Paris for President

As everyone knows, celebrity heiress Paris Hilton recently made a video response to that McCain ad likening Obama's celebrity status to that of both Ms. Hilton and Britney Spears. (If you missed the McCain ad because you have been hiding under a rock, you can view it here.) McCain's commercial which calls into question Obama's glittering fame as a criteria for leadership has gained the McCain camp some serious publicity and a jump in fundraising. But Hilton's video response has also caused quite a stir. Not only is it mildly humorous and definitely entertaining. It also proposes an energy policy that combines the best elements of the rival presidential contenders.

Hilton's "hybrid" energy policy calls for offshore drilling just long enough to buy us time to begin creating alternative energy vehicles that could be produced in Detroit--thus helping to revive the one-time vibrant automobile industry there. See the video for yourself.

I never thought I would say this, but on energy policy, I vote Paris Hilton. Though to be fair, the policy she is outlining is closer to McCain's than Obama's plan--and my suspicion is that in coming months the Obama camp will move closer to the Hilton plan... who knows, they might even chose her for Veep.

I wonder what Britney Spears will have to say about this.

Foreign trip was Obama's Tom Dewey moment

A friend from my school days in Zurich, still living in Switzerland, emailed me about Barack Obama’s recent trip to Europe. He summed up perfectly the prevailing reaction from Europeans about the Democrat nominee for president: “Oh, how wonderful it is [sic] to have a man of the world as America’s president!”

Leaving aside the now-familiar (if in this case unintended) presumptuousness that Obama supporters routinely exhibit, this simple statement validates how desperate the Europeans are for an “anti-Bush” – someone erudite, cultured, elegant in manner, and above all else, eager to embrace diplomacy in all its multilateral glory. Obama’s Berlin speech, while short of an “Ich bin ein Berliner” moment, was tailor made for a Europe that seeks an America in its own image – idealistic, nuanced and profoundly non-confrontational.

Unfortunately for the Obama campaign, however, the European trip, highlighted by his speech to 200,000 adoring Berliners in Germany, seems to have fallen flat here in America. In a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted just after the completion of the trip, Obama’s lead among likely voters evaporated in a 9 point swing, with McCain surging to a 4% lead over Obama -- reversing a pre-trip deficit of 5%.

Significantly, in separate questions, the poll shows that support for the view that he can handle the job of commander-in-chief, that he will do a good job on fighting terrorism and that he is capable of handling the war in Iraq all dropped as well. By these measures, Obama’s trip through the Middle East and Europe, which was designed to show that he was up to the job of dealing with foreign policy issues, must be seen as something of a failure. Many analysts, including The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, believe that Obama’s speech in Germany and his overall trip abroad may prove to be a negative tipping point in the election – something akin to a “Dukakis in the tank” moment.

Euro Skepticism

There are several reasons why Obama’s trip, so celebrated in Europe, backfired here in America. Many Americans remain skeptical of European values, motivations and judgment -- particularly on issues related to security and the war on terror. As one American recently said to me, “I’ll always love Paris and London as a place to visit; but if the Euros are for something, I generally think I should be against it.” The roots of this go deeper than just the lingering resentment many Americans still feel over French, German and Spanish opposition to the Iraq War. Though France’s President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Merkel have worked to repair some of damage done by their predecessors, many Americans nonetheless feel that Europe can’t be counted on when needed.

The issue of Iran is a case in point: in a recent poll conducted by the BBC, over 60% of Americans favor strong economic sanctions or military action against Iran’s nuclear program, compared to only 34% in the U.K. and 37% in Germany. Europeans are far more likely to have faith in multilateral institutions and negotiations than do most Americans – a particularly important distinction given Obama’s stated willingness to meet with Iranian president Ahmadinejad without preconditions.

In addition, other polling seems to reinforce the notion that Americans, though clearly invested in a strong Atlantic Alliance, understand that there remain divisions with Europe. A recent poll by GlobeScan sponsored by the British Council found that “on average Americans characterize their views of Europeans as cooler than a friend but warmer than a casual acquaintance”.

Americans have generally lukewarm views of France (48% positive, 31% negative, 15% neutral), Spain (47% positive, 16% negative, 26% neutral) and Poland (41% positive, 15% negative, 30% neutral). Views of Turkey lean slightly negative (29% positive, 35% negative, 23% neutral). Only opinion of the UK (72% positive) and Germany (62%) were above 50%. Not exactly a love fest.

The Audacity of Hubris

This Euro-skepticism may provide some context to the Obama trip, but it is not in itself dispositive. The Obama campaign designed the trip as something of a pre-election “victory tour”, with all the elements of a state visit. The candidate spent time with heads-of-state, conducted presidential-style news conferences and soaked up the adulation of throngs of Europeans who came to catch a glimpse of him. It was covered by a fawning global media that literally gushed with his every appearance. In a sign of just how (self) important Obama saw his trip to Berlin, the campaign originally considered giving the speech from the Brandenburg Gate – the site two historic presidential speeches: JFK’s “Ich bin ein Berliner” in 1963 and Ronald Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” speech of 1987. Both of these speeches were given by actual sitting presidents who had proven their bona fides in the Cold War, not by a presidential candidate who hasn’t even become the official nominee of his party. Apparently, only after German Chancellor Merkel called the request “inappropriate” did the Obama campaign relent, finding another location for the speech.

Obama’s desire to speak at the Brandenburg Gate smacks of hubris, but it paled in comparison to his actions while in Berlin. His now infamous decision to cancel his visit with the wounded troops at the Ramstein and Landstuhl Medical Centers because he couldn’t turn it into a campaign event, was a PR disaster of the first order – particularly since he decided to work out at the gym at the Ritz Carlton instead. For a candidate that has stumbled badly among Clinton supporters in the heartland, and who famously made the “cling to religion and guns” remark in reference to them, Obama still doesn’t seem to understand that Americans dislike elitism. Not visiting U.S. troops wounded in battle because he couldn’t get any campaign mileage from it says to the American people that he doesn’t appreciate the sacrifices of ordinary Americans in uniform, and that consequently, he may not be fit to be commander-in-chief.

Another Dewey?

Finally, Obama’s European and Middle East tour had an air of presumptuousness about it. He flew in with his entourage as if he had already won the election, meeting with General Petraeus in Iraq and making it clear that, though the general opposed a withdrawal timetable, he as the future commander-in-chief knew best. The media coverage, which a majority of Americans now feel has been unfairly biased in Obama’s favor, was nothing short of fawning. His trip was a state visit in everything but name, even providing daily schedules that looked like carbon-copies of the schedules provided when George Bush travels abroad.

It is obviously news to the Democrats -- who are already redecorating the Oval Office -- but there is still an election to win in November. Americans are famous for rooting for the underdog – a position that John McCain has already won from in the Republican primaries earlier this year. The more the campaign, aided by the media, acts as if Obama’s victory is inevitable, the more they run the risk of appearing arrogant in the eyes of many voters. Many of the voters that Obama must win to achieve victory in this election still need to be wooed, convinced that Obama is worthy of their vote. They don’t want to be talked down to, taken for granted or dismissed. These voters aren't going to vote for him simply because he's black, or because he talks about "hope". In the end it will come down to real issues -- like national security, energy policy, the economy, taxes -- and Obama must have real answers. “Change" just won't cut it.

It might be wise for the Obama campaign to remember the story of Tom Dewey. Running in the 1948 election against an unpopular incumbent president (Harry Truman), Dewey ran well ahead the entire election. After 16 years of Democrat Party rule, it was widely seen to be a Republican year – it was time for change. The post-war economy was stagnant, the Soviet Union was ascendant, and the country was struggling with rebuilding Europe and Japan. Truman was seen to be competent but dull. Dewey, on the other hand, was the dashing Governor of New York, well-spoken, well-educated. A thoroughly modern man. The media was so convinced of a Dewey victory, that the Chicago Tribune went to press with that famous headline, “Dewey Beats Truman”, before all the votes were counted.

You already know the rest of the story.

Gloating begins by TABOR's enemies

Breathe easy, taxpayers. The Denver Post’s big-government dinosaur, Bob Ewegen, informs us “the good folks” are finally back in charge — i.e., those who want to make it easiest for government to spend every last dime are back in charge at the state capitol and taxpayers are about to take it in the shorts. Ewegen is, of course, cheerleading for what he hopes will be the death knell for Colorado’s Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) — a ballot initiative championed by outgoing Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff and State Treasurer Cary Kennedy.

The initiative would gut everything that remains of TABOR after Referendum C, except the taxpayers’ right to vote on tax increases — or at least the right to vote on anything the legislature and governor admit are “tax increases,” as opposed to tax increases they deceptively call tax “freezes” or “fee increases.”

Ewegen falsely asserts for the umpteenth time that, when Ref C expires, TABOR will rise from the ashes, baring its fangs to devour all that remains of state government. This, of course, is rubbish.

Ref C not only allowed state government spending to rebound after the recession by repealing the TABOR spending limit entirely for five years, but it also repealed permanently what Ewegen tirelessly refers to as the “notorious ratchet effect.” Except Ewegen conveniently ignores that fact.

In plain English, allowable state government spending under TABOR (even after Ref C) will grow every year to accommodate inflation and population growth. Even if state revenues dip due to an economic slowdown, the TABOR spending limit grow higher and higher so that another Ref C is never necessary — based, at least, on the justifications of Ref C proponents in 2005.

Back then, the argument was that TABOR would permanently lock state government spending into recessionary levels from which the budget could never recover no matter how well the economy rebounded.

However, a key provision of Ref C says that after the five years of budgeting without guardrails, the state legislature can then calculate future spending limits based on the highest of those five years multiplied by automatic increases for inflation plus population. Had that provision been written into TABOR originally, spending could have rebounded to approximately current levels without Ref C.

Ewegen clairvoyantly declares that the Romanoff-Kennedy plan “locks in the core of TABOR by guaranteeing that you have the right to vote on all tax increases.” It’s curious that an ardent TABOR-hater claims to know what voters who passed TABOR really intended — despite polls showing that voters clearly wanted more than just the right to vote on tax increases.

So, after voters gave state government permission to spend $3.7 billion of TABOR surplus — a figure that ballooned to $6.1 billion thanks to a booming economy — Ewegen now thinks voters should permanently surrender their authority to cap state spending. Never mind that even state economists dispute Ewegen’s fallacious claim that TABOR will “resume chipping away at state government” when Ref C expires.

Oh well, Ewegen obviously subscribes to the Don Quixote dictum, “Facts are the enemy of truth.”

Twenty-somethings for McCain

"If McCain doesn’t win, the liberal tyranny of Obama will be so epic, you’ll vomit." The reason this sounds more like a Lodo bar conversation than your typical pundit is that Jim Krefft is a year out of Colorado College, an Ebay entrepreneur, and author of a book on military history -- the very picture of a twenty-something in a hurry and pardon his dust. I asked Jim, who helped me in the Colorado Senate when he was in high school, why he's for McCain and whether the old guy can win. Here's his answer - Editor HOW MCCAIN CAN WIN

Conservatism is defined by its ability to hold true to cherished values and ideals both fundamental and foundational to the American way. We uphold the traditional family and free market as both allow us as citizens to be healthier, happier, and freer. But the often unnoticed part of conservatism is that it has a built-in elastic clause: a proviso that allows those fundamental ideas to adapt to the ever-changing landscape of a moving and advancing world.

In 2008 this means that the GOP and conservative leaders alike must begin to listen to the ideas and observations of the new and next generation of young conservatives. People like, with all humility, this 24-year-old author.

This year is a critical pass for the Republican Partyand the conservative movement. We could both, party and movement, continue our current state of malaise and surrender ourselves before the marching armies of Senator Obama’s rather invasive liberalism.

Or we could act like men, act like conservatives, take our medicine like adults and fight until our last breath. Our standard bearer is John McCain, an absolutely relentless leader who is often misunderstood, but always honorable.

For McCain to win will require a few things. Foremmost of these is his own aforementioned quality, the quality that will get conservatives to show up en masse for McCain on Election Day and earlier. McCain won’t win if GOP members and activists sit at home pining away for the happy days of 1980. Oh and believe me, if McCain doesn’t win the liberal tyranny of Obama will be so epic, you’ll vomit.

To win McCain must also do his job; he must make it clear to the nation just how hard-left Obama is and who he represents. McCain must also show how Obama is, quite directly, a fraud who is misleading the American public with high rhetoric and undeliverable promises.

McCain must win the idea battle. He must show that the GOP can own the energy issue; that we can drill in the short term and pursue alternative energy in the long. Or that we can care about and protect the environment without devolving into the religion of Al Gore and the Human Extinction Movement.

McCain needs to present fiscal sense that allows for maintained military spending and balanced budgets. He needs to show that we will finally start fighting the War of Terror with sense and thought, finding those responsible for 9/11 and executing them publicly. McCain must argue for the free market and empowerment of small business while ensuring that the corporate giants participating in said market do so with ethical dealing and care.

John McCain must win in 2008. If we work and he wins the battle of ideas, those electoral states will fall right into place.

My nightmare: BHO as Hugo Chavez

Senator Obama recently said: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." I'm serious, here's the citation. What would a “Civilian National Security Force” secure against? In Jonah Goldberg's new book Liberal Fascism, he defines fascism as “a mass movement that combines different classes but is prevalently of the middle classes, which sees itself as having a mission of national regeneration, is in a state of war with its adversaries and seeks a monopoly power using terror, parliamentary tactics and compromise to create a new regime, destroying democracy."

One can imagine the end of our traditional democracy all too clearly. Obama and the progressives sweep the Presidency and both houses of Congress. Before long, the “Civilian National Security Force" becomes Obama's “Red Guard” to intimidate and sweep away any vestige of opposition. The opposition would be defined as “the rich," “the polluters," “loony right- wing Christians”, or “big business" -- in other words, the productive members of society.

The army, the only institution that could save the democracy, is paralyzed by its adherence to the rule of law. This would give Obama time to replace the officer corps with party hacks loyal to his “new revolution”. Red Army style of indoctrination and control would soon follow.

It's possible to envision President Obama declaring a "constitutional crisis” and demand passage of laws giving him “emergency powers”. That would be the end of our 220-year experiment in liberty and prosperity. President Obama would become the Hugo Chavez of America, nationalizing businesses and assets, establishing and filling concentration camps with the “reactionary elements” and “non-believers," plunging the country into chaos and poverty.

The history of the United States would be given a Marxist rewrite. The genius of our founding Fathers and our Constitution would be buried and misconstrued as a government of old fogies who protected polluters and oppressors of the people.

But if the truth were to survive somehow in some latter-day Dead Sea scroll, it would say the fatal flaw was to fail to teach the young about true self-government. If the writings of Lincoln, Jefferson, and the other architects of liberty were revered, the young would not have been swept away by the “Obama Revolution”, a return to a tyranny of darkness.