>OP ED: Obama is getting it right … and the left is feeling left out

>President-elect Barack Obama is off to a pretty good start. I know this – if for no other reason – because the so-called progressive (<– read that archliberal) radio gabbers are apoplectic. Just as the far right feared, the far left believed that Obama was a radical leftist who would initiate some sort of “age of socialism” by personal edict – a communist Camelot, if you will. The left wingers chose to forget that Obama (with Mayor Daley, left) was the product of old time corrupt Chicago politics. In doing so, they overlooked the fact that politically, the Democrat machine of his political upbringing is a bit right of center. Also, Obama and his people (the Chicago crowd) know that his legacy depends on being a centrist President. If he wants to be remembered for more than the first half black guy to work out of the Oval Office, he has to have accomplishments. Starting class warfare is not going to do the trick.

So, what has happened since Election Day that keeps my conservative anxiety in check?

First, his appointments have been pretty good … considering. Most of the Cabinet picks are moderates who have been hanging around Washington bars since the Clinton administration, waiting for the next meal ticket. Obama has won praise from such groups as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and televangelist Pat Robertson (right). Who would have thought?

His team of economic advisors, who will be the vanguard in setting down the economic recovery plan, are mostly free market guys. None have a history of supporting systemic socialism. America’s leading capitalist, Steve Forbes (left), gives the team pretty high marks. That’s good enough for me.

Obama has already let it be known that he will most likely not reverse the Bush temporary tax cuts as the progressives believed he would. They assumed that this was a slam dunk on day one. Instead, Obama has decided to allow those tax cuts to run their course. The left is clinging to a hope that when the cuts run out in 2010, Obama will let them die. I say … don’t be so sure.

The difference between his view and Bush’s view of the various corporate bailout schemes is negligible – though in this case, I think they are both wrong. Nonetheless, Obama is in the political mainstream of the moment on this.

Though he opposed getting into the Iraq war, Obama has proven himself to be quite malleable on the strategies to end it. He is not a cut and run appeasement guy. There is a general consensus that a phased pull out will occur. Bush, Obama and the Iraq government seem to be in general agreement on the timing.

On the other hand, Obama favors a kick-ass build up in Afghanistan. The fact that he is keeping both General David Patraeus and Defense Secretary Robert Gates in place seems to suggest that there will be no dramatic change in the conduct of the war on terrorism. Capturing or killing Osama bin Laden is a very high priority for the President-elect.

When not focusing on the economy and the war, Obama took time to assure the gun owners of America that he is “no enemy of the Second Amendment.” He stated his belief in the right of gun ownership with responsible regulation – a view closer to the National Rifle Association than the Brady Bunch (<– referring to the Jim Brady, who was wounded alongside President Reagan and whose wife is our nation’s number one gun grabber). I recall hearing the squeals of disbelief and disappointment on (hot) Air America when Obama joined John McCain for a polite debate hosted by conservative Pastor Rick Warren (seen being embraced by Obama — literally and figuratively), of the Saddleback mega church. Now … Obama has passed over all those other reverends in his past life, Wright, Jackson, Sharpton and Pfleger, to have Reverend Warren provide the historic invocation.

Because of Warren’s opposition to gay marriage, the gay rights leaders are all a twitter over his selection. They feel betrayed. Hellooooooo. While mostly avoiding the issue — but when pressed — Obama was squarely in the ranks of those opposing gay marriage. He is not likely to jump on board the stupid anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment, but he will not be out there pushing for gay weddings. Mostly he leaves that up to the several states – a good position constitutionally and politically.

Now, I am sure that Obama is going to give me a lot of reasons to toss a shoe or two in his direction over the course of the next four or eight years, but so far I am not even untying them.

>REACT: Jamie Lee Curtis acting intelligent

>Speaking of “stupid.” In her latest contribution to the liberal blog, The Huffington Post, Hollywood star Jamie Lee Curtis (right) asks the headline question: “Do you think I’m stupid?” Since she asked, yes I do — but that’s just one man’s opinion. My opinion is jaded by the fact that Hollywood personalities have proven time and time again that despite talent in producing fantasy, they can be quite … well … shall we say … stupid in the real world.

One of the things that seems to differentiate liberals and conservatives is their regard for the public. Folks like Curtis think THEY are the only smart ones. The majority of Americans, who disagree with their left wing notions, are considered stupid. That is why liberals have a self-proclaimed noblese oblige to regulate and care for those they see as the ignorant masses.

If you think this is not true, tune in to (hot) Air America a listen to their strident left wing talk show hosts and callers. Anyone who is not a liberal, Democrat or Barack Obama supporter is ignorant, stupid, dumb, idiotic, at best, and sleazy, mean-spirited and corrupt, at worst — and mostly both. I am not interpreting their comments, this is what they say. These are the words they use to describe you and me. That is why they don’t trust the public to exercise democracy.

Conservatives, on the other hand, trust the people to make the decisions about their lives with as little interference from government as possible. We think the public is innately intelligent and capable of sound judgment.

I don’t think a person who disagrees with me is automatically stupid — just wrong. But I respect their right to their opinion — and even their sincerity, in most cases. Occasionally, I have to admit, I come across someone who I consider to be stupid — sometimes even a fellow conservative.

>TIDBITS: Guns, war heros and glass ceilings

>#1. A jury in Texas acquitted 62-year-old granddaddy Joe Horn (pictured) after he shotgunned to eternity two illegal aliens, with criminal and drug records, who were robbing his vacationing neighbor’s home. He saw them exiting the window with sacks of goods. He called the police emergency number, grabbed his gun and confronted the crooks. According to his statements, they acted in a threatening manner, he blasted away and called 911 a second time to say he had handled the matter. There is controversy about the verdict because the 911 operator advised Horn against confronting them. The crooks (not victims) were shot in the back. Was it justifiable? The jury said, “yes.” I am in no position to second-guess the judgment. I am too much of a softy to ever want to see anyone killed. I also am not one of those xenophobic individuals on the immigration issue. I tend to lean to amnesty for the good ones. However, I am totally a believer that the risk of crime is possible death. This idea that a private citizen has to defer their own life or property to some concocted rights for a person in commission of a serious felony crime is non-sense. The only bleeding hearts ought to be the criminals – and I am not speaking figuratively. Thanks to gun ownership, a law abiding senior citizen was able to protect his neighbor’s property, his own self and, in the process, end the criminal career to two bad guys – protecting the property and lives of likely future victims. I am honestly sorry they are dead, there is tragedy in that. Bad as they were, they had loved ones. But … they brought it on themselves.

#2. They are military veterans, who claim to have served with the presidential candidate. They say his record is bogus. They claim the candidate was involved in actions contrary to good conduct and the best interests of the nation. The “Swift Boat” veterans? Nay! For all the complaining about the attacks on Senator John Kerry, and for all the promises to be different – you know, the “change” thing – these latest attacks are being directed at John McCain by a group of Vietnam vets who are part of the Barack Obama underbelly support team. Known as Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain, they have a website that dumps on the GOP soon-to-be standard bearer. Change? Riiiiiiiiiight! (We might also note that McCain returned as an America-loving patriot, while Kerry ruthlessly turn on his country AND spread malicious lies about the men he served alongside.)

#3. When General (nuisance) Wesley Clark was maneuvering to be the Democrat presidential candidate, it seems to me his military record was one of his major talking points. Granted, he rose higher than McCain, but where was his battle experience? Where is his Purple Heart? Is a guy who was a product of the military/industrial complex — a military bureaucrat — better suited than a guy who faced war on the battlefield? McCain fought in wars, and knows the “hell’ of them. Clark organized and executed wars as a career. He is the guy who sent the McCains of the world to do the dirty work.

#4. Walking the walk can be a problem. For all his left wing rhetoric, especially on feminist issues, Obama is a good old boy politician at home. Seems his staffing places men in the highest ranking jobs with the best pay. He has his own glass ceiling, and equal work does not warrant equal pay. So says a recent analysis of public records. Interestingly, McCain actually has more women in top positions and top pay than men. Go figure.

#5. Recently, on (hot) Air America, the hosts opined that it was there job to get Obama elected. They dismissed the idea that they should even attempt balance and fairness. “We have to do everything possible to make sure Obama gets elected,” they incanted. They amazingly suggested that they should not even be limited to telling the truth because, according to them, the other side lies all the time. Fight fire with fire, they say. I have no problem with talk show biases, having a political point of view, but when does the public license for free speech over the air become illegal campaigning? As taxpayers, we subsidize the privilege of broadcasting personal opinions. However, we do not allow churches and other institutions to use our tax dollars to support partisan campaigns. There is a difference between “I disagree with candidate A’s position, and we must do everything possible with our broadcast privilege to get candidate A elected. I am not sure where the line is drawn, but I think it is clear that (hot) Air America crosses it.

>REACT: The Supremes … with Guns and Robes.

>The left wing progressives continue to talk like the represent America, or at least that America is coming round to their way of thinking. It has been their trait and fault for a long time. If you had judged the mood of the nation by the statements of liberal politicians, pundits, press and radio personalities, their could not have been a Ronald Reagan, a Newt Gingrich or a Chief Justice Roberts. The so-called progressive Air America would be more than a narrow cast radio network compared to the highly popular conservative talk shows.

This has not been a good week for true believers on the left. Realty has upset their fantasies — again. First and foremost, the Supreme Court threw out a 32-year ban on guns in the District of Columbia – and threw every other local gun ban into the shadow of judicial doubt. They have finally settled the question: Do private citizens have a constitutional right to own guns – albeit with reasonable restriction? For the first time, the high court has affirmed the definition of “well regulated militia” to include the right to personally possess weaponry.

Liberals say “militia” means a government run military, such as the National Guard. The Supreme Court, however, believes that a “militia” can be a locally organized, grassroots outfit which has to rely on their own arms because there is no central procurement authority. In other words, liberals believe that even a “militia” must be a service of government. (No surprise there.) Conservatives, the nation’s founders and the current Supreme Court believe that a “militia’ can be formed even in opposition to the government. (Even by nuns with guns.) The inalienable right to rise up against a tyrannical government requires access to the means. Thus, the right to bear arms. In other words, you do not need the approval of government to form a “militia,” as defined in the Constitution — even a well regulated one.

The liberal gabbers are whining that the new ruling breaks the precedence establish by the 1932 ruling establishing the right to regulate guns, with banning one of the assumptive options. They indignantly argue that precedents are not to be overturned. If that is the case, however, slavery would be legal, 18-year-olds would not be voting, the nation would still be dry and the Dred Scott decision would stand.

In another decision, the liberal members or the Supreme court carried the day by striking down the death penalty for child rapists. Currently, the death penalty is reserved for cases of murder. No death, no death penalty. The justices, at least five of them, were not of a mind expand the traditional death penalty coverage to non-lethal crimes.

The very liberal Barack Obama, however, disagrees with the Court, and favors the expansion of capital punishment to cover child rapists. Obama and John McCain agree on this one. That is because the Court looks at the law and other academic stuff, and the politicians look at public opinion. There is no doubt that the public would support even the most “cruel and unusual” punishments for pedophile rapists. Laws and the Supreme Court are the guardians against unbridled majority rule – the tyranny of the majority, as they say.

On the death penalty issue, Air America is hitting turbulence. They are resorting to parsing and double talk to bridge the conflict between their pleasure with the decision and their unwritten rule to never criticize Obama. I kind of enjoy the verbal squirming.

What is striking terror in the bleeding heart club is the fact that the next president could fill at least three vacancies in his first term – and all three are senior liberals. Should it play out that way, a President Obama could only preserve the ideological balance with three liberal choices. A President McCain, however, could tilt the court further to the conservative strict constructionist viewpoint even with moderate appointments – and he has pledged to follow the Roberts/Alito model. Uh, we’ll see.

The conservatives currently not only have the advantage of majority, but even Air America’s court expert noted that the conservative justices were young and energetic, while some of the older liberal jurists are hardly able to stay conscious through public proceedings.

Three more appointments on the right would create a generational conservative court. It could easily be 25 years before such a “Roberts Court” would give way to a successor.