My Beauty Best Teacher

Over the weekend there was a good article in the Detroit News by Daniel Howes- check it out here. This article talks about many of the same things I wrote about in my post here, but I want to come back to them again, because this battle about giving a loan to auto companies is not so much about the loan as it is about political power in our country- it is a battle about political parties, unions, businesses, and the future role of government in the economy.

Picking up with that thought, here is what Howes wrote:

There's an internecine fight between opposing wings of the Democratic Party. On one side stand more liberal coastal lawmakers with close ties to a well-heeled environmental lobby, a documented antipathy for the Detroit auto industry and even less understanding of it. On the other are more conservative Rust Belt Democrats allied with the traditional constituencies of Big Labor, Detroit's Big Three automakers and middle class voters who, as President Clinton often put it, work hard and play by the rules.

The smart, if predictable, money is on the coastal-environmental wing because that's where the leadership, the political power, the media influence and the stated predilections of the president-elect reside. The winner would be able to dictate the terms for an industry bailout and, further down the road, a new environmental regime.

To emphasize- The battle is about letting environmental fascists control our country or not. State ownership driven by a watermelon agenda- communist policies disguised as environmentally friendly- this is a critical political battle within the Democratic Party. Howes continues:

There's the building clash between two of the biggest egos in the House. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, is campaigning to oust Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn, from his chairmanship of the powerful Energy and Commerce committee, a move that would dramatically tilt policy making toward environmental interest groups determined to reshape the auto industry by legislative fiat -- not the pull of the market or the prodding of energy prices.

Dingell, a practiced infighter who came to Congress when Eisenhower was president, is calling in political chits to defeat Waxman's bid. But the implication for Detroit is clear: Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a fellow Californian to Waxman, wants congressional oversight of the auto industry to shift from parochial concerns to a national priority she can try to control and the Big Three cannot.

Look at the language that Howes uses- groups want to control businesses in our country by fiat, and Pelosi wants to center political power in her person. This is scary stuff- control of the market by individuals is something that is less socialist and more communist in nature! Pelosi wants to control auto companies- on so many levels, that is wrong. That is not the job of government for a reason- as far as I know, she has never run an auto company before, so has no idea on how to. And it is not good for a free country to have public officials running private companies. Howes continues:

Detroit's most potent bargaining chips this week are the millions of American jobs it supports, not insignificant as the nation slides deeper into recession, job losses mount and the Democrats cement their control of Washington.

Since when are people 'bargaining chips' for political parties and factions within the government? If our Founding Fathers were to see what had become of our great nation of free people they would be sick- groups 'cementing their control', other groups fighting for government handouts, jobs and people used, all while our country slides into a government-induced recession. It is a sad day in America.

Although I have written several times about what is going on with the auto companies (Government Motors, Obama the CEO, on SNL, Obama Forces Private Businessman Out of Job), I'm not a lawyer, and so I don't have the correct grasp on language that some real lawyers do. I mean, I know intuitively that what is going on is not right (What does a Political Economy look like? and Michigan Businesses Battle Government Regulations ...), but I can't describe what is going on in the US as well as the guys over at Power Line can. This is a great post (read it here):

The Chrysler reorganization is shaping up as another milestone in the decline of the rule of law under Barack Obama. We've said for quite a while that bankruptcy is the only viable option for Chrysler and General Motors, not--as Obama claims--because they don't know how to make the right kinds of vehicles, but because their unsustainable union contracts make it impossible for them to be profitable. That reality has now been turned on its head, as the administration has tried to bully Chrysler's secured creditors into going away, while the United Auto Workers Union, solely on the basis of political clout, would be paid at an implied rate of 50 percent and would emerge owning 55 percent of the company, with the government also holding a stake.

This is banana republic capitalism at its worst. Political influence, rather than the law, dictates the rights of the parties. When some of the secured creditors refused to be intimidated, Obama libeled them in the press, saying, outrageously, "I don't stand with those who held out when everyone else is making sacrifices." Actually, under Obama's plan the politically favored parties, principally the UAW, will benefit--will steal money, to put it crudely--from the parties who held out. Those parties call themselves the "non-TARP lenders."

This highlights the government's conflict of interest in this transaction, as in so many others now underway. Some of Chrysler's secured creditors are banks who received TARP money. As the New York Times put it, those lenders are "beholden to Washington" and "defying the administration was never a serious option."

It remains to be seen what will happen in bankruptcy court. Already one key player, Perella Weinberg Partners, "under intense pressure from the White House," has caved in and agreed to accept Obama's terms. Whatever the ultimate result, this episode will have consequences. The Wall Street Journal notes:If the current plan is pushed through, then good luck to any unionized firm trying to raise secured debt on decent terms in the future.

For Chrysler, the administration's plan spells disaster. It is inconceivable that the UAW, the principal source of Chrysler's problems, will manage the company back to profitability. More likely, Chrysler will become a vehicle through which the federal government provides uneconomic subsidies to unionized auto workers and retirees.

Barack Obama's conduct in this affair has been disgraceful. Our bankruptcy laws are well developed and are fairly implemented by experienced bankruptcy judges. Priority among creditors is established according to legal rules and precedents. The process is transparent and subject to appellate review. But in this case, the law did not favor the parties who have the most influence with the White House--notably, the United Auto Workers--so Obama substituted political threats and bullying for due process. Il Duce would have approved.

I would also suggest you check out this article in the Detroit News- here are a couple good parts:

They are being demagogued as "speculators" by President Barack Obama and as "vultures" by Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Oakland County Congressman Gary Peters.

They are the smaller bondholders who have refused to bow to the pressure of the Obama administration and accept a minuscule number of pennies on the dollar as repayment for their loans to Chrysler.

This confrontation could have been avoided if the Obama administration had treated the bondholders as equitably as the United Auto Workers, which gets far more money for the dollar.

The good-faith loans from the bondholders provided the operating capital for which Chrysler pledged its assets as collateral, an important role that the Obama administration wants to ignore as part of its forced restructuring program that favors the politically connected UAW.

The heavy-handed tactics of the Obama administration represent another government intrusion into the private sector and attempt to victimize a constituency that does not have the political clout of the unions.

The noncompliant bondholders are going to take their chances on winning back a bigger share of their shareholder investments in bankruptcy court, where the independent role of the judiciary will be expected to fairly judge their claims.

One hopes the Obama administration will not try to bully the courts the way it has private businesses.

It already will be tough to raise desperately needed money in the market for Chrysler to make its future vehicles after Obama's intervention and scapegoating of investors as "speculators." Government intimidation would represent an even greater danger to the country and obstacle to Chrysler's future

A smart man would bet money that the bankruptcy process will not be impartial and free from undue influence by government- rule of law has already be disregarded by the President, who wants to run America as he personally sees fit, and so I don't doubt for a second that he will personally pressure judicial appointments to decide the way he wants them to decide. America is dying, and our President is going to stop at nothing to loot the carcass for the benefit of himself and his friends.

UPDATE: Powerlineblog follows up with another good post to read-Banana Republic, Part II

In my post NYT's Douthat is Wrong: Realigning Elections Exist and One is Coming I countered an argument that was advanced by the New York Times Ross Douthat where he claimed that Harvard Professor V.O. Key's theory on realigning elections was wrong. Douthat thought that 2008 was supposed to the be realigning election, and now that we can all see that it was not, he has become disillusioned with the theory that Key advanced in his iconic essay “A Theory of Critical Elections” and now thinks that elections that change America's direction are no longer possible. But he is wrong.

In my post Why 2008 Was Not a Historic or Realigning Election (written in 2009) I addressed Key's theory of realigning elections and looked back on the election of 2008 and looked forward to 2012. Here is some of what I wrote:

The theory of realigning elections (sometimes called key elections, critical elections, or historic elections)is that sometimes there is a dramatic change in the political system that you can observe in one election or a couple elections in a row. Usually it coincides with the coming to power of a new coalition of voters or the movement of a large or important bloc of voters to a new coalition, these realigning elections occur when voters decidedly break in a new direction on a particularly important issues, when a new party leader emerges who takes the party in a new direction, when the regional and demographic bases of power of the two parties switches, or when there is a new rules of the political system (ie, expansion of suffrage). Because political parties in America tend to be rather stable coalitions, a sudden realignment by a voting group tends to have a longer-lasting and dramatic effect. These realigning elections seem to occur once a generation (every 30-40 years). V. O. Key, Jr. is the professor who pioneered the study of these elections....

...Based on the 30-40 years estimate, the next 'realigning election' is due 2012-2020. Many though, because Barack Obama is black, want to say to say that the 2008 election (Democrat Barack Obama beats Republican John McCain) was a historic election, an unprecedented election, or a realigning election. Does it fit the model though?...

...If Obama had run as a liberal- running on a liberal platform and advocating liberal issues and highlighting his sharp policy differences from the past- then 2008 would have been a realigning election.

But let's go back to (2008). Watch the campaign commercials that Obama ran. Obama did not run as a liberal. He did not run on a platform that advocated stimulus packages, massive spending, large amounts of debt, pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, nationalized healthcare, raising taxes, cap-and-tax, or government-take-overs of companies. Obama ran as a moderate. He ran as a new and different candidate, one who would not be liberal or conservative, but would reach across the aisle and be a post-partisan President. He talked about tax cuts and strong defense and ending corruption.

Obama ran as a moderate- on a moderate platform- and McCain was a moderate, and the gains in Congress for Democrats were mostly from moderate Blue Dogs, and the polls show the election map as being essentially the same as 1996-2004, so 2008 was not a historic, realigning, critical, key, or unprecedented election...

...2012 will probably be the historic election that we are all looking for. Obama will be running as a liberal and will be seeking a mandate and approval for his policies- which this time around will be clearly liberal and far left. Voting blocs will have to move to vote for him, the map will have to change, and our nation will indeed embrace change with an Obama victory in 2012, setting the stage for likely Democrat control of government for 30-40 years and a shift in our nation farther to the left. If Obama loses, he will lose to a conservative candidate (the GOP is not going with another moderate- Romney, Pawleny, Palin, Huckabee, etc are all conservatives) running on a conservative platform, and it will mark a return to power for conservative Republicans and a move back to the right for our nation.

My theory that 2012 will be a real realigning election continues to receive support. Forbes Ralph Benko wrote an article last week called The Constitutional Populist Realignment Of 2012 that speaks to my theory:

...There are two theories. Progressives believe that the answer lies in government job creation (stimulus, bailouts, “shovel-ready” public works). Supply-siders believe that the answer lies exclusively in human action, entrepreneurs and businesspeople, and that the government needs to get its boot off our necks...

...Constitutional populists, like the Tea Party Patriots, demand a return to free market principles to create jobs. Top notch populists such as Victor Davis Hanson, writing in National Review, anticipate bidding an unsentimental farewell to “A Tottering Technocracy.”...

...Being a republic(an) isn’t for the fainthearted. The sainted Jefferson once wrote “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” One can imagine the outrage which this violation of Civility by Jefferson would have provoked at the Huffington Post (if they deemed him conservative). Compared to Jefferson or Paine Rick Perry thus far has proved himself to be a model of rhetorical restraint.

Will 2012 go down as the year of Constitutional Populist Realignment in which the American political rank and file decisively reins in the elites? A populist realignment, sweeping both the White House and the Senate into conservative populist hands would be epochal and is by no means out of the question.

The populists’ paladin should expect ridicule at the hands of the smug, failed, modern day royalists. The prize is big and the scorn worth bearing. That’s the way to the White House: jobs through free markets. As our Founders knew, as we now rediscover, as Perry, Bachmann, and Paul, among others are agitating for: jobs need real, rather than funny, money. Onward to gold.

The prize is big indeed and the scorn is worth bearing, but the way there is clear- in the primary you must be active in both the Republican and Democratic parties in advancing solid conservative constitutional libertarians who believe in our Founding Principles, and in the general election you must vote for whomever of whatever party better fits that label better and get your friends and family and coworkers to do the same. Let's dream big, my friends, and dream about taking back our nation, one election at a time, over a generation or two, and then perhaps America will once again be the great nation of freedom and liberty and prosperity that it once was.

UPDATE I: Thank you all so much for visiting my blog! Please be sure to look around at some of my other posts- click on the archives and look around from past months or simply do a search of your favorite topic and see what comes up! Bookmark me or email this page to your friends- it does no good if the message stops with you, you have to spread the word of A Conservative Teacher.

Also, I'd love to start posting to my blog wherever I am, and to do that I need a smartphone- sadly, my salary was cut by over 20% over the next 4 years with our latest contract, so I really can't afford one now... unless you donate some money to me by clicking on the 'donate' button on the top right of my blog. I would really appreciate it! Thanks for visiting!

Educate Yourself! Buy and read...

The theory of realigning elections (sometimes called key elections, critical elections, or historic elections)is that sometimes there is a dramatic change in the political system that you can observe in one election or a couple elections in a row. Usually it coincides with the coming to power of a new coalition of voters or the movement of a large or important bloc of voters to a new coalition, these realigning elections occur when voters decidedly break in a new direction on a particularly important issues, when a new party leader emerges who takes the party in a new direction, when the regional and demographic bases of power of the two parties switches, or when there is a new rules of the political system (ie, expansion of suffrage). Because political parties in America tend to be rather stable coalitions, a sudden realignment by a voting group tends to have a longer-lasting and dramatic effect. These realigning elections seem to occur once a generation (every 30-40 years). V. O. Key, Jr. is the professor who pioneered the study of these elections.

Most experts agree that the following where clearly realigning elections- 1800 (Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson wins over Federalist John Adams), 1828 (Democrat Andrew Jackson wins over Democratic-Republican John Q. Adams), 1860 (Republican Abraham Lincoln wins over others), 1896 (Republican William McKinley wins over Democrat William Jennings Bryan), 1932 (Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt wins over Republican Herbert Hoover), 1968 (Republican Richard Nixon beats Democrat Hubert Humphrey), and 1980 (Republican Ronald Reagan beats Democrat Jimmy Carter). In each election, patterns in politics were broken and new patterns were put in place that lasted many years and large blocs of voters moved from one party to another. Based on the 30-40 years estimate, the next 'realigning election' is due 2012-2020.

Many though, because Barack Obama is black, want to say to say that the 2008 election (Democrat Barack Obama beats Republican John McCain) was a historic election, an unprecedented election, or a realigning election. Does it fit the model though?

There is support for the argument that it was a realigning election. There was an important issue that a candidate could have advanced a different view on (the War in Iraq), there were some realignments of geographical areas (surprisingly strong Democratic gains in the Northeast), and there was a change in the number of voters who declared themselves to belong to a particular party (dramatic rise in the number of voters who declared themselves to be Democrats). If Obama had run as a liberal- running on a liberal platform and advocating liberal issues and highlighting his sharp policy differences from the past- then 2008 would have been a realigning election.

But let's go back to last year. Watch the campaign commercials that Obama ran. Obama did not run as a liberal. He did not run on a platform that advocated stimulus packages, massive spending, large amounts of debt, pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, nationalized healthcare, raising taxes, cap-and-tax, or government-take-overs of companies. Obama ran as a moderate. He ran as a new and different candidate, one who would not be liberal or conservative, but would reach across the aisle and be a post-partisan President. He talked about tax cuts and strong defense and ending corruption.

Obama ran as a moderate- on a moderate platform- and McCain was a moderate, and the gains in Congress for Democrats were mostly from moderate Blue Dogs, and the polls show the election map as being essentially the same as 1996-2004, so 2008 was not a historic, realigning, critical, key, or unprecedented election.

Obama's victory in 2008 is closer in its character to 1976 (Carter over Ford) or 1964 (LBJ over Goldwater) in that it represented simply dissatisfaction with the proposed candidate. The later unpopularity of Carter and LBJ did set the stage for the historic realigning elections that followed.

2012 will probably be the historic election that we are all looking for. Obama will be running as a liberal and will be seeking a mandate and approval for his policies- which this time around will be clearly liberal and far left. Voting blocs will have to move to vote for him, the map will have to change, and our nation will indeed embrace change with an Obama victory in 2012, setting the stage for likely Democrat control of government for 30-40 years and a shift in our nation farther to the left. If Obama loses, he will lose to a conservative candidate (the GOP is not going with another moderate- Romney, Pawleny, Palin, Huckabee, etc are all conservatives) running on a conservative platform, and it will mark a return to power for conservative Republicans and a move back to the right for our nation.

The recent data from 2009 supports my argument. Read Charles Krauthammer's article The Myth of '08, Demolished to see that the evidence is that 2012 will be re-aligning- areas that once consistently voted Democrat (like New Jersey) will switch and even moderate Republican candidates will be defeated by conservatives. The elections in 2010, in which Republicans will likely make big gains, will further vindicate my theory that 2008 was nothing more than just another ho-hum election and not the unprecedented, historic, realigning election that many on the left want it to be.

Over at Doug Ross I saw this term used, and I wanted to elaborate a little bit further on it for the benefit of those who read my blog. There is a war going on in the Republican Party right now, as this is still the nominating and convention season, between those people who call themselves "Tea Party people" and those who refer to themselves as 'the establishment.'

But there is an important fact that is being ignored in this war- many of the people who have been in the GOP for years and who are now 'part of the establishment' are in fact and have been Tea Party people for many years.

The Tea Party movement, according to wikipedia, is an American socio-political movement that emerged in 2009 through a series of locally and nationally coordinated protests. The protests were partially in response to several Federal laws: the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the Bailout), the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Stimulus or Porkulus Bill), and a series of health care reform bills (Obamacare). The Gadsden Flag has become an adopted symbol of the American Tea Party movement. Tea Party people have been shown to care about the constitution, want to stop cap-and-tax, want a balanced budget, want a simplified tax system, limit spending, reduce taxes, and increase transparency in government.

Tea Party people wear as a badge of pride that they are new to the political process and are proud of their ignorance of the rules and players in their local/county/state/national Republican parties. As an OT, I'm glad to see so many of my fellow brothers and sisters finally participating in the political process, but on the other hand I don't view their newness and ignorance as something to be proud of. They sat around and weren't Tea Partying for many years while me and many other OT's were. While they complained to their friends or silently stewed in anger over the political system, me and other OT's were busy getting involved, volunteering, learning the rules of the game, meeting the local partisan players, and becoming 'the establishment'. This is not meant to be criticism of those first-time Tea Party citizens who are now involved in the political process- rather, my intent is to educate those people and make them more aware that when they attack the Republican party establishment, they have to be careful, because the Republican party establishment has been infiltrated for years by Original Tea Parties.

For years, many of us OT's fought for the same principles and for the same agenda that the Tea Party is just now starting to fight for. I'm glad to welcome them to the fray, I only hope that when they enter they don't take people like me, Ron Paul, Rocky, Rush, and many others.

The United States of America has a two party system and it always will. The two major parties earn 90-95% of the vote in our nation in the thousands of races they run in every election up and down the ballot year in and year out. Every election people wish that another different party would win, but they very rarely do. And that is the way it is.

This is not to say that so-called 'third parties' don't occasionally win a race or have a good showing. You can probably name the dozen or so times in the last several decades they had a good showing... out of thousands and thousands of races they have had a bad showing. The biggest role that 'third parties' play in our system is throwing the election to the 'other side'- all of those people who voted Libertarian helped the opposite of a libertarian win, all of those who thought HW Bush wasn't conservative enough and voted Perot helped put Clinton in office, and all those GOPs who supported TR only helped put progressive Wilson in office. And all of you who read my blog that support and vote third party, all you are doing is helping put communists, socialist, and fascists in office. And that is the way it is.

The reason we have a two party system in our nation is for several good reasons. One is tradition and history- we've always had a two party system, whether it was Revolutionary/Loyalist, Federalist/Anti-Federalist, Federalist/Democratic-Republican, Democrat/Whig, or Democrat/Republican (since 1860)- and tradition and history are important to many people. Another reason we have a two-party system is the laws and regulations that we have put in place to control elections favor two parties- single-member districts, winner-take-all elections, a popularly elected president, large geographically based districts, ballot access laws- all of which favor the two party system. Another reason is because Americans are generally moderate, and the two major parties are coalition parties that make compromises to win, which moves them both closer to the middle, which means that other parties only have room to win supporters on the margins of the political spectrum, where there are fewer people.

And this is why you personally (if you vote third party) are messing up. The GOP is a coalition party that in order to win brings in lots of groups and combines them in an imperfect manner. The Democrat party does this too, and all of the communists and fascists got smart and joined that party and now run our nation, while all of the conservatives and libertarians sit on their high horses and judge and that's why the communists and fascists run our nation. You (if you vote third party) are contributing personally to the downfall of the United States of America. You need to vote Republican- you need to be part of the coalition and as our party gets bigger and bigger, and welcomes in more groups, we'll welcome in conservatives, moderates, libertarians, and everyone who goes to a tea-party. That will make the GOP a strong party again, and will make America a strong party. And if you don't like a candidate in the GOP, actually vote in a primary for once (average 20% voter turnout) and do something about it.

We have a two party system in America, and you need to deal with it and start voting Republican.

Via Memeorandum I read an article by Ross Douthat, writing for the New York Times, called Waiting For A Landslide, in which he discusses V. O. Key's essay “A Theory of Critical Elections.” In his article Douthat claims that:

...One reason American policy-making has become “less stable, less effective, and less predictable” — in the words of the downgrade that Standard & Poor’s handed to the United States on Friday night — is the enduring influence of V. O. Key’s theory, and the seductive dream of realignment that it conjured up.

This dream has hovered over national leaders from Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. But it has loomed larger in the last decade, as our politics have grown more polarized and our country has suffered through a series of dislocations and disasters. Events like 9/11 and the Great Recession have persuaded partisans on both sides that a dramatic realignment is imminent; the breadth of the ideological divide has convinced them that it’s necessary...

...The dream of realignment has become the enemy of such compromises....

...In reality, the next election may be no more transformative than 2008 turned out to be.

Douthat sadly makes two mistakes in his article- one, he rejects the theory that Key put forth, and two, he thinks that Obama's election in 2008 was any sort of a transformative election.

Let's all take a moment to go down memory lane and read what I wrote in 2009 regarding realigning elections in my post Why 2008 Was Not a Historic or Realigning Election:

The theory of realigning elections (sometimes called key elections, critical elections, or historic elections)is that sometimes there is a dramatic change in the political system that you can observe in one election or a couple elections in a row. Usually it coincides with the coming to power of a new coalition of voters or the movement of a large or important bloc of voters to a new coalition, these realigning elections occur when voters decidedly break in a new direction on a particularly important issues, when a new party leader emerges who takes the party in a new direction, when the regional and demographic bases of power of the two parties switches, or when there is a new rules of the political system (ie, expansion of suffrage). Because political parties in America tend to be rather stable coalitions, a sudden realignment by a voting group tends to have a longer-lasting and dramatic effect. These realigning elections seem to occur once a generation (every 30-40 years). V. O. Key, Jr. is the professor who pioneered the study of these elections.

Most experts agree that the following where clearly realigning elections- 1800 (Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson wins over Federalist John Adams), 1828 (Democrat Andrew Jackson wins over Democratic-Republican John Q. Adams), 1860 (Republican Abraham Lincoln wins over others), 1896 (Republican William McKinley wins over Democrat William Jennings Bryan), 1932 (Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt wins over Republican Herbert Hoover), 1968 (Republican Richard Nixon beats Democrat Hubert Humphrey), and 1980 (Republican Ronald Reagan beats Democrat Jimmy Carter). In each election, patterns in politics were broken and new patterns were put in place that lasted many years and large blocs of voters moved from one party to another. Based on the 30-40 years estimate, the next 'realigning election' is due 2012-2020.

Many though, because Barack Obama is black, want to say to say that the 2008 election (Democrat Barack Obama beats Republican John McCain) was a historic election, an unprecedented election, or a realigning election. Does it fit the model though?

There is support for the argument that it was a realigning election. There was an important issue that a candidate could have advanced a different view on (the War in Iraq), there were some realignments of geographical areas (surprisingly strong Democratic gains in the Northeast), and there was a change in the number of voters who declared themselves to belong to a particular party (dramatic rise in the number of voters who declared themselves to be Democrats). If Obama had run as a liberal- running on a liberal platform and advocating liberal issues and highlighting his sharp policy differences from the past- then 2008 would have been a realigning election.

But let's go back to last year. Watch the campaign commercials that Obama ran. Obama did not run as a liberal. He did not run on a platform that advocated stimulus packages, massive spending, large amounts of debt, pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, nationalized healthcare, raising taxes, cap-and-tax, or government-take-overs of companies. Obama ran as a moderate. He ran as a new and different candidate, one who would not be liberal or conservative, but would reach across the aisle and be a post-partisan President. He talked about tax cuts and strong defense and ending corruption.

Obama ran as a moderate- on a moderate platform- and McCain was a moderate, and the gains in Congress for Democrats were mostly from moderate Blue Dogs, and the polls show the election map as being essentially the same as 1996-2004, so 2008 was not a historic, realigning, critical, key, or unprecedented election.

Obama's victory in 2008 is closer in its character to 1976 (Carter over Ford) or 1964 (LBJ over Goldwater) in that it represented simply dissatisfaction with the proposed candidate. The later unpopularity of Carter and LBJ did set the stage for the historic realigning elections that followed.

2012 will probably be the historic election that we are all looking for. Obama will be running as a liberal and will be seeking a mandate and approval for his policies- which this time around will be clearly liberal and far left. Voting blocs will have to move to vote for him, the map will have to change, and our nation will indeed embrace change with an Obama victory in 2012, setting the stage for likely Democrat control of government for 30-40 years and a shift in our nation farther to the left. If Obama loses, he will lose to a conservative candidate (the GOP is not going with another moderate- Romney, Pawleny, Palin, Huckabee, etc are all conservatives) running on a conservative platform, and it will mark a return to power for conservative Republicans and a move back to the right for our nation.

The recent data from 2009 supports my argument. Read Charles Krauthammer's article The Myth of '08, Demolished to see that the evidence is that 2012 will be re-aligning- areas that once consistently voted Democrat (like New Jersey) will switch and even moderate Republican candidates will be defeated by conservatives. The elections in 2010, in which Republicans will likely make big gains, will further vindicate my theory that 2008 was nothing more than just another ho-hum election and not the unprecedented, historic, realigning election that many on the left want it to be.

Let me continue to suggest that 2012 will probably be the historic election that we are all looking for- a conservative Perry or running-as-a-conservative Romney will win the election, Republicans will hold the House and take back the Senate, and the party that wins will continue to increasingly reflect the realigning ideals of the Tea Party. Historic indeed.

UPDATE: Today via RealClearPolitics I read an article by Salena Zito, who is a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorial page columnist, that also gets at this idea that 2012 is going to be a real 'change election':

Another wave is coming, Washington – and “the ‘ins’ may be thrown out, and the ‘outs’ may be thrown in,” according to Michael Genovese, Loyola University political-science professor.

Genovese thinks the economic and political turbulence of the past 12 years are “eerily similar” to the Panic of 1893 and the unsettling election cycles of 1884 to 1896. Both eras feature fantastic wealth created for a privileged few, fiercely competitive and highly partisan elections, an ineffectual and seemingly corrupt government, and an angry, disillusioned electorate. And both have had populist movements – the Progressives of the late 1800s, the Tea Party of today – born of economic dislocation that has pressured the status quo, Genovese said.

While people call the 2008 presidential contest a “change election,” it was merely a small part of the unsettling of the country, rooted in economic uncertainty that has crippled the middle class. If Barack Obama’s election truly was the “change” the nation sought, then solid-Democrat New Jersey would not have rebuked his policies less than a year later by electing Republican Chris Christie as governor. Nor would Virginia have given Republican Bob McDonnell a landslide victory that same year. And Republican Scott Brown had no political rationale to run for Teddy Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, let alone to win it – but he did.

Despite all of the warnings, the White House was blindsided when Republicans took back the U.S. House in historical numbers in 2010. Last week, New York voters in a Democrat-stronghold district reminded President Obama that nothing is safe, not even in Brooklyn: Republican Bob Turner comfortably won the House seat that text-happy Democrat Anthony Weiner was forced to give up.

Economics drives politics, Loyola’s Genovese says, adding: “If the past is a prelude, another angry election is on the way."

 

Click here to buy from Amazon

Kenneth Wollack writes:

When political parties compete for public support, they become more likely to watch each other’s behavior so that they can report corrupt practices to the public.
In the presence of a free media that can cover incidents of corruption by any political actor, party competition creates tangible negative consequences for political corruption.

Throughout the year, students often ask me which candidates I support, where I stand on issues, and what political party I support. My response to students is "I'm not telling you." Not only do I not tell students where I stand on issues and what political party I support, I consciously work throughout the year to keep them guessing on this by being a critical thinker and modeling critical thought, ripping into all parties and voicing arguments from all sides. Oh, I'm not perfect- my smart and astute students notice that my liberal and Democrat arguments are a tad sarcastic and that my ripping on Obama is harsher than my ripping on Bush was, but at the end of the year I always ask students what they thought I was, who they think I support, and what political party I am active in, and the results are encouraging to me- the students don't really know, even to the end.

There are a couple of reasons I refuse to tell my students where I stand on issues and what party I support. One is time- I have a very well-defined curriculum that must be taught, and there isn't any free time in my teaching for anything personal. Another important reason is that I want the students receptive to my methods and teaching, and if they pigeonhole me into a political position, they might become less receptive. I want them listening to me and learning, not dismissing me just because I'm a conservative. Too many students tune out of social studies classes and ignore everything teachers say because they reject the teacher's personal views on things, and that's not good either because they are rejecting real knowledge too.

But most importantly is that my students look up to me and respect me, and I value that, and if I told them my values and beliefs, they would be encouraged to adopt them, and that's not my job or role in the classroom. My job or role is to teach my students about economics, government, history, psychology, and geography, not push my views on them. If I said "man made global warming is a load of poop", half of my students would reject my views, and the other half would nod and agree with whatever I said- but no one would be the smarter for it. But if I point to facts and bring up research and ideas, all without saying my view, then everyone is thinking, evaluating, and learning- and that is what education is supposed to be.

Via Protein Wisdom, I came across a blog entry by a professor named Douglas Campbell. The blog entry was called "The Classroom Without Reason", and has a lot of good stories in it. He documents what he sees is the liberal bias in education, the liberal slant to university teaching, and this fits very well with what I also have personally observed. I'm now going to relate to you one of the stories on this post:

I offer yet another true story. Just before the last presidential election, at the beginning of a course on business planning, a student asked me in front of the entire class why I had not told the students which candidate I supported. I responded, “Politics is not the subject of this class. We have enough material to cover to fill our class time. Besides, on principle, I will not use class time to impose my political opinions on you. If outside of class any of you seek my opinion of the candidates, then I will be happy to share my thoughts.”

The reaction of the class surprised me. A few students were nodding their head, others were smiling humorously at me, and a few were laughing and gossiping about my response. Somewhat peeved, I asked, “What is so funny?”

One student said, “You might as well tell us who you think we should vote for, because all the other professors already have.” Other students chimed in to support that student’s claim and mentioned specific faculty members who had turned their classes into campaigns for their presidential candidate. Undaunted, I proceeded with the subject of the class.

Let me also point out that Douglas may very well have just told his students who he was voting for, because it was quite obvious to me. Our education system is dividing, along with the rest of our country, into two different and separate camps- those who use education to push their liberal-communist-leftist-Democratic-anti-Christian views, and those who refuse to push any views on students. Douglas, by refusing to use his classroom to indoctrinate youth and brainwash them into believing in the church of global warming or the worship of Obama, was displaying his views none-the-less.

By Douglas pushing thinking, by encouraging thought and reflection, by pushing the liberty of ones mind and the freedom to choose ones own beliefs, by suggesting responsibility for ones own education and learning, by not violating students trust and faith- he was telling any student that he rejects the views of those who mean to do our nation harm. And the astute students in my classes, no matter how hard I try to not push my own views, also recognize this, and that is why at the end of the year, many indeed guess my views, but when they do, they just smile and accept and respect them, because of the way I went about my teaching.

And that's how you change the world, one student at a time.

Last week I received several excited text messages all saying "Ron Paul is in!" That's right- Representative Ron Paul is running once again for President, and although I have supported his House campaigns in the past and personally think that he makes many good points, I have to say that I am annoyed that he is running for President again. My friends who are excited that he is in the race will vote for him in the primary, and in so doing will work to elect candidates who are farther away from libertarian positions. Ron Paul entering the race is yet another example of the stupid political strategies that 'libertarians' employ.

The Volokh Conspiracy agrees with me:

In a recent post, co-blogger David Bernstein urges libertarians to abandon the Libertarian Party and work within the two major parties. He points out that there are several serious libertarian-leaning candidates for the 2012 Republican nomination, which gives libertarians an important opportunity to increase their influence within the GOP. Ron Paul’s announcement of his candidacy for the Republican nomination today underscores David’s point. In my view, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who announced his candidacy last month, is both more libertarian than Paul and a stronger candidate, a point I intend to elaborate in more detail in future posts. Mitch Daniels, who has not yet declared his candidacy, is also probably superior to Paul for similar reasons.

Whatever one’s opinion of specific candidates, I emphatically agree with David’s general point that the Libertarian Party is a poor vehicle for promoting libertarianism, and that libertarian activists should concentrate their time and money elsewhere....

...Libertarians therefore have some valuable political assets. But in order to maximize our impact, we must focus our efforts effectively. And that means learning the lesson that the LP is a poor vehicle for libertarianism. It is much more effective to pursue some combination of major party politics and advocacy efforts that operate outside the party system entirely....

The Volokh Conspiracy has been pounding this point for a while, demonstrating over the years that voting for the 'Libertarian Party' has consistently helped elect candidates who are farthest from libertarian ideas, and support for libertarians-running-as-Republicans has only resulted in Bob Doles and John McCains.

I've also been pounding this point for a while, pointing out where libertarians voting for a 'Libertarian' over a conservative/libertarian Republican has been crucial in helping elect socialists, communists, and fascists.

Here in Michigan, a solid conservative Republican Rocky Raczkowski expressed many ideas and policies that libertarians could get around, but the libertarians still ran two candidates against him, one an official Libertarian and another an independent. Too late they realized the error of their ways, and in the last week of the race both dropped out to endorse Rocky, but many people had already voted absentee or didn't know about them dropping out and endorsing Rocky, and they received enough votes that together they helped Democrat Gary Peters get elected, a man whose policies and views and ideas are considerably opposed to libertarians. See my post Libertarian Candidate Drops out of MI-9th Race and Endorses GOP Candidate Rocky- Dem Congressman Peters Calls All Libertarians 'Fringe'.

Back in 2008, I wrote a post on how Michigan Supreme Court Judge Cliff Taylor, who was a libertarian's dream version of a candidate, lost because he was a Republican and the Libertarians sucked off enough votes that he was defeated by a leftist activist judge who has continually issued decisions that attack human freedom and liberty. Taylor lost 39% to 49% to Dianne Hathaway... but a motivated and organized and active Libertarian base gave 11% to a no-chance-of-winning candidate named Robert Roddis who was not any more demonstratively libertarian that Taylor- if that 11% would have been given to the proper candidate, libertarians would have been much more happy with the result.

In Poor Foolish Libertarian Voters Now Realize the Error of Their Ways I wrote:

Once, I was a libertarian. I even voted Libertarian. And then I grew up and realized that we have a two party system, and by voting Libertarian, I was only helping make sure that people who were far from libertarian were elected into office. After that, I became a reliable Republican vote, realizing that they were indeed the lesser of two evils, and that I'd rather have a libertarian-leaning Republican than an anti-libertarian Democrat.

Many libertarians supported Obama last election, claiming that he was an independent and a moderate, and that he would be much preferred over the invading and free-speech breaking George Bush. Idiots. Now they lament.

Foolish libertarians. Why did you support Obama? Why did you fail to support McCain, which is in function the same thing as supporting Obama? Why did you vote third-party in Minnesota, thereby putting in office that joker Al Franken? Libertarians, by not voting for a conservative Republican, installed a super-liberal Franken, who has been the crucial vote on a range of anti-libertarian issues.

Liberals and Democrats can't help how they vote- they don't know any better. But conservatives, libertarians, and 'independents' should know better by now- we have a two party system, and if you aren't part of the solution and voting Republican, you are part of the problem. Save your sad stories and articles about dashed dreams, because they just remind me that you are stupid and foolish. Vote Republican next time.

The important thing that my libertarian friends and those who excitedly texted me that Ron Paul was entering the race need to remember is that we have a two party system. Ron Paul realized this long ago, but not to the extent that he needed to- he has always been an outsider in the party and views the rest of the GOP with hostility. The GOP is a big tent, and it is important for libertarians to find their way into this tent and be active in the primary, and then make the real-life calculation in the general, and vote Republican.

You see, Libertarians need to begin to become solid and reliable Republican voters and shape the future of our party, and Ron Paul is not that future. Think about, my dear 'independent' or 'tea party' or 'libertarian' readers, and do what is best for yourself and your nation by waking up and start voting Republican. I'm getting annoyed with your help getting liberals, socialist, fascists, and leftists elected into office.

UPDATE: Libertarians and tea partiers and other conservative-leaning third parties can comment and argue and debate all they want, but the truth of the matter is that by disagreeing with me and not voting Republican in the general election, they have once more helped put a Democrat in office and move our nation farter away from what they believe in. In the special election for Congress in New York's 26th Congressional District, 36% voted for Republican nominee Jane Corwin (a lite-conservative/libertarian) and 13% for Tea Party candidate Jack Davis (a strong conservative/libertarian), which means that the election will be won by Democrat Kathy Hochul with 42%, an anti-conservaive/libertarian. Her win will move more political power to other anti-conservative and anti-libertrian and anti-tea partiers, and it is all thanks to the them. I'm moving beyond annoyed by libertarians and conservatives helping to empower those who would take away my liberty and freedom- I'm getting pissed at them.

Wise up, it's a two party system, with one party being the Democratic Party (since 1828) and the other being the Republican Party (since 1854). Any discussion of Whigs or Tea Parties is the kind of stupid thinking that leads to liberal and socialist Democrats taking away your life, liberty, and property while you engage in some sort of stupid history lesson. In the primary, work like heck to get libertarian and tea party Republicans elected, but in the general elections, start voting Republican, as they are closer (if only a little) to libertarian and tea party views, and the lesser of two evils is still less evil than the greater of two evils.

"Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an ailment without which it instantly expires… As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed... …The absolute rights of all free men, in or out of Civil society, are principally personal security, personal liberty and private property… The Legislature has no right to absolute arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people.” James Madison

What our founding fathers knew is that in order for a free society to form and prosper, one based on treating everyone equally and treating each other decently, we would need to tolerate and support different factions of people fighting one another. These factions, whether they be political parties, interest groups, or other groups in society, are free to argue about the nature of government and government's role as much as they want, as long as they respect people's right to life, liberty, and property, since the government never has any power over these. But all other partisanship is okay, and indeed, even to be encouraged.

While some in our government, mainly Obama and the Democrats, argue that partisanship is bad and that we need to rely on their vision of selfless disinterested fighting for the people, what they really mean is that they want people to give up their struggle for their life, liberty, and property and to roll over and give in to the tyrannical vision the Democrats would subject on the people if they were not continually blocked and opposed by the most bitterly partisan of Republicans.

The White House is trying to end 'partisanship', its latest ploy being a health-care summit on Thursday. The President claims that this will restore everything to normal again, and we'll have two parties talking things out, bipartisanship flowering, order restored.

This is a vision of tyranny, and a romantic vision at that- never in our history has there been anything like this, except when one party dominated, and that was always to detriment of the nation. Bipartisanship and order restored sounds to me like a rubber stamping of skyrocketing debt and increased statist control of our lives, and in no way should that be supported.

And besides, Obama doesn't want these, any more than my Congressman, Gary Peters, wants bipartisanship, conversation, communication, openness, or any of the other stuff that they were elected to do. Obama wants to use this chance to browbeat Republicans, as he understands bipartisanship to mean the end of all opposition to his rule. Gary Peters used his townhall to only meet with imported healthcare supporters and has continually locked out any of his constituents from meeting with him, all while claiming to be open and accessible.

Partisanship is good, as long as it opposes tyranny and fights tooth and nail for life, liberty, and property rights for all.

The following is the complete text of a Statement from Senator Barack Obama on the topic of Foreign Policy and Defense, delivered on Wednesday, April 13, 2005, regarding the so-called 'nuclear option' that was just invoked by now-President Barack Obama's Democratic allies in the US Senate with his support. President Barack Obama's own words condemn him and his own parties actions, and in the strongest possible sense convict him of utter hypocrisy. Here is the statement:

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to think about the implications the nuclear option would have on this chamber and this country. I urge you to think not just about winning every debate, but about protecting free and democratic debate.

During my Senate campaign, I had the privilege and the opportunity to meet Americans from all walks of life and both ends of the political spectrum. They told me about their lives, about their hopes, about the issues that mattered to them, and they also told me what they think about Washington.

Because you've all heard it yourselves, I know it won't surprise many of you to learn that a lot of people don't think much gets done around here about the issues they care most about. They think the atmosphere has become too partisan, the arguments have become too nasty, and the political agendas have become too petty.

And while I haven't been here too long, I've noticed that partisan debate is sharp, and dissent is not always well-received. Honest differences of opinion and principled compromise often seem to be the victim of a determination to score points against one's opponents.

But the American people sent us here to be their voice. They understand that those voices can at times become loud and argumentative, but they also hope that we can disagree without being disagreeable. And at the end of the day, they expect both parties to work together to get the people's business done.

What they don't expect is for one party - be it Republican or Democrat - to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet. The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster - if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate - then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.

I understand that Republicans are getting a lot of pressure to do this from factions outside the chamber. But we need to rise above an "ends justify the means" mentality because we're here to answer to the people - all of the people - not just the ones wearing our party label.

The fact is that both parties have worked together to confirm 95% of this President's judicial nominees. The Senate has accepted 205 of his 214 selections. In fact, we just confirmed another one judge this week by a vote of 95-0. Overall, this is a better record than any President's had in the last 25 years. For a President who received 51% of the vote and a Senate chamber made up of 55% of the President's party, I'd say that confirming 95% of your judicial nominations is a record I'd be pretty happy with.

Again, I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules. In the long run, this is not a good result for either party. One day Democrats will be in the majority again, and this rule change will be no fairer to a Republican minority than it is to a Democratic minority.

Mr. President, I sense that talk of the nuclear option is more about power than about fairness. I believe some of my colleagues propose this rules change because they can get away with it rather than because they know it's good for our democracy.

Right now, we're faced with rising gas prices, skyrocketing tuition costs, a record number of uninsured Americans, and some of the most serious national security threats we've ever had, all while our bravest young men and women are risking their lives halfway around the world to keep us safe.

These are challenges we all want to meet and problems we all want to solve, even if we don't all agree how to do it. But if the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who asked us to be their voice, I fear that the already partisan atmosphere of Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything. That doesn't serve anyone's best interests, and it certainly isn't what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind.

We owe the people who sent us here more than that. We owe them much more. Thank you.

Democrats routinely blasted GOP's efforts to invoke the nuclear option, which they considered but never implemented. I mean, come on- in 2005 Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said the thought of eliminating the filibuster is just another sign of the "arrogance of power of this Republican administration" (source)- but today he did something that not even the GOP was arrogant enough to do and showed that although the GOP might be bad, the Democrats are far far far worse when in power.

I expect the influential liberal website MoveOn.org, who was instrumental in the elections of Barack Obama in 2008 and Democrats for years before and after, to immediatily condemn this action and demand that all of their members contact their Senators to oppose this action, like they demanded their members to do in 2005! They won't though, because MoveOn.org is as rotten to the core as the entire Democratic Party.

The Democrats reveal their utter contempt for the American people- they didn't discuss this option, they didn't talk about it beforehand, they just suddenly invoked the nuclear option when no one was looking, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you give this party an inch, they'll put us under a tyranny.

UPDATE: This is a response to the story now running on www.memeorandum.com regarding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid triggering a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules. Reid triggered this option because he was upset that McConnell wanted to force the Democrats to vote on the original version of President Obama’s jobs package, which apparently is so radioactive and bad that even Senate Democrats don't want to vote on it and will do anything, I mean ANYTHING, rather than vote on it. That's how bad President Obama is and how badly a job he is doing as chief executive of our nation.

At 3QuarksDaily Ram Manikkalingam writes:

Ethnic conflicts are not only about ethnicity. They are also about political parties seeking power and armed entities confronting each other militarily - who are not necessarily divided neatly along ethnic lines. Starting with a ceasefire may not be the best way to resolve ethnic conflicts, even if this might give you a temporary respite from the armed conflict. Protecting human rights may not always help with promoting peace, though such tensions can be reduced with political shrewdness and strategic design...[continue reading]

Wafula Okumu charts a path for democratisation in Africa,"...the building of democratic societies depends on the existence of a leadership that understands and embraces democratic ideals, political institutions that will be repository and guarantor of democratic values, and civil society and international actors playing specific and clearly defined roles. Furthermore, a certain enabling environment must prevail...civil society can act as channels through which citizens articulate their interests, particularly in situations where political parties are weak, disorganized and "represent factional politics rather than competing ideologies". Besides being advocates for alternative policy agenda, civil society can also advocate for social change by exerting pressure on the State to make structural changes and to produce policy outputs that enhance societal interests..."

In Aid Thoughts:

New media is all the rage. Tanzania’s political class has been pretty excited over the last week or two by the formation of a new political party, CCJ (the name stands for Chama Cha Jamii, or Party of Society). There are a number of interesting things about this event, but one of wider interest beyond the confines of Tanzanian political discourse is their use of an innovative way of registering new party members, normally poaching them from other parties: text messaging and internet registration. The Swahili daily Nipashe ran an article about this a few days ago which I’ve only just noticed now, under the headline ‘CCJ Yazidi Kujitanua Kisiasa’ (‘CCJ are Growing and Widening Themselves Politically’). It writes:“This strategy, unprecedented in the history of the whole of East Africa, relates to the use of news and communications technology [ICT] … as the service which allows citizens to join the party by electronic means wherever they are…”...[continue reading]

G. Pascal Zachary writes in Wilson Quaterly:

After decades of mistreatment, abuse, and exploitation, African ­farmers—­still overwhelmingly smallholders working family-tilled plots of land—­are awakening from a long slumber. Because farmers are the majority (about 60 percent) of all sub-Saharan Africans, farming holds the key to reducing poverty and helping to spread prosperity. Over the longer term, prosperous African farmers could become the backbone of a social and political transformation. They are the sort of canny and independent tillers of the land Thomas Jefferson envisioned as the foundation for American democracy. In a region where elites often seem more committed to enjoying the trappings of success abroad than creating success at home, farmers have a real stake in improving their ­turf. Life will still be hard for them, but in the years ahead they can be expected to demand better government policies and more effective services. As their incomes and aspirations rise, they could someday even form their own political parties, in much the way that farmers in the American Midwest and Western Europe did in the past.

via WSJ

When putting together a list of the best Presidents in the history of our nation, that list would likely include Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, James Madison, Grover Cleveland, and Ronald Reagan. To that list I would like to also include Calvin Coolidge.

Most polls rank Coolidge somewhere in the middle, but this is because most people rank greatness by the number of actions that Presidents make and the number of policies that they as executives force on the nation that are usually contrary to our Constitution. For example, most lists put FDR at the top of the list, but he pushed through unconstitutional policies, dropped our nation into another Great Depression, didn't respond early enough to the rising fascism in the world, and then did the only thing I'll give him great credit for and won WWII. Oh, some great Presidents had to respond to crisis forced on them by others (like Lincoln), but most other so-called 'great' Presidents simply used the office of the President to jam policies on people that moved power and freedom away from them to the government and supervised a nation in crisis.

The best Presidents are those who did very little, ran the executive office smoothly and without problems or corruption, and conformed to the Constitution as closely as possible. Jefferson was President for two terms, and other then the Louisiana Purchase, his administration happily has little to note other than peace and prosperity. James Madison had to respond to the War of 1812, yes- but other than that, peace and prosperity. Calvin Coolidge was like this too- nothing to note during his time in office other than nothing to note- peoples lives were protected, the nation was prosperous, and property was well protected.

Here are some of the reasons that Calvin Coolidge should make the list of one of our greatest Presidents:

1. Coolidge was (for the most part) an opponent of government regulations. “I am in favor of reducing, rather than expanding, government bureaus which seek to regulate and control the business activities of the people,” he explained in the same State of the Union address. During his time in office, he attempted to allow private development of Muscle Shoals, made conservative appointments to federal offices over the objections of liberal Democrats and Progressive Republicans, was opposed to a veterans' bonus, and blocked and to the proposed McNary-Haugen farm legislation.
2. Coolidge criticized the left for its money-spending habits, stating, “Nothing is easier than spending the public money. It doesn’t appear to belong to anyone.” His policies led to a booming economy and increased tax revenues, but Coolidge knew that these additional 'revenues' wasn't the government's money- it was the peoples. So instead of bowing to progressives and liberals and using the surplus funds to create new programs, he put in place tax cuts. His tax cuts targeted largely the wealthy (he believed that the rich would invest their extra funds in ways that would increase production and therefore jobs and wealth at home, and also that American trade would expand abroad which would benefit the domestic economy and help stabilize the world economically and politically), but taxes were also cut on all taxpayers as well, the gift tax was repealed, and the death tax cut in half. These tax cuts led to increasing economic growth in America (and more tax revenues).
3. Coolidge believed that the role of the government was to step out of the way and allow the market and business to prosper. “The business of America is business,” Coolidge famously declared. But unlike many Republicans and almost all liberals, he did not believe the business of government was to control and direct and subsidize business- he believed in the free market and that removing regulations would encourage business more so than subsidies and targeted tax code help.

Coolidge’s tax cuts and deregulations resulted in a budget surplus and the economically booming “Roaring Twenties,” which came to an end during the progressive regulatory administration of his successor President Herbert Hoover. Coolidge said after leaving the White House, "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration has been minding my own business"- but this is the very thing that I love about Coolidge, that as President he minded his own business, operated the machinery of the White House with cool and competent handling, and minded his own business as President. No crisis, no television appearances, no major policy changes, no crazy plans, no wild new ideas- simply doing his job, doing it well, and leaving when he was done with the nation in a better place than it was before.

President Calvin Coolidge may be the first U.S. president appeared to also appear in a "talkie" -- a movie with sound.In this four-minute clip (viewable on YouTube), Coolidge says that he wants to

"cut down public expense. I want the people of America to be able to work less for the government and more for themselves. I want them to have the rewards of their own industry. This is the chief meaning of freedom. Until we can re-establish a condition under which the earnings of the people can be kept by the people, we are bound to suffer a very severe and distinct curtailment of our liberty."

Before we go to the polls in 2012 to pick nominees for political parties and for President, I just want everyone to re-examine Calvin Coolidge and his Presidency and decide for themselves what exactly makes a President great.

UPDATE: The Calvin Coolidge Memorial Foundation contacted and reminded me of another reason why Coolidge is possibly one of the better Presidents that we've ever had- his views on education. Coolidge believed strongly in education and he often commented on the subject throughout the course of his political career, believing in the importance of having an educated citizenry and impressing on young people the importance of lifelong learning. Here is one of his quotes from a newspaper column in 1930:

"While it is easy to waste money on education, it is the one thing which we cannot afford to curtail. The true ideal would seem to be a system that supplies those in the lower grades with certain basic information and those in the upper grades with the power to think… The school is not the end but only the beginning of an education. Yet its place cannot be filled in any other way. The best thing the millions of our youth can do to assure their future success is to work faithfully at their studies. That opportunity for improvement and discipline will never return.”

For your next vacation, take a trip to Plymouth Notch, VT to see the President Calvin Coolidge State Historic Site for yourself and experience the world in which President Coolidge was born and raised.

For good books about President Calvin Coolidge, check out Silent Cal's Almanack: The Homespun Wit and Wisdom of Vermont's Calvin Coolidge, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, or Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge, The.

Michigan's current State Attorney General, Republican Mike Cox, is barred by state term limit laws from running for a third consecutive term in office, and so the position is going to be open. Cox did a fantastic job as AG for our state, and one can only hope that our next AG continues fighting for Michigan citizens. The Michigan Attorney General election of 2010 will be held on November 2, 2010, along with all of the other races. In Michigan, candidates for Attorney General are nominated by the respective political parties at their fall state convention, which will occur this weekend.

The Democratic Candidate will be Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton, who won (as usual with most Democratic races) with no opposition, vetting, or primary election. He is a solid liberal lawyer who (according to his website) will 'fight for you' by fighting for more environmentalism, will push for more government control over your children, and will try to make the public safety in Michigan more like Flint's. Special interests are funding his campaign, and as AG, he'll attack citizens, the Constitution, and businesses in our state. So I think I'll suggest you don't vote for him.

The two Republican candidates are former judge Bill Schuette and current State Senator Mike Bishop.

Bill Schuette has a lot of endorsements and campaign finances, and as AG would be a solid, reliable AG, but he strikes me as a career politician who is better at getting endorsements and campaign finance than he is fighting for the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Michigan. Whenever he talks, he talks about why you should vote for him, about who is on his team, about who likes him, about how he is the best man for the job, about how great he is- but he never gives any evidence, reasons, or backing for these claims. I don't care who likes him and how popular he is, and he rarely talks about the issues or what he would do as AG. He looks through you when he talks to you, looking to what you represent and who you've got backing you, and I don't like that. Oh, he's a lot better than the Democratic candidate- he's conservative and understands the nature of federalism, something the Dem doesn't- and if he gets the nomination I'll pull the lever for him, but I'm not going to recommend him now.

A Conservative Teacher strongly and without hesitation endorses Mike Bishop for Michigan Attorney General. Mike strikes me as strong leader who isn't afraid to make tough decisions. He brings up the US Constitution quicker than anyone whenever you talk to him, and is quick to reflect everything back on it when he talks about the proper roles of state and national government. As AG, he'll fight for letting Michigan residents and citizens decide how Michigan runs, and push back against the encroachments by our national government in our local affairs. He will fight to expose corruption in various government agencies, and will continue to push for greater transparency in all of Michigan's government corrupt venture capital groups (Film Office and MEDC as examples). He's a solid conservative who is willing to risk the media's wrath to get things done in our state. Above all of that though Mike is a good guy- he's personable, he takes the time to care about your issues, and he is a solid family man. He's exactly the type of guy our Founding Fathers would have endorsed for Michigan AG were they around today- a real citizen/politician.

I strongly suggest that you vote for Mike Bishop at the convention and make him our next AG.