Congratulations to President Barack O'Bama on his historic moment. His inaugral speech hit mixed notes in my mind, I'll point to two.

In my mind, this is the most interesting passage of the speech (which had no "zingers" like "fear itself" or "ask not"):

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

There's a definitely an element of the diversity and multi-cultural "speak" in this, but I'm drawn to the way it is not written. It is not written as an attack on America's past, but as a recognition of the past as perhaps a proof that the "other old hatreds" (Arab-Israeli conflict, the religious battle lines that dominate foreign affairs, and simpler, smaller hatreds that dot the world) can be overcome. His line "the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve" is certainly hopeful and could be construed in a conservative and individualistic light, but it is unclear where O'Bama would deviate the tribalist policies many in his party support or how he intends to get us there.

Here's the second:

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

The first sentence is interesting in that while it seems to be an attempt to change the paradigm debate on "big v. small government" to "effective government." But if the question is "whether it works" and the answer is "no" much more often than it is yes, will we truly see the programs end? Of course, the reason small-government conservatives are for small government is not just for the sake of liberty - it is because we believe, more often than not, bigger government doesn't work. He's set himself up for a test here - does government work? Will Barack O'Bama's version of government work? If it does not, then we must "hold to account" the leader. If he fails to "spend wisely", to "reform bad habits", or most importantly do business "in the light of day" - he must be held accountable. As a fervent believer in open records and meetings, I wish him the best of luck in increasing government transparency - if that is what he means. And if he "spends wisely" and does those things, he'll be hard to beat.

That is the test he should be held to in 2012!

Check out this stunning google visual I've created comparing four trend lines using google trend statistics, using the last four presidential nonimees (Bush, Kerry, McCain, O'Bama). Barack O'Bama quickly became the darling of both the media (bottom) and the new internet media (top). It says much about the internet and how Democrats dominated the new media this year, but it also says something about how well the candidate integrated his campaign with the new media. Clearly, O'Bama benefited in media presence from the extended primary battle, but even after the conventions he maintained healthy command in search data statistics and more importantly in mainstream news searches. It was during the downstretch of the campaign that his name ID spiked, relative to both McCain and the previous 2004 George Bush-John Kerry contest.

To conservatives - heed this data.

If it has to do with signature-gathering (particularly if not inside Michigan where one of my sister-sites will pick it up), its a subject ripe for PP&M. And this one is ripe - Ralph Nader has sued the DNC alleging a vast conspiracy (VLWC) by the Demoncratic National Committee to obstruct his ability to get on the 2004 ballot. Frivolous lawsuits, blockers, bogus challenge-phase assertions. The suit itself details some 90 law firms that participated.

This story, from the site "Ballot-pedia", which is a brilliant use of the wiki concept to map out a small universe of specialized knowledge, details it well and provides links to the original source documents and news stories.

Needless to say, while ZR doesn't normally subscribe to conspiracy arguments because they are too complex and usually not the simplest explanation, there is some validity to this one. The DNC didn't make it a secret that it wanted to keep Nader off the ballot - in fact, it admitted it was trying to do so. And various officials admit to using frivolous legal techniques solely to drain Nader. That's abuse of process, and Nader should recover something for it.

The Democratic Presidential debate showed an ironic lack of "diversity" in their views on race. WLUC TV, the Upper Peninsula's NBC affiliate, unwittingly captures the irony:

There is total agreement among the Democratic presidential candidates in opposition to the Supreme Court ruling limiting the use of race in achieving racial diversity.

They expressed their views at a presidential debate in Washington.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said the court's conservative majority "turned the clock back" on history.

Senator Barack Obama, the only black candidate in the eight-person field, said he owed his candidacy to previous Supreme Court precedents.

This is not surprising given the anti-democratic state of the leadership (as opposed to membership) of the Democratic Party, but "total agreement" reflects a complete lack "diversity."

A version of this "exit" poll described by the Arab American News started makings its rounds after the Ann Arbor News surprisingly reported on it last week.

While the poll seeks to revise history in describing "ethnic" (non-black ethnicities) opposition to Proposal 2, it is also clearly a Party hack job to inflate perceptions of Democrat support. Follow the numbers down this rabbit hole with me:

Seventy five percent of Arabs and seventy eight percent overall said they voted against Proposal 2.

The proposal banned the use of preferences of race, sex or ethnicity in university admissions and government hiring and contracting when 58 percent of residents statewide voted in favor of it.

Read more »

While it conveys nothing near the whole context of the interview, AP writer Sven Gustafson has quoted ZR after an interview following Arizona Senator John McCain's Thursday night speech here in Bloomfield Hills:

Instead, his swing Thursday and Friday through voter-heavy Oakland County, Kalamazoo County and Ottawa County, a GOP stronghold, is intended to win the support of the Republican Party's base after years of being labeled a political maverick.

"I liked that aspect about John McCain in 2000," said Republican political consultant Chetly Zarko, who is undecided. "And moving away from that, having lined up as many endorsements within the mainstream party as he has now, I'm looking for another maverick."

In referring to McCain's 2008 strategy and how it differs from 2000, I was neither condemning nor applauding the candidate. ZR has not made an endorsement yet, because no current candidate has convincingly seized the mantle left by Reagan. Part of that mantle is a willingness to stand on principle (which is how I defined maverick in this context) - on such issues like race preferences (MCRI) and fiscal responsibility - issues where the current party has temporarily lost its way. Additionally, it is extremely early in the cycle, a point I made that unfortunately was not included.

There is more to be written on this subject, of course, so keep tuned.

Newsmax reports here that Newt Gingrich has criticized US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and suggested that his explanation of events in the firing of US attorneys was confusing and unnecessary. Whether right or wrong, it is noteworthy to see potential presidential candidates distancing themselves from the matter.

In other news, Hilllary Clinton has a 45-29 lead over Barrack O'Bama in Michigan and Rudy Guiliani and John McCain are in a near tie with McCain leading 30 - 26%.

The Washington Post reports former Wisconsin-Governor Tommy Thompson has entered the Presidential contest as a Republican.

In his first official speech, he hit this note.

Before an audience of about 250 people in Clive, Iowa, a suburb of Des Moines, Thompson said the GOP must regroup in the face of electoral defeats. "Republicans went to Washington and we lost our way," he said. "We tried to spend like Democrats, and voters saw through us." Speaking later with reporters, Thompson expanded on that theme. "We have to re-earn the trust of the voter again," he said. "We cannot spend money as foolishly as the Democrats and expect to be the majority party. We have got to come up with ideas. We haven't come up with new ideas."

It will be interesting to see how this affects Newt Gingrich, and more-so his namesake Fred Thompson, in their decisions on whether to join the race. They all come from a similar mold of economic-traditionalist conservatism, each with ties to the Kemp-reform style. My inclination is that Fred Thompson is a better candidate - and Gingrich the best thinker (while Fred still may be a slightly better candidate). ZR would be please with any of the three though rising to the nomination, or at least influencing the debate.

Yeah. It's 699 or so days away. Pursuant to a reader suggestion, I've added a 2008 election analysis category, divided into Michigan, National, and Presidential sections.

The first update deals with the (Carl) Levin US Senate Seat. Levin is back in for sure now, dispelling rumors of a possible retirement, and speculation today suggests that Michelle Engler, the former Governor John Engler's wife, may run against Levin. It's certainly an interesting prospect. Another prospect that has been bandied around for a longer-time is Jane Abraham, wife of former Senator Spencer Abraham.

In Presidential news, former US Representative and Michigan gubernatorial candidate David Bonior has joined the John Edwards for President campaign.