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

Bush fatigue

I noted yesterday in a post on my blog entitled "The Morning After" that I believe Obama's victory on Tuesday was as much a product of the public's "Bush fatigue"as it was any ringing affirmation of the liberal policies that Obama will pursue as president. I argue this because Obama ran primarily as a centrist, coopting the Republican tax-cut mantra by promising his tax reduction for "95% of working Americans" and talking up his desire in general for middle class tax relief. It was a great strategy and proved extremely effective -- particularly given McCain's ineptness in arguing that the Obama plan amounts to another entitlement program. In the end, of course, we all know that with the Democratic robber barons in Congress leading the way, tax increases are coming for everyone -- and not just the "rich" folks making in excess of $250k per year. In my view there is no fundamental "realignment" in this election -- the country remains a center-right nation that wants small government and low taxes. In today's Wall Street Journal, Pat Toomey makes a very compelling argument to this effect:

"A poll commissioned by the Club for Growth in 12 swing congressional districts over the past weekend shows that the voters who made the difference in this election still prefer less government -- lower taxes, less spending and less regulation -- to Sen. Obama's economic liberalism. Turns out, Americans didn't vote for Mr. Obama and Democratic congressional candidates because they support their redistributionist agenda, but because they are fed up with the Republican politicians in office. This was a classic "throw the bums out" election, rather than an embrace of the policy views of those who will replace them."

This is exactly the point I've been making: the 2008 election -- like in 2006 -- was a referendum on George W. Bush and the Republican "bums" that the public associates with failure. It was not a ringing endorsement of "spreading the wealth around" and doesn't amount to an affirmation that wanting to keep more of your hard earned money is "selfish". This was not a realignment toward socialism. It was a rejection of Bush, pure and simple.

The poll results cited by Toomey clearly back up this position:

"Consider the most salient aspects of Mr. Obama's economic agenda: the redistribution of wealth through higher taxes on America's top earners; the revival of the death tax; raising the tax on capital gains and dividend income; increased government spending; increased government involvement in the housing crisis; a restriction on offshore drilling and oil exploration in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); and "card check" legislation stripping workers of their right to a secret ballot in union elections.

On each of these issues, swing voters stand starkly against Mr. Obama. According to the Club's poll, 73% of voters prefer the federal government to focus on "creating economic conditions that give all people opportunities to create wealth through their own efforts" over "spreading wealth from higher income people to middle and lower income people." Two-thirds of respondents prefer to see the permanent elimination of the death tax, and 65% prefer to keep capital gains and dividend tax rates at their current lows."

These results read like a Conservatives dream: a focus on individual effort to create wealth, elimination of the death tax and low tax rates. Unfortunately, the voters -- in rejecting McCain as another vestige of the Bush Administration -- elected someone who stands in opposition to all of these positions. Obama is on record as supporting increases in the death tax, capital gains and dividend taxes, income taxes on the highest tax bracket, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and many other tax increases. One of the poll results that shocked me from Tuesday was that Obama won among tax payers in the $200,000 and above income category -- the very category that he was openly targeting for a tax increase. Voters seem to be against tax increases -- but they didn't vote that way on Tuesday.

This seeming contradiction is tough to explain. It is a given, of course, that many voters don't pay attention to the details, and vote on the basis of emotion and personality. On that score Obama won hands down. Many of the voters in swing states ended up voting against their stated interests and desires, by electing Obama and increasing Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. The emotional wave of "change" -- coupled by an incoherent Republican opposition and a total failure of leadership -- created a Democratic wave. Caveat emptor: they just bought something that was both defective and dangerous.

How long will it take before massive "buyer's remorse" sets in? That depends on how well Obama is able to manage the massive liberal forces that will now be pushing him hard to the left. Whether it be the far-left interest groups that poured massive money into his campaign, or the Democratic leadership in Congress that wants socialism on a grand scale, Obama faces some powerful groups that want precisely what most Americans do not. Whether he can (or will) resist this and govern more to the center is unclear. Nothing in Obama's past indicates a courage of conviction or a willingness to buck his party's power brokers. If Obama is unable (or unwilling) to control these forces, he will quickly find himself with a groundswell of opposition among those who decided (against logic) to vote for him. It won't be pretty.

In the end, this election amounted to a clear signal to conservatives that the issues that fueled the Reagan Revolution -- smaller government, less regulation and low taxes -- still resonate broadly with the American people. George W. Bush was never a leader of this movement, and his prolifigate spending and lack of fiscal discipline helped to ruin the Republican brand. Now, Conservatives need new leadership and new ideas that will take the Reagan-era philosophies and update them for a new generation of Americans. Barack Obama won the presidency but he hasn't changed America.

America needs civility, not uniformity

Barack Obama has pulled off one of the most remarkable achievements in the history of Presidential elections. Starting from a stirring rhetorical triumph at the Democratic National Convention four years ago, this relatively young U.S. Senator has reversed eight years of Republican control of the White House and led a Democratic sweep of all three elective branches. Naturally, his victory has generated immense joy among millions of people, won over by a combination of political savvy, boyish charm and a reassuring manner. Millions of others are not at all pleased at this result.

I am not concerned that Republicans will not accept it. I am more concerned about the Democrats, who have behaved as if they were entitled to this victory and have shown disquieting signs that they will take full advantage of it, not only by ramming through new laws to increase taxes and spending, micro manage the economy and privilege labor unions, but by demonizing their opposition as fascists and worse, bringing back the misnamed "Fairness Doctrine" in radio broadcasting (the "Hush Rush" campaign) and bringing criminal charges against Bush Administration officials for carrying out policies Democrats disapproved of.

This odious Democrat specter threatens not only to make life miserable for Republicans but to generate a hateful and vindictive spirit across the land. For now comes the hard part, the troublesome question of what to do after victory had been achieved.

Over the last two years the nation has seen two Obamas, Mr. Outside and Mr. Inside. The first is full of platitudes, trite phrases, endless repetition of focus group themes and what Obama’s running mate, Joseph Biden, referred to earlier this year when he was competing for the same office,  as his "clean" image.

This exterior image has won the day. Given the massive public rejection of both President Bush and his party, it was just what the doctor ordered, in what by all indications was going to be a Democratic year. Obama knew what role he had to play and he played it as well as any man could have.

If Bill Clinton gave us the "permanent campaign," that is, a governing style that makes no distinction between running for office and executing the office of President, he could not avoid the constitutional requirement that he set forth his goals for the country in an Inaugural Address, his more specific objectives in a State of the Union Address, and his priorities and their price tag in the proposed budget for 2010.

These tasks now face President-elect Obama. He cannot perpetually play the role of the nonthreatening alternative to the dread Mr. Bush. Mr. Inside will have to emerge. He will have to risk the unity he has emphasized by spelling out what the "transformation" of America is about. Those who paid attention to Mr. Inside will more likely to be helpful on this score.

Unless Obama was living in a fog for all of his adult life, his common cause with black nationalist Rev. Jeremiah Wright, terrorist William Ayers and crooked Chicago pol Tony Rezko were indications of his character and his views. While he may not have exhibited the disreputable dispositions and predilections of those men, he evidently did not feel uncomfortable spending many hours and days with them.

It is possible that Obama voted merely "present" in the Illinois legislature and U.S. Senate many times because he is man of weak convictions, but more likely it was because his reputation was more important to him than his voting record. Even so, nonpartisan journals report that his was the most liberal.

Liberals today prefer to be called "progressive," ever since Ronald Reagan won by a landslide over Walter Mondale in 1984. But this is merely old wine in much older bottles, for progressivism was founded more than a century ago by academics and politicians who rejected the U.S. Constitution as outmoded and the Declaration of Independence as a "salad of illusions." The "progress" they seek is toward more government control of commerce and trade, and worse, a loosening the family bonds by removing all restrictions on abortion and gay marriage.

Those who object to such socialistic policies as universal health care, redistribution of income and subsidizing "soft" energy will be vilified as selfish, unpatriotic and mean spirited. This will come as a surprise only to those who somehow failed to notice that that is precisely how conservatives have been vilified for years with those epithets.

The Constitution that established our form of government has survived many shocks, and there is reason to believe that it will survive Democratic party governance. But no Constitution is self enforcing. Good men must uphold the law, outside the government as well as in it.

Fairness? Just the opposite

Obama admits that raising taxes decreases revenue. He does not hide that his goal in increasing taxes on individuals and small business owners who qualify for his tax hike is emphatically not to increase tax revenue. Because a "single mom" gets taxed at a higher rate than "her boss's investments," Obama is willing to sacrifice necessary revenue in the service of what he defines as "fairness." But how is it "fair" to tax the boss's money at the same rate as the "single mom's" (or more likely, a higher rate) when the money is first earned, and then not only tax it again, but raise the second tax on it - merely because it is invested? Don't we want to encourage investment in American companies?

How is it "fair" to deprive the country of essential tax revenue needed to decrease the deficit and run all our bloated government programs (programs that only McCain is willing to reform)? Don't we want the deficit to shrink instead of grow?

And how is it "fair" to the "single mom" who relies on her job to care for her family's needs to jeopardize her employment by increasing the tax burden on her boss (who very well may be a "single mom," too)?

According to Obama, wanting to keep the money you earn (and invest it and even decide for yourself which non-profit gets your donations) is what he calls, "selfish," and the most recent figure for who will get taxed under his plan has changed to people making more than $120,000.

Obama even believes that a good way to "spread the wealth around" is to take your money and give checks to people who don't pay taxes - more than 40% of the people getting Obama's "tax relief" money pay no federal taxes at all. That's not "fair," that's "welfare" and it traps people in poverty.

This isn't "restoring fairness to the tax code." This is creating the appearance of fairness in the tax code. But it isn't honest and it isn't fair. It's class warfare - divisive and polarizing. What happened to the Obama of, "there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America" fame?

I guess he's the same Obama that followed, "people don't expect government to solve all their problems" with "But..."

Dr. Pamela Zuker received her Ph.D. in Human Development and Psychology from the University of Chicago where she performed research at the National Opinion Research Center (NORC). She also holds degrees in Anthropology and Clinical Psychology, and practiced marriage, child, and family therapy before focusing on positive psychology. Her current research is on the role of meaning in adult life. She lives in the Roaring Fork Valley with her husband and two children.