Do the Right Thing

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who won the Iowa GOP caucuses earlier this year, was in Iowa to peddle a new book, "Do The Right Thing.” Huckabee's book is filled with tales of his Iowa campaign. A prologue is titled: "I Love Iowa." In an interview, he talked about repairing the party.

He believes most politics is considered on a left-right, horizontal spectrum of liberal to conservative. Instead, he thinks it ought to be considered on a vertical spectrum of what works and what doesn't. Voters are interested in solving problems, he said. "Even the pro-life issue is not just an anti-abortion issue. That's only a small piece of the issue of life. It's also 8-year-old children, elderly people and the whole spectrum of how we treat other people," Huckabee said. He added: "We're going to have to start being inclusive of issues such as poverty, disease and the environment."

While I am not a huge fan of Huckabee I do like the emphasis on results over ideology. What follows is the product description for his new book. It may be worth a read.

"Mike Huckabee's run for the Republican presidential nomination was truly amazing. But beyond the headlines, few understand his transformation from a long-shot Evangelical candidate into a viable contender. Huckabee now presents the inside story of his low-budget, grassroots campaign. He treated middle-class and working-class voters with respect and spoke to their concerns about the economy, society, and the way our country is run. They responded nationwide with great passion, volunteering and making small donations,transforming his campaign into a true movement. His fans included not only Evangelical Christians, but also others who felt he was the only Republican who really shared their values. This book will remind the four million Huckabee voters that their support and hard work were not in vain. It will also be fun to read, full of unreported anecdotes from the campaign trail. Huckabee also lays out his optimistic vision for America's future. He explains how the Republican Party can unify its factions and win over middle-class and working-class voters. No matter what happens on Election Day 2008, Huckabee’s fans will be looking to him for leadership as their movement rolls on. "

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

State of the Senate

It has been almost a month since Election Day, but the state of the Senate is still not resolved with the recount in Minnesota and the runoff in Georgia still clouded matters. Democrats still have an outside chance on getting a filibuster proof majority if they manage to win both contests. However, it is looking less and less likely that they’ll be able to. This should be good news for conservatives, moderates and even some of the saner thinking Democrats. We all know the saying, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Democrats and the nation will be better off if there is a least some modicum of check on the most liberal of agenda items. With less than 10 days before the December 2nd runoff in GA and the recount in MN winding down, now is the perfect time to look at where these two races stand.

Georgia: Local reports have found voters who say they know it is an important race--but for many it may not be important enough to vote. Even though Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin are still campaigning, some Georgians are having a hard time remembering the date or the candidates. Both candidates are spending money and bringing in strong surrogates such as former President Bill Clinton and former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. But is it making a difference?

Sen. Saxby Chambliss was unable to win 50% of the vote Nov. 4, forcing a runoff with Democratic challenger Jim Martin. Chambliss narrowly missed winning outright, taking 49.8% of the vote to Martin's 46.8%. Vast voter registration drives of the Obama campaign helped Martin keep Chambliss from winning re-election on Election Day, but it's unclear whether that turnout effort will translate in a December runoff. The most recent Real Clear Politics average has the Republican, Chambliss, ahead by 4.7%.

Likely Outcome: Narrow but solid win for Chambliss.

Minnesota: While the recount vote has fluctuated between being in Republican Norm Coleman’s favor to Democratic challenger Al Franken’s, Coleman has never relinquished the lead. As it stands now with 88% of the recount complete, Coleman is ahead by his largest margin yet, 282. Additionally, Franken suffered a setback Wednesday when the state Canvassing Board unanimously turned down his campaign's request to include rejected absentee ballots.

Likely Outcome: This one is obviously much closer and Franken could certainly still pull it out, but it looks like Coleman will hold on to his seat by the tightest of margins.


Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes.

Further Proof

A few posts ago I brought up the idea that the 'masses' being involved in the new Obama administration via new technologies might not be a great idea. That the Founding Fathers may have been on to something when they wanted a buffer between the people who run our country and true, no-holds-barred democracy. Here is some proof.

From "Our Fading Heritage" based on questionnaires from 2006 & 2007:

• Each year, approximately 14,000 freshmen and seniors at 50 schools nationwide were given a 60-question, multiple-choice exam on basic knowledge of America’s heritage. Both years, the students failed. The average freshman scored 51.7% the first year and 51.4% the next. The average senior scored 53.2%, then 54.2%. After all the time, effort, and money spent on college, students emerge no better off in understanding the fundamental features of American self-government.
• Liberals score 49%; conservatives score 48%. Republicans score 52%; Democrats score 45%.
• Fewer than half of all Americans can name all three branches of government, a minimal requirement for understanding America’s constitutional system.
• Only 24% of college graduates know the First Amendment prohibits establishing an official religion for the United States.
• Only 54% can correctly identify a basic description of the free enterprise system, in which all Americans participate.
• Thirty percent of elected officials do not know that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are the inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence.

Are you more knowledgeable than the average citizen? The average score for all 2,508 Americans taking the following test was 49%; college educators scored 55%. Can you do better? Questions were drawn from past ISI surveys, as well as other nationally recognized exams. Want to see how you stack up? Take the survey HERE

(In case you're wondering, I scored a 90.4%)

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Perspective Needed

Everybody agrees the GOP must become more web savvy and that a better connection has to be made to conservatives online. Few would also argue with the notion that efforts must be made to catch up to the Democrats in online fundraising and organization. But then we have the problem with the Republican party itself and its refusal to get serious about the kinds of reforms that would make a conservative like me proud to belong once again.- Rick Moran at The Next Right

If you spend any time reading some of the popular right wing blogs these days it is easy to get a sense of doom and gloom about the near future of the Republican Party. But it really isn’t that bad. We are only 4 years removed from owning the White House, the Senate and Congress. Granted it hurts now because we have lost those, but not by a historic amount. The vote was 52%-46%. And let’s not forget the nation still considers itself center-right.

When we look beyond the presidential to local election results we see that many of the newly elected congressional members while democrat, would probably be better described as blue dogs, who were elected in essentially conservative districts. Did the nation really go through a sea change, or was it just a.) Fed up with Bush and b.) Scared to death of the financial collapse?
Republicans can actually take some comfort in the way Obama ran for office and is beginning to (almost) govern. He ran as someone who would cut taxes and limit wasteful spending. Now, as he fleshes out his staff, he is filling it with economic moderates who seem to support essentially pro-growth measures. The Democrats may have won, but they appear to have stolen the playbook. Conservative principles have been so successful that have been co-opted.

The Republicans certainly need some time to regroup and get back on their feet electorally, but I would be surprised if this was anything more than the normal ebb and flow between left and right in a basically center nation.

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Brave New Government?

Barack Obama is the first major politician who really "gets" the Internet. Sure, Howard Dean used the Web to raise money. But Obama used it to build an army. And now, that army of digital kids expects to stick around and help him govern. Crowd-sourced online brainstorming sessions? Web sites where regular folks hash out policy ideas and vote yea or nay online? A new government computer infrastructure that lets people get a look into the workings of Washington, including where the money flows and how decisions get made? Yes to all those and more. "This was not just an election—this was a social movement," says Don Tapscott, author of Grown Up Digital, which chronicles the lives of 20-somethings raised on computers and the Web. "I'm convinced," Tapscott says, "that we're in the early days of fundamental change in the nature of democracy itself." - Daniel Lyons and Daniel Stone NEWSWEEK

There is no denying we live in a technological age where the idea of communication is evolving faster and faster each year. But before we leap into this brave new world of government, which is instantly responsive and instantaneously lead by the masses we should stop and seriously consider what exactly we are getting ourselves into. Should the general populace be that empowered?

The Founding Fathers did not even want the senate or the president to be elected by the general public, never mind have regular brainstorming sessions with them. For all the complaining about the electoral college in the modern era, it was exactly this body that was suppose to shield the highest reaches of government from the uninformed and/or misinformed masses. The thought then was that the common farmers and laborers were not adequately educated in the issues, and did not have the requisite knowledge to make informed decisions about important governmental matters. Have we really changed that much? Remember most of the new digital age gets its news from John Stewart, Jay Leno et al. For all the attention that Joe the Plumber got in the recent election cycle, does anyone on either side of the political spectrum want him expounding on economic theory to Obama via a fireside web chat? I’ll stick with Larry Summers myself.

Whatever the risks, the president-elect has made it clear he wants all those voices at the table, building a grass-roots-style government that won't always agree with him. That could mean tens of millions of voices, all with different thoughts and priorities, constantly fighting for one man's ear.

Aside from the questionable qualifications of the masses, there is also the issue of too many hands in the kitchen. Anyone who has ever sat on a committee, whether it is on the job or in the local PTA, knows, more voices do not necessarily mean better decisions. In fact the opposite is often true. And besides, once the novelty wears off most people abandon the committee and the real work is left to the few who are truly committed to the cause. Between our jobs, our families, our passion and hobbies, there is often little time at the end of the day to devote to auto bail outs, energy policy or international relations. This is why we elect leaders.

If Obama truly wants to change how government works maybe he should reach father back into the past than FDR and the New Deal for inspiration. The Founding Fathers knew something about human nature and how a government should work. Maybe we should listen?

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Did Obama Dupe the Left?

Obama has moved quickly putting his cabinet together, and there are some interesting choices aside from the obvious, Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State. General James Jones, a former Nato commander and McCain backer, as National Security Adviser and Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, a war supporter, to run the Homeland Security department have some on the Left wondering where the change is?

Obama also looks likely to retain Bush's Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, and this has reinforced the idea that he may not actually support the swift withdrawal of troops from Iraq over the next 16 months and engagement with rogue states that he often spoke of on the campaign trail. The question becomes, was the Left duped into seeing Obama as the ultra progressive messiah, or did they just want to believe.

Sometimes before we move forward it is helpful the gaze back. What follows is a brief look back in time as our future Secretary of State voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.
Excerpts from Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq 10/10/02

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program……
Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran……
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom? …..
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq…..
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.
And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them….
And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
Thank you, Mr. President.

While reassuring to me, is this the “change” Obama promised to those 18 million primary voters? It will be curious to see just how far the far left will follow his lead.

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Cautious Optimism?

What was the Conservative nightmare on the morning after Election ’08? It was that a green and radically leftist President Obama would be guided by the ultra left wing of the Democratic Party, lead by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. That they would do everything from make us a weak world power cow-towing to foreign bodies like the UN, to overtaxing us into a depression to pay for pie-in-the-sky social programs. Well, we are only a couple weeks into President-elect Obama’s transition, but this conservative has reason for some cautious optimism.

First there is the overall make-up of Obama’s cabinet to be. First take a look at the following excerpt from Mathew Rothschild’s editorial in The Progressive:


When is Obama going to appoint someone who reflects the progressive base that brought him to the White House?
He won the crucial Iowa caucuses on the strength of his anti-Iraq War stance, and many progressive peace and justice activists worked hard for him against John McCain.
So why in the world is he choosing Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State when she was one of the loudest hawks on Iraq and threatened to obliterate 75 million Iranians?
And it’s not just Hillary.… heading Obama’s transition team on intelligence matters are two former deputies to George Tenet, of all people.


When people on the left are this upset, conservatives should be breathing a sign of relief. It seems as though Obama is surrounding himself with people whose stance on foreign affairs is much more hawkish than his own was on the campaign trail. While Obama repeatedly beat up first Mrs. Clinton, and later, Senator McCain on their approval of the Iraq war, he picked war supporter Joe Biden for VP and now looks to be lining his staff with other centrists on international affairs.

Millions of new voters and extreme leftist voted for Obama being lured to the polls by the siren song of change- real change we can believe in. Laura Meckler and Jonathan Weisman write in The Wall Street Journal:


President-elect Barack Obama campaigned on the slogan of "change." But his early appointees, including two top choices that emerged Wednesday, show that experience is one of his main criteria.
His choice for secretary of Health and Human Services, officials said, is former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who has a long Washington résumé. Jacob Lew, one of President Bill Clinton's budget directors, is favored to direct the National Economic Council.
Sen. Hillary Clinton is one of several potential nominees being bandied about for the Obama administration cabinet.
The latest transition news highlighted the three personnel pools supplying Mr. Obama with his picks. Most prominent are Clinton administration veterans -- including, possibly, former first lady Hillary Clinton for secretary of state. Some high-profile appointments are also long-serving members and staff from Capitol Hill.


It seems Obama learned from President Clinton’s early mistakes in staffing a White House with neophytes. Ironically he has decided to line his staff with former Clintonites who presumable have already learned the hard way what will work in Washington and what won’t.

Perhaps most comforting to conservatives is the choice of Rahm Emanuel and Tom Daschle. While at first blush these individuals seem to be incredibly partisan Democrats, and they are. But what is important is that they are also tough enough to stand up to Pelosi and Reid. They have done so in the past and certainly will again. The Republican fear of a radically leftist agenda would appear to be off the table at least for the start of the Obama administration.

Not too worry, I am sure there will be plenty to complain about and fight against in the coming months, but for right now, I am cautiously optimistic.

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Guest Article: Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

By MITT ROMNEY
Published: New York Times, November 18, 2008
IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.
Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.
I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.
First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.
That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.
Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.
The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”
You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.
The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.
Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.
Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.
It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.
But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.
The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.
In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.
Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year’s Republican presidential nomination.

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Center Right?

The newly elected Congress will be left of center, particularly the old liberal bulls that chair committees and form much of the leadership of the House and Senate. The country, on the other hand, remains right of center (exit polls on Election Day show that 22 percent of voters identify themselves as liberal, 33 percent as conservative and 46 percent as moderate). Especially in the Senate, where the Democrats will be perhaps two or three votes shy of the 60 needed to break a filibuster and pass a bill, compromise and coalition-building will be the order of the day.- By Evan Thomas and Richard Wolffe in NEWSWEEK

With the above quote in mind, how should the Republicans in Congress act? Should they work with the new president as Democrats largely did with Regan in 1981, or should they hold the line against him, as many perceive the Republicans did against Clinton in 1993? The answer is not cut and dry. There are advantages and disadvantages to either tactic.

On the one hand, the country wants Congress to act in a bipartisan fashion. Having Republicans go along with some of President Obama’s policy plans could build goodwill toward the party and encourage voters to give them some credit for the inevitable financial rebound. On the other hand, if the Democratic White house and congress are seen as successful then they will likely be there for the foreseeable future. What is a country-loving conservative to do?

The answer lies somewhere in the middle. Republican legislators need to be seen as the happy warriors, standing firm for fiscal responsibility, but they also need to take advantage of bipartisanship when it makes sense. Right now everyone is for financial transparency and reform, which should be the default position of Republicans. One of the first measures of cooperation should be in this area. Energy policy is another area where common ground could be found.

Bottom-line: the country is in crisis right now and it needs grown-ups to lead it. If conservatives are seen working for solutions and not simply obstructing, then they have a decent chance to rebuild their image and hopes for electoral success in the future.

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

California's Experiment

With the historic nature of this year’s Presidential election it can be forgiven if some very important results have been a bit under-reported. However now that the Obama transition is underway perhaps we can look at a certain ballot measure that was passed in California that could have far reaching implications for many of the current crop of elected officials, and no it is not the gay marriage ban.

California Proposition 11, also known as the Voters FIRST Act, was a proposed amendment to the California Constitution. It will change authority for establishing Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization district boundaries from elected representatives to a 14 member commission. Under current law the legislature draws its own districts which results in 99 percent of incumbents being re-elected; but this initiative will open up redistricting so that it will no longer be controlled by only the party in power. When state legislators are in charge of drawing district boundaries there is an obvious conflict of interest in that legislators place their own self-interest ahead of the common good. One just has to remember the problems in Texas to see the chaos this can create. Now a commission will be set up through a system of applicants and a lottery with attention given to balancing both parties along with independents. This new commission will have the job of setting up districts which are representative of the state as a whole. It could be the wave of the future if it works in California, and with as popular a proponent as Arnold Schwarzenegger it very well could.

What this could eventually lead to is a more moderate group of legislators. Currently a candidate must play to the extremes in his base to make it through a primary. Therefore whoever ends up winning the general election is almost assured to follow a hard party-line. If districts could be redrawn so that a more moderate candidate could make it through the election process one would eventually see a more moderate legislative body.

As we look at how gridlocked and partisan the US Congress has become, the thought of allowing some moderates on each side of the political spectrum have a more prominent voice is appealing. All eyes should be on California over the next few election cycles to see if they have come up with a viable remedy to a forever-stalemated congress.

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Weekend Musings

What kind of Secretary of State would Hillary make?
Did Palin help of hurt her future in Miami?
Is Summers outs as possible Treasury Secretary?
Has Lieberman escaped punishment from Reid?
Will there really be a global stimulus package, and would it work?

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

To Bail Out or not to Bail Out?

American Cotton Oil Company, American Sugar Company, American Tobacco Company, Chicago Gas Company, Distilling & Cattle Feeding Company, Laclede Gas Light Company, National Lead Company, North American Company, Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company, U.S. Leather Company, United States Rubber Company, General Electric.

How many of these companies sound familiar? Other than GE? Probably not too many, yet all were considered the pinnacle of American business when the Dow Jones Industrial Average was first published in 1896. Where did these companies go? Some merged with other more successful companies; some changed their business model so drastically they ceased to be the same company; others simply died. Capitalism has a way of dropping the deadwood and elevating what works.

This is incredibly apropos as the government weighs the advantages and disadvantages of bailing out the auto industry. Or to be more precise Detroit, as much of the auto industry is doing just fine, thank you very much. One only needs to travel a few hundred miles south to Alabama to see the proof. The Mercedes-Benz plant in Vance, Alabama, for example, announced it would double its production three years after opening; and Honda had a $450 million expansion in Lincoln, Alabama, that added another 2,000 jobs. For each job created inside an auto plant as many as eight are created in businesses outside.


Why are foreign auto makers flocking to the American South? First of all there is a readily available work force with the population in some southern states expected to grow as much as 40% over the next few decades- and it is nonunion as well. Companies are drawn to the South where there are no mandatory unions and where workers have resisted joining voluntarily. In addition to great work force potential, the local governments realize what a boon the car industry can be for their states. They offer hundreds of millions of dollars in incentives, such as tax abatements, site preparation and employee training.



Companies like Honda, Toyota and Mercedes-Benz are proving that if you make a quality product people will buy it. And states like Alabama are showing how governments can work with business to promote growth that is beneficial to state and company alike. What we need are more American companies performing like this. We need the next generation of Henry Fords out there to make the leap into lighter and more efficient cars, even the holy grail of alternative power vehicles. It is possible; but only if we allow the marketplace to turn the page on the past.

So weshould think long and hard before we decide to bail out Detroit. Are we simply giving a hand out to a modern day Laclede Gas Light Company? Shouldn’t we let capitalism work and let the strong and well run companies survive while those that refuse to adapt to the changing economy and world go the way of the gas light?

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Jon Huntsman in 2012?

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. of Utah: Mormon, Moderate, Future of the GOP?
While the media is focused on what Sarah Palin is wearing in Miami, and how Bobby Jindal is the GOP’s new “it-boy”, 2012 sleeper candidate Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. of Utah is quietly going about the business of running his state after winning re-election with over 70% of the vote. Huntsman, 48, has built an impressive political resume- he worked as a White House staff assistant in the Reagan Administration, U.S. ambassador to Singapore in the administration of Bush 41, and a deputy United States trade representative in the George W. Bush Administration, all before being elected as Utah’s Governor.

Being from Utah he is predictably conservative on many social issues, but he has been known to be more centrist in other areas. The environment in particular has been an area that he has stressed. "We as Republicans can’t shy away from speaking the word 'environment,' and we shouldn’t shy away from speaking the words 'climate change,'" Huntsman told reporters at a press conference Thursday. "When you’ve got a body of science that already is rendering certain judgments about what is happening in our world, for us to shy away, say it doesn’t matter as an issue, I think is foolhardy, it’s short-sighted and it’s bound to do us damage in the longer-term." He has also talked of reform in the areas of education, health care and energy.

If the GOP is going to stay relevant it needs leaders who are looking to broaden the tent, and environmental issues appeal to many young and swing voters. Even if one thinks the science supporting global warming is suspect, the idea that we need to work to better our environment should not be a hard sell to the party that once lead the way in conservation.

In addition to a solid resume, a strong family and a centrist streak, Huntsman, a keyboard player, is also a self-proclaimed music fan. He even joined REO Speedwagon on stage for two songs during a concert at the Utah State Fair; and we all know what some jamming did for Mike Huckabee this past election cycle.

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Obama & the "New" New Deal

President-elect Obama seems to be using the New Deal as a model for his economic recovery plan. If one takes an honest and historical look at the New Deal it should be clear that there were some parts of it that were successful- the huge investment in infrastructure projects- and parts that were utterly unsuccessful- the tax rate hikes on the wealthy. Hopefully the economic team surrounding Obama has read their history and will avoid repeating the mistakes of FDR.

There is plenty the government can legitamately spend money on to stimulate the economy. However, the emphasis simply needs to be on investment, not bail-outs. Instead of giving our money to GM to reward their poor business practices, we should invest in rebuilding our roads and bridges. Money could go to fund more teachers in poor performing districts specifically targeted towards math and science instruction- a clear investment in our future economic viability.

As for teaxes, some, particularly capital gains rates, should actually be lowered at this time to promote growth, while others should remain at their current rates. However, there is one area where a tax increase could realistically help. One interesting idea was put forth by Amity Shlaes of Bloomberg News:

"It is time to begin taxing –- if only by a few dollars -- the millions of lower earners who pay no tax or get money back. This largely symbolic step would allow citizens to reestablish their connection with the federal government.
Obama has a far better chance of pulling this off than any Republican would. He might package such a tax into a larger work program of community service.
It would be valuable as a form of insurance against overreaching government. In the 1970s and 1980s –- the time of the last tax revolution –- more citizens paid taxes, so more people appreciated the Reagan rate cuts."

Good idea? I think it may be. Many conservatives are against the mandatory community service aspect of Obama's agenda, but they may be willing to swallow it, if, it is rolled into a buy-in of the tax system by millions who, as of now, put in nothing. It is this kind of centrist thinking- increased government investment to infuse the economy with cash for liberals, and a sharing of the tax burden and a lowering of the capital gains rate for the conservatives- that we will need in the coming months and years; lets hope our elected officials agree.
Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Gingrich or Steele at RNC?

It now seems clear that Mike Duncan will not be returning as Chairman of the RNC. So the question becomes, who would best represent the new face of the Republican Party? According to various sources there are two people currently vying behind the scenes to take the post, Newt Gingrich and Michael Steele. Both men have a lot to offer and the RNC members will undoubtedly carefully consider each man and what he brings to the table. However, in the end the better choice for the future of the conservative movement would be Steele.

Aside from being a quality conservative who has spoken of the party as an open tent, and being someone who has said the the Rockefeller Republicans need to be welcomed back into the center of the Party, what Steele has to offer is an inspiring life story: childhood in a poor section of Washington; college at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore; then three years studying for the priesthood at a monastery, before deciding that his call lay elsewhere. His mother earned minimum wage working in a laundry; his stepfather drove a limo. His parents weren't educated themselves, but they valued learning. This is the kind of up-from-your-bootstraps story that Republicans should honor.

Gingrich on the other hand unfortunately represents what has become the republican stereotype. Don't get me wrong; I highly respect him and feel that the Contract for America was a stroke of genius. There may be no other person in the Party today with the wealth of ideas that Gingrich brings. However, there is simply too much baggage there. Too many Americans remember him as the polarizing figure of the 90's for him to be an effective outreach agent today. He needs a seat at the table; anyone with his depth of knowledge and commitment to the conservative movement does. But he would not be the best choice as the face of the Party.

If the Republican Party is going to capitalize on the fact that this is still a center right nation, it needs to turn the page on the past and create new solutions for a new era. They could do worse than select Michael Steele to lead them. Steele, who has criticized the GOP for not doing enough to reach out to minorities, says times have changed and the party needs to adapt. But he said the one thing it can't do is change its principles.

"Our challenge lies not in beating Democrats, but in uniting around a message that solidifies our ranks and attracts new people to our cause. We have to listen to what Americans are telling us about their hopes, desires and needs, and then translate that message into proposals for meaningful action squarely grounded in values we Republicans have always stood for."

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

What I Believe In

Republicans came to power as the party of big ideas, and without returning to that model they could be looking at a long winter. Additionally, those big ideas need to focus on Middle America. Three issues that could work are conservation, reform and energy.

Conservation- a return to the Teddy Roosevelt model of conservation. One doesn’t necessarily have to buy into global warming to appreciate the need to protect the natural resources we have.

Reform- the federal government is bigger than ever, and won’t be getting any smaller over the next four years. Republicans need to fashion themselves as national reformers. Much of Middle America wants the government as safety net, but bloated bureaucracies breed corruption that needs to be dealt with.

Energy- this is the lynchpin that brings it all together. If new fuels can be developed, by American companies, which reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil our environment benefits, our economy grows and the US could retake its position of dominance in the auto industry. A Manhattan Project like focus on energy independence would inspire the country to move forward dramatically on this issue.The benefit of these three issues is that they appeal across a wide spectrum of the electorate, they can be done within the traditional boundaries of small(er) government and they combine the readily achievable with the long range dreams that motivate people to follow a movement.