It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.

Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country's current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

Of course, the 47 percent who voted for McCain may not share Winfrey's unity.

The McCotter Challenge: Why is there a Republican Party?

McCotter demands a return to First Principles, as did Flak, and he calls them the “enduring principles” of the Republican Party:

1.    Our liberty is from God not the government.
2.    Our sovereignty rests in our souls not the soil.
3.    Our security is through strength not surrender.
4.    Our prosperity is from the private sector not the public sector.
5.    Our truths are self-evident not relative.

Where Flake is more pragmatic, McCotter is more philosophical, but the two are singing in harmony today.  We need to focus on these principles and apply them to all our policy positions.  We cannot be taken seriously as a small-government, private-sector movement if we back ever-expanding bailouts or if we pursue pork-barrel politics.

In the wake of this loss, the Republican leadership in Congress will certainly need to change in order to demonstrate leadership on these principles.  McCotter and Flake should be part of any new Republican leadership.

The tax code has always contained provisions that reduce the income tax burden for low-income workers, such as the standard deduction, personal exemption, and dependent exemption. Between 1950 and 1990, the percentage of tax filers whose entire tax liability was wiped out by these provisions averaged 21 percent. Since then, lawmakers have expanded credits—such as the earned income tax credit (EITC)—while creating a plethora of new credits, including the child tax credit, the HOPE credit, lifetime learning credit, and the credit for adoption expenses.

Most tax credits can only reduce a taxpayer's amount due to zero, but the EITC and the child tax credit were also made refundable, meaning that taxpayers are eligible to receive a check even if they have paid no income tax during the year. Those tax returns have become, in effect, a claim form for a subsidy delivered through the tax system rather than a direct payment from a traditional government program like welfare or farm supports.

Over the past two decades, lawmakers have increasingly turned to the tax system rather than direct spending programs to funnel money to targeted groups of Americans, furthering some social or political goal. As a result, millions of Americans have been effectively removed from the income tax payment system while the tax code has been made more complicated to comply with and more difficult to administer. The tax plans of both the presidential candidates would exacerbate this situation greatly.

It is time for a serious public discussion of whether it is desirable to have so many Americans disconnected from the cost of government and what the consequences are of using the tax system as a vehicle for social policy.

Nader: Will Obama be an Uncle Tom?

NBC: Rahm Emanuel accepts position as Obama’s chief of staff

From National Review Online

Obama’s apparent selection of Rahm Emanuel for White House chief of staff is an extremely disconcerting (if not wholly surprising) first indication on the “which Obama will we get” question. It suggests both that he wants to be ruthless and partisan and that he does not have a clear sense of how the White House works.

Emanuel was by all accounts a very effective White House staffer in the Clinton administration, and he has certainly been an effective member of the House of Representatives. He is smart and tough. But he has been, in both positions, a vicious graceless partisan: narrow, hectic, unremittingly aggressive, vulgar, and impatient. Those who have worked for and with him come away impressed but not inspired, and generally not loyal.

The White House chief of staff is not a chief strategist or a chief advocate. He is a manager of people and of process. Above all else, he sets the tone internally, and shapes the president’s decision process and the feel of the upper tiers of the administration. Obama is especially in need of someone who will lead him to decisions, because he appears to be intensely averse to making difficult choices—which is the essence of what the president does. His inclination is to step back and conceptualize the choice out of existence, looking reasonable but doing nothing. To overcome this, he will need a chief of staff with a sense of the gravity of the choices the president faces, and one capable of moving the staff to decision, keeping big egos satisfied and calm, and resisting the pressure to be purely reactive to momentary distractions. None of this spells Rahm Emanuel. There is definitely a place for a Rahm Emanuel type of brilliant ruthless shark in a White House staff, but not in the Chief’s office. Not a good first sign.

A GOP party leader for the future

The failure of the Republicans did not start with the George Bush presidency, and Flake nails this point.  It started with Congressional leadership, which took a wrong turn almost immediately after gaining majorities in both chambers.  Instead of committing to limited government and sacrificing some measure of power for substantial change in the direction of the federal government, the GOP leadership launched the K Street Project and allied itself with the very lobbyists that feast off of bloated government.

While Clinton was President, the Republican Congress could still talk “limited government” while playing footsie with lobbyists by serving up the pork.  Once Bush and his “compassionate conservatism” took over the White House, these Republican leaders showed themselves as nothing more than big-government enablers with only a different set of winners to pick among lobbyists.  They ceased being anything other than Democrats with Different Friends.   Small wonder that no one buys the “limited government” argument any longer.

Maybe after losing two successive electoral cycles, people will finally start listening to Flake.  He has exactly the right prescription for the affliction Republicans have given themselves — a focus on fiscal conservatism and limited government, and an adamant opposition to spoils politics.  If the GOP is to ever regain credibility with voters as a positive force for real change, then they have to show commitment to principle over power, a fatal failure of the last Republican majority.

Missing 20 million votes?

MS-NBC’s First Read provides the Chuckle of the Day.  They claim that the nation had a record-breaking turnout despite the returns showing a lower voter turnout than 2004:

*** Highest turnout rate since ‘08 — 1908: Provided the number stands, the turnout rate for yesterday’s election was the highest in 100 years, according to the estimate from turnout guru Dr. Michael McDonald at George Mason University. Almost 137 million (136,631,825) went to the polls — 64.1% of the voting-eligible population. 1960 saw 63.7% of the populace go out to vote; In 1908, 65.7% voted. It was, of course, the most people ever to go to the polls topping 2004’s 122 million. That’s 12% increase from 2004. For those wondering why the current total vote in the presidential adds up to approximately 117 million, note that it’s going to climb. There is still a ton of vote missing on the West coast.

Apparently, no one at MS-NBC can do math.  “A ton of vote missing on the West coast”?  There would have to be 20 million votes missing in order to get from 117 million to 137 million.  California has reported 95% of its precincts and counted almost 10 million votes.  At best, they’ll get another 500K or so.

I checked CNN latest figures total approx. 119,518,582 votes.  [3PM 11-05]

That’s what elections are for

I hope that Obama turns out to be a better President than Carter, not for Obama’s sake but for the country’s sake.  Christopher Buckley and other conservatives engaged in some wishful thinking by claiming that his victory would somehow lead him to become centrist rather than a liberal ideologue once in office.  Obama has always been pragmatic, as his campaign showed; it will be up to us to work to get that to happen.

The voters in America wanted a significant change, however, and they got it last night in the proper manner — at the ballot box.  Obama’s victory was no fluke; he beat John McCain by seven million votes and won more states than Bush did in either of his two elections.  He will have stronger majorities in both chambers of Congress for his party, and will have legitimate claim to a mandate.

Over the next four years, Republicans and conservatives have to work to rethink their approaches, find new leadership, and work to keep the worst excesses of the Democratic policy from becoming reality.  In 2010, we will have an opportunity to rebuild.  We need to do that through ideas, policies, and strong leadership, not by acting … well, like the Left did throughout much of the Bush years.

Were the polls right?