So far, so good.

Democrats won the Congressional vote!
Senator Obama is now President-elect!
California voters say ye we can on Prop 8!

With 86% of the vote having being counted, it seems that the California electorate has fought back against judges trying to impose their view on the voters.

I realize that the majority of Americans who agree with me still have an uphill battle to fight against the media, and the leftists in California but today is a day of celebration.

President Obama is in good shape to help move this country forward on many issues.

Hopefully he will bring us together around common values and stay separated from the left wing in our party.

Obama's health care that avoids mandates on people is a good start.  While I doubt it is the best approach, it is better than many of the single-payer type plans, yet establishes healthcare more as a right than a privilege.

btw.

Hillary Clinton deserves credit for putting the country first.  She did all she could to make yesterday possible.

Congratulations to a new majority Democratic Party.

Obama Effect: In a seemingly close election, where it is apparent a "historically discriminated against" candidate has the lead, the vast majority of undecideds and even some of the opponent's "soft supporters" choose the "ground-breaking" candidate as a means of identifying with the best aspects of America culture.

Here's what will happen on Election day:

Popular vote: Obama 55 McCain 43
Electoral College: Obama 390 McCain 148

key states:

Colorado Obama 53 McCain 46
Florida Obama 52 McCain 47
Iowa Obama 55 McCain 43
Nevada Obama 54 McCain 44
New Mexico Obama 55 McCain 43
New Hampshire Obama 54 McCain 45
Ohio Obama 52 McCain 47
Penn Obama 53 McCain 46
Virginia Obama 54 McCain 45
North Carolina Obama 51 McCain 48
Indiana Obama 50.4 McCain 49
Georgia Obama 51 McCain 48
Missouri Obama 50.1 McCain 49.1

North Dakota Obama 47 McCain 51.6
Montana Obama 48 McCain 51
Arizona Obama 45.5 McCain 53

This effect will become quite normal in the near future for a variety of individuals that represent not only ethnic groups but who have a disability,represent a political party not generally popular or other factors.  For example:

A blind person
A Green Party Candidate
A person formerly incarcerated
A female candidate

I choose these 2 topics and link them because their politics are so similar.

The Left has an extreme agenda on both, yet won't be honest about it.

I agree with the extreme agenda on Guns because it is right, and supported by the facts that I can find.

Guns in the hands of even law-abiding citizens are dangerous and tend to escalate situations negatively to the overall detriment of society.  Therefore we would be better off as a country if we had less guns available to a great many people:

those inclined to emotional outbursts
history of violence
mentally unstable

In addition, those we allow with guns should be trained as to the proper use of them, and our mores as to when it is appropriate to use deadly force and when to retreat even in the face of a (relatively) petty crime.

I support licensing, registration, and confiscation of guns from people and circumstances where it is in the national interests.

That is an extreme position and I'm honest about it.

I am so, because I think the research and facts support my case.

Yet, most gun control advocates favor a "step by step" approach that is careful not to scare gun owners, and hides the ultimate purpose.

Maybe there are some moderates who don't believe in full gun control, if so fine.  But most democrats seem to be quiet on real gun safety and gun control because of politics. I think we should be honest about who we are and fight to win the hearts and minds.

---
Conversely, look at the debate with the Gay marriage Proposition:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27326200/

It is clear that opponents of Prop 8 want to "equalize" the rights of same sex couples with others, and normalize the institution of marriage for gay couples.

This has to include teaching it "properly" in the schools, as well as a "fair" presentation by government at all levels.

Yet, those supporting gay marriage are dishonestly trying to hide their true purpose at each step.

Notice in the article how their focus is on "tolerance" and learning to live together in "diversity".

The reason "King and King" is taught is not to include gay marriage in normal society but to promote better relations and understanding?

The fact is, all sides should be honest.  They should state what they are for, where it is going, and what the world would look like if they are successful.

They should be clear about their motivations.

For example, I disagree with those who are opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds, using non-religious reasons as a crutch.

The beauty of American politics is that we fight through ideas and not in terms of violence.

I am proud to defend my ideas honestly, rather than trying to advance an agenda step by step being careful to hide what the ultimate purpose is.

The ultimate goal of the gay rights lobby is total acceptance of gays in law, in culture, in every way imaginable.  They have proudly (but wrongly) made the analogy to African American's seeking equality.

That being so, stop lying when opponents call you on your intent, and try to fool those not paying close attention about what you seek.

If you are right, then stand up and be honest.

There is no way gay rights groups won't fight to include gay couples in literature, in math problems, on reading tests, etc.
They believe these couples are as normal as having a black couple being used as an example.

I totally disagree with this.
They totally agree with this.

Stop lying and saying that this isn't about education, when you know that is the next battle.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!

It was a bad argument that wasn't supported by the facts but persisted nonetheless, that "money" in politics, especially "special interest" money in politics was corrupting the system and the sometimes the people in it.

When in reality, by definition, the "general interest" could always at any time trump the "special interest" if it chose so.

No matter how many wealthy corporations, and other "bad people" tried to co-opt the system, there were always hundreds of millions of potential donors who could band together.

They actively chose not to in the past.

They actively chose to in this election through Obama.

Hillary Clinton lost because of the millions of donors who kept giving to Obama, which led their representatives to support him.

As a fervent Clinton supporter (still), I never harbored anger about that because that is what a free market should do.

McCain is finding a similar and even worse fate than Hillary because he is trapped in a public financing system.

He would never be able to match Obama, but he would be closer and thus able to build a better firewall around 270 electoral votes.

But the lesson to be learned is that if you are losing, don't whine and try to change the rules.  Especially when the rules are good ones.

Work harder.  Take personal responsibility, and change yourself.

Obama has changed the Democratic Party.

No matter who wins this election, no one will ever be able to say, "Democrats can't compete financially".

It wasn't that we couldn't compete, it was that we were losing.

The idea that we should equalize money between the "legitimate" candidates through some public financing system is a socialist idea that is wrong.  We should have equal rules for everyone, rather than equal outcomes.

If McCain or any other candidate couldn't excite enough people to donate $20 or $50 then the government shouldn't penalize those who can by making it even.

America is the greatest country because we allow a free market to rule (ultimately). And through agitation, government intervention, and a little luck, we usually get things right..eventually.

I'm looking forward to Obama winning a landslide becuase of his financial advantage.

It will be well deserved.

My hope is that on various issues including this one (campaign finance), Democrats start looking at the facts rather than emotions and ideology.

Those here know I obviously disagree with the Conneticut court ruling forcing their personal opinion on the citizens.

I find it unbelievable that the governor (a republican) said that she believes that the public disagrees with the ruling, but nothing can/should be done about it.

"The Supreme Court has spoken," Rell said. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision -- either legislatively or by amending the state constitution -- will not meet with success. I will therefore abide by the ruling."

The question for democrats, and so-called progressives is:
Do you want to live in a country where 1 vote by an unelected government official can over-ride the will of the people?

Do you want to make it normal as in Bush v Gore where judicial decisions can be predicted based on political leanings?

If you disagreed with Bush v Gore why not try to be consistent?

... and that's good.

I disdain the leftwing talk about how we "need to get money out of politics".

In truth, people donating money is an indicator of how stong and deep support there is for a candidate or an issue.

The various campaign finance laws distort the actual truth in many cases.  But not in this race.

Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain couldn't/can't compete against the enthusiasm of Barack Obama's support.  

Hillary had to take out loans just to stay afloat.  McCain can't do that and is stuck within the public financing system.

Yet, if many here and even Obama is believed, we should now have a race based on "ideas" as though all ideas are equally valid.

Obama is outspending McCain across the country.  Forcing his way into the lead in many Republican states.  McCain will have to choose an inventive strategy to both defend his red states and win battlegrounds.

Obama should have a spending advantage because he and his ideas are more popular.

McCain should be at a disadvantage because the "market" has devalued his candidacy.

He still has a chance to win, but it shouildn't be an even chance.

So as we celebrate Obama's apparent edge in this election season, realize that a landslide is possible because of the contributions of millions of people.

This election will be determined by big money.
As it should be.

I know must of us here are focused on the daily horse race.

But according to the gallup poll Obama has been between

48 - 51 for 11 straight days

and McCain has been between
42 - 44 for 11 straight days.

http://www.gallup.com/tag/Gallup+Daily.a spx

I think we can take a break until something happens to change these dynamics,  and talk about governing and how to improve our great country.
---
We need to address the way the  people who run Hollywood are degrading our culture.

Here's my example today:

THIS PROGRAM IS RATED "g" for Everyone: King of Queens
"Swim Neighbors" episode.

Yet, the first scene shows Doug and Carrie in bed during a thunderstorm.  Carrie is reading a book.

Doug:
"Boy, that storm is nasty out there, Let's do something nasty in here".

Carrie:
"I'm reading"

Doug:
"You won't even know I'm there"

After the power goes out, Carrie tells Doug to get a flashlight, but then the camera shows Doug fondling Carrie's underwear.

---
Barack Obama and Democrats should promote legislation to have standards for ratings, and make them truly appropriate for the title.

A "G" rated show should be able to be watched by everyone from Grandma to toddlers in the same room at the same time, with no "cringing" moments.

We all do and should support free speech, but we have an obligation to protect the minds of young people, and also to have a civil society that we can count on.

Unfortunately we have allowed Republicans (when they choose to) to own these type of issues, and label these type of proposals as "conservative".

Yet, all I'm proposing is to mandate that the ratings be accurate to any reasonable person.  This respects everyone and harms no one. That should be the goal of liberalism.  To find ways to improve America where everyone wins.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!

I have offered numerous liberal ideas that are much better than this bailout bill.  

In fact, I think as a party we are better off with no bill than this current bill for 2 reasons:

1. The Republicans get the blame no matter what because they are in power.

2. There are countless better ideas to help the economy and average Americans than what passed the Senate yesterday.

To my surprise, a REPUBLICAN has offered the best liberal idea to fix this financial mess.

What a shame. We control both houses, and are in control of the Presidential race, and we are following the losers.  Because we want to make sure they can't use this against us?

People have mistook me for a DLC type democrat.  I have repeatedly shown through ideas and writings, that I am a true liberal, a newliberal. Trying to do what is right for America.

What is right for America right now is for Congress to address the foreclosure crisis, which in turn  will bubble up and fix the financial markets.

Instead of using our power to promote good liberal ideas, we are playing defense and hoping to ride the negative political environment for Republicans into a victory in November.  Perhaps it will work, but at what point do you win elections  to govern, rather than trying to win the next election?

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!

-----------
I have copied part of the article from the Wall Street Journal below.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12229107