I am no fan of Barak H. Obama. (I know that he and his campaign would like us to forget his middle name, but that would make him BO.) AND, I will only call him by the name he went by in college if they let me put an apostrophe in his last name ... making him Barry O'Bama. (I have no idea why his campaign has not pushed this. It would tie up the vote of IRA supporters.)

Anyway, enough foolishness.

And for the record, I am a stereotype.

White, lower-middle class, working male of Southern upbringing serving as an enlisted soldier in the US Army. I have a Bachelors Degree from a private, fundamentalist church-sponsored university. While not a fan of NASCAR (Look! They're making a left turn! ... Look! Another left turn!(The entire linked video is funny, but, the "Left turn" part is from about 5 minutes into this bit.)),


I do enjoy motorsports, and have a classic car that I am restoring. I am a member of Rush Limbaugh's website, and my mp3 player is full of his radio shows, and daily updates. The first vote I ever cast was to reelect Ronald Reagan in 1984.

According to the stereotype, I should be a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot.

Let's address that list:


It was my sincere hope that Senator McCain would pick as his running mate, Piyush "Bobby" Jindal. Bobby is the current governor of Louisiana. Given what I have heard about his work in Louisiana, and read in his interviews, he is one of the most exciting ideological conservatives in US politics today. Also, he is the first "non-White" to be elected governor of Louisiana since the end of Reconstruction (1877). Bobby is of Punjabi Indian descent. I look forward to volunteering in his future Presidential campaign.


If you followed NFL football in the 1970's, especially if you consistently cheered against the Cowboys, then I don't need to tell you anything about this man. What you might not remember is that in 2006, Lynn Swann ran for governor of his adopted state of Pennsylvania as a conservative Republican. I was truly sad that he lost, on a number of levels. The only time in my life I have ever had any kind of inkling of an urge to live in Pennsylvania was to allow me to vote for Lynn.


I got over my disappointment over Senator McCain not picking Bobby Jindal, when I learned about Sarah Palin. I found her story inspiring. I know these kind of people. SHOOT! I AM "these kind" of people. Her political ideology, and the action she has taken, as governor, is EXACTLY the kind of person I have looked for on the national scene since ... since ... Reagan. She is "Mrs. Smith Goes to Washington".

Next, let's address the "homophobe" part. Let's just say the stereotype of students at fundamentlist christian universities all being "cookie cutter" people is wrong. Everything that you can find on the campus of any other type of university can be found there ... it's just hidden better. As a music major, I hung out with music majors, art majors, theater majors, etc. ... the same groups that, stereotypically, are on the fringe of respectable society. To think that all of this group, even at my university, was straight would be a mistake. As for the Army, I know the Army has a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. That means just that. I know that there are people that aren't being asked, and they are not telling, either. I know both of the above, because some of them fall in the list I entitle: "close friends".

And, just for giggles, let's address religion.

I grew up in a fundamentalist church. We pride ourselves on being "people of the book".

There is a little talked about passage in the Bible that goes like this:
1 John 3:9-10
9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
NIV


I know that sounds kind of rough, at a first glance. However, the easiest way to interpret the passage in context is: a) Not everyone is going to believe what you believe; and b) You should not expect people that do not believe the way you believe to behave the way that you do/are trying to behave. I believe that.

So, according to the strictures of Federal Law, in terms of discrimination, I have addressed: gender/sexual orientation, religion, skin color, race, and national origin. (BTW, I am serve as the primary advisor to my military commander for matters of discrimination in my unit.(This would be discrimination as defined by Federal Law ... the Army IS part of the Federal Government.)) Any questions?

Back to the title of this post.

Let's start by looking at the current Congress, and what the polls, pundits, and conventional wisdom has to say about the outcome of the Congressional elections that will take place tomorrow, as well.

The House of Representatives:
Currently, Democrats outnumber Republicans 235-199. That puts them in a clear majority. This allows them commanding majorities in each of the committees (the place where the bills the entire House votes upon are generated). This, also, gives them the Speaker of the House position. In other words, they control the agenda of the House. What the House will and won't discuss, and vote on.

However, their current majority puts the Democrats 57 Congressman short of the number it takes to override a Presidential veto. So, at this point, even if the House and Senate pass a bill that Republicans disagree with, or, at least, the President does, they can't make it a law anyway.

The polls, pundits, and conventional wisdom are saying that Democrats will pick up those 57 seats in the election tomorrow (all 435 Congressman are up for reelection). If that is true, it doesn't matter who the President is, the only thing that can stop the Democrats in the House of Representatives from doing whatever they want, anytime they want will be The Senate.

The Senate
The Senate has 100 members. Currently, technically, the 2 parties are split at 49 Senators a piece with 2 "Independents" thrown into the mix. Which doesn't sound too bad, until you realize that the "Independents" tend to vote more consistently with the Democrat party line than some of the Democrats do. Making the Senate, in reality, more of 51-49 split. That still doesn't sound too bad on the surface. As you might remember from your civics classes in school, to override a Presidential veto BOTH houses of Congress must vote to override the veto with a 2/3rds majority. However, as with the House of Representatives, the Democrats control the leadership of all the Senate committees. Effectively, they control what will make it to a vote for the whole Senate.

Most polls, pundits, and conventional wisdom says that there is a possibility that the Democrats could pick up the 16 extra seats that they need, but that is by no means a sure thing. On the other hand, those same sources are pretty sure that after all the votes are counted there will be, at least, 60 Democrats in the Senate.

This is a bad thing. You ask: "Why?"

The Senate has some quirky rules.

One of them is the filibuster. Basically, once a Senator gets up to speak, he doesn't have to stop until he wants. Meaning one Senator can bring the workings of the Senate to a dead stop for as long as he/she is able. There are, also, some quirky rules (that I don't know all the ins and outs of) that can make this a "team sport". So, the minority can, in effect, indefinitely delay action on a piece of legislation that it is opposed to, even if they don't have the votes to defeat it. A filibuster, also, keeps any succeeding legislation on the agenda from coming to the floor. I have heard of Senators reading whole works of Shakespeare, cookbooks, etc.

One of the other quirky rules is called cloture. Basically, if 60 Senators all agree, a filibustering Senator can be told to sit down and shut up.

So, if the Democrats can pick up 9 more seats, they will have, theoretically, automatic cloture. Republican Senators will have been effectively been shut up and rendered spectators to the legislative process.

If that happens, the only recourse is for it to be brought before the courts.

The Supreme Court
Currently, no matter what you read/hear/see in the press, we have one of the most balanced Supreme Courts in history. Four justices are conservative/"strict constructionist" (meaning the words in the Constitution mean what they appear to mean, more or less). Three are liberal/"Living Constitution" ("The Constitution means what I 'feel' it should mean"), and the other two are moderate (they kind of swing back and forth ... I think the prevailing wind on any given day is a determining factor, and I am not being metaphorical).

One of the worst kept secrets about Washington is that it appears at least two justices are waiting until after the election to retire. Meaning the new President will be confronted with selecting two justices soon after the Inauguration. The new Senate, then, will have to confirm, with a 2/3rds majority, these new selections.

Before we get any further into that thought line, let's explore some of the products, in history, of a Supreme Court that leaned, heavily, one way or another: The Supreme Court decision that took the question of abortion out of the hands of the people, and their elected representatives, Roe v. Wade, was the product of a liberal Supreme Court. The ban on prayer in schools, with all of it's ridiculous permutations, was the product of a liberal court. The Dred Scott Decision, which concluded that, according to Wikipedia, "people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants — whether or not they were slaves — could never be citizens of the United States, and that the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. The Court also ruled that slaves could not sue in court, and that slaves — as chattel or private property — could not be taken away from their owners without due process." was the product of, what was for it's day, an overwhelmingly conservative Supreme Court. (In my personal defense, at the time, the conservative end of the political spectrum in this country was OWNED by the Democrats, and the Republican party did not exist, yet.)

So, if Obama is President, with a 2/3rds Democrat majority in the Senate, any nominees that he selects for the Supreme Court sail through with, at best, minimal questioning.

So, where does that leave us?

Well, if Obama is elected: a) we will have the most liberal Democrat President of our history; b) as de facto head of the Democrat party, he could, potentially, have a Congress that is owned by his (very liberal) party; c) with the imminent retirement of, at least, 2 Supreme Court Justices (and a Senate that will rubber stamp any selection he might make), we could have one of the most liberal Supreme Courts in the history of our nation.


Do you see what I think is the MOST scary thing about an Obama Presidency, yet?

Let me give you a clue:

The First Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights ... the same Bill of Rights that many of the Founding Fathers REFUSED to consent to this Constitution, unless it was included, says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Read that for a moment. Think back to your American history classes. That amendment is not about "protected sources" for journalists. It is not about an artist's right to put statues of Mary in urinal, and take photos of it.

What is it about?

Discussion.

Thoughtful, heated, ideology-driven, partisan, political discussion. Whether that is in your local barber shop, or on the floor of the Senate ... or between Capitol Hill, and White House. It is the heart of this idea we call the United States of America.

If Obama is elected, from a historical perspective, the three branches of OUR Federal government will be in lockstep, ideologically, as never before!

A viable "loyal opposition" is a good thing. It invites discussion, which provokes thought. That thought can help clarify why the proposal at hand is a good idea, it can lead to improvements to the proposal at hand, or, it can lead to dismissal of the idea at hand, because "we can do better".

In one of my wife's and I favorite movies, The American President, the domestic policy advisor to the President (Lewis) has this exchange with the White House Chief of Staff (AJ):

A. J. MacInerney: The President doesn't answer to you Louis!
Lewis Rothschild: Oh, yes he does A.J. I'm a citizen, this is my President. And in this country it is not only permissible to question our leaders it's our responsibility!

Given the diplomatic, economic, and national security issues that face this country today, we need, as much as ever, careful deliberation before we tackle any of those issues. We don't need 545 people (435 in the House (by default), 100 in the Senate (by default), 9 on the Supreme Court (by default), and 1 in the White House) all thinking the exact same way, and not considering any other options.

If we elect a Democrat-dominated Congress, with Obama as President, then that is what we will get, and one of the primary functions of the three branches of our government will be catastrophically undermined.

The worst part of it all is that we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

May God help us all, tomorrow.