Crafty like a fox

After a bit more than a month away from the partisan battles, I'm back in my blogger chair. I've had a chance to ruminate on the 2008 election results, and to my great surprise, the sun continues to rise in the East and set in the West (though I'm sure global warming alarmists will soon say that this, too, is in mortal danger). The real impact, of course, of the decisive Democrat victory won't be seen for years to come. I have to hand it to the President-elect -- he's crafty like a fox. His early appointments were designed to give him cover from attacks from the right, and reflect the sober reality he now faces in dealing with both the financial downturn and the ever-present terrorism and security threat. His appointments of Geithner and Summers were reassuring to the financial markets which are now expecting a high-level of government intervention. For those of us who still believe in free markets, its not good news, of course.

The financial bailout undertaken by the Bush Administration and Paulson/Geithner before the election has ushered in a whole new era of government intrusion into the private sector. And Barack Obama, with his predilection for "spreading the wealth around" is just the guy to take maximum advantage of it. The government will own banks, auto makers and insurance companies before it is all through -- and tax payers will be on the hook for it all in the end.

Of course, Obama's early appointments don't give a full picture of what is yet come -- for his next appointments will surely be grist for the far left of the party, still smarting over Obama's decision to keep Bush Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Interior, Energy, EPA -- all of these will be given to a left-wing ideologue who will seek to roll back environmental regulations in pursuit of greenhouse gas restrictions. All that "Drill here, Drill now"? You can forget about all that; now that gas is back to $1.50 a gallon, you can bet we'll be returning to the days of alternative energy investments and ever stricter emission standards -- all just as the auto makers are seeking a multi-billion bailout. Makes no sense -- but, then again, the global warming religion is based on faith, not facts.

Take a look at this piece in the Wall Street Journal -- a great example of the above:

Mr. Obama...(is) a student of the late radical thinker Saul Alinsky, who argued that you do or say what's necessary in a democracy to gain power, while keeping your true aims to yourself. Mr. Obama's novel contribution has been to turn this exploitation on his supporters on the left (who admittedly are so wedded to their hero that, so far, they don't seem to mind).

His next big challenge is an upcoming conference updating the Kyoto targets. Mr. Obama has not backed off his overwrought climate rhetoric, but listen carefully to Al Gore. Now that Democrats are on the verge of power, he's backing off cap-and-trade and carbon-tax proposals (i.e. visible energy price hikes for consumers) in favor of a new approach -- massive government subsidies for 'green technology'.

That's right -- open up the spigot. As long as we're spending a few $Trillion on the banks, bad mortgages and all, why not throw a few tens-of-billions at alternative energy? Start the presses! It's only paper, after all!!

In the end, of course, there will be a limit to all this largesse -- and it will come when taxes rise to support the massive debt we are now taking on for our children to deal with. Remember when "balanced budget" was the cry in Washington? Those days are long, long gone. In its place we have socialism in all its European glory.

And of course, don't forget health care -- the next great socialist experiment that is coming your way, like it or not. As the WSJ again shows in a brilliant editorial today, Tom Daschle is going to reform your health care -- like it or not:

Tom Daschle, the former Senate Majority Leader who Barack Obama has tapped to run Health and Human Services. "I think that ideological differences and disputes over policy weren't really to blame," he writes of 1994 in his book "Critical," published earlier this year. Despite "a general agreement on basic reform principles," the Clintons botched the political timing by focusing on the budget, trade and other priorities before HillaryCare.

President-elect Obama will not make the same mistake. Congressional Democrats are already deep into the legislative weeds, while Mr. Daschle is organizing the interest groups and a grassroots lobbying effort. Mr. Obama may be gesturing at a more centrist direction in economics and national security, but health care is where he seems bent on pleasing the political left.

According to Mr. Daschle, because of the Clintons' hesitation, "reform opponents succeeded in confusing and even frightening Americans about what change might mean," and this time the Democrats mean to define the debate. Consider the December 2 letter to us from Senator Max Baucus, who is upset that a recent editorial on his health-care plan did not use his favorite terms of art (his style being surrealism). "It will require affordability, but premiums will not be set," he writes. So the government will merely determine "affordability" -- which might as well be the same thing.

You see the pattern here: the issue in health care reform is style, not substance. Forget any discussion of the merits, the 1993 initiative failed because it wasn't sold properly, not because there are any inherent flaws in the concept. And lest you think that there will be proper study and debate before such a bill reaches the President's desk for signature, think again -- for the Democrats, so sure are they in the righteous of their cause, aren't wasting any time:

Most disturbingly, Democrats are talking up "budget reconciliation" to pass a health overhaul. This process was created in 1974 and allows legislation dealing with government finances to be whisked through Congress on a simple majority after 20 hours of debate. In other words, it cuts out the minority by precluding a filibuster. Mr. Daschle writes that reform "is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol," and Mr. Baucus has said he's open to the option.

Any taxpayer commitment this large ought to require a social consensus reflected in large majorities, but Democrats are determined to plow ahead anyway. They know that a health-care entitlement for the middle class will never be removed once it is in place; and that government will then dominate American health-care choices for decades to come. That's all the more reason for the recumbent GOP to get its act together.

Like Saul Alinsky and the other radicals in Obama's background, the ends always justifies the means. Ram it through at all costs -- the goal of social justice can't be hung up on the niceties of dissent and debate.

Yes, elections have repercussions. And this one more than most.

As I've said many times, folks: Hang on to your wallets!

Sore winners should lay off Musgrave

Republican Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, targeted five years ago by the Tim Gill machine for the crime of defending traditional marriage and finally brought down last month, is the most relentlessly and unjustly smeared public figure I can recall in 35 years of Colorado politics. Since the election, amazingly, the smears have continued from the Democrat who defeated her, Betsy Markey, aided by biased or lazy reporting from the state and national media. The rap against Musgrave now is that she hasn't made a courtesy phone call to Markey, hasn't spoken to her supporters, and hasn't even thanked her own staff -- making her one of America's sorest losers, according to no less an authority than Newsweek.

These heinous offenses have been repeatedly alleged in the Denver papers, most recently this week with stories in the Post and the Rocky occasioned by Musgrave's campaign efforts in the Georgia Senate runoff. But they are baloney three times over. A stronger term occurs to me, but this is a family website.

First as to the allegation of ungrateful and ungracious behavior to her own side, longtime staffer Guy Short assures me that employees for both the campaign and the congressional office have been not only generously thanked but also financially looked out for. To the charge (quoting the Denver Post, but originated by the Fort Collins Coloradoan) that "she has yet to... publicly address her supporters or volunteers, many of whom had gathered at a restaurant on election night," Short told the Coloradoan editor in an email:

"I don't know where you heard that Marilyn didn't thank her supporters but that is simply not true. She thanked her supporters election night at Jackson's Hole in Greeley and at the Fairfield Hotel in Greeley. She has made hundreds of phone calls thanking supporters and has written hundreds of letters thanking supporters."

But the most damning piece of spin against Musgrave, reflecting political ignorance and naivete at best or sore-winner spite and conscious falsehood at worst, is the suggestion from Markey's camp that the losing candidate has committed some unheard-of pettiness and snub by not getting in touch with the winner.

As Ben Marter, spokesman for the congresswoman-elect, told the Post: "The voters have spoken and it's customary to call your opponent to concede the race, but we're moving forward."

Wrong. I can find no evidence of any such Colorado custom in congressional and legislative races. Tom Tancredo, retiring this year from Congress, says no Democrat ever called him to concede or extend congratulations after his two state House and five US House victories stretching back to the 1970s.

Mike Coffman, newly elected to succeed Tancredo, received no call or contact of any kind from Hank Eng, the Democrat he defeated. I received no call from the Democrat who pummeled me with negative mailers but lost anyway, in our state Senate race of 2000.

Musgrave herself, according to Guy Short, is in the same situation as Tancredo -- never in a long string of elections for state House, state Senate, and Congress has her defeated Democrat opponent bothered to call.

You see, it's just not done that way. Presidential combatants do the concede-and-congratulate thing because it's in glare of national and world attention. I don't know what happens in all governor's races, but I personally went to see Gov. Roy Romer after he beat me on election night 1990. But at the congressional and legislative level -- memo to Ben Marter and Betsy Markey -- to say it's "customary" is just not so.

Formal declarations of conceding or refusing-to-concede have relevance only in disputed races with razor-thin margins, such as the month-long 2002 duel in CD-7 between Dem Mike Feeley and eventual Republican winner Bob Beauprez, or this year's drawn-out SD-26 contest where Republican Lauri Clapp was finally edged out by Democrat Linda Newell.

If the new 4th CD congresslady wants to show some class, she can give this subject a rest and tell her cheering section to do the same. Instead of the sly statement "we're moving forward" while fanning the grievance in same breath, they need to lay off the victim thing, give a no-comment, and move forward.

In other words, Betsy, get over yourself. Where is it written that the campaign's not over until you're genuflected to? Didn't mom teach you not to kick someone when they're down? Isn't the victory enough in itself?

Disclosure: I am a longtime donor and endorser for Musgrave's congressional races.

Merrifield bedevils parental hopes

Writing from a special place in Hell where I rent a small office, I’d like to congratulate state Rep. Mike Merrifield on his reappointment to chair the House Education Committee. Why the soon-to-be-Speaker of the House, Rep. Terrance Carroll, himself a school choice advocate, would allow Merrifield to remain in this powerful position is a good question. Carroll has been critical of Merrifield’s attempts to weaken the Charter School Institute and his notorious email claiming “There must be a special place in Hell for these Privatizers, Charterizers, and Voucherizers! They deserve it!”

Perhaps Carroll thinks the Manitou Springs Democrat has reformed his ways. After all, he has managed to stay out of the papers. After Face The State exposed the infamous email in March 2007, Merrifield stepped down from the chairmanship. He resumed his leadership position in the 2008 session and the year went by quietly. I guess Merrifield learned a lesson; if you want to condemn your opponents to the fires of Hell, don't do it over email.

Fellow proponents of school choice, us denizens of brimstone acres, have reason to be concerned about Merrifield’s continued leadership. Emboldened by the last election, liberal politicians have no reason to feign moderation. Last year’s attacks on charter schools will be nothing compared to this year’s. As long as Merrifield is at the helm, we can expect anti-school choice legislation to pass through the committee while pro-school choice legislation languishes.

As both a charterizer and a voucherizer (no doubt doomed to the inferno’s ninth circle), I feel compelled to define the terms of parental choice in education for the reader who may not know what’s at stake. When I was a kid, parents had one choice—send their kids to a designated neighborhood school or pony up for a private school. Parents who could not afford a home in a desirable neighborhood or private school tuition simply had no other options. Thanks to untiring grassroots advocates and a courageous bipartisan group of leaders, today’s parents have a few more options than we had growing up.

Colorado parents can choose any public school that has seats available. They can educate their children at home. Families can also choose from over 140 public charter schools. Like other public schools, charter schools are free public schools open to all students. Unlike other public schools, charter schools have their own governing boards and may adopt their own curriculum and personnel procedures. No two charter schools are the same. There are college preparatory schools, schools that emphasize the arts, on-line schools, schools that encourage hands-on learning, and back-to-basics schools, to name but a few. Charter schools can be authorized by school districts or by the Charter School Institute, a statewide public authorizer.

Making a choice has become easier thanks to school report cards and parent-friendly Web sites that provide information about schools. Even so there are still too many families in areas without good public schools either traditional or charter. Even though private schools typically operate at a fraction of the public per-pupil funding level, for some families, even modest tuition is still out of their reach. In 14 states and the District of Columbia, parents can choose from among private schools with the help of a scholarship or tax credit/deduction. In Colorado, parents do not have this option. Tenacious school choice proponents in Colorado have tried to try to expand options for parents but as long as politicians like Merrifield remain in leadership, their efforts will be blocked every time.

How can the Speaker-to-Be believe Merrifield will act any differently in 2009? How likely is it that we’ll see a kinder, gentler chairman? About a snowball’s chance, I’d say. According to Colorado Capitol Watch, Merrifield received thousands of dollars from unions and other anti-school choice advocacy groups this past election. He isn’t likely to bite the hand that feeds. This is bad news for families seeking new school options and even those trying to hold on to the ones they have. It is difficult to predict exactly where the school choice movement will go next session, but I’m certain Merrifield has a special place in mind.

The blueing of Arapahoe

There were hints in October that Arapahoe Republicans were in for another bad year. My precinct in Centennial, once as red as they come, blossomed with Obama yard signs. Then County Clerk Nancy Doty announced at the weekly GOP breakfast that voter registration in the county, which had tilted heavily our way until recently, now showed an edge of about 400 for the Dems.

According to the Clerk's official website, that edge is now almost 6000, and the new normal is depressingly evident in vote tallies from Nov. 4. The following summary is from a talk I gave to the Aurora Republican Forum last Saturday.

ARAPAHOE COUNTY VOTING TRENDS, 2002-2008

2008 Obama-D over McCain-R by 55-43% for President Udall-D over Schaffer-R by 54-42% for US Senate

2006 Ritter-D over Beauprez-R by 60-40% for Governor

2004 Bush-R over Kerry-D by 52-48% for President Salazar-D over Coors-R by 53-47% for US Senate

2002 Owens-R over Heath-D by 69-31% for Governor Allard-R over Strickland-D by 53-47% for US Senate

Another troubling indicator for Republicans is the erosion of their formerly unquestioned dominance of the Arapahoe County Board of Commissioners. A switch of just 565 votes in Commissioner Rod Bockenfeld's narrow reelection victory this year would have given the Dems 3-2 control of that board.

When I came to the State Senate in SD-27 in 1998, SD-28 to the east of me and SD-26 to the west of me were both Republican seats and taken for granted as safe. No more. Sen. Nancy Spence, who succeeded me four years ago and won again comfortably this year, is it for Republicans from our county in the upper house.

First, Democrat Suzanne Williams took 28 from Bruce Cairns in 2004 and was easily reelected this year. And now, subject to a recount, it appears Democrat Linda Newell has won 26 from Lauri Clapp, who was seeking to hold the GOP seat for retiring Sen. Steve Ward.

HD-38, covering part of the same Littleton area as SD-26, went to Joe Rice and the Democrat in 2006 when former Republican House leader Joe Stengel was termed out.

What has caused the blueing of Arapahoe? It's obviously some combination of new residents moving in as others leave, younger voters coming of age as seniors pass from the scene, and superior competitiveness of Democrats among unaffiliated voters.

Only that third factor is in Republicans' control, but it needs to be a focus of soul-searching and new efforts, or Colorado's oldest county will continue changing its political complexion in a way that leaves conservative old-timers shaking their heads.

Dems seize digital dominance

Obama has "built the largest network anyone has ever seen in politics, and congressional Republicans are clueless about the shift," says strategist Joe Trippi says on the front page of today's Denver Post. This story is huge. If Republicans are not addressing the Dems' digital dominance as though our lives depended on it, we deserve whatever continued political woe may come to us.

-----------------------

Obama's vast Web operation alters political playing field (By Beth Fouhy, AP) http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_10969183