The Bush factor looms large

The campaign to elect the 44^th President of the United States has been dominated by the administration of the 43rd, George W. Bush, as Sen. Barack Obama speaks as if he’s running against him and Sen. John McCain spares no effort to distinguish himself from Bush. This is not surprising, considering that most public opinion polls report President Bush’s popularity at about 35 percent (although more than double Congress’s rating of 16 percent). Some of Bush’s unpopularity is understandable, given the great length of our Iraq commitment and the low state of the economy.

Bush adopted the right counterinsurgency strategy too late for many people and let Democrats get away with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac home mortgage shenanigans for so long that he is actually getting stuck with the blame.

But as important as these events are, they pale into insignificance before the Democrat/media demonization of the Bush administration since 2001. Bush attempted to bring to his office the bipartisan approach that worked so well when he was governor of Texas, but his opposition would have none of it.

The left wingers were never content with merely criticizing the President. The more extreme of them made him out to be Hitler and the only slightly less extreme drew parallels between our treatment of prisoners of war and the barbarities of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. This poisoning of the political dialogue has made fair-minded appraisal practically impossible.

The widespread public antipathy to Bush reminds me of a relationship gone sour. Unhappiness with one person sometimes is followed by a new relationship "on the rebound" with someone else, who looks good for no other reasons than he or she is not the rejected one. Such an unhappy person sees no good in the former loved one and nothing bad in the new object of affection.

It literally makes no sense for people who approved of Bush for his strong defense of the country and his low-taxing policy contribution to a growing economy to replace him with a candidate who fails to grasp the fundamentals of national security and will make our economic problems even worse with his "soak the rich" and "share the wealth" policies.

Add to this irrational phenomenon the national media’s constant drumbeat for Obama and, not surprisingly, we have the spectacle of a virtually unknown, untried and untested junior senator with questionable associates and rhetorical ambiguity vaulting toward victory in his quest for the Presidency.

Perhaps as important as events and defamation of–and overreaction to–the Bush administration is the faux sophistication that characterizes what writer David Brooks once described as the "Bobo" phenomenon. "Bobo" is a combination of Bohemian and bourgeois, that is, of a college-influenced trendiness that is charmed by novelty and unconventionality and animated by an attachment to moneymaking arts.

These urban professionals believe they are "beyond partisanship" but actually are more deeply immersed in it than the alleged rural yokels who they see as clinging to God and guns and feeling hostile to foreigners. Even age and experience do not seem to be enough to shake off the debilitating effects of this adolescent angst that never moves beyond personal outrage and snobbery.

These hipsters are gaga over Obama because he is, as the smooth-talking, "historic" candidate for President, just too cool to pass up, never mind that his ill-conceived foreign and defense policies threaten their safety as much as anyone else's, not to mention that his confiscatory tax and spend policies will squelch their enterprises no less than those of less hip entrepreneurs.

What our country needs are more people who appreciate the sacrifices of our best citizens and less who equate patriotism with the Michael Moore attitude that seems to be, "We had to destroy the country in order to save it." One can only hope that our truly "best and brightest" command a majority in this election.

Fannie-Freddie fiasco is Dems' baby

Cut through the doubletalk that obscures the financial mess in Washington and on Wall Street, and these points are obvious to everyone paying attention: • Congress used the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to force banks to make risky loans to "help" people buy houses they could not afford.

• As early as 2001, President Bush and Republicans warned that Freddie and Fannie's financial house was unstable and could wreak havoc on the economy.

• Fannie and Freddie spent more than $200 million lobbying Congress to ignore the problem.

• Subservient Democrats, like Barney Frank, dutifully declared that Freddie and Fannie were safe and sound and blocked reform.

Now, no one can dispute that Freddie and Fannie were certainly unsound. So, who pays for Congress' failure to reform? Taxpayers, of course: up to $4 trillion in lost savings and investments plus more than $1 trillion in new government debt.

Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid want us to believe that the financial fiasco is the fault of deregulation. Poppycock.

In 1999, before George W. Bush took office, the New York Times' Steven Holmes reported that the Clinton administration was pressuring Fannie Mae to expand mortgage loans to "people with less-than-stellar credit ratings." Through CRA, banks were strong-armed to make risky loans and threatened with fines of up to $500,000 per violation if they didn't reach government quotas. Banks were encouraged to hire "community groups," like ACORN, to find "qualified" borrowers.

Not surprisingly, when banks were offered the chance to dump those risky loans on Fannie and Freddie, they jumped at the chance.

Holmes reported, in 1999: "Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times (but) . . . may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s."

In 2001, the Bush administration warned of "strong repercussions in the financial markets" if Fannie and Freddie encountered financial trouble. Treasury Secretary John Snow repeatedly warned that federal regulators didn't have enough authority to properly supervise Fannie and Freddie.

As recently as August 2007, President Bush urged Congress "to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused."

Democrats ignored those warnings:

Rep. Barney Frank said he did not want to "focus on safety and soundness . . . . I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation toward subsidized housing."

Rep. Maxine Waters claimed, "We do not have a crisis . . . Everything (in CRA) has worked just fine."

And Sen. Christopher Dodd, No. 1 recipient of Fannie and Freddie campaign cash, called them "great success stories."

Fannie and Freddie spent more than $200 million and employed over 140 lobbyists to avoid just the kind of scrutiny that Republicans urged. They throw around millions in campaign contributions, targeting key members of Senate and House finance and banking committees.

Ironically, Barack Obama doesn't sit on those committees, yet he ranks as the No. 2 recipient of Freddie and Fannie campaign cash after just four years in the Senate.

Last week, Associated Press reported that three years ago Freddie Mac even paid a consulting firm peel off enough GOP votes to kill a reform bill sponsored by Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel.

"What we're dealing with is an astounding failure of management" that was "driven clearly by self interest and greed," Hagel said.

With unanimous Republican support, Hagel's reform bill sailed through committee, but Freddie's lobbying fusillade found enough weak-kneed Republicans to help its loyal Democrats derail the bill.

Three years later, we cannot know if reforms proposed by Bush, Snow and Hagel would have averted the current crisis, but we certainly know that Fannie and Freddie's Democrat defenders were dead wrong.

Given Democrats' complicity in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, it is utterly astounding that confused voters could actually reward them on Election Day.

Mark Hillman of Burlington, Colorado, served as Senate Majority Leader and State Treasurer. He is now Republican National Committeeman for the state. To read more or comment, go to www.MarkHillman.com.

First-time voter chooses McCain

In his legendary 1964 speech known as “A Time for Choosing,” Ronald Reagan presented a timeless perspective on government and the problems America then faced as he endorsed Barry Goldwater for President. Now, in 2008, we have again come to a time for choosing.

Given the stakes of this election—success in the ongoing war in Iraq, recovery from an inevitable recession, testy relations with such nations as Iran and Venezuela—as a college freshman I have chosen to cast my first vote for Sen. John McCain.

The stakes are high, and America needs an experienced, steady hand at the helm. Sen. McCain’s distinguished service in the U.S. Navy, House of Representatives and Senate prove, beyond any doubt, that he possesses the experience and judgment required of the times.

Contrary to Sen. Obama, who has very few notable bipartisan accomplishments, Sen. McCain’s record, much to the distaste of conservatives like myself and often to the pain of the President, is one of reaching across the aisle to get things done, often at great political risk. Whether it be on immigration, climate change, Guantanamo Bay, the Gang of 14, what have you, Sen. McCain has a proven record of bipartisan achievement and substantial government experience.

As Hillary Clinton put it, “[Sen.] McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.”

Reluctant conservatives like me may disagree with McCain half the time, but the choice is clear.

With recession imminent, it is essential that the right policies be instituted to stimulate the economy and encourage investment. Sen. Obama’s proposal to raise taxes in a time of economic hardship ignores the fact that the top 1% already pay 40% of all income taxes, according to the IRS; the top 5% pay 60% of the tax bill. Not to mention he has a solid record of tax hikes, not tax cuts.

Sen. Obama’s proposals to increase taxes on capital gains (investments), corporations, Social Security and income (actually those in the top-two income tax brackets (making $182,000 and above, not just $250,000), as the liberal, Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman acknowledged in the New York Times last week) would discourage the type of economic involvement that pro-growth policies would work to encourage.

Herbert Hoover’s tax increases in 1932 helped jumpstart the Great Depression, but when Reagan cut the 70% rate down to 28%, it led to a significant turnaround in a recessionary economy. In a serious economic downturn, it is essential that the government institute pro-growth policies to encourage job creation and investment in the economy, especially when it is so necessary that capital (wealth used to finance business operations) be injected into the market.

Sen. McCain’s plans would encourage the kind of growth this economy needs to get out of the impending recession more quickly. He has wisely proposed cutting the corporate tax rate from 35%—the second highest in the world—to 25%, the average in Europe. This would, as he rightly points out, boost America’s competitiveness and make it less expensive to do business here, thereby encouraging jobs to remain in America.

Sen. McCain has also proposed slashing the capital gains tax in half, to 7.5%. In a time when investment is critical, cutting the capital gains tax is a surefire way to inject capital into the market.

He has put forth across-the-board tax cuts for individuals of all income brackets, which would let every taxpayer keep more of what they’ve earned and promote job creation. Sen. McCain’s prescription will help heal the economy; Sen. Obama’s will only spread the cancer.

Obama’s extreme talk of increased regulation is dangerous. Already the United States has been rated 8th in the world for economic freedom—after being 3rd in just 2001. The more regulation fiddled throughout the market, the more expensive it is to do business.

Case-in-point: The oil industry is so overwhelmingly regulated that no oil refineries have been built in 35 years because of it. While some regulation is needed, too much stifles efficiency, which is key to a healthy economy.

On foreign policy, Sen. McCain’s track record proves that he is ready to handle whatever comes at him. Joe Biden’s admission that Obama will be “tested” by “an international crisis” in his first six months substantiates the point: How can we risk Obama failing the test when failure is not an option? As Biden himself said, “the presidency does not lend itself to on the job training.”’

Iraq and Georgia underscore this point. When Russia invaded Georgia, Obama urged “restraint by both sides” until he finally realized that Georgia was the victim. McCain, on the other hand, immediately called it for what it was: unprovoked Russian aggression. Biden knew it, but he’s not the one vying to answer the 3 A.M phone call—Obama is.

On Iraq, while he supported the war (along with Clinton, Kerry, and Biden), McCain recognized that the Bush post-Saddam strategy was failing, and he battled the administration for tactical changes, despite intense political pressure to shut up. After the Surge strategy he advocated was finally implemented, he was proven right.

Obama indeed opposed the war in the beginning as a state senator (when it was actually politically beneficial for him given the area of Chicago he was representing in the Illinois Senate), but when he could actually help shape policy in Iraq, he chose to push for a precipitous withdrawal and opposed the Surge. Now even he has been forced to admit that the strategy was successful. According to Obama, the Surge worked “beyond everyone’s wildest dreams.” Not everyone’s, Senator. Just yours.

In his 1980 acceptance speech, Ronald Reagan stated, “Back in 1976, Mr. Carter said, 'Trust me.' And a lot of people did....'Trust me' government asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what's best for us. My view of government places trust…where it belongs—in the people.”

Barack Obama is offering us the Carter Philosophy: “Trust me and I will bring change to America.” When casting our vote for President November 4, it is imperative that every American bear in mind Reagan’s wisdom on “Trust me” government.

After all, with double-digit inflation, staggering unemployment and a 144-day hostage crisis, Carter’s one-term presidency didn’t turn out so well, did it? ------------------------ Jimmy Sengenberger is a political science student at Regis University in Denver, a 2008 honors graduate of nearby Grandview High School, a national organizer for the Liberty Day movement, aspiring radio host, and a columnist for the Villager suburban weekly.

Kris the Welder, Gold Star Dad

An Open Letter to Sen. Barack Obama: On the surface I would appear to be an example of your target audience, a perfect candidate for your message of “change.” In 2007 my world came apart. I lost my business and filed for bankruptcy. I lost my modest condo to foreclosure. Everything I owned is gone. And most importantly, I lost my son in Iraq. He was killed in action serving his country and protecting his “boys,” those who served beside him. If anyone has a reason to reach for the lifeline you describe in campaign stops, it is me.

But Sen. Obama, I have asked for only one thing from you and the leaders of your party. I have asked for a five minute phone call. I started calling your office last March and I have made dozens of calls to various Senators and Representatives who express their views about the war in Iraq with a “national” voice. You have ignored me. Why?

Perhaps had I stood on the street corner and shouted that “Bush Lied! Soldiers Died!” you would hear me. Perhaps if I screamed that corrupt lenders forced me to take a mortgage that was beyond my means, you would have heard me. Perhaps if I would have contributed money, you would have heard my cry. Perhaps. What I did offer was a private meeting with 25 Gold Star Dads. I know from your staff, you heard that and rejected it. Why?

Sen. Obama, I have lost everything in life that I held dear and you offer nothing to me of value. I do not want government gifts and yet I am now receiving aid from Medicaid and I have an application for a small benefit from Veterans Affairs. It pains me more than I can say to have fallen so low. But Sen. Obama, you were not responsible for these programs and they remain in place even with eight years of President Bush.

What I do want is for this country to consider the price paid for freedom and what freedom really means. FREEDOM includes the possibility of failure. I have failed many times over and that failure was of my doing. FREEDOM includes failure. It must or success is without value. FREEDOM includes the sacrifice of service and the reward of condemnation by those who hate without cause. FREEDOM means I will sit and cry as I consider the life my son might have had and the HERO he will remain.

Sen. Obama, you sell servitude cloaked as a “tax cut.” You claim support for our military while you plot with those who hate everything for which my son died. Sen. Obama, you are the Blind, Deaf and Dumb. You did not see William Ayers on your street, did not hear twenty years of hate in church and you did not speak out to save the life of a single unborn baby. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. If you are the answer as so many seem to believe, God save us from ourselves.

Kris Hager Gold Star Dad Venice, Florida

RTD: Vote tax-wary & union-tough

Here are my picks for director races in RTD. It's one of Colorado's biggest governments, and as such should have the benefit of competitive party-labeled campaigns. But I couldn't get fellow Republicans to back my Senate bill to that effect years ago, so we're stuck with guesswork and the grapevine as far as knowing who the good guys are. My definition of good guy is a transit board member who will (1) resist the crazy move for higher taxes to rescue the busted FasTracks plan in lieu of a realistic makeover and (2) hang tough against the unions who have been gaining ground on the agency since Dems took over the statehouse.

Shorthand for those qualities is a Republican voter registration. Unfortunately there's not one in all the races this year, in fact 3 of the 8 races don't even feature a contest. That's another result of the nonpartisan obscurity in which RTD merrily spends our money.

So my recommendations are:

District A - Bill James, unaffiliated but tax-wary and union-tough

District G - Republican Jack O'Boyle

District H - Republican Joe Stengel

District M - Republican Ramey Johnson

On District F our research came back inconclusive, but incumbent Yamrick is bad on taxes and unions, so call it a coin flip between Tobiassen and Staples.

District D, District E, and District I are the ones where incumbents will get a free ride (unlike the $20 ride you get on light rail when all costs are factored in) to reelection, as they have no challengers.