Celebritizing of politics isn't good

Before leaving for a brief sojourn through South America, I noticed something troubling on the news. On one channel, hordes of photographers followed Britney Spears around snapping shots of her every move while she was out and about somewhere in LA or New York. Bored with the usual pop drivel, I flipped to Fox News and there was a very similar scene of flashing bulbs and a legion of paparazzi.

But Fox News was not covering Britney Spears, they were covering Alaska's Governor, Sarah Palin. The scenes were almost identical, both women were being swarmed by countless reporters--every move being photographed.

This type of celebritization of political identities is not just a problem for Palin though. Our soon-to-be President Barack Obama is widely treated like a celebrity and was even criticized about it by the McCain camp in a very successful campaign advertisement. At moments, Obama's campaign (and McCain's for that matter) seemed to craft Hollywood-esque scenarios to capture the attention of the audience...the voters.

When elections become nothing more than popularity contests and public persona is more important than policies and principles, democracy suffers.

To win on blue, think anew

Democratic chairman Howard Dean was ridiculed for his 50-state strategy, but who's laughing now? Dems just made big gains in states that had been red for many years. Here in Colorado, there are clearly red and blue legislative districts. For instance, in 2008, my district (House District 10 in Boulder) voted 75% for the Democratic candidate. The operative question for Colorado Republicans is, what should we do about blue districts? For instance, is it a good idea to nominate a liberal Republican in a blue district?

Matching candidates to districts is a tough issue. I think the GOP is a big tent in many ways. While social conservatives are an extremely important part of the GOP coalition, I believe it is perfectly reasonable to match a social moderate candidate to a socially moderate district. What we can’t do is nominate RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) – this dilutes the message of mainstream Republicans in other districts. Aren’t you embarrassed by what some GOP congressmen have said and done, all while claiming to be a conservative?

The key quality for candidates in blue geographies is the ability to articulate why and how freedom-centered policies benefit different audiences. For instance, school choice should sell well to parents in failing school districts; and anyone should be able to see how reining in the runaway tort system would make health care more affordable. I would prefer that candidates in these long-shot districts take courageous stands on big-picture policy ideas, and not seek to pander with small ideas. Make it clear, make it fresh, and make it relevant. We offer a common sense approach to problems real people face. We are not the tired old Republicans of years past – we are New Republicans: grounded in applying principals of freedom for a more civil, more prosperous, and freer society.

Most Coloradans don’t care what team a potential representative is on – they care that their representative understands their challenges, can articulate policy solutions to help, and act with integrity and character to enact those policies. We win the greatest number of races not by sounding like imitation Democrats, but by candidate’s articulating in both intellectual and emotional language why our principals are better for the people of their district.

Greenspan's clowns & McCain's weasels

With the election behind us, it's time now for another installment of good news and optimism, of the kind you can find nowhere else, and probably wouldn’t want to anyways. No matter what the weather is doing outside, no matter what the papers may say, I’m always sunny on the inside, because that’s just who I am. 1. Bach’s Mood Music. When we read anything about the economy these days, we should have Bach’s “Toccata & Fugue in D minor” playing in the background.

2. Recession Graphs. Some analysts are predicting an “L-shaped” recession. Some say it will be a “V-shaped” recession. Some say “U-shaped.” But I say it will be a “Clown-shaped” recession, with a graph that resembles the mug of Maestro Greenspan.

3. Capstone. How ironic that a former disciple of uber-capitalist Ayn Rand helped turn public opinion against free markets, ultimately paving the path to a more socialist government.

4. Close the Door Behind You. How sad that the only elected politico hammering the banks on their taxpayer financed “executive bonuses” is that bald whiny little Henry Waxman. Democrat. Where the heck are the Republicans? Perhaps they sit away in silence, counting campaign contributions. Time to go, folks, time to go….

5. Oops, I guess they’re already gone. Nice try from McCain there in 2008, but no cigar. Not even a cigarillo. It just goes to show ya – Neoconservatism never pays.

6. McCain’s Weasels. As predicted, the knives have come out of the McCain camp contra Palin. They waited a full 24 hours after the election to unsheathe and slice away in full pettiness mode. Glad to see Michelle Malkin and RedState tracking down the leakers, holding them accountable.

7. Relatedly. I don’t like the kind of women that don’t like Sarah Palin.

8. No Foreign Cars. If we bail out GM, and then Ford too, we will have enacted an ex post facto form of trade protectionism. If a taxpayer saves money buying a Toyota, but then must pay more taxes to bail out GM, what’s the point in buying a Toyota? Might be simpler to just raise tariffs on imports. Or better yet, pressing the logic, ban them altogether.

9. Ricardo’s High-Water Mark. The global free trade consensus seems poised to diminish. But, worry not, this won’t be your grandfather’s Smoot-Hawley. To save itself, America will soon feel a need to re-industrialize. You know, actually make stuff. Right here at home. Pretty soon this will be the accepted wisdom. How did it ever come not to be?

10. Corollary. Sans free trade, the EU will find itself en route to disintegration. Which would be just fine, really.

11. With Bones in their Noses. Power traveled further from Truth under the Bush Administration. Truth became less powerful, as our democratic republic became less constitutional. The Paulson Plans cases in point – an open-air looting of America, no congressional oversight. The elite strategy of profit-taking up to the point of bankruptcy and then, too big to fail, chiseling out their taxpayer bailouts. Wealth thus transferred from Wal-Mart shoppers towards Saks Fifth Avenue. Meanwhile, the masses have no idea what’s happening. They cannot penetrate today’s propaganda, much less tomorrow’s. When potential leaders arise capable of pointing out sundry truths to such corrupt power, the cannibals generally arrive in the nick of time.

12. Feeling Vindicated. Early spring this year, predicted deflation on the near-horizon. And so now here it is. And it’s actually not all bad. Diminishes the power of the state, and those overly connected to the state, over time. Might even slow down a certain socialist in the Oval Office. So of course deflation will be fought tooth and nail. It will become the Enemy. Osama Bin Deflation. But the powers that be may have been too greedy in the recent past to win this fight now. The little guy may accidentally walk away with this one.

13. Related Prediction. Mises will trump Keynes when all is said and done with the present economic crisis. Bad news for Bernanke-Paulson-Greenspan.

Life is grand, let us rejoice. But I repeat myself.

Yours in Optimism, Norman Vincent Peale

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.