I agree with Obama...

One comment which President Obama made last night was very accurate.  He said:

"But when all is said and done, when you pick up that ballot to vote, you will face the clearest choice of any time in a generation. Over the next few years, big decisions will be made in Washington, on jobs, the economy; taxes and deficits; energy, education; war and peace, decisions that will have a huge impact on our lives and our children’s lives for decades to come.

And on every issue, the choice you face won’t be just between two candidates or two parties.

It will be a choice between two different paths for America.

A choice between two fundamentally different visions for the future."

Yes, the President and Romney have fundamentally different views of how the world works.  The president definitely has a collectivist orientation as we can see from his actions the last four years.  That government can and should solve the economic and social problems confronting us.  It can do this through social and economic engineering.  Having bureaucrats run the show.  The goal is equal outcomes.  That means redistributing wealth among other things.

The other vision says, yes government is a vital institution, beneficial institution when it functions within it's proper jurisdiction.  It's to provide the environment for every person to develop and utilize his or her God-given abilities and talents.  It's not to guarantee equal results.  It's to protect the vulnerable and less fortunate.  But not to take over the roles and responsibilities of parents and families.  It's to protect the God-given institution of marriage and the sanctity of human life.  It's to empower civil institutions and organizations not consume and control them.  The free market system is a blessing not a curse.  Government's role is that of a referee, ensuring the rules are followed, and fairly enforced.  The laws of the land favor neither the wealthy nor the poor.  All stand equal before the law.

The realization of President Obama's vision is less freedom not more.  Less prosperity not more.  Why?  Because they're based on faulty understanding of the nature of man and his actions as a economic, political, and moral being.

Koering goes down to defeat. Hurt by personal behavior and voting record.

One of the few hotly contested primaries Tuesday was the Republican primary for the state Senate in the 12th district, featuring incumbent Paul Koering and challenger Paul Gazelka.

Koering has been all over the map personally and legislatively. Voting for and against tax increases and a state marriage amendment. And of course coming out as a gay and privately threatening to jump to the DFL caucus a several years ago.

Gazelka is both an economic and social conservative and was in the state House for several years.

Until a month or so ago, there were lots of undecided voters in the districtand those who were decided, were going for Koering by 2 to 1.

Koering's date or dinner with male porn star raised questions about his character and his all over the map voting record on a number of issues came back to haunt him.

I'm told whoever won their primary would be the favorite for the general election.

Dayton squeaks through primary. Now on to general election.

Mark Dayton despite a 10 plus point lead in recent polls narrowly beat Margaret Anderson Kelliher in the DFL primary for governor. I spoke with a Minneapolis DFL politico who was supporting Kelliher. Asked him who he thought would win the primary and he said Kelliher because of her ground game. It almost happened.

The feeling among Republicans is Dayton will be the easier target in the general election. Dayton has personal issues and is much more radical on wanting to raise taxes than even Kelliher and Entenza were. I ran into Entenza last weekend and Dayton's tax proposal is one of the things he said to distinguish himself from Dayton.

That said, Dayton and liberal groups will pour boatloads of money into the campaign and his name is a household name to lots of Minnesotans.

I don't think Dayton will be able to avoid the public scrutiny he did in 2000 when he ran against Rod Grams for the US Senate. I recall then he was no where to be found publicly. He just ran tons of ads and avoided public appearances. Today, he won't be able to do that as easily and he'll have his record as a US Senator to live down. I recall it was reported in Time magazine that he was rated one of the five poorest US Senators.

It should be an interesting race for governor. The contrast between Dayton and Emmer will be great.

Good Bye to Freedom of Religion?

The following piece from Catholic Online applies to all people of faith, not just the Catholics to whom it is addressed. It underscores the consequences of elections for good or ill... in this case, for ill. It should especially energize conservative Christians as Faithful Voters in the upcoming elections - faithful to vote, based on their faith.

Obama Moves away from 'Freedom of Religion' toward 'Freedom of Worship'?
(http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=37390&page=1)

MFC has been alerting people for months to the fact that it's not just taxes and the size of government that are at stake in this election, but due to pending legislation to legalize same-sex marriage in Minnesota, the very definition and survival of marriage here is at stake as well.

However, as the above article makes clear, it's not even just marriage and the vision for a limited, constitutional government that are at stake; it's the freedom even to express our faith in the public square when it's not politically correct - about marriage or any other subject - that's at stake.

Don't take Freedom of Religion, as conceived by the framers of the Constitution, for granted. If we do, we may well lose one of the foundational principles our nation was formed to establish in the first place.

Interesting take on the elections.

Here's an interesting election analysis by Margaret Carlson with Bloomberg. Formerly with Time magazine, she's not a conservative pundit. She points out that an enormous anti-incumbent mood is brewing and Republicans aren't interested in moderate candidates. Which means very conservative candidates will be put up in 2010.

There are many ways to think about Tuesday’s election, some of which are completely wrong. “The real story here is, I think, this thing is ambiguous,” White House adviser David Axelrod said. That’s true only if ambiguous is a synonym for frightening.

There’s one piece of good news for Democrats. They won in New York’s 23rd congressional district for the first time since the mid-19th century, largely because Republicans were in turmoil. NY23 might suffice as a face-saving story offered by Democratic mouthpieces, so long as they don’t actually believe it or foist it on the boss in the Oval Office.

The Democrats’ problems concern direction and mood; the Republicans’ loss in the 23rd showed a weakness of tactics. They weren’t prepared to succeed in driving out the establishment Republican candidate and didn’t have a strong alternative in Doug Hoffman, a charisma-less accountant with the smarts of a fifth grader. Conservatives will surely field a better candidate in 2010. Congressman-elect Bill Owens would be wise to rent, not buy, in Washington.

As hard as it may be for the GOP to contain Sarah Palin (R- Facebook), Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and their various allies, it’s a lot harder to deal with a public that’s losing faith in government to improve their lot.

According to exit polls in both Virginia and New Jersey, more than 85 percent of voters said they were worried about the country’s economy. While Obama didn’t create the economic meltdown, it’s his to cure....

She concludes:

With polls showing government in remarkably low esteem and falling, running in 2010 is likely to be easier as an outsider of either party than as an insider. Incumbents should be afraid, very afraid.