I understand why people are turned off by politics. It seems to attract more than its fair share of charlatans and those who are in it primarily for their own personal gain. Anywhere power and authority exist, there will be those who take advantage of it. Sometimes, the allure manifests itself in grandiose misstatements of facts for purely political purposes. We had a rather obvious example last week on the Democrat side when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, commenting on the loss of seven Marines in an accident in his home state of Nevada, sought to somehow connect the tragedy to the now-infamous sequester. The implication was clear: Republicans were to blame. While he was careful not to phrase it too blatantly, everyone knew what he was doing:

It was a disgusting display, which, again, speaks to the disdain many feel toward politics. For some politicians, there are no boundaries:

No wonder there’s the perception that basic morality doesn’t apply in the political realm:

Then there are the problems on the other side of the aisle. Right now, they’re of a different stripe as Republicans try to find their way in a wilderness of their own making. I commented last week on the RNC report that tossed aside steadfastness in principle for a path of expediency, pandering to society’s cultural trends. The siren song of “change” has an allure of its own, particularly after a stunning loss:

What the party should be doing instead is reevaluating the prevailing wisdom of its mainstream consultant class. The counsel the party has been receiving may be its undoing:

Somehow, these wizards of political genius have never figured out that the media is the enemy, and a clear strategy for dealing with the media arm of the Democrat party [which consists of most of the media] is nonexistent. They try to play nice with the media, believing they will receive fair treatment—but they are always disappointed.

So on the one side we have dishonesty and political gain without any principle; on the other, foolishness and wavering principles. Yes, I understand why there is widespread disillusionment with politics, but Christians have to remain steadfast in their commitment to bringing Biblical principles into all areas of society, politics included. We cannot allow ourselves the luxury of standing aside; we are called to the fray, no matter how difficult.

We are reminded in the book of Galatians, “Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.” We must be obedient to the call.

It’s the time of year for everyone to fill out their brackets for the NCAA basketball tournament. I used to follow this closely; now, hardly at all. I freely admit I don’t even know which are the best teams anymore. I even more freely admit that I don’t really care all that much. Now, I know in some circles that may sound heretical—I mean, I’m even from Indiana, the basketball center of gravity.

But I don’t begrudge people wasting devoting time to it, if they really think it has some eternal value, although for the life of me I’m not sure what that might be. Goodness, I’m beginning to sound like a crotchety old man. Let me redeem myself. In the spirit of the bracket frenzy, I offer some possibilities from the political arena. How about if we begin with the Reid Budget brackets?

Well, now, that was exciting. He seems to draw a blank every year. What next? Something in the international realm?

Surely there’s a lot of truth in that bracket. Very useful. Let’s come back to presidential politics. The primary season is “only” three years away; it’s never too early to consider the options.

Are we really so certain of the right side of this bracket? Chills running down the spine. Not the happy kind.

What about the overall picture for the nation?

Looks a little overwhelming, doesn’t it? Yet it does bring clarity to the current situation.

I hope this little exercise in bracketing has mollified anyone offended by my earlier comments. I trust I’ve redeemed myself.

For the past week and a half, I did a series on the teaching ministry the Lord has given me all these years. So that means I’ve sorely neglected all the excellent political cartoons that have appeared during that time. It’s time to make up for the oversight.

Our political system rewards the one who is able to receive a majority of the vote. That’s as it should be. However, that doesn’t mean the minority can be discounted. The constitutional republic we set up protects the rights of the minority as well. No leader should ever believe he can simply run roughshod over his opponents. Neither should any winner get the false idea that his victory means he has a mandate to do whatever he wants because the majority voted for him:

Yes, there are limitations . . . and sometimes the majority of the voters can be wrong, not only on whom they have chosen but in their support of the “chosen one’s” policies. And if things go wrong with those policies? Not to worry—he has a built-in excuse that will be readily accepted by his minions:

He also has his enablers in the Congress. Harry Reid is already dreaming of ways to override any opposition. Never mind what it says about his character:

While the president himself has his own plans for beefing up his administration:

The loyal opposition, meanwhile, has a decision to make. Is it going to continue to rely on consultants who believe in nothing but political expediency? The problem seems to be that even their concept of political expediency always falls short of reality:

There is a leadership vacuum on the Republican side. Someone needs to fill it who is Biblically based, constitutionally conservative, and articulate. That’s the true path to leadership and ultimate victory.

By the end of this day—barring any legal challenges or chicanery—we should know the political landscape for the next two to four years. No one expects the House to revert to the Democrats, so that much is set even before the counting begins. But the Senate, and of course the presidency, are the real questions. Let’s examine the possible scenarios, from worst-case to best-case.

Scenario #1

Barack Obama retains the presidency and Democrats continue to control the Senate. What will this mean? We will be in the same state we are currently. The House will try to pass legislation to correct the debt Armageddon and Obamacare, but the Senate will not act on anything the House does. It will remain adamant in opposition to the Republican agenda. The Congress, in this scenario, will be as it is now—worthless. This will lead to Obama doing what he has already begun to do, which is to rule by executive orders. No amount of protest that his actions are unconstitutional will avail. With a Justice Department firmly in his control, he will be free to do whatever he wishes, thereby foisting even more government control over the lives of individuals and trampling religious liberty through Obamacare. That “signature” piece of legislation will go forward without anything to stop it. By the end of his term, the United States will be pretty much like the European states that have given themselves over to full-scale socialism. We will also be on the verge of total bankruptcy. Oh, and since Supreme Court justices have to be confirmed by the Senate, he will get to replace perhaps three of the nine currently on the bench with ideological soulmates.

Scenario #2

Barack Obama stays in as president and the Senate changes hands to the Republicans. Under this scenario, with both houses of Congress controlled by the Republicans, certain pieces of legislation aimed at undoing the Obama agenda will pass both chambers and be sent to the White House for Obama’s approval. He will approve nothing coming from a Republican Congress. The veto will become his favorite weapon. On occasion, Congress may be able to muster a 2/3 vote to override a veto, but unless enough Democrats are willing to join with Republicans against the titular leader of their party, most of the proposed legislation will go down to defeat. Then Obama will do as noted above in scenario #1: he will rule by executive orders. The only saving grace is that he might not get the justices on the Supreme Court he wants, but that’s no guarantee. Senate Republicans, on the whole, have never been known for their backbones.

Scenario #3

Mitt Romney wins the presidency, but the Senate does not turn Republican. Under the continued “leadership” of Harry Reid, stonewalling will be the rule. Romney will do whatever he can within the powers of the presidency to remedy the damage that has been created by Obama. He says he will give waivers from Obamacare to every state. That will be a step in the right direction. However, getting any genuine reform legislation through Congress will be tough, nearly impossible, with Reid as Senate Majority Leader. Romney also will have hard sledding replacing Supreme Court justices with anyone worthwhile since the Senate has to approve them. Without a Republican Senate, Romney’s achievements will be minimal.

Scenario #4

Mitt Romney sweeps into the presidency by a significant margin, thereby helping Republicans take the Senate as well. Coattails do exist. This is obviously the rosiest scenario. The real question is whether Republicans will follow through and do what’s necessary to reverse course on the last four years and will learn their lesson about squandering a majority the way they did during the Bush presidency. Conservatives have always been wary of Romney’s foundational beliefs; they will have to hold his feet to the fire, but they will have some victories to cheer whether they get everything they desire or not. Obamacare should be shelved; the national debt should be brought under control; justices who believe in the original wording and intent of the Constitution should be put on the Court; Biblical morality should be upheld. This is not necessarily guaranteed, but this is the only scenario that holds such promise.

Which scenario do I think will play out today? My analysis of the current state of the race tells me it should be either #3 or #4. I see #3 as more likely, but you never know what can happen when people pray and work for what they believe in. And a lot of people have been doing both. May the Lord give us another opportunity to correct the mistakes we have made. A little divine intervention would be very nice.

The Lord spoke through the prophet Jeremiah these words:

“For I know the plans that I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans for welfare and not calamity to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.”

Yes, I know that was a word for ancient Israel, but it is a principle—a general truth—that can apply to us today. May it be so.

Let’s return to fiscal news today. Are you aware that the Bush tax cuts—you know, those awful tax breaks that benefit only the wealthy—are due to end in January? If that happens, we will all find out soon enough that they actually were a benefit for everyone. Democrats play politics with this, seeking to extend them only for the “non-rich.” That posture is intended to portray them as for the middle class. What they don’t tell you is that the “rich” include about 900,000 small businesses who, if these cuts aren’t extended, will have to lay off workers. Now, who is this really going to hurt? Republicans, on the other hand, are calling for the cuts to remain in effect for everyone. Trying to get this through Congress, though, will never happen as long as Harry Reid and his gang control the Senate:

Democrats are attempting to woo the moderate Republicans to their side on this plan, but thus far Republicans are holding firm—for good reason:

One thing to keep in mind, however, is that these tax cuts can’t apply to almost half the population. Why?

It’s the producers in society who are being targeted:

And presiding over all this is a man who has expressed hostility toward those producers and has no grasp of how an economy works:

I’ve always enjoyed good oxymorons. Here are some appropriate ones for today:

We’re seeing some strange things as this presidential campaign heats up. I don’t recall ever seeing such skewed polls before. The Pew organization, which is supposed to have a good reputation, just put out a poll that shows Obama leading by large margins in swing states like Ohio and Florida, and giving him over 50% nationally. Yet other polls indicate his approval rating in those states is about 44-45%. How is this possible? By sampling Democrats at a rate even higher than the margins in the 2008 election. That makes absolutely no sense. Pardon me if I’m getting the impression the electorate is being manipulated into thinking this is a done deal.

Then there’s the odd spectacle of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, on the Senate floor, accusing Romney of not paying taxes for ten years. He cites an anonymous source—but a credible one, of course. Again, pardon me if I believe we are being manipulated from on high:

It doesn’t help when the media plays along with the manipulation. No one among mainstream news reporters is challenging Reid’s unsubstantiated claims. They are allowing him to run rampant with innuendo. Is there anyone out there who seriously thinks a Republican could survive the scrutiny that bogus attacks like these would inspire? How can Reid possibly believe he can get away with this? Well, he knows he has the media on his side, and his desire to win trumps all ethics. Is he being malevolent or is he just plain foolish? Are these two options really mutually exclusive? What would it look like if we used Reid’s tactics against him?

Another interesting development—one that few saw coming—is that Romney and Republicans in general are doing better at fundraising than Obama and his fellow Democrats. The Obama campaign could be in trouble soon because it is spending its money faster than it’s taking it in. If that sounds like something you’ve been hearing for the past four years, there’s a good reason for it:

He may have to pull out all the stops to get more cash. What can a president do in a situation like this? Well, he can continue what he has done his entire term, and at which he has become an expert:

But it may not be money that determines this election. Could it be that deeply held beliefs may be the key? Wouldn’t that be nice?

In the past week, President Obama, on the campaign trail, has tried to convince his audiences—and us as well—that he has been the most responsible spender in recent presidential history. He used as his proof an article written by someone who drew all his information from a presentation by Nancy Pelosi. Now there’s a solid source. In order to believe this spin, one has to place all 2009 spending on former President Bush. How can anyone do that? Well, since 2009 spending started under a Bush budget that began in 2008, surely it all belongs to him, right? Not when you actually look at the facts, which somehow elude our current leader. Bush never signed that budget: Obama did later. The faulty analysis also throws the stimulus bill onto Bush, even though it was an Obama enterprise from the start.

Don’t believe everything you hear from this president. In fact, don’t believe most of what you hear, especially now that the campaign is in full throttle. Let me be very clear [as Obama often says]: Obama and the Congress have added more than $5 trillion to the budget in less than four years. Bush added $4 trillion in eight years. As unadmirable as Bush’s record may be, it is the epitome of fiscal control when compared to Obama’s.

Every time Obama has sent his version of a budget to the Congress, it has been rejected unanimously—in other words, by both Republicans and Democrats:

Of course, one of the reasons the Democrat leadership has rejected Obama budgets is that it hasn’t been stellar at even considering budgets. The Senate, under Harry Reid’s leadership [?], hasn’t put forward a budget for a vote in over three years, despite a law requiring it.

So much for the concept of the rule of law.

How bad is the current fiscal situation? Here’s one way of understanding it that may bring it closer to home:

Yet what we are told about the deficit doesn’t take into account a deficit that is officially off-budget. We try to pretend it isn’t there, but it’s the biggest fiscal headache of all:

Unless something is done to deal with the root of the problem, we will become a financial basket-case. But every time someone—usually Republican—attempts to offer a plan to deal with it, Republicans are accused of wanting to throw granny off a cliff. That type of political demagoguery is not new, but at the critical juncture at which we now stand, it is particularly irresponsible.

If you’ve been a reader of my blog for some time, you know Mitt Romney was not my preferred candidate, but I now have to hope, work, and pray for his election, if for no other reason than to remove the White House’s current temporary occupant. These last four years have been a disaster in more ways than I can take the time to enumerate today. Maybe someone who understands better how economics works can make a difference.