Change we can Believe In

Those who have read my political stuff since last fall will recognize that I believe that the world revolves around Newt Gingrich. I was disappointed when Newt opted out of the Presidential race last fall (337 days ago, but who is counting). I believe Newt is one of the few strategic thinkers in the political biz. I always enjoy his speaking style and I usually agree with him. Even when I disagree, I know more about the topic after I have heard from him.

So I was pleased to find a Gingrich piece published by Bill Kristol on The Weekly Standard Blog – about the selection of Governor Palin for the McCain team.

I am sure that the Obamamedia and the considerable resources of MoveOn.org and similar groups will now be trained on Governor Palin. And, no doubt, she will not emerge from the spin machine totally unscathed (nobody else has). But there is something very endearing about this woman who leads by principals and beliefs rather than polls and who has kept a remarkable sense of herself during 13 years of elected office. This lady not only talks the talk - she walks the walk and I am impressed.

My source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/08/kristol_gingrich_on_the_power.asp

Authenticity is the one word threat to the Obama-Biden ticket.

There is something going on this weekend which traditional pundits, traditional consultants and traditional politicians are simply missing. All of the normal biography-oriented and issue-oriented analysis misses an emotional gestalt event comparable to when Ronald Reagan in 1980 crystalized his leadership in New Hampshire when he seized control of the GOP debate.

In one sudden moment Friday, John McCain fundamentally changed American politics in a manner that transcends issues and details.

The great threat to the Obama-Biden ticket can be captured in one word: authenticity.

There is something unaffected and "unsophisticated" (in the Columbia, Princeton, Harvard and University of Chicago meanings of the word) about Governor Palin. She really was point guard of a state championship basketball team. She really is a competent hunter. She is a hockey mom. She has one son about to go to Iraq.

She has 13 years in elected office

By any practical standard she has done far more in the real world with much more spontaneity and practicality than Barack Obama. And there is something deeply real and courageous about John McCain ignoring most of his advisers and all of the "insider wisdom" to reach out to a younger woman whose greatest characteristic is undaunted courage and a willingness to clean out the corruption in her own party.

This is a moment of stunning authenticity versus a sad collapse on the part of the Obama campaign from " change you can count on" to politics as usual, as marked by Obama's choice of a senator first elected when Palin was 9 years old.

As I wandered around from a family restaurant to the dry cleaners to a variety of other non-political places, people kept walking up to me and talking with energy and enthusiasm about their reaction to McCain’s choice of Governor Palin. As I sifted through their emotions and the intensity of their reaction it hit me that they were responding to "the real thing." The power of Palin is that she is so out of the establishment, and so out of the talking-heads, inside-the –Beltway-elite mindset, that the 80 per cent of Americans who believe we are on the wrong track suddenly can identify with someone who isn’t part of what got us on that track.

Palin will make mistakes. The news media and the Obama researchers will find things to attack. But if she stays relaxed and continues to be authentically who she has been for 44 years, the country is going to love her, and they are very rapidly going to get disgusted with the cynical negative nastiness of politics as usual.

Finally 2008 really has given us "change we can count on." Ironically, it is the McCain-Palin ticket.

The only thing to Fear is Fear Itself

It is interesting to listen to the Democrats talk about Karl Rove and the Bush Administration’s politics of fear.  Don’t believe those Republicans – they are just trying to scare you.  We offer a politics of hope with a positive message. 

The problem is that in order for their message to work, in order for us to seize on their message of hope – brought to you by the government, by the way which may be absurd on its face – they have to make you believe that the present course is hopeless.  That is why you need them.  They offer no ideas, no programs, no solutions – only the same sick message – the Republicans are wrong so, therefore, we must be right.

They would have you believe that the war in Iraq is the most disastrous war in our history.  We have once again fallen into the trap of a land war in Asia.  Senator Harry Reid, the distinguished majority leader in the Senate declared that the war is lost, its over, just bring our few remaining boys out of there before its too late.  It is not that simple but the constant bashing of the Bush Administration and the Iraq war by the untrustworthy media has made it difficult for the administration to respond on any number of issues.  The President is now in a lame duck status and the pile of world problems that are gathering under the carpet of the oval office for the next occupant to clean up is becoming a problem. 

I was interesting to hear Mr Obama in his coronation speech talk about the great Democrat military Presidents – FDR and JFK.  My memory of history must be slipping.  Didn’t FDR keep us out of World War II until Europe was overrun and Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.  The resulting conflict cost millions of lives.  Maybe we should have been paying attention to Hitler and Tojo during the 1930s.  Perhaps that is a  message we should be considering before we pass judgment on the Iraq conflict and this administration’s conduct of the war.  And didn’t JFK lead us into Viet Nam? But there is enough blame in that one for several administrations of both parties.

The Democrat convention has been a brightly colored multi-media feast of fear and loathing.  Class warfare is rampant.  The bad guy is Big Oil and their bought and paid for politicians in the West Wing. By the way, did anybody ever ask just exactly who is big oil ?  It is corporations – it is shareholders.  It is the energy sector stocks in the 401K fund portfolios of practically every American employed by a company offering a 401K plan.  A windfall profits tax ? Just exactly who do you think is going to pay it.  We are – as consumers at the gas pump.  We are – as shareholders. 

Let me remind you of the most basic rule of government.  In order for government to give me a dollar, they have to take that dollar away from you by force. Period.  All government programs come down to this simple truth.  And all campaigns (both parties) come down to “Vote for me – I will take it from THEM and give it to YOU.” They are a little non-specific about the THEM but most people seem to think they understand the YOU.

Despite what they say, the greatest fearmongers are the Democrats (but don’t turn your back on the Republicans either).  But listen to what they say.  We live in the information age and maybe we can find the information we need to make valid decisions without relying on the mainstream media – who have a very specific agenda and who are giving up entirely on providing the news without spin. 

Jonah Goldberg gives todays lesson on the economy from his writings in Townhall.com.  For your homework assignment, start to look at S.2433 (Senate Bill 2433), the Global Poverty Act sponsored by Senator Obama.  Think about how Senator Obama’s bill will impact our economy, The United Nations, our tax payers.  See how following his lead may adopt a ban on small arms (despite our 2^nd amendment) and how he wants to pledge billions of dollars to third world countries.  Laudable purpose perhaps, but interesting timing considering what he tells us about our economy.

We will talk again soon.

My source: http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2008/08/29/economy_of_words?page=full&comments=true

Friday, August 29, 2008
Economy of Words
by Jonah Goldberg

The U.S. economy - yes, that economy - grew at a 3.3 percent annual rate last quarter. This no doubt caused consternation at the highest levels of the Democratic Party, perhaps forcing some to consider a new convention film at the last minute: "Dude, Where's My Recession?"

To hear the Democrats at their convention this week, you would get the sense that a recession is merely a technical term for the worst human misery ever visited upon a once-great people. You'd think Americans were listening to the Democratic speeches as they huddled around their kitchen tables - if they hadn't already been used for firewood - deciding which of their children to pack off to the orphanage and how much tree bark they can afford to eat next week.

Thursday night, Barack Obama proclaimed: "Our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more." He went on to describe an America reminiscent of "The Grapes of Wrath" (if not "Mad Max").

But this was a weeklong theme. Over and over again, the Democrats insisted that the "American dream" is being snuffed out, crushed, beaten, stabbed and quite possibly dismembered in President Bush's West Wing bathtub, where Bush and Dick "The Cleaner" Cheney can dissolve the remains in sulfuric acid.

On Wednesday night, just in case some village waif somewhere hadn't already heard, Joe Biden reminded the world that he rides Amtrak home to Delaware from Washington. Apparently not since Gunga Din has there been a more heroic commute. And we've now learned that when he gazes out the window of his barreling locomotive, he can "almost hear" the conversations in the houses he sees whizzing by.

He "almost hears" things with an awful lot of specificity: "Should Mom move in with us now that Dad's gone? Fifty, sixty, seventy dollars just to fill up the gas tank? How in God's name, with winter coming, how are we gonna heat the home? Another year, no raise? Did you hear? Did you hear they may be cutting our health care at the company?" Super Joe even hears people asking him, "How are we gonna retire, Joe?"

Is there nobody between D.C. and Delaware talking about "American Idol" or their kids' school play or how they're sick of meatloaf?

Obviously, there is real economic pain out there. Food and energy costs are rising too fast and by too much. The mortgage crisis is real.

But while Americans don't like the direction the country is heading, and hate high gas prices, they're pretty satisfied with their lives. Some 94 percent of Americans polled by Harris Interactive this month said they were satisfied with the lives they lead. According to Gallup, only 9 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with their jobs and only 13 percent are dissatisfied with their job security. The unemployment rate is at a five-year high of 5.7 percent, but it wasn't long ago when that was considered close to full employment.

"Ladies and gentlemen ..." mourned Senator Biden, the "American dream feels like it's slowly slipping away. ... I've never seen a time when Washington has watched so many people get knocked down without doing anything to help them get back up."

Quick question: Was this the same Washington that oversaw the largest expansion of entitlements (a.k.a. the prescription drug benefit) since the Great Society? Was this the Washington that recently started doling out $168 billion in stimulus checks?

Biden's keen ability to hear only awful news is symptomatic of a Democratic Party that is not merely eager to return to the White House, but desperate to launch a new New Deal. The mind-set is on display in almost every speech. Hillary Clinton decried the policy of "giving windfall profits" to oil companies. Clinton seems to believe that all of the money, everywhere, is the government's, and your profits are a gift. Windfall profits are defined as too big a gift from government. Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, borrowing a line from Obama, complained that John McCain wants to give "$4 billion in tax breaks for big oil?"

No. McCain wants to lower the corporate tax rate to make us more competitive with our rivals. Yes, oil companies are included, but by this logic (as my colleague Ramesh Ponnuru notes), Obama's middle-class tax cut will be a tax break for hookers and serial killers.

The greatest irony is that the one area where the Democrats are right about American pain - high gas prices - is the one area where they are most reluctant to do anything substantial. Why? Because global warming appears to be their best shot at finding a major crisis to justify a new New Deal.

The bad news for the throngs in Denver is that Americans aren't as miserable as the Democrats need them to be.

 

 

 

Who was that Masked Man

Earlier this year I had several conversations with political pros who are more knowledgeable than I about the national political contests – particularly on the Democrat side.  The response I received about Senator Obama was repeated in several conversations even while the speakers were praising the Illinois Senator for his obvious talents: “I wish we knew more about him…”

So the Democrat voters, delegates and super-delegates have bought in on faith and the standard bearer for the party of FDR and JFK is the young, talented Barack Obama – and I still wish we knew more about him. 

Charles Krauthammer, writing for Townhall.com, addresses the issue.

My source: http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/08/29/self-made_man_or_mysterious_stranger?page=full&comments=true

Friday, August 29, 2008
Self-Made Man or Mysterious Stranger?
by Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama is an immensely talented man whose talents have been largely devoted to crafting, and chronicling, his own life. Not things. Not ideas. Not institutions. But himself.

Nothing wrong or even terribly odd about that, except that he is laying claim to the job of crafting the coming history of the United States. A leap of such audacity is odd. The air of unease at the Democratic convention this week was not just a result of the Clinton psychodrama. The deeper anxiety was that the party was nominating a man of many gifts but precious few accomplishments -- bearing even fewer witnesses.

When John Kerry was introduced at his convention four years ago, an honor guard of a dozen mates from his Vietnam days surrounded him on the podium attesting to his character and readiness to lead. Such personal testimonials are the norm. The roster of fellow soldiers or fellow senators who could from personal experience vouch for John McCain is rather long. At a less partisan date in the calendar, that roster might even include Democrats Russ Feingold and Edward Kennedy, with whom John McCain has worked to fashion important legislation.

Eerily missing at the Democratic convention this year were people of stature who were seriously involved at some point in Obama's life standing up to say: I know Barack Obama. I've been with Barack Obama. We've toiled/endured together. You can trust him. I do.

Hillary Clinton could have said something like that. She and Obama had, after all, engaged in a historic, utterly compelling contest for the nomination. During her convention speech, you kept waiting for her to offer just one line of testimony: I have come to know this man, to admire this man, to see his character, his courage, his wisdom, his judgment. Whatever. Anything.

Instead, nothing. She of course endorsed him. But the endorsement was entirely programmatic: We're all Democrats. He's a Democrat. He believes what you believe. So we must elect him -- I am currently unavailable -- to get Democratic things done. God bless America.

Clinton's withholding the "I've come to know this man" was vindictive and supremely self-serving -- but jarring, too, because you realize that if she didn't do it, no one else would. Not because of any inherent deficiency in Obama's character. But simply as a reflection of a young life with a biography remarkably thin by the standard of presidential candidates.

Who was there to speak about the real Barack Obama? His wife. She could tell you about Barack the father, the husband, the family man in a winning and perfectly sincere way. But that only takes you so far. It doesn't take you to the public man, the national leader.

Who is to testify to that? Hillary's husband on night three did aver that Obama is "ready to lead." However, he offered not a shred of evidence, let alone personal experience with Obama. And although he pulled it off charmingly, everyone knew that, having been suggesting precisely the opposite for months, he meant not a word of it.

Obama's vice presidential selection, Joe Biden, naturally advertised his patron's virtues, such as the fact that he had "reached across party lines to ... keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists." But securing loose nukes is as bipartisan as motherhood and as uncontroversial as apple pie. The measure was so minimal that it passed by voice vote and received near zero media coverage.

Thought experiment. Assume John McCain had retired from politics. Would he have testified to Obama's political courage in reaching across the aisle to work with him on ethics reform, a collaboration Obama boasted about in the Saddleback debate? "In fact," reports the Annenberg Political Fact Check, "the two worked together for barely a week, after which McCain accused Obama of 'partisan posturing'" -- and launched a volcanic missive charging him with double cross.

So where are the colleagues? The buddies? The political or spiritual soul mates? His most important spiritual adviser and mentor was Jeremiah Wright. But he's out. Then there's William Ayers, with whom he served on a board. He's out. Where are the others?

The oddity of this convention is that its central figure is the ultimate self-made man, a dazzling mysterious Gatsby. The palpable apprehension is that the anointed is a stranger -- a deeply engaging, elegant, brilliant stranger with whom the Democrats had a torrid affair. Having slowly woken up, they see the ring and wonder who exactly they married last night.

 

Political Theater and Light of Day

After a nauseating, if occasionally intriguing, endless Presidential campaign we are finally getting down to the heart of the matter.  Finally we are seeing the outlines of the final conflict which will determine the direction of the country for at least the next four years – and with the probability of a few Supreme Court replacements, likely for a generation. 

Senator Obama has had a tough month.  He seems to have failed several tests and his judgment seems to be lacking in the view of some commentators.  He has shown that he can recognize a problem and try to solve it, but may have shown that he is not able to make the tough decision.

Senator Obama’s decision to select six term Senator Joe Biden of Delaware was a matter of pure political calculation and not a decision made from a position of strength.  The pundits have suggested that Senator Biden was the choice forced by Vladimir Putin in far away former Soviet Georgia.  Certainly the events in the Caucasus mountain region remind us that the world is a complex and hostile place and foreign affairs is a necessary and important part of the presidency.

But Obama also recognized that he is in trouble.  He needed to add a person to the ticket who would address constituencies that he is lacking and bring stability to the personality of the ticket.  In a sense, he has been successful.  Few would argue that Senator Biden is not qualified to be President (far fewer than say that about Senator Obama).  He is a Catholic, whose personal life reflects the elusive family values we hear so much about.  He is direct and plain spoken in a way that will appeal to blue collar workers in the rust belt of the North East.  He has many years experience on the foreign relations committee of the Senate.  He has a Democrat governor who can appoint his successor with another “D”.

But there is a price.  Senator Biden’s strengths highlight the weaknesses at the top of the ticket.  He also voted for the war in Iraq (although he later opposed the surge policy) – making continued attacks of McCain for his judgment more difficult.  And most important of all… he is not Hillary.  Obama has selected the former primary candidate who amassed mere thousands of votes and rejected (rudely it turns out) the former candidate who won the hearts and votes of millions of Democrats in the primaries. 

Senator McCain will face the same challenges in his choice next week. Governor and Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge from critical state Pennsylvania and Joe Lieberman, possible cross the aisle “Hail Mary pass” dramatic pick, are pro-choice – unsettling to the Republican base.  The attractive rising stars of the Republican party such as Governors Jindal (LA) or Palin (AK) are not quite ready for prime time for age and inexperience (and making further attacks on Obama’s youth and inexperience more difficult) – but watch for them in four years.  McCain’s version of Joe Biden would be Mitt Romney – good business resume, possible influence in the critical state of Michigan but who achieved no traction as a primary candidate despite an unlimited budget and who has unquantified baggage from his Mormon faith.  McCain is closely advised by two women who have strong business backgrounds, but minimal political experience – Carly Fiorina, former Chairman of Hewlett-Packard and Meg Whitman former CEO (current director) of EBay.

My advice for Senator McCain ? I though you would never ask… his safe pick – Southern moderate governor Mike Huckabee who scored second place in a crowded field in the primaries with no money and only a smile and an affable charm with strong extemporaneous speaking skills reminiscent of President Clinton.  If he wants to court the independent and moderate Democrat women who don’t find a place without Hillary – Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas would be my pick.  Hutchinson is not without controversy, surviving a uniquely Texas scandal in 1993 and being pro-life but not advocating overturn of Roe v Wade.  She also receives significant funding from the oil industry and does not score well with environmentalists.  But she is a strong, experienced conservative Senator and a tough campaigner.  Not a large field to choose from if you want a woman on the ticket. 

For both Senator Obama and Senator McCain, all of the potential VP prospects have baggage and inconsistencies with the main message of the respective campaigns.  But for the winner, difficult decisions will be the norm for the next four to eight years.

Rich Lowry is guest column today.  Writing for Townhall.com, Rich talks about the impact of Senator Biden on the Obama Express.  Rich is the author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years. 

My source:

http://townhall.com/columnists/RichLowry/2008/08/25/introducing_barack_obama,_cleareyed_pragmatist

Monday, August 25, 2008
Introducing Barack Obama, 'Cleareyed Pragmatist'
by Rich Lowry

Barack Obama has denigrated Washington experience, pooh-poohed traditional foreign-policy credentials and rued negative tit-for-tat exchanges in campaigns -- in fact, these things were close to the core of Obama's message during the past year. Note the past tense.

When it came time to choose a running mate, Obama went with a senator who has been in Washington for 35 years, who earned his foreign-policy chops in years of Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings and Council on Foreign Relations meetings, and who is known for rhetorical belligerency. Plus, he voted for the Iraq War, the very lapse in judgment that is supposed to disqualify John McCain from the presidency.

Joe Biden's selection means the Obama phenomenon has definitely experienced its Thermidor, hints of which we'd already seen in his decision -- despite all his good-government professions -- to opt out of public financing and in his centerward policy adjustments since the primaries. It turns out you've got to break a few eggs to make change. If it means disregarding central contentions of your candidacy, well, maybe that was all boob bait for impressionable young people and highly educated voters fond of lovely abstractions.

Obama surely would have loved to have picked a Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia, a fresh leader from outside Washington who would have made the ticket all about change and a new generation of Democratic leadership. Alas, somewhere between Berlin and Georgia -- as his polls numbers sagged and Democrats got nervous -- Obama was brought face to face with his weaknesses and made a defensive choice to try to fill them. The dream of waltzing to election on a rhetorical symphony of audacity and hope has been mothballed.

As Biden said of Obama at their joint appearance in Springfield, Ill., in a new kind of testimonial, "this man is a cleareyed pragmatist who will get the job done." That depiction of Obama would have set fewer hearts aflutter back in Iowa, but, as Democrats make their case in Denver, proving it to be so is imperative if Obama is going to win middle-class voters more concerned about their cost of living than inspirational flights of oratory in their next president.

The theme of Obama's (naturally quite fulsome) introduction of Biden in Springfield could have been "all the things I'm not": a man who "has stared down dictators and spoken out for America's cops and firefighters," who is "one of America's leading voices on national security," who has "decades of steady work across the aisle," and "who is ready to step in and be president."

Listening to Obama tick off Biden's accomplishments, one could wonder how it was logically possible for both these men to be ready to be president, the elder statesman and the neophyte who has been in the Senate less than four years, most of them spent campaigning for president. Obama also -- in another defensive move -- emphasized Biden's lunch-bucket roots. As the scrappy kid from Oahu, Hawaii ("the most removed population center on the planet," according to The Washington Post), Obama wants to squeeze every ounce of working-class street cred he can from Biden, the scrappy kid from Scranton, Pa.

In this sense, the ticket is balanced. Otherwise it isn't, not in terms of ideology, job description or geography. The Democrat with the most liberal voting record in the Senate picked the Democrat with the third-most liberal voting record; a senator picked a senator; and blue-state Illinois was joined by blue-state Delaware.

If we've learned anything about presidential politics during the past 40 years, it's that America elects Democrats who are moderates from the South. If Obama's going to buck that truism, he has to descend from the clouds and make a connection with average voters -- not as the messianic figure of the Democratic primaries or his Berlin speech, but as the "cleareyed pragmatist" of Biden's Springfield remarks. Obama's ultimate task in the Mile High City is to come down to Earth.

 

 

 

Volunteer Salute to Veterans

On a higher note , Glen Beck had a gentleman on his CNN News and Comment program this evening who has started a program called Bugles across America . Tom Day was dismayed when in 2000 Congress passed legislation providing for 2 uniformed military personnel for a Veteran’s funeral to fold the flag and play Taps on a CD player. Mr Day believes that every Veteran deserves a live rendition of Taps played by a live bugler. It is, after all, only 24 notes.

Today Tom Day’s organization, Bugles Across America has more than 5,000 bugler volunteers in 50 states who will appear without cost at a Veteran’s funeral and play Taps for the funeral service.

According to their website, BuglesAcrossAmerica.org, bugler volunteers can be male or female, of any age as long as they can play the 24 notes of Taps with an ease and style that will do honor to both the Veterans, their families and the burial detail performing the service. The ceremony can be performed on a traditional bugle (with no valves) or trumpet, cornet, fuglehorn or 1, 2 or 3 valve bugle.

Demographics being what they are, it is anticipated that 1/2 million Veterans will pass away each year for the next seven yours. Tom Day is going to need a lot more bugler volunteers. His web site has links for families requesting a bugler and another for volunteers to join the pool of available bugler volunteers.

In addition to the organization web site, Tom Day has set up a My Space page with photos and music tracks that will bring tears to your eyes if you are a Veteran or a family member. <link>

The flag image at the top of this article is borrowed from Tom’s My Space Page. It seems to shine brighter than even the normal flag images that I have used.

Thanks, Tom, and the many Bugler Volunteers

Common Sense comes to Saddleback Civil Forum

This weekend we had the remarkable political presentation of both Presidential candidates (separately) appearing with Pastor Rick Warren in a televised conversation. 

Rick Warren is known as the founding pastor of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, and the best selling author of The Purpose Driven Life.   Senator Obama and Senator McCain you may have already heard of. 

The format was a conversation between Pastor Warren and each of the candidates individually.  Senator McCain who appeared after Senator Obama was locked in soundproof broom closet until Mr Obama was concluding so he did not hear the questions or responses from Senator Obama.

Pastor Warren provided the questions – he asked the same questions of each candidate in their separate conversations.  He covered topics which were of interest to all listeners. topics that were both secular and spiritual.  The conversations were intimate and moderated by Pastor Warren but unstructured – that is the candidates were able to address the questions without time limits. 

This may be the best sort of political theater in the current election cycle.  The moderator provided fair and non-partisan questions which probed the individual candidate’s faith, worldview, core values and plans.  There was no ambush, no gotcha questions and no overt favoritism toward either candidate. 

You can find most of the event in 11 minute segments on You-Tube.com.  All of the Obama segments were present.  I had some difficulty in finding some of the McCain segments.  It appears that hackers have diddled with the files and some partisan video appears in some of the purported Saddleback Church segments.  But most of the event is there and may also be rebroadcast on CNN at other times. 

I commend Pastor Warren for his efforts and both candidates for their participation.  For those who have seen the event or who will take the time to locate video coverage on line, I leave it to you all to decide who was more effective and who benefited the most from the event.(can I vote for Rick Warren ?)

If I find full length video available, I will update this post so that interested folks can see this project in its entirety. 

 

 

Do you trust a Lobbyist ?

There is considerable flack in recent days about advisors in Senator McCain’s campaign being registered lobbyists who, in this case, represent the government of Georgia.  Similar articles and comments have been levied at Senator Obama’s campaign in the past on other topics. 

The brutal fact is that people who are experts in foreign affairs or domestic industries make a living by representing the views or interests of corporations, countries or groups.

I do not have a problem with this.

Remember that our Constitution guarantees the right “to petition our government for a redress of grievances” (language from the First Amendment).  Which may mean that Lobbyists are one of the few Constitutionally protected businessmen in the marketplace today.

It is politically correct to incite class warfare by blaming everything that is bothering you on people who have more money than you have - and to blame all Washington corruption on lobbyists who perform, in my view, a vital service to our elected officials and our nation.

It is a simple fact that Congressmen (or women) and their staff simply cannot be expert on all subjects on which they have to cast votes and prepare legislation.  Some outside expert has to explain the issue or the industry and explain what may be needed in the way of government action.  The system should be working like the adversarial system of a courtroom where many different points of view may be presented by special interests on all sides of the question and the Congressional staffs boil down the information presented through the filter of the Congressman’s priorities and legislative positions can be formed. 

Like the legal system, the lobbyist system is not bad – it is just the curious people who get to run it that cause the problems. There is an obvious opportunity for corruption and influence peddling.  Well – that is part of the landscape with a representative form of government.  Don’t get rid of the lobbyists, just elect better congressmen if you are concerned.

The solution is, as it always is, full disclosure and real time internet tracking of all campaign contributions, unethical business relationships and income for Congressmen outside of their salaries to include speaking fees. 

Like firearms, the problem isn’t the guns themselves – it is the criminal acts committed with guns.  Focus on the behavior if you want to solve the problems. 

As for me, I am glad Senator McCain has an staff member who is familiar with the issues and the personalities of that part of the world.  The public and the Senator needs to be aware of the financial dealings of the staffer with the Georgian government so that he can consider the source of the information against his own knowledge of the region, which, by the way, is considerable. 

Senator Obama’s staffers who have histories as lobbyists are also OK with me if their relationships are fully disclosed.  Experts in government are paid for their expertise – by the government, by the press or by the people who have interests to protect.  Disclosure is the key.

You can’t claim to remove money and influence from government and then spend more than a billion dollars on the Presidential campaign.  And the one with the most money is yelling the most about special interests and influence. 

A Washington Post article which disagrees with me is presented <link here> for your consideration.  But whose opinion is politically motivated – theirs or mine.

 

 

 

  

What has the World Learned

In capitals around the world, leaders and intel officers are assessing what they have learned from the recent incident in former Soviet Georgia.  The news is not good for Georgia or for the US.

Vladimir Putin is staking out his territory and re-asserting Russian dominance in the former Soviet Block and on the world stage.  He is also moving to lessen the influence of NATO and the US in the region.

In addition to enhanced oil revenues aiding the Russian economy with rising market prices at the present time, Putin knows Europe is not likely to oppose him in Georgia since Russia is a major supplier of oil to Europe.

Henry Meyer, writing for Bloomberg.com, has an excellent piece on what has happened and what will happen next.  I am excerpting a small part of the text here.  Be sure to read the full article on Bloomberg.com at <this link>.

My source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=avY4Ts56vW3Y&refer=latin_america

Russia May Focus on Pro-U.S. Ukraine After Georgia (Update2)

By Henry Meyer

Aug. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Now that Russia has humiliated Georgia with a punishing military offensive, it may shift its attention to reining in pro-Western Ukraine, another American ally in the former Soviet Union.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's first order of business likely will be to try to thwart Ukraine's bid to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

``The Moscow authorities will use this opportunity to remind Ukraine of the damages of allying itself with NATO,'' said Geoffrey Smith at Renaissance Capital investment bank in Kiev.

The U.S. has long seen Georgia and Ukraine as counterweights to Russia's influence in the region. Opposition leaders in the two countries came to power after U.S.-backed popular protests in 2003 and 2004. Their ascension advanced an American strategy of expanding NATO to include both countries and securing energy routes from the Caspian Sea that bypass Russia. The BP Plc-led Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline to Turkey runs through Georgia.

The future effectiveness of that policy is now in doubt, with Georgia's U.S.-educated president, Mikheil Saakashvili, 40, weakened by a five-day blitz that his American patrons were powerless to halt.

Medvedev, 42, and Putin, 56, say Russia began the offensive in response to a drive by Georgia to restore control over the breakaway region of South Ossetia. Now Russia has ousted Georgian forces from there and from Abkhazia, another separatist region, and destroyed much of the central government's military.

Less Confident

``Georgia will be enormously more careful in its actions in the future, and much less confident of its relationship with the United States,'' said U.S.-based geopolitical advisory group Stratfor in a research note…

Meyer’s article goes on to discuss economic pressure on Georgia as a result of perceived increase risk for foreign investment and the changing equation concerning NATO membership for Georgia or Ukraine.  Full text of the article available at Bloomberg.com at <this link>

Shift Happens 4

As a part time teacher, I begin the first session of each semester’s class with a You-tube.com video called Shift Happens.  Like my old Economics professor who said, “we use the same exam every year, we just change the answers”, I find it always applies – and I find a new version of the video each semester.

The concepts of globalization and the exponential rate of increase in available information are changing the way we live, work and teach our children in ways that we don’t even understand yet – but we had better pick up the pace if we wish to remain competitive in real estate or whatever field may be of interest to us.

The following video is version 4.  It runs about 9.5 minutes – but try to find the time.  If you have not seen any of the previous versions, you will be amazed at the view of where we are going. 

Enjoy.

My source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjKBsfk_O8c&feature=related

What's Left

I have found one issue on which Senator McCain and Senator Obama agree – and with which I do not disagree…

According to the Lakeland Ledger (local paper here in Central Florida) this morning both candidates are left handed.  (as were Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush 41, and Bill Clinton).  I should point out that the Ledger is owned by the New York Times, so I view all of their news with some suspicion.

This seems to be what passes for a major story in our paper.  They spent a considerable number of column inches searching for a serious meaning to this information.

I will not.

Adults in Charge

Recent events in the former Soviet state of Georgia offer a chilling reminder why Senator Obama’s 143 active days as a US Senator may not be sufficient to promote him to Commander in Chief.

I listened with interest as the Obama machine morphed its position until he started to sound like Senator McCain.  The I heard Senator Obama called the President of Georgia ! Say What ? He is not the President of the United States yet – his opinion is of interest since he is a applicant for the job – but calling the President of Georgia is out of line and inappropriate, in my opinion.

Steve Huntley has written a great article for the Chicago Sun-TImes which gives his views on the recent events.

My source: http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/1102552,CST-EDT-hunt12.article

McCain, not Obama, was right about Georgia
August 12, 2008
STEVE HUNTLEY shuntley.cst@gmail.com

Mention Georgia a few days ago, and most of us would have thought of the state evoked so sweetly in "Georgia on My Mind," the classic tune sung by Ray Charles. Very few of us had heard of the South Ossetia province of Georgia, the nation with the misfortune to have Russia as its neighbor, until war broke out last week.

Like Kosovo, Bosnia, Kuwait and other unfamiliar places before, Ossetia reminds us that a small, remote corner of the globe can explode into an international crisis. One who was up to speed on Georgia and the menace it faced from Russia was veteran Sen. John McCain. He had visited the Caucasian nation three times in a dozen years. When fighting erupted, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate got on the phone to gather details and issued a statement Friday summarizing the situation, tagging Russia as the aggressor and demanding it withdraw its forces from the sovereign territory of Georgia.

It took first-term Sen. Barack Obama three tries to get it right. Headed for a vacation in Hawaii, the presumed Democratic candidate for commander in chief issued an even-handed statement, urging restraint by both sides. Later Friday, he again called for mutual restraint but blamed Russia for the fighting. The next day his language finally caught up with toughness of McCain's.

Making matters worse, Obama's staff focused on a McCain aide who had served as a lobbyist for Georgia, charging it showed McCain was "ensconced in a lobbyist culture." Obama's campaign came off as injecting petty partisan politics into an international crisis. This was not a serious response on behalf a man who aspires to be the leader of the Free World. After all, what's so bad about representing a small former Soviet republic struggling to remake itself as a Western-style democracy?

The comparison between the two candidates served to emphasize the strength McCain's experience would bring to the White House in a dangerous world.

Obama's favored approach to international issues, diplomatic talks, failed to stop Russia's invasion. Vladimir Putin, a KGB bull in the former Soviet Union, wants to restore Russia as the supreme power of Eurasia and, to that end, bully former vassal states like Georgia out of their democratic ways. The fear is that Ukraine will come in his cross hairs next.

However the world's newest war ends, America's leadership must recognize and respond to the underlying dynamic of Russia's resurgent aggressive instincts -- the power bestowed on Moscow by its oil and gas riches.

While we don't get fossil fuels from Russia, Western Europe does, and the Kremlin's energy might is fueled by the worldwide demand for oil. Developing U.S. domestic energy sources and alternatives to oil will only enhance our national security and, by reducing the world's petroleum demand, undermine the economic, political and military advantage vast oil and gas reserves give to unfriendly powers like Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

Obama calls for transforming America's economy in a decade. He's got the right idea -- long term. But short term, this nation must push for energy security on all fronts -- now. That includes new offshore drilling for oil, which Obama loathes, and new nuclear plants, which he views with aversion. We can't just wait for breakthrough technologies for wind, solar and biomass energy.

McCain has got it right in advocating new offshore drilling and a federal push to add 45 nuclear generators over the next two decades. Given the evidence of Russia's energy-fueled aggression, he should abandon his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and to extending subsidies he favors for nuclear energy to include renewables.

As Georgia burns, we need to light a fire under all the talk about energy security and start doing what it takes to make it happen.

 

We have a real Choice

This Presidential election offers clear choices for the American public.  It should not be a contest of personalities because the two candidates present dramatically different sets of beliefs, plans and proposals that will reach every corner of economic, judicial, domestic and foreign policy.  So there is adequate basis to make the decision of who should lead the United States as President on substantive policy issues of importance to all of us.

Today, Jack Kemp weighs in in an article appearing in Townhall.com to discuss the important differences between John McCain and Barack Obama on issues of economic policies. 

It is certainly an important comparison as the US economy is floundering at the moment and needs strong leadership and proper policies to right the ship and steer a course to calmer waters. 

Jack Kemp is a unique figure in American Politics.  He followed up a successful career in professional football with 9 terms in Congress.  He was a serious contender for President in 1988 and was the running mate for Senator Bob Dole in 1996 (the original odd couple in many ways).

Like Newt Gingrich, Jack is an idea man and a charismatic speaker.  He was and is a fiscal conservative but with progressive views of social issues that brought him into conflict with Republican doctrine on more than a few occasions.  Jack is a good man – a term I do not bestow lightly – whose opinions I pay attention to.

Additional biographical data on Jack Kemp available <link here>

My source: http://townhall.com/columnists/JackKemp/2008/08/08/obama_versus_mccain_on_the_economy

Friday, August 08, 2008
Obama Versus McCain on the Economy
by Jack Kemp

"It's a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now." Those are the words of President John F. Kennedy in 1962. He went on to say, "The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

What's more, in Kennedy's annual message to Congress, circa 1963, he said: "In today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction, even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit. ... Why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues."

Today, in this presidential debate over a 21st century economic growth agenda, it is ironic that John McCain is far closer to JFK policies than the presumptive Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Obama has proposed raising tax rates, raising tariffs and expanding government regulations, all of which, in the words of Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Mundell, would plunge the United States into a big recession and further weaken the dollar.

McCain and Obama have now each proposed detailed economic policies, and the contrast between the two could not be more dramatic. We believe the overriding and dominant political question in this election is whose economic policies would be best for the future of our wobbly economy and our weak currency.

Unlike John Kennedy, Barack Obama has proposed not to cut tax rates, but to increase every single major federal tax, except for his "George McGovern-like" tax rebate of $1,000. Barack has proposed to increase individual income tax rates to 39.6 percent. He has proposed to increase capital gains taxes, from 15 percent to somewhere between 20 percent and 28 percent. Incredibly, he has proposed to more than double the tax rate on dividends, from 15 percent to 39.6 percent. He has proposed to increase payroll taxes on workers earning over $250,000 a year to 12.4 percent on income above that threshold and to restore the estate tax to the confiscatory rate of 55 percent. Ugh!

Amity Shlaes, author of "The Forgotten Man," a new history of the Great Depression, has argued that along with his protectionist policies on trade, Obama has proposed the exact same policy mix that led to the Depression of the 1930s. During the primaries, Obama railed against free trade, proposing even to renegotiate our free trade agreement with our two largest trading partners, Canada and Mexico. Inexplicably, he opposes the Colombian Free Trade Agreement, even though it primarily removes tariffs on U.S. exports into that country.

In sharp contrast to "Obamanomics," John McCain has pledged tax rate cuts to promote economic growth and strengthen the U.S. dollar.

As president, McCain has would reduce the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, which is absolutely essential to making U.S. manufacturing more competitive in the global economy.

McCain has proposed immediate expensing for capital investment, which means that investment capital can be deducted in the year it is incurred, like all other business expenses, rather than spread over many years under arbitrary depreciation schedules. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent would leave the top individual income tax rate at 35 percent, and the capital gains and dividends tax rates at 15 percent, with a 15 percent rate on estates. John would also double the personal exemption for children and other dependents from $3,500 to $7,000 and eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).

John McCain understands that you cannot create more employees without creating more entrepreneurs and that the Obama war on capital formation poses a direct threat to our beleaguered financial institutions that now have to raise capital from sovereign wealth funds from Asia to the Middle East. Schemes to redistribute wealth don't hurt the rich, they only hurt the poor and the middle class who hope to get rich. You cannot get rich on wages alone -- you have to be able to earn, save, invest and reinvest.

On federal spending, the two could not be further apart, either.

Again in sharp contrast, McCain proposes to strictly limit overall spending, pledging to balance the budget by the end of his first term. He proposes a one-year freeze on all federal discretionary spending outside of defense and veterans benefits, and to limit overall federal spending growth to 2.4 percent, about one-third the annual increases since 2000.

On energy, their policies are also dramatically divergent. John McCain would expand domestic oil and natural gas exploration and production, both domestically and on the outer-continental shelf, which would unambiguously reduce the price of oil and natural gas. Obama, however, makes no pledge or promise to drill anywhere in order to reduce gas or oil prices.

McCain has also pledged a revival of nuclear power, which would also sharply increase energy supply. He would seek 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 and 100 new plants over the long run. Obama says, "There is no future for expanded nuclear power without first addressing four key issues: public right to know, security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation."

Except for the badly confused carbon cap and trade plan, which McCain unfortunately shares with Obama, his economic program of cutting taxes, sharply restraining spending, balancing the budget, free trade and increased energy production are exactly what our economy needs right now. We believe John McCain's policies give us the best chance for a new economic boom in the 21st century, such as that we had in the 1960s under President Kennedy, and in the 1980s and 1990s under Presidents Reagan and Clinton.

 

Say What ?

There was a time when I found myself a bit mesmerized by the sound of his voice and the optimistic message of his words.  But now I have no confusion and now I see clearly why I am not voting for him.  And what is interesting, is that despite the media’s biased and fawning support, the American public shows signs of agreeing with me.  And despite the use only of vague pronoun references – every reader of this post knows exactly who and what I mean. 

The price of gasoline has become the top issue for virtually all Americans and the Democrats have shown clearly that they do not have an answer and, in fact, every proposal they make is clearly going to make matters worse (with the possible exception of inflating our tires).  The liberal agenda and their response to this very visible problem is wrong and their bad, disconnected judgment is obvious to be seen by all.

At a time when the economy is weak, only the Democrats could suggest increasing taxes.  It is easy, in the typical liberal reliance on class warfare, to demonize the big oil companies who have posted a record profit during the past two quarters.  But they don’t tell you that those same oil companies are also paying record high tax bills.  Between 2003 and 2007, according to the Wall Street Journal Op-ed piece on August 4,  Exxon Mobil paid 64.7 billion dollars in US taxes.  The real windfall here is to the US Government.  Exxon’s profits as a percentage of sales revenues stands at 10% in 2007 – not a high number in American business.  (Google, for example, earned 25.3% on their sales) General Electric, which invests heavily in alternative energy which Senator Obama wants to the government to subsidize, had a profit margin in 2007 of 10.3%. <WSJ link>

So Senator Obama and the Democrat leaders refuse to bring oil exploration  to the House floor for a vote and, instead close up shop and take a five week vacation at a time when the American public is in pain over the economy.  Speaker Pelosi makes Marie Antoinette look like Mother Theresa. 

Has Senator Obama worked hard enough in his campaign to earn a vacation ? Probably.  But how many American taxpayers are taking their families to Hawaii for the week.  Elitist Senator ? I wonder why the public would think that.

Charles Krauthammer speaks to the Democrat plan for losing in 2008 in his Townhall.com article today.

My source: http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/08/08/the_democrat_plan_for_losing?page=full

Friday, August 08, 2008
The Democrat Plan for Losing
by Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Let's see: housing meltdown, credit crunch, oil shock not seen since the 1970s. The economy is slowing, unemployment growing and inflation increasing. It's the sixth year of a highly unpopular war and the president's approval rating is at 30 percent.

The Italian Communist Party could win this election. The American Democratic Party is trying its best to lose it.

Democrats have the advantage on just about every domestic issue from health care to education. However, Americans' greatest concern is the economy, and their greatest economic concern is energy (by a significant margin: 37 percent to 21 percent for inflation). Yet Democrats have gratuitously forfeited the issue of increased drilling for domestic oil and gas. By an overwhelming margin of 2-1, Americans want to lift the moratorium preventing drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, thus unlocking vast energy resources shut down for the last 27 years.

Democrats have been adamantly opposed. They say that we cannot drill our way out of the oil crisis. Of course not. But it is equally obvious that we cannot solar or wind or biomass our way out. Does this mean that because any one measure cannot solve a problem, it needs to be rejected?

Barack Obama remains opposed to new offshore drilling (although he now says he would accept a highly restricted version as part of a comprehensive package). Just last week, he claimed that if only Americans would inflate their tires properly and get regular tune-ups, "we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling."

This is bizarre. By any reasonable calculation of annual tire-inflation and tune-up savings, the Outer Continental Shelf holds nearly a hundred times as much oil. As for oil shale, also under federal moratorium, after a thousand years of driving with Obama-inflated tires and Obama-tuned engines, we would still have saved only one-fifth the oil shale available in the United States.

But forget the math. Why is this issue either/or? Who's against properly inflated tires? Let's start a national campaign, Cuban-style, with giant venceremos posters lining the highways. ("Inflate your tires. Victory or death!") Why must there be a choice between encouraging conservation and increasing supply? The logical answer is obvious: Do both.

Do everything. Wind and solar. A tire gauge in every mailbox. Hell, a team of oxen for every family (to pull their gasoline-drained SUVs). The consensus in the country, logically unassailable and politically unbeatable, is to do everything possible to both increase supply and reduce demand, because we have a problem that's been killing our economy and threatening our national security. And no one measure is sufficient.

The green fuels the Democrats insist we should be investing in are as yet uneconomical, speculative technologies, still far more expensive than extracted oil and natural gas. We could be decades away. And our economy is teetering. Why would you not drill to provide a steady supply of proven fuels for the next few decades as we make the huge technological and economic transition to renewable energy?

Congressional Democrats demand instead a clampdown on "speculators." The Democrats proposed this a month ago. In the meantime, "speculators" have driven the price down by $25 a barrel. Still want to stop them? In what universe do traders only bet on the price going up?

On Monday, Obama outlined a major plan with mandates and immense government investment in such things as electric cars and renewables. Fine, let's throw a few tens of billions at this and see what sticks. But success will not just require huge amounts of money. It will require equally huge amounts of time and luck.

On the other hand, drilling requires no government program, no newly created bureaucracy, no pie-in-the-sky technologies that no one has yet invented. It requires only one thing, only one act. Lift the moratorium. Private industry will do the rest. And far from draining the treasury, it will replenish it with direct taxes, and with the indirect taxes from the thousands of non-subsidized new jobs created.

The problem for the Democrats is that the argument for "do everything" is not rocket science. It is common sense. Which is why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, surveying the political rubble resulting from her insistence on not even permitting drilling to come to a floor vote, has quietly told her members that they can save their skins and vote for drilling when the pre-election Congress convenes next month. Pelosi says she wants to save the planet. Apparently saving her speakership comes first.

 

 

 

 

The Plot Thickens

The story that will not die continues as we finally round the final turn before the Democrat Convention in Denver.  Senator Obama, leaving town for a vacation in Hawaii at a very curious time, must be beginning to feel like Julius Caesar.  All I can tell you Senator is that the Ides of March have come – but they have not gone, to coin a phrase.

Hillary is still wanting a roll call vote during the convention.  Bill refuses to say Obama is qualified to be president and there is still time for some high drama at the convention.  If the pundits feel that the Dems are divided and that Obama has neglected the Hillary supporters – I can just imagine the impact on the party if there is an attempt to wrest the nomination away from the golden boy at the last minute.

Meanwhile, while Obama is taking applications for a food taster. the leadership in the House and Senate is maintaining the gridlock for which they are famous.

All in all, it may be the Democrat voters that are beginning to feel like (to quote the old Tom Leherer joke) a bunch of Christian Scientists with appendicitis. 

90 days to go to the November election – this one may be more fun than the Olympics to watch.  It is not over yet.

Congress is the Republicans Best Friend

The disconnect between the Congress and the American People, resulting in the lowest approval ratings in memory, continues to be the best hope of the Republican Party.

The issue of rising gas prices has been a gift for John McCain and the Congressional candidates of the Republican party – if we have the good sense to use it. The response of the loony left has been to show their true agenda. They want higher gas prices (and higher gas taxes) to force their social engineering agenda upon the nation. They seek to force manufacture of smaller cars and use of alternative fuels to eliminate petroleum and its perceived greenhouse gas effects and don’t mind if everybody else but them has to tighten their belts and inflate their tires.

The Republicans seek to lessen our dependence on foreign oil by increasing our domestic production, increased use of alternative technologies and energy sources and deploying nuclear power plants. None of these approaches can proceed without legislation and leadership and the liberals are willing to block both.

Now another issue may provide an additional boost to Republican candidates. With the slowing of the economy, the unemployment rate is on the rise – but the Democrats are pushing legislation which favors foreign workers and increases pressure on domestic American jobseekers. The House has passed a bill seeking to recover unissued work visas from past years and increase the pool of available visas to be issued to immigrants in the coming year. Efforts are underway in the Senate to fail to renew the mechanism which enables employers to check on the immigration status of job applicants – making it easier for illegal aliens to take jobs which may be desired by American workers. Read details in an Ira Mehlman article at Townhall.com <link here>.

John McCain must react decisively to these opportunities to establish a clear division between the Liberal and Conservative positions. McCain has responded to oil exploration with half measures (drill in OCS but not ANWR for example). Candidate McCain must decide whose side he is on and get out in front on these issues. We have a limited time to take advantage of these issues. Even a liberal can read the polling and they will change their ridiculous positions in order to win in November - then they will proceed on their agenda. August is prime time to speak to the American Public and show them the way.

The Republican party has been the party of ideas and solutions for generations – why do we now look like Bill Clinton caught in the headlights. Come on John – Advantage Republican – your serve.

President Bush is not the issue – the economy, immigration and national security are the issues – and the Republicans have the right answers if we will speak with one voice from John McCain to every Congressional candidate.

Now.

The Lessons of 1996

Nominate a war hero, senior senator known for effectiveness and consensus building across the aisles and send him forth to do election battle against a younger, eminently slicker candidate who can really wind em up with his stump speeches that don’t say anything but make ‘em smile all the way to the voting booth.  And then wonder why we end up with a Democrat President.  And I am not talking about Senator McCain – I am talking about Senator Bob Dole, the nominee that the Republicans fed to Mr Clinton 12 years ago.

Now, more than a decade later – do the same thing and expect a different result ? (and, by the way, Bob Dole was a more rational candidate).

So why does Senator McCain take only half measures on most issues.  Why won’t he establish clear differences between his positions and those of his opponent ?

My first topic for today is global warming.  I do not accept that this is a man made crisis, nor do I think we have the power to alter the natural course of events.  The dire predictions of the faux-scientists do not appear to me or to a large segment of the scientific community to be reasonable or supportable with reliable research. 

So our standard bearer says the worst that can happen if we handle global warming as a crisis is that we leave our children a cleaner planet.  You are so wrong,  Senator.  In my view, the worst that can happen is that we avoid taking necessary steps to solve the global problems that we can solve and that we divert billions of dollars from our weak economy into ridiculous efforts to fight a mythical problem. 

Larry Thornberry on the issue in the American Spectator today.

My source:  http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13626

Three Hotheads
By Larry Thornberry
Published 8/1/2008 

With Captain Kirk, Fancy Nancy Pelosi, and John McCain trying to save it, what chance has the planet got?

By now most folks who keep up with such things have heard that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced to an astonished world that she's "trying to save the planet." Hardly a modest mission, even for the self-styled most powerful woman on earth.

Fewer heard the announcement that William Shatner, Captain Tiberius Kirk in the fanciful but popular Sixties TV series Star Trek, has signed on with the Sierra Club to help promote that apocalyptic outfit's "2% Solution Campaign." This fool's errand calls on Americans to cut carbon emissions two percent each year by such string-saving measures as changing out our homes' windows, using compact fluorescent light bulbs, and not exhaling.

Soon we will see television "public service announcements" where an older, plumper Captain Kirk, in civilian clothes, will nag us to live as Al Gore would have us live (as opposed to how Al Gore in fact lives). Somebody please beam this guy somewhere.

If we do all these things, plus badger our government officials to adopt Soviet-style restrictions on the use of carbon-based fuels, we could cut our carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050. This, according to global warming co-religionists, would make life on Earth safe, at least until the next apocalyptic threat to our very existence that environmentalists invent.

Who can keep up with all the world-ending threats? There was the so-called population explosion, death by pesticides, acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, nuclear winter, global cooling, and now, the most audacious and successful hustle of all, global warming.

GLOBAL WARMING, a calamity-based belief system supported by sweeping speculations based on computer projections having to do with the entire Earth's climate, one of the most complex subjects on Earth, has been so successfully marketed in the West that even the Republican candidate for President has bought into it, hook, line, and thermometer. We've all heard of John McCain's calamitous cap and trade system for carbon emissions that would oblige Americans to cut way back on the use of fossil fuels before replacements for carbon-based energy are available.

"Climate change, my friend, I have to tell you with all due respect, is real," McCain said at a town hall meeting in Sparks, Nevada, earlier this week.

Well, yes, climate change is indeed real. The climate is always> changing. We've had alternating cool and warm periods for the life of the planet (surely people who see a photo of present day Greenland must wonder how it got that name). So McCain's statement would be unremarkable except that what he means by it is that global warming is a threat to the planet, which it almost certainly is not.

It's time people who have bothered to compare the apocalyptic claims of the global warming fanatics with the evidence for these fantasies to say, "No, Senator, with all due respect back at you, global warming is not real."

In Sparks, McCain went on to say:

"Suppose I'm wrong and there's no such thing as climate change, all we've done is give our kids a cleaner planet. But suppose I'm right and we do nothing. Then what kind of planet do we hand off to our kids and our grandkids?"

This is profoundly foolish on two counts. If the global warming hysterics are wrong and carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, then no matter how badly we damage the economy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the planet will not be a bit cleaner. What we will hand off to our kids and grandkids is a Third World economy and a planet that will almost certainly be dirtier than it is now. Rich nations always deal with real pollutants better than poor ones.

IF ON THE SLIM CHANCE greenhouse gasses are a problem, we can hardly be said to be doing nothing now. We're proceeding apace with research to develop alternative energy sources that don't produce greenhouse gasses, along with taking another look at nuclear power that environmentalists shouted down in the seventies. One day we'll be far less dependent on fossil fuels, even without the foolishly accelerated schedule of ridding the planet of carbon-based fuels that the Sierra Clubs and the Al Gores of the world are insisting on.

Pelosi and Shatner have good excuses for their foolishness on this issue. Pelosi is a Democratic politician and is therefore obliged to kiss up to environmentalists and other "progressive" groups. As for Shatner/Kirk, it's probably not too much time in space that's caused his problem, rather too much time in the weightlessness of Hollywood.

McCain, on the other hand, has no excuse. There are no conservative interest groups pushing to hand day-to-day power over the economy to government, as the enviro groups constantly agitate for. In fact, polls and focus groups show that while many Americans say they're concerned about global warming, it's not at the top of most people's agendas. And most are not interested in taking draconian measures to deal with a problem that may or may not be real. What can McCain possibly be thinking?

McCain has an opportunity to lead on this issue and make an important distinction between himself and Barack Obama at the same time. (It's been my observation that in elections, contemporary Republicans rarely miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.) To do this he would have to frame a real energy policy that's not centered on avoiding a phony threat manufactured by the political Left to advance its collectivist purposes.

FROM TIME TO TIME I get a fund-raising letter from McCain, which starts out with the sentence, "The choice America will face in November is very clear." It could be damn site clearer if McCain would quit chasing after left-wing fantasies like global warming.

In his letter, McCain goes on to whoop up "long-held conservative principles of limited government, strong national defense, and individual freedom."

McCain certainly has conservative principles correctly and economically described. But the principle of limited government is out the window if we turn over energy decisions to politicians and government bureaucrats, as McCain's cap and trade program would do. This would be the biggest increase in government power in our history.

As to the other two principles, an energy-poor country cannot defend itself at all. And where's individual freedom if government document-stampers tell us all when (if) we can use the air conditioner or the toaster?