Congratulations to the Democrats and a few predictions.

If doing a splendid job winning the Presidency is proof that you will be a good president, then I think my country, the good 'ol USA, will be in good hands for the next four years. Unfortunately, the one does not necessarily follow the other.

A Democrat friend, to whom I had described the possible downside of an Obama Presidency on a number of occasions (but who voted for him anyway) asked me today if I really thought he'd make a bad President. I said, "If Obama is as pragmatic as he often sounds, he'll be alright." Of course, that's the question: Was Obama fooling the left radicals who promoted him to the nomination? Or was he fooling us?

The Democrat Congress may come back into session this fall. If so they will pass a great big Christmas gift for the voters paid for by the Rich Uncle Collective.

The Christmas package will be tied up with several unpleasant strings -- riders the Democrats will want George Bush to sign into law (not Barack Obama). Possible examples might be the "Fairness Doctrine" (to take down talk radio) and "card check" (to thug up the unions by removing the secret ballot). In this way they can say "The Bush Republicans put in place the Fairness doctrine" (or whatever the item is) and repeat it a thousand times. If they do add poison pills, I hope George Bush has the wisdom to veto the whole $500 Billion stocking stuffer. And tar the Democrat Congress with the trick they will try to pull.

From The Volokh Conspiracy.

Looking for a Post-Election Republican Agenda?:

Here's something I think the vast majority of Republicans/conservatives/libertarians can agree on: holding Obama to this pledge, made to the American public during the third debate: "what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.... What I want to emphasize ... is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as- you-go. Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut so that it matches."

We should remember that the Democrats and the Media considered the Bush Tax Cuts an increase in spending. Back in 2001 and 2003 they would say, "How much can we afford to spend on tax cuts?" So there is a cheap rhetorical out for Obama (but an expensive one for us). The Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. Since the US government was spending on tax cuts, allowing the taxes to increase becomes a spending cut. Extending the Bush Cuts for some tax payers becomes an Obama tax reduction for them (even though their taxes are not reduced -- only not increased). Therefore, the spending cuts in "pay-as-you-go" are actually massive tax increases. The tax cuts are, in the main, merely refraining from raising taxes on some tax payers. I believe the new figure will be couples making less than $120,000.

Mr Bernstein further comments:

it would be wonderful...the Senate and House minority leaders each congratulated Obama, and added, "we look forward to helping President-elect Obama fulfill his promise of a net spending cut."

Unfortunately, if they helped Sen. Obama fulfill his promise they will find themselves supporting tax increases.

In the national security arena, Barack Obama will find himself handicapped by the way he used the Iraq War to gain power by tearing down George Bush and Hillary Clinton over their stands on the war. Having pointed the way, he will fear that others will follow the same route to destroy the Obama Presidency. His first term will be spent avoiding the types of commitments that will lead to this outcome. He will not succeed.

Good luck and God bless.

What do you call Bankrupting Coal? A good start.

A tape of Sen. Obama talking to his campaign staff in San Fran surfaced. These folks man the office at the San Francisco Chronicle.

CBS News

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can,” Obama said. “It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.”

An Obama spokesperson said that Obama’s remarks were taken out of context and pointed out that in another part of the interview, Obama said that the idea of eliminating coal plants was “an illusion.”

The "illusion" is that talking about destroying the coal industry and getting elected is a possibility. Actually destroying the coal industry after being elected is the reality, not the illusion. The CBS Obama spokespeople quoting other Obama spokesperson go on:

“The point Obama is making is that we need to transition from coal burning power plants built with old technology to plants built with advanced technologies--and that is exactly the action that will be incentivized under a cap and trade program,” the spokesperson said. “We know that additional work is necessary to develop and deploy these technologies. That is why Obama has argued for a robust funding program for carbon capture and sequestration. It’s strikingly similar to what McCain has said (in fact McCain goes a step further saying he wants to transition completely away from coal).”

The real story is the escalating costs of the Obama plan -- that his energy alternatives will cost trillions of dollars to rate payers. His use of regulation and taxation to ruin industry may start with coal but that is just the beginning. Regulation will stop the use of Nuclear power. Regulation will force the adoption of expensive alternative fuels. Regulation will stop oil drilling.

Folks, I am all for a alternative energy future. What I'm not for is crashing the economy now.

I come here not to Damn the Coal Industry, but to bury it.

Via Gateway Pundit:

OBAMA TELLS SAN FRANCISCO HE WILL BANKRUPT THE COAL INDUSTRY

When I tell Democrats that Obama's alternative energy future will require seven or eight dollar a gallon gas they just sort of shrug. Tell a coal miner that Obama's alternative energy future will require his mine to shut down and I suspect he'll shrug, too. And even if he does not, his kids probably will. It is a strange election in which a fantasy future of peace and plenty -- "Tom Tomorrowland" -- will win (if you believe the MSM). I call it a crash plan to crash the economy.

As for the voters in my area, here are a few observations I left as a comment at the Belmont Club:

In my last 12 hours of driving around Western Pa and Eastern Ohio I’ve seen two bumper stickers: one McCain, One Obama. I haven’t seen a large number of yard signs. I live in a heavily Democratic area and the Obama signs are not numerous but they have been around for a few weeks. McCain signs have sprouted up in the last few days in “upper working class” areas. You see a lot of McCain signs along the rural roads — a lot of signs but, unfortunately, few voters.

I joke with a lot of Democrat voters about the election. They seem to have proudly returned to their party because of the financial meltdown and the Dems’ reputation (deserved or not) for fighting for the little guy. They even listen to me trash that reputation (with a smile on my face and a lilt in my voice). Their commitment to Obama seems less solid then their pride in the party, though. I’ve had Democrats say to me, “When people get in the booth, who knows?” I tell them they can vote for McCain and still stick with their party. And sometimes I think they’re not sure how their friends will vote for president — or what they might do themselves. They will all be a brick wall down ticket, though.

By the way, they’ve asked me not to have a wig out Wednesday if McCain loses.

I drive through African American neighborhoods, too, and don’t see many Obama signs. Of course he will carry those areas by 98 percent so they might feel yard signs are redundant. Or maybe African Americans will sit out the Civil War the English Profs will wage if the One comes up short one elector. I have not talked politics with any African Americans this go round, nor they with me. But regardless of color or party, people are keeping their politics on the down low.

From what I’ve seen I would not rule out a McCain win: Just the likelihood of it.

To which I'll add that I talked to a small business man who said if he votes his interest he will vote McCain but if he votes the nation's interest he will vote Obama. Now, he is much better off than me (financially, at least) and I ended up explaining where his interest and the nation's coincide -- and sending more power and money to DC is not in the nation's interest. Geez. The Washington Guard Dog Media does it's work well.

But what if voters decide not to pull the lever for Tom Tomorrowland? Then there is this Audio which is just wacky enough to be believed. A McCain landslide? The hosts, Quinn and Rose, have a radio talk show with good ratings in Western Pa and Eastern Ohio (I'm a sometime listener). Still, I can't vouch for the accuracy of the prognosticators involved.

Happy election day and may all sides emerge victorious (that's a McCain win, for the underinformed)!

120K is the new 250

From Fox news via Instapundit. How Low Can It Go?

For the second time in a week, a prominent Democrat has downgraded Barack Obama's definition of the middle class -- leading Republicans to question whether he'll stick to his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000.

The latest hiccup in the campaign message came Friday morning on KOA-AM, when New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson pegged the middle class as those making $120,000 and under.

Now that is change we can beleive in. A few days ago I noted:

On tax increases, his floor has come down from $250,000 to $200,000 in one week. Sen. Biden then knocked it down to $150,000. Let's see, dropping at fifty thousand a week their tax increase floor should be under me by Thanksgiving. In fact my feet feel more firmly planted already.

Yep. I'm going to cash those checks Barack sends me and buy gold.

That Zogby be one good kidder.

DRUDGE:

ZOGBY SATURDAY: Republican John McCain has pulled back within the margin of error... The three-day average holds steady, but McCain outpolled Obama 48% to 47% in Friday, one day, polling. He is beginning to cut into Obama's lead among independents, is now leading among blue collar voters, has strengthened his lead among investors and among men, and is walloping Obama among NASCAR voters. Joe the Plumber may get his license after all...

How can the polls be wrong when they are all over the place?

A McHurry-Cain on the Brain

Kausfiles :

The See-Saw Cuts Both Ways: Republicans have been gaining in the "generic" Congressional ballot, according to The Hill...As someone rooting for an Obama victory coupled with a small Dem majority in Congress, I've worried that in all the last minute confusion the See wouldn't know which way to Saw, given the countervailing possibility that ticket-splitting voters would side with McCain and compensate by voting for Dems in downballot Senate and House races. ... But if the MSM Final Push to Victory. among other factors, really does help produce a big Obama closing surge, that could (perversely!) tip the ticket-splitters' lever against Franken, Martin, etc., no?

If you think Obama is going to win, having more Republicans around to act as a check (and support him in times of national peril -- something the "Obama wing" is unlikely to do) then voting Republican down ticket makes sense.

A few months back I added my twist: What if the late Obama surge (Yes, I saw it coming!) is more media brain farting than a political storm? This is most unlikely to happen, of course. Obama is ahead in every poll. Still, the voters may take a look at the leap they are about to make and decide to stay on this side of the political Chasm. In this case, folks may vote for McCain but knowing he'll loose, vote for the Republican down ticket (instead of splitting their vote). In which case we could have McCain by a nose and a better than expected Republican outcome in Congress.

Yes, one last pleasant dream.

Who puts the GO in GO-vernment? Barack Does!

Well, I didn't watch Sen. Obama's "advertisement for myself!" because I ain't buying it. Also, I heard consumers will spend less of their own money this Christmas (though likely more of someone else's). So this morning I did a little catching up on what the iO said ("Here's what I'll do!") via a surprising source: The AP.

Obama's prime-time ad skips over budget realities

THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "

THE FACTS: His proposals—the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more—cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged—although not in his commercial—that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."

When the iO said, "scale back some of his proposals" he meant John McCain's proposals, not the iO's own proposals -- for instance, there is that whole Pentagon thing which can be turned into affordable housing.

On tax increases, his floor has come down from $250,000 to $200,000 in one week. Sen. Biden then knocked it down to $150,000. Let's see, dropping at fifty thousand a week their tax increase floor should be under me by Thanksgiving.  In fact my feet feel more firmly planted already. I thank whatever gods may be for my Go-vernment -- which goes not just for me, but for you, too!