I did not want him to know which issues he needed to emphasize to get my support. (I don't, as you who read this blog regularly would know, like the “social conservative” positions taken by many Rrpublican candidates these days, though I would vote for someone who self-identified as a social conservative against a Ben Cardin if social conservatism was not his chief issue.) Bongino's response, however, kept me quite satisfied. He began talking about reducing Government's impact on our lives — the kind of libertarian appeal with which I strongly agree. He then mentioned economic matters and the ineffectiveness of Ben Cardin (who has almost no legislation that he has sponsored among the laws). He never mentioned any of the social issues, and the campaign literature he handed me was similarly oriented toward economic matters and Bongino's qualifications. I certainly feel comfortable, on the basis of my conversation with him and his campaign literature, supporting Dan Bongino for Senator from Maryland.

Another voice on the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman story

Mansfield Frazier wrote a post on the Daily Beast site this morning. The main title talks about the need to try George Zimmerman, but it is another point he makes that I want to emphasize:

At heart, this case is really about the type of society some want to have versus the one the National Rifle Association wants to foist on an unsuspecting public. Just imagine for a minute that Trayvon Martin was an adult instead of a juvenile; further, that he was licensed to carry a concealed weapon; and still further, that he had a gun on his person when Zimmerman approached him. Under “Stand Your Ground” laws Martin could have just as easily shot and killed Zimmerman instead, and (if not for the fact he was black, and that laws—when race enters into the picture—have been applied unequally in this country for centuries) he then could have made the same self-defense claim. Under this type of Wild West mentality fistfights can (and will) escalate into murders.


Nonetheless, more laws are being proposed in some states to allow concealed weapons to be carried into bars, schools, and public buildings, all in the name of creating a safer society.


According to a study published in the prestigious American Journal of Epidemiology, however, “Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home …”


Writing on the website for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence, Dennis Henigan said, “The NRA has a wonderfully simple story to tell. In the NRA’s world, people are neatly divided into two readily identifiable groups: good guys and bad guys. In this imaginary world, we know that legal carriers of guns must be good guys and that good guys use their guns only in legitimate self-defense—that’s what makes them good guys in the first place. The Trayvon Martin tragedy reveals the real world to be far more complicated.” Indeed it is.


In the streets there’s a phenomenon called “pistol courage” which poses the question, would Zimmerman—if he wasn’t armed—have approached Martin in the aggressive manner in which he did? Put another way, are cowards, when they’re empowered with the advantage of firepower, willing to take more risks, and even provoke situations that could have been handled in another manner if they were not armed?


Many gun nuts brag about how they could blow someone away and sleep like babies, and for some of them that’s the gospel truth. But for others (even case-hardened soldiers and police officers) once they’ve taken the life of another human being they’re forever changed—and not for the better. And there’s really no way to know in advance how a person will be affected.


In the Martin/Zimmerman case, issues such as who was crying out for help and what Trayvon was saying to his girlfriend in the seconds before the confrontation cannot be dismissed, and can only be thoroughly examined in a court of law. But the real upside of a trial is that a much-needed spotlight will be placed on “Stand Your Ground” laws. Even if Zimmerman is found not guilty, if those dangerous laws are changed, society will have won a victory.

I'm glad to see this post. As I said earlier, it's really these gun laws that need to be blamed for the Trayvon Martin death. But I was perplexed that others didn't see it that way. Mansfield Frazier clearly gets it.

What have the two in common?

In Virginia, judges are elected by the legislative branch, unlike most of our states (Only Virginia and South Carolina do it this way). And the General Assembly, as it is called there, just got through a process where a judicial candidate, Tracy Thorne-Begland, was denied election because he is gay and living with a partner. One particular Republican delegate, Robert G. Marshall, led the opposition to Thorne-Begland, and 31 Republicans altogether opposed him, which was enough to kill the nomination.

This kind of bigotry saddens me, and makes me ashamed to be a member of the same party. However, the other party stands for all sorts of other things I cannot abide, so you will not see me joining the Democrats. I am a Republican because I oppose the Democrats' economic policies, whether it's fealty to organized labor or socialistic approaches to business, and because I oppose most Democrats' foreign policy positions. What the connection is between Republican economic and foreign-policy positions, which I favor, and this sort of homophobic bigotry I cannot fathom. And in fact there are conservative Republicans, from Dick Cheney to Michael Barone (columnist in the National Review and Washington Examiner), who support gay marriage, so it is still possible to detach these issues from each other. But how can the party shed this anti-gay image? Somehow it must. The Republican party is, on other issues, the party of individual freedom. It cannot be the party of coercion in this instance.

An[other] infuriating column by Cal Thomas

Yesterday I read a column in the Washington Examiner written by Cal Thomas, and as usual, Mr. Thomas' positions I find infuriating. Now in this column, he is actually advocating a position I share — that Obama should be opposed — but I think for all the wrong reasons. Thomas begins his column (named “The Gospel According to Obama”) with the paragraph:

It is one thing to talk about “fairness” when it comes to allowing gays and lesbians to marry; it is quite another to claim biblical authority for such relationships.

President Obama cited the Golden Rule about treating others as you would like to be treated. In doing so, he ignored the totality of Scripture and the notion that the Lord alone sets the rules for human behavior.

Now, Mr. Thomas seems to think that he alone is an expert on Scripture; or, more likely (since, if I recall correctly, he is a Roman Catholic) that all of the world is bound by what the Pope has said, and Mr. Thomas' deference to Papal infallibility should be shared by all. Now, whatever I may think about President Obama, I believe that he, as much as Cal Thomas, has an equal right to interpret the Scriptural meaning — and, in fact, I claim this right for myself as well. And in particular, since there are churches that are willing to solemnize gay marriages (even if his own is not), Mr. Thomas is in addition imposing a religious test contrary to both the spirit and the letter of Article VI, paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

So Mr. Thomas is way off base. And later in the same column, he says:

I recently wrote that it is becoming increasingly difficult for people who believe the Bible is God's Word to impose their beliefs on those who disagree with them. But it is something altogether different for those who disagree with them to claim the Bible doesn't say what it actually says. Obama apparently hopes there are sufficient numbers of biblical illiterates — and he could be right about this — who either don't notice his sleight of hand, or don't care.

Again, Cal Thomas knows “what [the Bible] actually says,” while Barack Obama does not. But then he slips into a different argument:

Thousands of years of human history have sustained marriage between one man and one woman.

In other words, “this is how it's always been.” But of course, until the 1860s, “how it's always been” included slavery; and one can name all sorts of things that once upon a time could be described as “how it's always been.” That does not mean they were right. But then, Thomas goes back to the Bible, and fires off a number of biblical quotations, but fails to note that the Bible also says he should not eat pork, that a widow should marry her late husband's brother, etc., etc. So why do these quotes carry more weight? After these quotations, Mr. Thomas goes on:

Liberal theologians have tried to modify, or even change, what is contained in the Bible, and there are those in our time who are following their example with the issue of same-sex marriage. People are free to accept or reject what Scripture says, but not to claim it says something it does not. In modern times, that's called spin. In an earlier time, it was called heresy.

What “liberal theologians” say deserves as much credibility as Mr. Thomas, who is offering only one interpretation of what Scripture says, an interpretation which he certainly has a right to hold to, but not to bind anyone else to. Now, Mr. Thomas does say one thing which I actually find to make some sense:

As he seeks to justify his position on same-sex marriage and other issues with at best a questionable use of and at worst a denial of Scripture, President Obama might be said to be preaching another gospel. This could possibly lead to a fissure in his solid support among African-Americans, costing the president votes in November. It will also likely galvanize the culture warriors. Minorities mostly vote for Democrats, but they don't like their faith denied. That could cause some of them to stay home on Election Day, or even vote for Mitt Romney.

While I might challenge Mr. Thomas' characterization of President Obama's position as “at best a questionable use of and at worst a denial of Scripture,” I can certainly agree that there are African-Americans who might weaken their support for him, or possibly even vote for Mitt Romney, as a result of this; not many, because they seem so proud of having one of their number. But in the same issue of the Examiner, for example, columnist Gregory Kane, an African-American conservative who never did support Obama, mentions that his mother's support for Obama has been lost as a result of this stance.

In a sense, I should not gloat over someone casting a vote for Romney for a reason which I think should not govern a voter's decision. I shudder to think of the fact that I have people like Cal Thomas on “my team.” But I reason this way: Obama may lose some votes for the wrong reason. But if he does, I can't really shed any tears. Any reason that someone votes for Mitt Romney against Barack Obama helps remedy the terrible wrong that resulted from the 2008 election.

Obama: the worst of all Presidents? Perhaps not, but it's close!

Barack Obama has been one of our very worst Presidents. But I got to thinking: Is he the worst ever? Well, I can't really say; I've heard of some pretty bad Presidents, such as James Buchanan and Warren G. Harding, but not having lived through their Presidencies, I find it pretty hard to evaluate them vis-à-vis Obama. So I finally decided that I could only evaluate him as compared to the Presidents who served during my lifetime. And for the rest of this post, I will stick to that field.

When I was born, Franklin D. Roosevelt was President. But he died before my third birthday, so I really have no memories of him as President. And anyway, though my opinion of him is a whole lot lower than that of my FDR-loving parents, he would be out of the running for worst, so whether or not he should be counted among “the Presidents who served during my lifetime” doesn't really matter.

Thinking through the list of Presidents from Truman to Obama, I find that, while I am strongly negative about at least one, namely Bill Clinton, and I really think he should have been removed by the impeachment process for his lying under oath, there is really only one President who might contend with Pres. Obama for the title of “worst in my lifetime”: Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy Carter took two carefully crafted foreign policy deals and ruined them: first: we had found a way to have Communist China represented in Washington by the equivalent of an embassy, while not giving up our insistence that the true legal government of China was the Nationalist government in Taipei, and second: we had negotiated a settlement of the Vietnam War. Carter gave in to the Communist Chinese demand that we throw out the embassy of Nationalist China and give them the status as the legitimate government of China, and he essentially surrendered South Vietnam to the North. In general, Carter was hopelessly naïve about Communists; he expressed “shock” that Leonid Brezhnev would lie to him!

Domestically, Carter was pretty bad too: he appointed a doctor who had been found guilty of prescription drug law violations as his drug program manager! In general, knowing Jimmy Carter from Georgia was more important than competence in qualifying for an appointment in the Carter Administration,

Now, Barack Obama came into office because the economy had taken a serious dive. So you'd think he would use the powers of the Presidency to work on the economy. But his only economic proposal was really a “stimulus” that did not stimulate. Most of his efforts were spent trying to put through a “cap and trade” proposal that would, if anything, bring our economy down further (which never went through, in the end!) and, even more, actually forcing through an unconstitutional (well, ok, it has not yet been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, so it's only my opinion that it is unconstitutional!) law on health care, over the wishes of the American people. (Even in Massachusetts, they elected Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy's seat when Kennedy died, mainly because of his stance on that health care bill!)

So was Obama worse than Carter? It's a close call. Probably Carter deserves the “worst of the Presidents who served during my lifetime” title, and Obama is only #2. But it's hard to understand why anyone really contemplates voting to re-elect him this year.