When the dust settles tomorrow this country will have elected its 44th President.  According to polls, for what they’re worth, roughly half of the country will be disappointed.  Jeff, the author of The Midnight Hour, puts the election into proper perspective.

In January 2009 the most powerful leader in the world will voluntarily abdicate his power and peaceably transfer it to someone else. This is also not something to take lightly, but we’ve been doing it successfully for over 200 years. No matter who wins on Tuesday, our government has as its foundation the most powerful, peculiar, and liberating document in modern history: The U.S. Constitution. Regardless of who wins, it won’t be as bad as the other half claims, and we will still hold claim to the title of “freest country on God’s earth.”

The peaceful transfer of power is taken for granted here, but that is most certainly not the case elsewhere.  In some countries blood is spilled.  In America outgoing staffers pry letters off of keyboards.

Whether the election is close or a blow out I fully expect that the defeated candidate will concede with grace and implore supporters to pay all due respect to the president elect (and I hope we all do just that).  There may be justified legal challenges in close states, but there will be no organized violence.  It is a true testament to the greatness of our forever imperfect, but constantly improving, union.  In four years we’ll do it again.

Larisa Thomason, aka “Countrycat” at Left in Alabama, wrote what was judged to be the best column in support of Barack Obama in a Huntsville Times competition.  It was published in today’s paper.  Her column, which I have not been able to find online yet, was well written and void of the adolescent hyperbole and general inanity that permeates Left in Alabama.  Not surprising as she tends to be one of the few reasonable individuals there.

Thomason’s piece struck quite a contrast with the accompanying pro-McCain piece.  The pro-McCain piece was actually more of an anti-Obama column, while Thomason’s was generally pro-Obama.  I think it highlights the dissatisfaction rank and file conservatives have with the Republican nominee.  There just aren’t that many positive things to say about him.  Sure, I agree there are plenty of reasons to oppose Sen. Obama (although I think there are far fewer than most of my conservative brethren), but until conservatives find a credible candidate who can articulate why conservative philosophy is superior its going to be hard to get excited and root for your own candidate.  (Just for fun I’d like to see commenters try to advocate for McCain without mentioning or even alluding to Obama.)

I must take issue with two items in Thomason’s article, though.  She trotted out the “95% of American families will get a tax cut” nonsense.  I’ve been over this before.  You cannot “cut” taxes for people who don’t pay taxes.  Obama is proposing a give away, an expansion of using the tax code not only as a means of wealth confiscation, but as a vehicle for outright wealth redistribution.  He will push the percentage of taxpayers who either pay nothing or actually get paid themselves over 40%.  To claim he is “cutting” taxes on 95% of families is pure rubbish.

Thomason chides McCain’s tax plan saying that “his plan gives the top 0.1% an extra $22,000 per month.”  I’ll ignore the class envy aspect of that statement and focus on the word “gives.”  It illustrates an all too common belief among liberals.  The way taxes actually work is that individuals earn money through profitable ventures, which may include selling your labor.  The government then takes a portion of your earnings.  If the government decides to take less they haven’t “given” you anything - they have merely taken less.  Barack Obama is the candidate who intends to “give” - from the achievers to the non-achievers.

I’m sure you’ve seen some form of this analogy.  Let’s say you are a school age child.  Every day on the bus ride to school a bully threatens you and takes your lunch money, all $5.  One day the bully happens to be in an uncharacteristically nice mood and he only takes $3.  In a liberal’s mind the bully has just given you $2.  In your mind he has still taken $3.

Just the same, despite our considerable political differences, congrats to Larisa for performing her craft well and contributing to the political discourse in a positive manner.

The red letter links at the top of the Drudge Report right now highlight an end game attack on Obama based on some comments he made about the coal industry earlier this year.  Obama said, “… we would put a cap and trade policy… So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. 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.”  The McCain campaign is using the comments, which are available on an audio recording, against Obama in coal country by saying Obama wants to bankrupt the coal industry.

It’s a smart political move, although I think it is quite disingenuous.  McCain, much to the chagrin of conservatives, has himself been an ardent supporter of a complicated, costly cap and trade system that is similar to Obama’s.  So basically McCain is attacking Obama for explicitly stating what a plan both of them support would do.  And to think this is the best guy that the Republicans could find.

Here are my recommendations for selected races.  Feel free to try to change my mind in the comments or add your own thoughts.

President

John McCain - He’s nothing great, but he’s better than Obama.

Congress, Alabama’s 5th District

Wayne Parker - Wayne is a solid conservative of impeccable character.  He can be trusted to represent this district well.  His opponent, Parker Griffith, is a man of questionable character who has proven himself to be an ineffective, hyper-partisan legislator.  In his two years as a state senator he pushed through a grand total of one bill and voted with his party over 99% of the time - more than even Nancy Pelosi.  And we can’t forget the peer review of Dr. Griffith’s medical records which were quite negative.  Oh, and Griffith thinks that “we have nothing to fear from radical Islam.”

Courts

No recommendations.  I don’t pretend to know enough about the various courts and what qualifications candidates should have for each.  I will say that I’ve met Dick Richardson, who is running for Madison County District Court, Place No. 4, and he seems like a swell guy.

Feel free to convince me why one god fearing, gun toting, conservative candidate is better than another god fearing, gun toting, conservative candidate other than going by the letters in parentheses by their names.

Madison County Commission

There are three critically important races for Madison County Commission - each of which pits underdog challengers against entrenched incumbents.  MadCo residents need to realize that even though we recently voted down a sales tax increase by a 2-1 margin the commission can still impose the increase if they choose to.  That’s right, they can override our decision.  Two county commissioners, Mike Gillespie and Jerry Craig, were in office in the mid 1980’s when residents voted down a similar tax increase.  Both commissioners afterward went against the public and voted to raise the sales tax.  Don’t let history repeat itself.

I will be voting for Dick French for County Commission Chairman.  Incumbent Mike Gillespie supported the most recent sales tax increase.  He will vote for it if given the chance.

Bob Long won a hard fought primary in District 1 and now faces Roger Jones.  Jones was a strong supporter of raising the sales tax; Long opposes the tax increase.

I will be voting for Mike Parsons for District 3.  Parsons is a retired career Air Force officer, where he flew as a combat pilot.  He is now teaching JROTC at Butler High School.  His military assignments have allowed him to manage massive, complex, high budget projects which gives him the training to be able to tackle any problems he may encounter on the commission.  He is a solid conservative who will fight to keep our taxes low.

Madison County License Commissioner

This is the first of two particular down ballot races that most voters don’t pay attention to.  Well, think back to when you last renewed your car tag.  Remember standing in line for an hour or more while employees file their nails, talk on the phone, and read magazines?  I’ve done that many times at the satellite branch in Madison on Hwy. 72.  The offices are staffed by employees from the license and property tax offices, but they aren’t allowed to cross over to serve customers.  The result is a long, slow line for one window and idle employees at other windows.

Susan Newman has run a vigorous campaign with the platform of cross training the employees in order to shorten wait times.  Her opponent, Mark Craig (son of County Commissioner Jerry Craig) has been in office for seven years and has done nothing to improve efficiency.  We’ve been standing in long lines the whole time he’s been in office, but now that it is election time Craig is promising to do something about it.  If he couldn’t figure out a way to speed things up in seven years I don’t think we should give him six more to try.

Madison County Tax Collector

I will be voting for Cory Brown.  Brown is running on a platform of merging the tax collector and tax assessor offices into a single position: a revenue commissioner.  He will step down once the offices merge.  The change would save taxpayers about $70,000 per year in salary in addition to benefits (insurance, car, etc.).  Most counties in Alabama use a revenue commissioner.

Jerry Craig, the current County Commissioner for District 3 in Madison County recently told the Huntsville Times that he will “make every effort to spend the taxpayers’ dollar wisely” if reelected  Really?  Craig must be planning on turning over a new leaf.

During his tenure as County Commissioner Craig has used the position for numerous taxpayer funded trips - often taking his secretary with him on the public’s nickel.  These trips, which include Hawaii, Gulf Shores, and Chicago have cost the county many thousands of dollars.  Other commissioners have spurned attending such conferences saying that the benefits don’t outweigh the cost to taxpayers.  Copies of travel reimbursement requests show that Madison County taxpayers have spent over $6,400 for Craig’s secretary to travel with him to these annual conferences since 2005.  Does that seem wise to you?

But the trips are only part of the Craig’s carelessness with tax dollars.  A state audit of Madison County spending uncovered unallowable expenses that Craig charged.  They included suede jackets and other personal items.  Caught in the act, Craig then reimbursed the county claiming that the items were purchased for employees who had to work in the snow.  Suede jackets?  In the snow?  In Madison County?  We only average three snow days per year.  Sounds like a snow job alright.

From the AP:

Barack Obama’s aunt, a Kenyan woman who has been quietly living in public housing in Boston, is in the United States illegally after an immigration judge rejected her request for asylum four years ago, The Associated Press has learned.

Not only is his aunt - his own blood relative - an illegal immigrant, but she’s receiving taxpayer assistance to live in a public housing project.  I must say I am impressed with Obama’s nerve.  He is willing to stand up day after day after day and demand that rich people - a group he belongs to - involuntarily give more so that it can be passed along to others against their wishes while he chooses not to voluntarily give to his own aunt who lives in public housing.

Oh, and his illegal immigrant aunt has also illegally contributed $260 to Obama’s campaign.  According to the FEC:

Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S. Please note, however, that “green card” holders (i.e., individuals lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S.) are not considered foreign nationals and, as a result, may contribute.

I wonder how Obama would protect our borders when he can’t even keep his own family from coming here illegally.

So the national Republican party and John McCain have taken a fancy to calling Barack Obama a socialist.  Personally, I don’t think they have a whole lot of room to cast stones.  Remember the recent tax rebate that Bush and co. pushed to have sent to all taxpayers, for example?  The bottom line is that Barack Obama does not completely fit the technical definition of a socialist (or communist, etc.).  He might match some of the requirements, but so does McCain and other Republicans.  It is all a matter of degree.

Obama has earned the title, however inaccurate it may be, because of his tax plan.  As I recently said in a comment:

Over 30% of people in this country already have no federal tax liability. Obama can’t actually cut their taxes, as he promises.

Both Obama’s and McCain tax plans (neither of which will ever become reality) will push the number of “non payers” to over 40%. McCain wants to give individuals a health insurance tax credit and take away the business tax break. Obama plans on creating a litany of refundable tax credits. Do you know what that means? Many, if not all, of those 40-something percent will get a check from the government while owing nothing. Many already do due to existing “tax credits” such as the child tax credit and absurdly named “earned income” tax credit.

Obama simply plans to use the tax code for more social engineering and wealth distribution and trying to pass it off as a tax cut.

Call him a socialist.  Call him a Marxist.  I don’t care.  The real point is that the foundation of his philosophy is to forcibly take more and more from the “rich” (and the threshold for being rich will be lower than you might imagine) and give it to the poor.  It is wealth redistribution.  Do Republicans do similar things?  Regrettably so.  However, Obama is pledging to up the ante considerably.

Obama has fought back with the most idiotic argument I can imagine.

“By the end of the week, he’ll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich.”

There is a glaring flaw with his logic.  He voluntarily shared his toys and sandwich (assuming his anecdote is even true).  What he is promising to do as president is to use the threat of force to take from some and involuntarily give it to another.  Imagine him, as a precocious tot, spotting a smaller boy with more toys and then taking some - over the smaller boy’s objections - so that the distribution was more equitable in his eyes.

I want to know why Obama, a millionaire, hasn’t shared his wealth with his own aunt, who was just found to live in a “rundown public housing” project.  I guess he would rather “share” my money and your money instead of his own money.

Here’s some food for thought.  Obama is one of the poverty warriors who wrongly think that forcibly transferring money from one group to another will solve poverty.  On that point he is horribly wrong.  Let’s say that he could magically redistribute all the wealth, though.  How would that work out for you?  As a crude estimate I’ll look at national and global GDP using the 2007 CIA World Factbook.

If Obama could equally distribute all the world’s wealth that would leave each person with just under $10,000.  That doesn’t sound too great.  If he could magically distribute all of the wealth in the U.S. it would leave each person with about $45,000 - still not very attractive for a lot of us.  That, of course, ignores the crushing blow that GDP would take as achievers responded by not working as hard just to see the government simply take the fruits of their labor.

The ugly truth is that by and large both poor and rich people got that way for a reason.  You can reset the game by “spreading the wealth around” but unless you can change people’s financial acumen and both natural and learned talents they will eventually drift back to their original camps.

None of the above.

That’s right, they refused to endorse either Wayne Parker or Parker Griffith in the AL-05 race.

They say that documents alleging Griffith gave sub par treatment of cancer patients make it “difficult to imagine him serving his constituency effectively.”  They also said he was too old.

As for Wayne Parker they said that he basically ran an ultra negative campaign with no message.

Personally, I don’t blame the Times for the non-endorsement.  Griffith is an arrogant, bullying individual who accomplished squat during his two years in the Alabama Senate other than voting with his party over 99% of the time.  The two biggest - and virtually only - issues Wayne Parker associated with himself are being pro-life and against gay marriage - one of which is low on my voting priority list and the other I don’t necessarily agreee with.  His campaign was predicated on attacking Griffith.

I’m going to vote for Wayne Parker.  I think he is the more philosophically agreeable individual and, unlike Dr. Griffith, I have confidence that Wayne is a thoroughly good and decent person.  However his campaign hasn’t given me justification for a full throated, hearty endorsement.

From “Countrycat” at Left in Alabama:

The Alabama Veterinary Medical Association (ALVMA) is urging Alabama residents who care about homeless animals to pre-order the new spay/neuter license plate. The deadline is October 30th, and the state requires 1000 pre-orders to produce the tag. As of last week, they were 300 short.

The specialty tag is $50, and $41.25 of that goes to the ALVMA Foundation to administer a state-wide financial assistance program for low income pet owners to get their pets “fixed.”

Find out how to order one here.

I feel like Bob Barker.

Parker Griffith, Democrat Congressional candidate for AL-05, said the following during a recent political appearance:

I think America’s greatest enemy is America and its materialism.

And I think that . . . uh . . . we have nothing to fear from radical Islam. We have nothing to fear from any other religion if we are strong on our own beliefs. I don’t fear radical Islam.

Redstate has the details AND THE AUDIO.  That’s right, there is audio.  Griffith can’t claim he was misquoted or taken out of context.

Let’s step through this unbelievably naive quote.

First, and most shocking, is is claim that “we have nothing to fear from radical Islam.”  Nothing.  Nada.  Where to begin with the absurdity of this???  Didn’t 2,740 Americans die on 9/11 at the hands of radical Islamists?  Maybe Griffith is a truther and thinks 9/11 was an inside job.  Nicholas Berg(warning: very graphic) might disagree with Griffith that we have nothing to fear from radical Islam - at least he would if her were alive.  Seventeen sailors died when radical Islamists bombed the USS Cole.  I could go on, but to Griffith this is no big deal.  No threat whatsoever.  I think that puts him to the left of Barack Obama - the presidential candidate from his own party that he won’t endorse.  Maybe Obama is too conservative and right wingish for Griffith’s taste.

Enemy: Not an enemy:

Griffith, who has built his campaign upon claiming to be a conservative, has succumbed to the blame America first faction of the Democrats.  This casts serious doubt on his claims that he would be an independent representative.

Don’t get me wrong, I think that excessive materialism is a problem in this country.  Griffith is right to identify it as a problem.  But is it - and our country itself - our greatest enemy?  I think that is far fetched indeed.  But he didn’t simply say that it was more of a threat than radical Islam, which is a claim that he could at least argue the merits of.  He completely discounted and dismissed the threat that Muslim extremists pose to the U.S. despite the repeated demonstration that such a threat is real.

To be quite honest, I don’t see how anyone plans on voting for Griffith at this point.

Update: Griffith is claiming that the quote was taken out of context in an article in today’s Huntsville Times.  To his credit the moderator of the forum, which Wayne Parker attended as well, agrees.

Someone (probably one or both of the campaigns) has to have the entire audio of the forum.  Clearly they didn’t just happen to start recording the instant Griffith began his comment.  I would like to see whoever has the recording to release a more complete portion so that we can fully contextualize Griffith’s comments.  I honestly don’t see how any context can justify the foolishness of saying quite plainly that “we have nothing to fear from radical Islam.”

Update #2: Here is a list of the questions, which were provided to the candidates in advance, posed at the forum.

The list of questions completely undermines Griffith’s claims that the quote was out of context.  He could have only been responding to two questions:

12. Who do you think is America’s greatest enemy and why?
13. Do you think we have any terrorist threats in North Alabama?

Griffith is nothing but a compulsive, habitual liar.

Furthermore, the questions certainly don’t seem to be consistent with a forum strictly about “faith and family” as Griffith claims.  Terrorists, TVA, and trade agreements are not typically associated with “faith and family” forums.