Dos Caras Obama?

Ran across something that relates to a major concern I have with how the financial issues have been dealt with by Sen. Obama this past week. What are we learning about his leadership? From NRO:

"Dos Caras" [Amy Holmes]
According to the AP, "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for Americans to get behind attempts to salvage a $700 billion rescue plan for the financial sector." But his own advisers told the New York Times that he didn't call skeptical House Democrats to lift a finger.

Which Obama are we supposed to follow? The guy on the campaign trail? Or the politician behind the scenes? We've seen this public/private discrepancy with Obama before. Remember the NAFTA flap? Publicly he declared that it would have to be renegotiated, but privately, his adviser assured the Canadians that he didn't really mean it.

And he accused McCain of "dos caras."

Scout Camps, etc.

My apologies on not having something up on the debates and all else going on right now!

Blame it on the Boy Scouts.  A camp on Friday kept me away from the TV and I'm still trying to find the time to give this due diligence.  Post any comments here and I'll be back to it soon! 

Health Care Policy

OK, here is my long-promised attempt to summarize the health care policy options of the two candidates.  Below I will list my "executive summary" but I've prepared a longer review of the issues so follow this link to read the full account.

Summary
This may well be (I think is) the single most complex policy issue of them all. There is no simple, easy solution that I think we would be happy with.

That said, something needs to be done - for various reasons the current system is inadequate.

Both candidates have some good ideas as to lowering overall costs, improving health care overall nationally, and getting more Americans covered by insurance.

Where they particularly differ is in their approach to increasing the number of Americans covered by insurance, and in what portion of the overall health care system would be paid for and managed by the government.

Obama would still leave current options basically in place but would open up the government run insurance company to all Americans (currently just for federal employees).

McCain would basically work through the states on programs (currently operating fairly effectively in several) that would insure all Americans eventually, and would give people who are applying as individuals for insurance a tax credit/rebate to help pay for premiums.

McCain’s program is more decentralized (coordinating with the states) and likely would take some time to work out, but in its essentials I think would ultimately work.

Obama’s program I think sets some important standards and gives new options for getting insurance, but I believe will lead us in the direction where the government pays for and directly controls more and more of the overall health care system, which I think would have very negative consequences down the road.

My overall opinion: both have some good ideas, but I fear any policy that significantly expands the direct government involvement in determining and paying for health care benefits.

Update: It may be that the current expenditures being decided on to stabilize the financial system make it impossible to have a very large increase in expenditures on health care, which would impact plans for both candidates, but more so for Obama since his proposals are much more costly.

Follow this link to McCain's proposals.

Follow this link to Obama's proposals. 

President Bush Speech on Financial Crisis

I thought President Bush's speech to the nation tonight on the financial crisis was very good.  I copied the text to my supplemental blog, just follow this link.  

Key portions: 

"With the situation becoming more precarious by the day, I faced a choice: To step in with dramatic government action, or to stand back and allow the irresponsible actions of some to undermine the financial security of all.

I’m a strong believer in free enterprise. So my natural instinct is to oppose government intervention. I believe companies that make bad decisions should be allowed to go out of business. Under normal circumstances, I would have followed this course. But these are not normal circumstances. The market is not functioning properly. There’s been a widespread loss of confidence. And major sectors of America's financial system are at risk of shutting down."

"Fellow citizens: We must not let this happen. I appreciate the work of leaders from both parties in both houses of Congress to address this problem — and to make improvements to the proposal my administration sent to them. There is a spirit of cooperation between Democrats and Republicans, and between Congress and this administration. In that spirit, I’ve invited Senators McCain and Obama to join congressional leaders of both parties at the White House tomorrow to help speed our discussions toward a bipartisan bill."

I'm a PC

Unrelated to politics, but this is too funny.  Microsoft recently started a new ad campaign to counter Apple's well known "Mac vs. PC" ads.  Well, it turns out that Microsoft's new ads were created on Macs!  Hilarious.  

So Much for Sincerity

We've had e-mail discussions about the relative distortions of the ads of each campaign towards the opposing candidate.  This Manchester, NH editorial discusses what Obama's ads and claims about McCain say about his claims to be a "different kind of candidate."  

A quote from the editorial: "Obama's greatest strength as a candidate, aside from his oratorical skill, has long been his apparent sincerity and decency. Voters attracted to him think of him as that rarest of things: an honest politician. He has claimed himself that he would never engage in the sort of deceptive politicking that he says has tainted Washington for so long.

Yet here he is violating his own professed standards. This is not the Barack Obama so many voters in New Hampshire and elsewhere thought they knew. But it is the real Barack Obama. For despite his rhetoric, he is in fact campaigning so dishonestly that even The Washington Post and The New York Times have called him on it. Which means that he is in practice no different from those regular politicians against whom his entire campaign has been built."

Theory vs. Practice

I have had this recurring thought as I watch the ongoing contest between McCain and Obama.

Listen to Obama, and you hear him talk in terms of what he "would do" or "can do" and generally of "hope" and so on.  

When you hear his supporters, they emphasize feeling excited about him, his demeanor, his ability to speak effectively, and so on.

This is not to say he does not have policy proposals and ideas - he certainly does and we have been discussing these.  

But when it comes to actual accomplishments, the cupboard seems stunningly bare.  

So as I was scanning a few blogs, this segment on "Riehl World View" stood out to me.  He's talking about his impression from the recent 60 Minutes Obama interview:

"In essence [the interviewer asked], "Why are you the guy to be elected President?"

I've heard Obama's answer in any number of interviews I've conducted over the years and always from people I eventually didn't hire. It was, "I'm the guy (or gal) who can ..." It was not, I'm the guy who did.

Obama's entreaty was along the lines of I'm the guy who can get people who strongly disagree in a room and mediate to find some common ground. What was totally lacking in Obama's answer was, I'm the guy who did ... much of anything, for that matter.

Some people, likely driven by ego, have a sort of magical view of themselves. They believe that if they just get the chance they know they are the right person to make certain things happen, to make a difference somehow. Yet, at every step of their lives they mostly avoid any opportunity to prove the point. Just think about Obama's argument juxtaposed to John McCain.

When has Obama ever gotten people who "almost violently" disagreed politically into a room to reach consensus? He certainly never did it in the US Senate, though he might have had he ever shown up as opposed to immediately launching his Presidential bid.

Were there people who disagreed when Obama was state Senator back in Illinois? Sure, most likely about how much to raise taxes, how much to regulate - absolutely nothing as compared to what he would find as President in Washington, DC.

As best I can tell, in role after role when Obama had a chance to step up and actually lead, he voted present and preserved his political ambition over everything else.

Disagree with him or not, cantankerous as he might be, John McCain is a man who has done that very thing. He doesn't live in some magical world where he simply believes he can. Yes, he has angered the Right because of McCain - Feingold, McCain - Kennedy, etc. But isn't that the proof in the pudding of someone who can get people who disagree in a room and bring about some consensus? I'd argue it is."

That is the point I keep coming back to.  Where are the actual examples in Obama's past that show he can do what he claims?  Again, there is a reason Barak is ranked as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate.  To me, it suggests a man who is not willing to break with the liberal line, not willing to challenge the status quo of his world (politically, the liberal world).  You can argue that some of his words/speeches give cautious respect to the "other side" but when push comes to shove, has he ever bucked liberalism and his party?  Has he really led vastly divergent views to a consensus?  Has he ever really accomplished significant reform or major legislative accomplishments?  

What does this say about a man who would be President of the United States?  

"Credit" - if you will - Where Due

This link is to a US News article about how we may have avoided "Great Depression 2" with the quick action of those with their hands on the financial wheel at this time.  The problem is that we can never "know for sure" where things would have gone had not the US Treasury and the Fed stepped in like they did.  But if this analysis is even close to right, $0.7-1.0 trillion is a bargain compared to what we would have faced.  

Given how quick we are with our criticism - maybe we ought to be willing to give credit where it's due as well.

Back to the Bull Moose Party!

Financial Crisis Upon Us

It seems that there are certain key events during an election season that give us a real demonstration of how the candidates would govern if elected.

The past weeks series of dramatic stock drops and government bail-outs of financial institutions seem to be one of those key events for this election cycle. 

The issue, it seems to me, is not that hard to understand.  Over the past 10-15 years, housing prices in many markets were climbing sky high.   People still wanted the nice houses in the locations they wanted to live, which continued the upward climb of prices.  At those prices, many were pressed into mortgage options which enabled them to get into the house (barely) but with the time bomb of adjustable rate mortgages ahead.

Then as the "housing bubble" burst (does any bubble not burst eventually? - hint to future economic planners), home values declined (i.e. now owners couldn't borrow so much against the value of their homes), and as ARMs came due, people couldn't afford their mortgage payments, so go into default and all that.  The cumulative effect of all this is that the lenders (and above them the insurers) have had both a decrease in income as people default on payments, and a dramatic drop in the value of their "assets" which were heavy on over-priced homes that were now worth much less).  And that, essentially, is what has brought "Fanny and Freddie" and AIG and others to the brink.  It has also made practically all "lenders of money" want to sit on their money and not lend it out, causing a major "credit crunch" throughout the economy.  

Because "Fanny and Freddie" and AIG and so forth are so key to the overall confidence in the US and world financial system, the US government has had to step in to support them with taxpayer dollars.  

So there's the problem.  So what do we hear from the candidates?

Obama: 'this is all the Republicans fault.  McCain is "out of touch" with economic reality and he is old (read: old thinking) so you need to have me step in with new ideas to get us out of this mess that, did I mention?, was the Republicans' fault.' 

McCain: 'this is the result of many years of both Democrats and Republicans looking the other way when real reform of the system was needed.  In fact, 3 years ago I specifically asked the Senate to approve a reform measure that would have gotten at the problems we are now seeing come to fruition today, and I predicted then that a failure to act would eventually lead to exactly what we are seeing now.  At the time I was working to get those reforms enacted, Senator Obama was silent on the issue.  Perhaps it was because he was getting more donations from Fanny & Freddie than any other senator except the Democratic chairman of the committee considering these reforms.  Certainly he has picked some of the key former executives of Fanny, Freddie, and AIG for key positions in and advisors to his campaign.'  

Of the comments I hear from the candidates on this topic the past few days, the one that seems most to the point to me is the fact that McCain was actually working several years ago to pass a reform bill in the Senate designed specifically to prevent the kinds of things that have led to this financial crisis.  At that time Obama was not saying or doing anything about it.  

So it's kind of easy for Obama to stand up now and complain, isn't it?  And yet it was McCain who saw it and was fighting to do the right thing - when nobody else was paying attention.  Now that it's a popular thing, we see Obama coming around to the same point, I guess.  

Follow the link above to read McCain's statement to his fellow Senators in 2005.  

And...Something About Sarah...

Something About Sarah by NRO's [Jay Nordlinger]: 
"Earlier this morning, I wrote that the attacks on Governor Palin — particularly the breaking into her e-mail — were making me sick. One reader wrote, “I, too, have been feeling a physical revulsion over the Left’s determination to destroy Sarah Palin, by any means necessary.” That reader spoke for many.

I myself have a tale to relate. An episode left me kind of shaken, honestly. Last week, I was talking to a friend of mine — a very warm and humane woman. We’ve been friends for years. I had been away, and we hadn’t talked politics — but then, we never do. We never had. She’s a liberal, of course — virtually everyone here in NYC is. And I never, ever bring up politics (with pretty much anyone — not worth the trouble) (and, of course, I do it professionally).

But she said to me, out of the blue, “What do you think of Sarah Palin?” And while I was drawing breath to answer, she said, “I hate her.”

That kind of took my breath away — because this friend of mine is no hater. But she said it with firm, horrible conviction. She said it with true emotion in her eyes. Frankly, I was too taken aback to reply, other than to say, “Well, my feeling is the exact opposite.”

I can see how you might disagree with Governor Palin — she’s a conservative, after all. I can see how you might find her unprepared even for the vice-presidency. But hate? Hate a woman who rose from a modest background to be governor of her state? Who is obviously a warm, civic-minded, talented mother of five?

Hate?"

Juicy, juicy...

Joe Biden may want to rethink his recent comment that "raising taxes is patriotic."  As McCain and Palin have both now replied: it's not about patriotism...raising taxes in the current economic environment is just dumb policy.  It will only cost jobs when we can ill afford it.  Again...tax business-->businesses have less money-->businesses raise prices on all of us and cut jobs.  

ENOUGH!

Thank you to this Boston Globe writer for nailing it:

Check this article out

Note that the Boston Globe is one of the liberal bastion publications in the country...

I Hope Not

There are reports out (I think the first you can see at this link but apparently there have been others) that suggest that Obama when he was on his recent trip to Iraq, was doing some behind-the-scenes negotiations with Iraqi leaders and even American commanders, along the lines of trying to get the Iraqis to delay until after the election announcing that they had worked out with the US a tentative framework for gradual US troop withdrawals.  I assume the point would be that even though this was worked out by the Iraqis and the Bush administration, the timing would cause it to be associated with Obama should he win the election.  

If this is true, it is incredibly disturbing.  The idea of a major political candidate working outside the official diplomatic framework of the United States for his own political purposes would have terrible implications, I think.  Both legally and historically, it is always critical that the United States speak with one official voice to both friend and foe internationally.  And this case would look even worse, because essentially it would have Barack Obama saying to Iraqis behind closed doors: 'look, I'm going to be the next President so you should listen to me now and do what I'm asking (which, by the way, is to my political benefit), instead of doing what you've worked out with the current sitting administration.'  

I wouldn't bring this up, except that I still haven't heard a denial of this from the Obama camp, and it appears the story has credibility enough to get a comment from the McCain camp.

"McCain spokesman Randy Scheunemann stated as follows:

At this point, it is not yet clear what official American negotiations Senator Obama tried to undermine with Iraqi leaders, but the possibility of such actions is unprecedented. It should be concerning to all that he reportedly urged that the democratically-elected Iraqi government listen to him rather than the US administration in power. If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas. Senator Obama needs to reveal what he said to Iraq's Foreign Minister during their closed door meeting. The charge that he sought to delay the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq raises serious questions about Senator Obama's judgment and it demands an explanation."

Let me just say, political differences/preferences aside...I really, really, really hope Senator Obama would not do such a thing.  It would be a terrible thing if he did.  I imagine we will hear more about this and hopefully we can get corroborating information one way or the other.  

Gibson Keeps Getting Slammed...YEAH!

There's been a lot going around about Gibson's glowering, condescending interview of Sarah Palin recently on ABC.  The most talked about moment was when Palin was hesitant about Gibson's meaning referring to the "Bush doctrine" and yet, the very person who coined the term, columnist Charles Krauthammer, says there have come to be several meanings of the term, and the one Gibson said it meant is not in common use any more.

Krauthammer: 

"Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage."

Political Art - Good Stuff

Arrrrrgh on the Media

I really am not at all a conspiratorialist.  But good heavens, Mr. Media!

Get this, by Mark Hemingway on NRO's "The Corner" blog:

"John notes that the Washington Post seems to be downplaying the McCain-Palin rally in its backyard. But the bigger crime may be how the Washington Post article on the rally was written. Let's just do a by numbers comparison:

Number of paragraphs in the Washington Post story: 14

Number of paragraphs about pro-Obama protesters: 8

Number of McCain-Palin supporters present: 23,000

Number of Obama protesters: about 30

You do the math." 

Amazing...

Before Returning To Regular Programming...

In the next few days I will start comparing Obama and McCain on several issues, including foreign policy, taxes, health care proposals, and Supreme Court issues.  

For a moment longer, however, let's note just how astounding it is to see a VP candidate so suddenly become the focus of both campaigns.  I mean...WOW!  That suggests very, very real political and communication skill on her part.  

The small lead by McCain has held for a couple of days held fairly well, but as polls do I'm sure we will see variation in upcoming weeks until the debates.  

This whole little flap about Obama's "lipstick" comment I think is just stupid.  Both campaigns, but McCain's in particular, should move on.  

From Howard Kurtz: "The Project for Excellence in Journalism says that 60 percent of last week's stories were about her: "Palin enjoyed more coverage as a VP candidate during the GOP convention than Obama did a week earlier when he became the first person of color to accept the nomination for president of a major party."

Amazing, Amazing - McCain-Palin Rockets Up

The latest polls are beginning to show a McCain lead over Obama.  In the USA Today poll, a whopping 10 point lead!  And the Gallup racking poll has it as a 3 point lead.  Amazing is the least we can say.

And yet, as is reviewed at this link, the Left continues to try to smear Palin, including several blatantly spurious claims that made into mainstream liberal media before being retracted as they finally concluded there was zero evidence to support them.  Sad stuff, regardless of which side you're on.  

Republicans Win Ratings

From Fox News: "As a television draw, John McCain was every bit the equal of Barack Obama.

The GOP presidential candidate attracted roughly the same number of viewers to his convention acceptance speech Thursday as Obama did before the Democrats last week, according to Nielsen Media Research.

It marked the end of an astonishing run where more than 40 million people watched political speeches on three nights by Obama, McCain and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The Republican convention was the most-watched convention on television ever, beating a standard set by the Democrats a week earlier."

McCain's Backbone

John McCain is at his best as a speaker it seems when taking a serious tone and talking about serious issues.  He did a very good job tonight, and I suspect will have strengthened his support and position from the public because of it.  Specifically, here's where I thought he was great:

1) The repetition as well as revelation of additional details of McCain's life changing experience as a POW in Vietnam over the course of this convention was capped off by hearing from the man himself.  You come away with the powerful impression of a man who is utterly incorruptible and unstoppable in his determination to accomplish what he believes will benefit the United States of America and its people, simply because no matter how tough things get, he has been through worse, and in addition, the gratitude and the dedication he feels toward America and its people hardly know any bounds.

I thought the following stretch of his speech demonstrated this: "[Governor Palin] knows where she comes from and she knows who she works for. She stands up for what's right, and she doesn't let anyone tell her to sit down. I'm very proud to have introduced our next vice president to the country. But I can't wait until I introduce her to Washington. And let me offer an advance warning to the old, big spending, do nothing, me first, country second Washington crowd: Change is coming.

I'm not in the habit of breaking promises to my country and neither is Gov. Palin. And when we tell you we're going to change Washington, and stop leaving our country's problems for some unluckier generation to fix, you can count on it. We've got a record of doing just that, and the strength, experience, judgment and backbone to keep our word to you.

You know, I've been called a maverick; someone who marches to the beat of his own drum. Sometimes it's meant as a compliment and sometimes it's not. What it really means is I understand who I work for. I don't work for a party. I don't work for a special interest. I don't work for myself. I work for you."

2) I thought he was able to bring up several policy issues, from Iraq to education to healthcare policy and so forth, enough to sketch out basic differences in the approach he would take compared to Obama. 

"I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. My opponent will raise them. I will open new markets to our goods and services. My opponent will close them. I will cut government spending. He will increase it.
My tax cuts will create jobs. His tax increases will eliminate them. My health care plan will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health care insurance. His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.

Keeping taxes low helps small businesses grow and create new jobs. Cutting the second-highest business tax rate in the world will help American companies compete and keep jobs from moving overseas. Doubling the child tax exemption from $3,500 to $7,000 will improve the lives of millions of American families. Reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs will let you keep more of your own money to save, spend and invest as you see fit. Opening new markets and preparing workers to compete in the world economy is essential to our future prosperity."

3) He also formulated the core principles which most Republicans and conservatives believe will strengthen our nation most:

"We're going to recover the people's trust by standing up again for the values Americans admire. The party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan is going to get back to basics.

We believe everyone has something to contribute and deserves the opportunity to reach their God-given potential from the boy whose descendants arrived on the Mayflower to the Latina daughter of migrant workers. We're all God's children and we're all Americans.

We believe in low taxes, spending discipline and open markets. We believe in rewarding hard work and risk takers and letting people keep the fruits of their labor.

We believe in a strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law, and judges who dispense justice impartially and don't legislate from the bench. We believe in the values of families, neighborhoods and communities.

We believe in a government that unleashes the creativity and initiative of Americans. Government that doesn't make your choices for you, but works to make sure you have more choices to make for yourself." 

4) McCain is clearly working to establish himself as an American running for president, as opposed to simply a partisan nominee.  He wants to bring new and more people to support him, beyond the GOP "base."  And he's not afraid to take on Obama and the Democrats in areas you would think he would shy away from.  Consider these lines from his speech, keeping in mind who he is running against.

"Education is the civil rights issue of this century. Equal access to public education has been gained. But what is the value of access to a failing school? We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, empower parents with choice, remove barriers to qualified instructors, attract and reward good teachers, and help bad teachers find another line of work.

When a public school fails to meet its obligations to students, parents deserve a choice in the education of their children. And I intend to give it to them. Some may choose a better public school. Some may choose a private one. Many will choose a charter school. But they will have that choice and their children will have that opportunity.

Sen. Obama wants our schools to answer to unions and entrenched bureaucracies. I want schools to answer to parents and students. And when I'm president, they will." 

------------------

Sarah Palin I think remains the star of the Republican convention, but McCain is the anchor and weight.  They did themselves well I think.  

I suspect the polls will really tighten up, then we shall see what happens over the next 8 weeks! 

Palin v. Obama

I read that Palin had almost as many viewers watching her speech last night as Obama had watch his nomination speech.  Not bad for a VP pick vs. the presidential nominee of a party.   And she had about 50% more watch her than her Democratic VP counterpart, Biden.

Not bad. 

And from another NRO blog post: "The ability to effectively skewer political opponents with a twinkle of the eye and remain likeable is a rare political skill. The three best I’ve ever seen: Reagan, Clinton, Palin." 

And an article today from The Weekly Standard's Kristol: 

"The Speech
By William Kristol, The Weekly Standard
September 4, 2008

NOW WE SEE why the liberal establishment has been trying for the last few days to destroy Sarah Palin. She is a threat to their hopes to take the White House this year, a threat to their broader claims to speak for youth, for women, and for the future, and a threat to their attempt to control the high ground in the culture war. After her stunning success last night, some in the liberal media may retire from the ring for a while. Others, with the threat now even more evident, may redouble their assaults and become even more desperate and vicious. Surely they'll fail.

A star was born last night--but I won't belabor that fact, especially since it was the title of my New York Times column Monday. Nor will I analyze the whole speech, which I'm sure will be ably done by others. I'll just make three points.

1. I've heard one or two Palin skeptics acknowledge that it was a good speech, but then say--well, another nominee could have given a similarly good speech. Actually, no. The speech was so effective because it was given by someone who is, at once: a relative unknown, an executive not a legislator, a real reformer, a middle American who made it on her own, an outsider who was greeted with hostility by the D.C. establishment--and, yes, a woman. Obviously, another nominee could have given a good if different speech. But what made last night's speech special--what may have made last night an inflection point in this campaign, and even in American politics beyond Nov. 4--depended on the peculiar combination of qualities Sarah Palin brought to the table. Her speech was as far as a speech could be from being a generic one. Only Sarah Palin could have given it. The fact that she had the help of an excellent speechwriter, Matthew Scully, doesn't change the fact that this was in a precise way, and I'd almost say a profound way, Sarah Palin's speech.

2. The attack on Obama was very deft. Palin went right for Obama's fundamental weakness--that he's never done anything impressive. (And by giving such a good speech, she partly undermined his claim to be the only one who could speak impressively.) For example, consider this line--which I predict will be remembered two months from now: "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities." This deflates all the sanctimonious praise of Obama at the Democratic convention for all his selfless years as a community organizer. And if you take away the community organizing, Obama's just a career politician, one "who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform," one of those who has used "change to promote their careers." What's left of Obama's résumé, and his claim to deserve the presidency? Not much.

3. Don't underestimate the power of this statement: "To the families of special needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House." The McCain campaign should flesh this out in policy terms, should not get worried by the inevitable attacks on McCain for voting (as he must have) for some budget resolution or other that would have cut (or not increased as much as some wanted) some special-needs programs, and just keep on emphasizing that Palin will take the lead on these issues, and McCain will see to it she gets the support, budgetary and otherwise, she needs. This would be real compassionate conservatism, and would be good both for conservatism and for the country."

Scranton vs. San Francisco

First some of my favorite lines from Governor Palin's speech: 

"I love those hockey moms.  You know they say the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?  [as she gives a subtle little point to her mouth]  Lipstick."  [Roar from the crowd] 

"Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.  I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening. We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco." 

"Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems -- as if we all didn't know that already. But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all. Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more nuclear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal and other alternative sources. We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers."

"I've noticed a pattern with our opponent. Maybe you have, too. We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers. And there is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform -- not even in the state Senate.

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington" 

"In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers.  And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change. They're the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not just on buttons and banners, or on self-designed presidential seals. Among politicians, there is the idealism of high-flown speechmaking, in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things. And then there is the idealism of those leaders, like John McCain, who actually do great things. They're the ones who are good for more than talk ... the ones we have always been able to count on to serve and defend America." 

-----------------

And from Rudy Giuliani's speech:

"On the other hand, you have a resume from a gifted man with an Ivy League education. He worked as a community organizer, and immersed himself in Chicago machine politics. Then he ran for the state legislature - where nearly 130 times he was unable to make a decision yes or no. He simply voted "present."

As Mayor of New York City, I never got a chance to vote "present." And you know, when you're President of the United States, you can't just vote "present." You must make decisions.

A few years later, he ran for the U.S. Senate. He won and has spent most of his time as a "celebrity senator." No leadership or major legislation to speak of. His rise is remarkable in its own right - it's the kind of thing that could happen only in America. But he's never run a city, never run a state, never run a business.  He's never had to lead people in crisis.

This is not a personal attack....it's a statement of fact - Barack Obama has never led anything."

[Note from me: of course, he has run a successful presidential campaign thus far - let's give him that]

-------------------------------

"Look at just one example in a lifetime of principled stands -- John McCain's support for the troop surge in Iraq.  The Democratic Party had given up on Iraq.  And I believe, ladies and gentlemen, that when they gave up on Iraq they were giving up on America.  The Democratic leader in the Senate said so: "America has lost." 

Well, if America lost, who won? Al Qaida? Bin Laden? In the single biggest policy decision of this election, John McCain got it right and Barack Obama got it wrong.

If Barack Obama had been President, there would have been no troop surge and our troops would have been withdrawn in defeat.  Senator McCain was the candidate most associated with the surge.  And it was unpopular.  What do you think most other candidates would have done in that situation? They would have acted in their own self-interest by changing their position.
 

How many times have we seen Barack Obama do that?  Obama was going to take public financing for his campaign, until he didn't.  Obama was against wiretapping before he voted for it.  When speaking to a pro-Israel group, Obama favored an undivided Jerusalem.  Until the very next day when he changed his mind.

I hope for his sake, Joe Biden got that VP thing in writing."

[Note: the line on Biden was simply precious]

--------------------------------

"When Russia rolled over Georgia, John McCain knew exactly how to respond.  Having been to that part of the world many times and having developed a clear worldview over many years, John knew where he stood.  Within hours, he established a very strong, informed position that let the world know exactly how he'll respond as President.  At exactly the right time, John McCain said, "We're all Georgians."  

Obama's first instinct was to create a moral equivalency - that "both sides" should "show restraint."  The same moral equivalency that he has displayed in discussing the Palestinian Authority and the State of Israel.  Later, after discussing it with his 300 foreign policy advisors, he changed his position and suggested that the "the UN Security Council," could find a solution.  Apparently, none of his 300 advisors told him that Russia has a veto on any UN [Security Council] action.  Finally Obama put out a statement that looked ...well, it looked a lot like John McCain's.
Here's some free advice: Sen. Obama, next time just call John McCain." 

--------------------------------

"And as we look to the future never let us forget that - when we are at our best - we are the party that expands Freedom.  We began as a party dedicated to freeing people from slavery... And we are still the party that is willing to fight for freedom at home and around the world.  

We are the party that wants to expand individual freedom and economic freedom... because we believe that the secret of America's success is not central government, it is self-government.  We are the party that believes in giving workers the right to work.  The party that believes parents should choose where their children go to school.  And we are the party that believes unapologetically in America's essential greatness - that we are a shining city on the hill, a beacon of freedom that inspires people everywhere to reach for a better world."  

"A Star is Born"

This phrase uttered by several members of the media within moments of the completion of Sarah Palin's speech.

This is one speech I would strongly encourage you to watch...if you missed the original, I'll find a link to a YouTube version.  Not only is it historic with her being the first Republican VP Nominee, but more than that, she is unlike any major politician I've ever seen.  She was amazing...truly amazing.  She was smart, tough, funny, and "pitch perfect" which is a rare though prized quality in politics.  

She presented herself, her family, her candidate, and her party very effectively, but at least as impressive was the way she sliced and diced Obama and the Democrats.  She was very clever, used humor, but made solid points at every turn.  I found myself filled with pride to sit with my daughter Tori and watch such a remarkable woman in such a setting (who, I should say came across very specifically as a woman and a mother, not as a woman trying to act like a male politician).  Ultimately, I believe strongly that it should be character and policy that should drive our choice in political races, not gender or race or religion.  That does not detract from the separate appreciation of the evident strength of individuals from different backgrounds, and it was really something to see and hear her tonight.  

I will follow in a bit with some lines pulled from her speech and Giuliani's.   Hers was the best but there were great ones from both.  More to come...

Added: I don't know if the whole speech is here, but here's a YouTube link to her speech: here. 

Added: Interesting point made on NationalReview Online about the abuse Palin has taken in the mainstream media the past few days.  

"Don't Tread on Me! [Victor Davis Hanson]
Palin Bites Back...

Tonight I flipped to CNN and was struck by the talking heads flipping out about the Giuliani/Palin mocking of community organizers—as if the Obama team's dismissals of "small-town" mayors was fair play. The MSM networks are going ballistic at her speech and apparently never imagined that anyone would dare bite back—and also at them, the 'elite media' of the press, no less!

Compared to what Kerry et al. said about McCain, Palin was no tougher on the other side, so it is odd to hear CNN female pundits suddenly shocked, shocked that a "woman" would dare attack a man like that, and that it may "not play" outside the hall. Like it or not we are back in a cultural and populist war, brought on by a week of liberal character assassination.

The Left made a terrible mistake in the manner they have smeared Palin, and now they seem appalled at the red-state authentic populist backlash which is a different sort than studied Bidenism, where one recalls a distant childhood, not the recent past, or the living present, to prove they are one with the people."

Interesting on Palin

From National Review Online: "Why Do We Like Palin? [Victor Davis Hanson]

Much has been written why Palin both brings strength to the McCain ticket and is a gamble at the same time. Why then the growing wave of popular sentiment in her favor?

Various reasons, but one I think is that millions of Americans are simply tired of being lectured at by smug elites. Jetting Al Gore made tens of millions finger-pointing at us about our global warming. Obama's America, apparently unlike Rev. Wright's Trinity Church, is a cruel, downright mean and dysfunctional place. John Kerry's United States is one of the half-educated in need of Ivy-League enlightenment and tutorials.

So along comes someone (unlike Biden's vastly inflated middle-class biography) who really is from the working class. She likes it—and finds snowmobiling, hunting, fishing and living in small-town America not as a wasteful use of carbon-emitting fuels, cruelty to animals, gratuitous depletion of our resources, or proof of parochial yokelism. Instead it is a life of action in an often harsh natural landscape, where physical strength is married to intelligence to bring us food, fuel, and progress.

Palin's symbolism is the antithesis of the metrosexual wind- or body- surfing politican, and hair-plugged, neurotic TV pundit So at this time, right now, millions apparently like Palin's atypical 19th-century profile. Again, it's a pleasant change of pace from Harvard Law School, DC politics, "community organizing" and the can't-do, 'they raised the bar on me' collective complaint.

If she can beat off the frothing Newsweek/MSNBC/New York Times inbred rabid wolves, and do it with the grace she has shown so far, she will fill a deep yearning among Americans for someone like her. A lot of Americans, if they watch reality shows, prefer truckers on ice or Bering Sea crab fishing to endless psychodramas of thirty-something suburban whiners.

So apparently they are eager to see a rare politican who is unapologetic about America's past achievements (cf. Obama's "tragic history" and need for more "oppression studies"), and who reminds us with pride that a muscular world of action, not community organizing, creates the bounty that others use and take for granted but so often sneer at the methods of its acquisition.

Right now, there are millions rooting for her in a way not true of Biden—and many who are criticizing her don't have a clue why that it is so."

Day One (or is it two?) of the Republican Convention

OK, I'll count it as day one, since Mr. (Hurricane) Gustav owned yesterday.  

A few headlines and memorable lines from tonight: 

First, from the USA Today: "Eight years after he accepted the vice presidential nomination at the Democratic convention, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the featured speaker Tuesday night at the Republican National Convention, made the case for Republican candidate John McCain.  'I'm here to support John McCain because country matters more than party,' Lieberman said.  'I am here tonight for a simple reason, because John McCain's whole life testifies to a great truth: being a Democrat or a Republican is important.  But it is nowhere near as important as being an American.'   'When others wanted to retreat from the field of battle, when Barak Obama was voting to cut off funding for our troops on the ground, John McCain had the courage to stand against the tide of public opinion and support the surge,' Lieberman said.  'And because of that, today, our troops are at last beginning to come home, not in failure, but in honor.'"

A laugh-out-loud line from Senator Fred Thompson in his amazingly good bio of McCain (though this line was about VP nominee Palin): "And I can say without fear of contradiction that she is the only nominee in the history of either party who knows how to properly field dress a moose...with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt...She and John McCain are not going to care how much the alligators get irritated when they get to Washington, they're going to drain that swamp." 

(Thompson on McCain as a POW in Vietnam): "So then they put him in solitary confinement...for over two years.

 Isolation ... incredible heat beating on a tin roof.  A light bulb in his cell burning 24 hours a day.

Boarded-up cell windows blocking any breath of fresh air.

 The oppressive heat causing boils the size of baseballs under his arms.

The outside world limited to what he could see through a crack in a door.

 We hear a lot of talk about hope.

 John McCain knows about hope.  That's all he had to survive on.  For propaganda purposes, his captors offered to let him go home.

 John McCain refused.

 He refused to leave ahead of men who'd been there longer.

 He refused to abandon his conscience and his honor, even for his freedom.

 He refused, even though his captors warned him, "It will be very bad for you."

 They were right. 

It was.

 The guards cracked ribs, broke teeth off at the gums.  They cinched a rope around his arms and painfully drew his shoulders back.

 Over four days, every two to three hours, the beatings resumed. During one especially fierce beating, he fell, again breaking his arm.

 John was beaten for communicating with other prisoners.

 He was beaten for NOT communicating with so-called "peace delegations." 

He was beaten for not giving information during interrogations.

 When his captors wanted the names of other pilots in his squadron, John gave them the names of the offensive line of the Green Bay Packers.

 Whenever John was returned to his cell — walking if he could, dragged if he couldn't — as he passed his fellow POWs, he would call out to them.

 He'd smile ... and give them a thumbs-up.

 For five-and-a-half years this went on.

 John McCain's bones may have been broken but his spirit never was.

Now, being a POW certainly doesn't qualify anyone to be President.

 But it does reveal character.

 This is the kind of character that civilizations from the beginning of history have sought in their leaders.

 Strength.

 Courage.

 Humility.

 Wisdom.

 Duty.

 Honor.

 It's pretty clear there are two questions we will never have to ask ourselves, "Who is this man?" and "Can we trust this man with the Presidency?" 

(Thompson on the Democrats): "To deal with these challenges [to our nation] the Democrats present a history making nominee for president.

 History making in that he is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for President.  Apparently they believe that he would match up well with the history making, Democrat controlled Congress.  History making because it's the least accomplished and most unpopular Congress in our nation's history.

 Together, they would take on these urgent challenges with protectionism, higher taxes and an even bigger bureaucracy." 

(Thompson on Obama's tax proposals): "Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases.

 They tell you they are not going to tax your family.

 No, they're just going to tax "businesses!" So unless you buy something from a "business", like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small "business", don't worry ... it's not going to affect you.

 They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the "other" side of the bucket!  That's their idea of tax reform." 

"John McCain cannot raise his arms above his shoulders.

 He cannot salute the flag of the country for which he sacrificed so much.  Tonight, as we begin this convention week, yes, we stand with him.

 And we salute him."

---------------

Anyhow, it was a strong night and the combination of President Bush, Senator Thompson, and Senator Lieberman all giving strong testament to McCain's character - from their very different perspectives - was impressive.  

Hurricanes

Well if this wasn't already a strange sort of election year, the partial postponement of the Republican National Convention because of Hurricane Gustav just adds another twist.  

Fortunately, the worst case scenarios for the hurricane seem not to have occurred.  Whether the same will be true for John McCain and the Republicans remains to be seen!  You can theorize some negatives and positives for McCain in terms of how things have occurred, but it's just hard to call.  

Later today I'll be posting more as the RNC does ramp up, and we can also discuss the sad nature of politics when the lives of family members gets pulled into the political grinding machine.  Obama said it best: "let's not go there."  

More to come...keep posting comments...you guys are great!