My post-election analysis

As everyone knows, I am the Chairman of the Endorsements Committee of Atlas PAC. Here is my post-election analysis.


The Republican wave swept across the eastern half of the country, only to stop abruptly at the Rocky Mountains. Despite disappointing Senate races in Colorado, Nevada, Washington, Alaska (likely) and here in California, the Republican victories throughout the nation were historic.


Nationwide Results

Before the election, my main hope was for Republicans to pick up more House seats than the 54-seat pickup in 1994. If that happened, there would be no way the Mainstream Media could spin the election as anything other than a historic repudiation of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda.

Republicans picked up at least 60 House seats, making this the biggest Republican pickup election since 1938, when America started to figure out the “New Deal” was a “Raw Deal.” (The Democrat advantage was so huge in 1938 that the Republicans’ 81-seat pick-up that year still left them in the minority by 93 seats.) Republicans will have their largest number of seats in the House (over 239, with 10 races still to be decided) since 1949. If Republicans manage to pick up 8 of those 10 undecided seats, it will be the largest Republican House presence since 1931.

Included among the Republican pick-ups was Allen West of Florida, the only U.S. Congress candidate Atlas PAC endorsed outside of California. He will be a super-star. Look for him on the national stage in the years to come.

Republicans picked up six Senate seats, including Atlas PAC-endorsed John Boozman of Arkansas, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Ron Kirk of Illinois (Obama’s old seat!) and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. Also victorious were Atlas PAC-endorsed Marco Rubio of Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Jim DeMint of South Carolina. Say it with me: Senator Rubio! Senator Paul!

Despite these notable and important victories, other Senate races were a disappointment, especially those west of the Rockies. Republicans lost close races in Colorado, Nevada and Washington. We might be stuck with Queen Murkowski from Alaska, who will no doubt caucus with the Democrats. A Democrat running as a conservative won in West Virginia. Less close, but thought to have a chance to go Republican, were Senate races in Connecticut and Delaware. Here in California, Carly Fiorina did worse than expected against Barbara Boxer.

Many professional pundits have blamed the Tea Party for these losses. If only Republicans had run “moderates,” they tell us, Republicans would have taken control of the Senate. Nothing could be further from the truth! The blame lies exclusively, 100%, with establishment RINO Republicans. The establishment never got behind Tea Party candidates, even after they won Republican primaries. With establishment Republican support, rather than active opposition, Tea Party candidates should have easily won Alaska, Colorado, Nevada and Washington (giving Republicans 50 seats right there) and would have been much more competitive in Delaware and Connecticut.

If the Republican establishment had their way, we would have RINO Senators Specter, Crist and Grayson instead of Senators Toomey, Rubio and Paul. We should vastly prefer a Senate with only 46 principled conservative Republicans to a Senate of 50 or 51 “Republicans” with 10 or so RINOs in charge, tarnishing our message and voting with the Democrats.

The lesson here is that we must work extremely hard the next two years to rid the Republican establishment of RINOs such that the Tea Party and the Republican establishment become one unified conservative force. This election has already done much to purge RINOs from positions of power in the Republican Party. The Senate and House Republicans will be led by principled conservatives. I have no doubt that in 2012, when Obama and many more “red state” Democrat Senators are up for re-election, conservative Republicans will sweep to control of the Presidency, Senate and House.


California Results

If a perfect storm hit the rest of the country, a “reverse polarity” perfect storm hit California. We had a weak RINO gubernatorial candidate on the top of our ticket; someone with no political record, no coherent (let alone conservative) message, and no grass roots support who spent $170 million of her own money. We tried that already (Schwarzenegger). Our down-ticket nominees were nearly as bad. For Lieutenant Governor and Insurance Commissioner, we had Abel Maldonado and Mike Villines, two turn-coat RINOs who (along with Anthony Adams) voted with the Democrats last year for the largest tax increase in California history. These weaknesses were simply too much for our actual conservative state-wide candidates Tony Strickland, Damon Dunn, and Mimi Walters.

On the state propositions, Californians once again demonstrated their utter lack of common sense. While voting to require a 2/3 majority for any “fee” increases (Prop. 26) we also voted to remove the 2/3 majority requirement to pass a budget (Prop. 25). While voting to preserve business tax cuts (Prop. 24) and against a car tax increase (Prop. 21) we also voted to increases costs on businesses by not suspending AB32 (Prop. 23).

In the Assembly, Atlas PAC-endorsed candidates did extremely well. Atlas PAC endorsed the following successful candidates: Dan Logue (3rd), Tim Donnelly (59th), Curt Hagman (60th), Mike Morrell (63rd), Jim Silva (67th), Allan Mansoor (68th), Don Wagner (70th), Jeff Miller (71st), Chris Norby (72nd), and Diane Harkey (73rd). While these Assemblymen will be in the minority, and without the protection of a 2/3 majority requirement to pass a budget, with the election of this freshman class, the Republicans in the Assembly will become more conservative, more principled and the Democrats will own California’s impending fiscal implosion. With the House of Representatives firmly in control of conservative Republicans, don’t expect the Federal government to bail out California. Perhaps then, Californians will finally realize the folly of electing Democrats.

While California voted to return to the Carter-era 1970s (because the economy was so great back then), Republicans did extremely well in Governor and Legislative races in other states. While lamentable that California voters are not as sane, this is incredibly important nationally because state governments draw redistricting lines after the 2010 census results. Look for conservative low-tax states, like Texas and Florida, to gain several House seats while insane high-tax states, like California and New York, will lose seats as their residents have voted with their feet. This should have the effect of boosting the GOP House majority even more in 2012.


Local Results

Atlas PAC-endorsed candidates had many significant victories in City Council races: Matt Harper (Huntington Beach), Jeff Lalloway (Irvine), Mark McCurdy (Fountain Valley), Robert Ming (Laguna Niguel), Jim Righeimer (Costa Mesa), Tom Tait (Anaheim Mayor) and Scott Voigts (Lake Forest).

The school children did not fare so well. While Nancy Padberg and Marcia Milchiker won seats on the South Orange County Community College District, Kevin Muldoon came up 1.6 points short to a union hack who will no doubt give away the store. If you live in the Capistrano Unified School District, put your children in private school. The teachers union successfully recalled fiscal conservatives Mike Winsten and Ken Maddox and defeated Larry Christensen. Look for lavish salaries and benefits for teachers and other education bureaucrats, and that much more contempt for any accountability for actually, you know, teaching.

The biggest disappointment of the night was Van Tran coming up short in his bid to unseat Loretta “the Vietnamese are coming to get us” Sanchez. That such a good and principled man as Van Tran could lose to such an obnoxious race-baiter like Loretta Sanchez shows that we still have a lot of work to do. Fortunately, redistricting comes before the 2012 election. With the passage of Proposition 20, the new lines will be drawn by an independent, non-partisan commission. When that happens, hopefully Sanchez’s currently gerrymandered district will be ripe for a Republican takeover.


Conclusion

House Republicans will have to push a specific, conservative agenda and turn Obama into the “President of no.” I don’t expect Obama to move to the center like Bill Clinton. Obama is a principled socialist. Clinton was in politics for the ladies.

Look for the new Congress to pass an extension of the current income tax and capital gains tax rates, and Obama to veto it. After everyone’s taxes go up in the middle of the recession, look for Obama’s approval rating to hit the 30s. As long as Republicans stay on message, keep passing conservative bills daring Obama to veto, and a Reagan-like leader emerges as our candidate for President, happy days will be here again come 2012.

Islam, the Ground Zero Mosque, and Multiculturalism

I'm generally in agreement with everything Andrew McCarthy has to say about Islam. The basic tenets of Islam are an affront to the Judeo-Christian values of Western Civilization. Our values are better, produce better stuff, greater knowledge of the universe, and happier and healthier people. And fewer violently killed people.

It is only because of the dogma of multiculturalism - i.e., the belief that all cultures are equal - has been so force-fed on us that any thinking person does not understand Islam is very bad for non-muslims. This is obviously not true, and anyone who actually lives by significant numbers of people of an inferior foreign culture knows this to be true. People without this experience - those in ethnically and culturally monochrome countries or areas (Scandinavia comes to mind)- are more vulnerable to believing in multiculturalism than those with direct, observational knowledge of its falsity.

Multiculturalism is believed without, or in spite of, evidence because people want to believe it. Wouldn't it be nice if the only true differences between Islam and mainstream U.S. culture was the food we each eat, the clothes we each wear, the wacky ways we each pray, the music and art we like and produce, the languages we speak - you know, culture? Then, when we mingle with muslims, we'll be exposed to new and different "culture" - like going to a French movie or something.

But we differ from Islam in fundamental values in incompatible ways. We believe men and women are socially and politically equal. We believe women who are raped are victims and the rapists should be severely punished, not the other way around. We believe everyone may freely proselytize their religion and we tolerate the decisions of individuals who change or abandon religions. Those who hold different values than these cannot "coexist" in peace with us. It's the "C" part in that stupid "Coexist" bumper sticker that is the problem.

Which brings me to the Ground Zero Mosque. Don't patronize me, lefties. It's a deliberate poke in the eye, a symbol of conquest and victory. A symbol to muslims that the 9/11 terrorists did a GOOD THING and should be praised rather than condemned.

Now, let's analyze that last sentence. Andrew McCarthy's counter-factual is a good place to start. But let's go further. What would Christians around the world be expected to say, and do, if a similar atrocity was committed by a small (allegedly) group of ultra-fundamental, violent "crusaders" against muslims? Now, take whatever it is you believe would be the appropriate reaction of "mainstream" Christians to such an act of terror as 9/11 if committed by Christians in the name of Jesus against muslims (I hope you say something like, "profusely apologize, openly, loudly and often condemn the acts and terrorists, and cooperate fully with muslims looking to track down - within Christian communities - those who assisted the terrorists and those who hold the same sympathies) and ask yourself, are muslims around the world saying and doing the same things you would expect of Christians in the same situation?

If you say "yes" then you must believe it would be perfectly appropriate for mainstream Christians - leaders of large congregations - to openly question whether the atrocity was a Jewish conspiracy, or ask what muslims had done to cause such intense hatred by Christians, to call for the murder of any muslim who ridiculed Jesus in a cartoon, etc. Now imagine if a full 10% of the Christian community did not condemn the terrorist acts, but openly lauded them and called for more.

Back to "mainstream" Islam. No, muslims around the world are not acting the way we would expect Christians to act if a 9/11-type terror attach was committed by Christians lauding Jesus against muslims. Are the "vast majority" of muslims peace-loving people without a jihadi bone in their bodies? Not a relevant question. The relevant question is - in this war we are fighting against the 10% radical jihadi strain of muslims, which side are the other 90% of muslims on, ours or the jihadis? Put another way, when it comes down to real action and real decisions - up to and including taking up arms - which side will the majority of muslims be on?

Why does Ayn Rand get so much abuse from the Right?

As I am a mere 37 years young, I was not around during the great National Review vs. Ayn Rand battle royale launched by Whittaker Chambers' review of Atlas Shrugged back in 1957. So when I talk about it, I am entirely talking out of my posterior.

But in a larger sense, the continuation of the Ayn Rand/National Review schism mystifies me now that Mr. Buckley has shuffled off this mortal coil and people of my generation are running National Review. Didn't any of THEM read Atlas Shrugged in college?

The latest flap is The New Criterion's article supposedly reviewing a recent biography of Ayn Rand. The comments to that article, and the comments to editor Roger Kimball's article about the comments, are fascinating. I have to say that as an admirer of both Ayn Rand and National Review, and not particularly invested in Ayn Rand (not being a card-carrying Objectivist), I have to say that the Ayn Rand defenders have the better argument. Or, I should really say, I have the better argument.

Which argument I made in the comments to Roger Kimball's piece here.

More media bias against Rush Limbaugh

I think what happened to Rush Limbaugh's bid to be a minority owner of the Rams is appalling and those who caused it and/or aided and abetted it are evil. Rush can defend himself, and has admirably, but I still want to give him a little help. So when reading Yahoo! sports, I came across this article styled as a lament that false quotations attributed to Rush distracted from the "real" debate on things Rush actually said.

The article, however, is yet another smear, making up "facts" out of whole cloth. I got pissed and wrote the following email to the article's author, Jason Cole:


So let me get this straight.

You assume that Rush Limbaugh - a man with a team of professional media watchers who help him assemble material for a three-hour show 5 days a week for 20 years, who pay particular attention to media bias - did absolutely no research in coming to the conclusion that the sports writing media were biased in favor of a black quarterback, and gave him credit for achievements he didn't deserve (*cough* OBAMA *cough*), because Mr. Limbaugh did not contact any of your 17 arbitrarily selected sports writers, even though their own written material/articles are available for public viewing? And you further support your assumption because Mr. Limbaugh hasn't responded to an email sent a day earlier?

You write: "So apparently, Limbaugh made an assumption based on no research about sports writers and how we think."

This is not even REMOTELY "apparent" from the "facts" you cite. Your article is another smear, and from this obvious smear I conclude that you are part of the left-wing bias problem in all media, including sports media. For "proof" of this clear bias, I cite Jay Nordlinger's October 5, 2009 column "Safe-Zone Violation!" which can be found here:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTc4NzJkMjVkOTg1M2UyMjZlYzM0YmJiYzY4YWQzYjY=

As further proof of YOUR left-wing bias, I cite your inclusion in your article, wholly out of context, of Mr. Limbaugh's quote "The NFL often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it." You describe Mr. Limbaugh as characterizing THE ENTIRE NFL this way, like the NFL is just some outlet for gang bangers to get their rocks off, kinda like Midnight Basketball. This is totally false. Mr. Limbaugh was describing a penalty called against a Chargers player for taunting a Patriots player that cost the Chargers the game. On Wednesday, October 16, 2009, Mr. Limbaugh posted the entire transcript of that segment of his show including the comment, on his website:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/estack_12_13_06/the_classless_nfl_culture_.guest.html

A REAL reporter would have linked to the entire segment and asked his readers to decide what they thought of that comment in the context in which it was made. That would have been a real, you know, DEBATE that your article supposedly calls for. I suspect you do not want to have such a debate, and your crocodile tears lamenting that there was no "debate" is simply an excuse for NOT HAVING A DEBATE. If you really want to have a debate, please write an article explaining why you think anything Mr. Limbaugh has ACTUALLY said is racist. Do not quote a line out of context, mischaracterize it, and shuffle off leaving the clear implication that YOU THINK the debate would leave you and your readers concluding that Mr. Limbaugh is a racist.

You're a coward.

What is "greed"?

Daily Kos is apparently accusing Democrat Senators who voted against a "public option" for health insurance as "greedy." Which got me to thinking:

To the left, "greed" is the desire to keep one's own property and/or the desire to create more wealth. Apparently, "greed" is also the absence of the desire to take property from one American and give it to another American to whom it does not belong. This is not greed. Greed is the desire to obtain another's property without paying for it what the owner/creator will freely accept.

Properly understood, greed only exists on the left. Conservatives should level the "greed" charge at liberals every time they propose a government program to take money from one American and give it to another American to whom it does not belong.

Liberals will respond: "We can't be greedy because we aren't taking the money for ourselves. We're giving it to the poor, oppressed, underprivileged, etc." Yea yea. Who gets paid to do the transferring? Isn't that just like a "commission" like those "greedy" traders on Wall Street charge?

My thoughs, distilled, on religion

Here's a comment I left on a recent blog post at Secular Right. I suppose it sums up my thoughts on religion and the religious in a brief, readable (hopefully) manner. Any comments would be appreciated.


Kelly at #2 above asks:

“‘I must respect religion.’

Come again? Tolerate it, yes, you do have to do that. But respect it? Why?”

I didn’t see anyone try to answer the question, though I’m sure somewhere on this website there has been a lively discussion of this particular topic. Let me try my own hand at it.

For centuries, many, many very smart people have been religious and have engaged in many, many deep thoughts, discussions, writings, etc. about the topic. To discount that entire body of human thought based on the evidence and arguments any single individual can accumulate in a lifetime, even a very smart, diligent individual (which I’m sure everyone writing for this blog and commenting on this blog post presumes himself to be), I think is too hubristic. Smart and diligent individuals might disagree with these past centuries of thinkers, but I think it prudent to give them respect. (This is not to say that all religious people, or all religions, deserve equal respect.)

On the other hand, one thing that annoys me about the overly religious, like the idol-wielding crowd that is the subject of this post, but more so the smart conservatives generally on the side of good and righteousness, is their certainty. Just as centuries of thinkers and writers have argued in favor of religion, so have many centuries of thinkers and writers, especially since the scientific revolution, argued against the existence of religion. Moreover, any reasonably intelligent person should be able to see that the history of generally accepted human knowledge has moved from religious explanations of observable phenomena to scientific explanations based on observations, hypotheses of regular natural processes, predictions, and repeated confirmations of those predictions. There aren’t too many people who honestly think that a necklace of enchanted animal bones will stop bullets. Even scientific breakthroughs of massive utility for centuries, like Newtonian mechanics, have been shown inaccurate.

Yet with all these centuries of demonstrated failure of religion to explain observable phenomena, and the demonstrated success of the scientific method for discovering useful knowledge, many smart people are still darn sure there is a God, He is of the nature and disposition their particular religion dictates He is, and revel in the fact that they need no “proof” of this because it is a matter of “faith.”

I guess that makes me an “agnostic” but any prudent person (in my opinion) is agnostic, to some degree, about everything (and for each thing, a different level of agnosticism depending on the available evidence).

California Court of Appeal rebukes Great Park Corporation and its Chairman, Larry Agran

This is an actual "Ben's Law" moment - i.e., where Ben made law.

I and my firm, Enterprise Counsel Group, represent Steven Choi and Christina Shea, two members of the Irvine City Council and, therefore, directors of the Orange County Great Park Corporation. Unfortunately, directors Choi and Shea are in the minority. The opposing bloc of Democrats - Larry Agran, Beth Krom and Sukhee Kang - control both the Irvine City Council and the Great Park Corporation Board.

The Great Park Corporation has had a notoriously difficult time finding a qualified CEO - four different CEOs in its first four years, each with prior connections to Irvine City politics. For years, Christina Shea and another former director, Richard Sims, have tried to get the Corporation to hire a professional, qualified and independent CEO. In mid-2007, the Corporation's controlling bloc finally bowed to public pressure and began what it styled as a true nationwide search for a professional CEO. The Corporation hired a professional recruiter, paid her nearly $20,000, and received approximately 150 resumes from all across the country and some foreign countries.

However, the selection process was always controlled by Larry Agran and his political allies. Accordingly, of those 150 candidates, the "search committee" returned only one for the entire Board to interview. That candidate, Kurt Haunfelner, eventually turned down the job. However, shortly after he turned down the job, the L.A. Times ran a story disclosing that Mr. Haunfelner's brother was a former aide to Larry Agran. Agran had not disclosed his relationship with Mr. Haunfelner's family to Choi or Shea.

The search committee's second choice was an existing Irvine City staffer, Rod Cooper. He quickly withdrew his name from contention.

Choi and Shea wondered publicly why the Great Park Corporation spent $20,000 for a nationwide search when the search returned two finalists both with existing ties to Larry Agran. They demanded to see all 150 resumes and all documents concerning the search. The Great Park Corporation refused. Beth Krom made a motion on January 10, 2008:

that the board ratify and affirm our intent that the ad hoc search committee should maintain the confidence of the identity and personal information, including resumes, of candidates for the Great Park CEO position until such time as a recommendation of a candidate is made to the board and then, only as to that specific candidate being recommended.

The resolution passed 7-1, with Shea the only "no" vote (Choi had to leave for a personal appointment before the vote).

Choi and Shea sued to enforce their rights as directors to inspect all the CEO search documents. The day before the hearing, the Great Park Corporation capitulated, agreeing to give Choi and Shea access to every document they requested and a continuing obligation to allow Choi and Shea to inspect any and all future documents generated or received.

Having prevailed in enforcing their basic rights as public servants, Choi and Shea sought to recover their attorneys' fees from the Great Park Corporation. Incredibly, the trial court denied their (i.e., my) motion. The trial court found that Choi and Shea hadn't achieved their goals in the litigation - an absurdity - and had done the public no good, merely viewing the documents in a closed room.

For most people, this needs no rebuttal. The public benefits when elected officials have access to basic information to do their jobs, whether it is behind closed doors or not. Does the public not benefit when Congress oversees the CIA in closed-door, Top Secret meetings?

Anyway, the California Court of Appeal just corrected this injustice.

This is an important victory for democracy here in Orange County, throughout the state, and definitely for the Great Park Corporation. If Choi and Shea had to bear the expense of a lawsuit to enforce their basic rights to see all the relevant documents and information they felt necessary to make an informed vote on who to hire as the Corporation's CEO, they could not long afford to do their jobs. Only the independently wealthy, willing to pay for expensive litigation to enforce basic rights inherent in their elected positions, would or could ever run for political office. Moreover, Agran et al. would surely continue to deny Choi and Shea - and any other political opponent - access to basic information, knowing they could not afford continuous lawsuits to enforce their basic rights. Without this victory, neither Choi or Shea, nor any other Agran opponent, would ever see a Great Park Corporation document ever again.

Hopefully, this stinging rebuke will cause Irvine voters to finally throw Agran out of office.