What do we learn from the debate?

Obama wants to run a "Clean Campaign."

Except he doesn't.  By refusing to repudiate any charges against McCain that were made by his supporters, he is implicitly approving every slanderous or libelous, baseless, ridiculous charge that the nutroot, netroots want to throw against McCain.  Obama doesn't care about "hurt feelings," so he couldn't care less.  McCain supporters should attack.  McCain supporters need to bring out the truth about the judgement of their not-so-wunderkind.  McCain is a chump if he repudiates anything from this point on.

Obama wants to spend the next three weeks talking about the "economy."

He wants to talk about how bad the economy has been over the past year, but not the years before when we had sustainable economic growth.  He wants to pretend it was Bush policies that brought us here, when it was Bush policies that brought us five or six years of "Goldilocks" growth (not too fast, not too slow--according to Larry Kudlow), and that it was demonstrably two democratic policies that got us into this fine mess: 

Their "don't drill" environmental energy policy:  Ten years ago, the Republican Congress passed a bill that would allow more drilling, but it was vetoed by President Clinton--oil, by the way, that we would have had access to already even by Democratic standards, since they say it will take ten years to see any new oil.  What does Barack say?  Oh, he wants to allow drilling now (at least while he has a Democratic congress and he never has to, you know, actually drill). but he still says  we have three percent of the worlds oil reserve but we use 25% of the world's oil . . .   I don't know if he intentionally left out the word production, or if it was just a debate mishap.  Of course it makes the statement totally meaningless.  The worlds oil reserve is huge.  We are talking about all of the oil underneath every Arab country, every western country, China, Russia,. . . . everywhere.  And 3% is under our country.  That is a lot.  Thirty years ago, they were talking about running out of oil.  Now they are not.  We simply cannot produce it fast enough.  And the statistic usually sited by the Democrats is that we use 25% of the worlds oil production.  But that 25% of the annual production (it needs to be annual, or it doesn't make sense--production doesn't lead to an amount of oil unless you put a time to it:  how much oil we produce in a month, a year, a day) which is a very small amount compared to the three percent of the actual reserves in the world. Imagine that he had said, we only have 3% of a million dollars, but we use 25% of a hundred dollars.  They make the 3% figure sound small (it is $30,000) and the 25% figure sound large ($25)  but it isn't.

The credit crisis:  This is even sadder that they are able to pin this on Bush.  Because it is due to all of those worthless loans clogging the credit markets.  These are loans made to people who could not afford them. The Democrats WANTED the banks to make those loans.  The Democrats PRESSURED the banks to make those loans on fear of losing their charters.  Then when the mortgages started to default because they turned out to be too creative and began adjusting, then the banks, which the dems had forced to make bad loans became "Predatory lender".  Oh, sure.  Everyone is standing in lines to make loans to people that can't pay them back.  At least in Obamaworld.  We're Obama warned about Freddie Mac and Fannie May.  Only we're never told what he warned about or what he wanted done.  Don't tell me he wanted the banks to stop making these loans.  His favored Acorn (whose parent company he defended--it was just those nasty people who they were paying for signatures who got fake signatures) is one of the prime movers in getting people into houses they can not afford.  He probably just wanted to have the government pump more money into the mortgage system earlier so banks could make even more bad loans.  Do not try to tell me that he wanted to warn them about making bad loans.  That is just not the Obama way.

Of course all of this would have come out if they had had many townhall meetings.  But that doesn't matter.  He wants to spend three weeks talking off a teleprompter and airing his (and his supporters') ads, so they can put anything they want on the air and he never has to repudiate anything.

Because he wants a "clean campaign"

In This Week, they reported an ABC News/Washington Post Poll (8/24/2008) that said that 57% of the people think McCain will continue Bush's policies and 47% think Obama is too inexperienced.  They portrayed this as saying that McCain has 57% negative vs. Obama's 47% negative.  Really?  How many of the people that said that McCain will continue Bush policies ( tax cuts?  victory in Iraq? ) think the Bush policies are bad?  How many of the people that said Obama was too inexperienced thought inexperience was a good thing?

McCain doesn't know how many houses he owns.  Democrats think this disqualifies him for Chief Executive.

Obama thinks we have (more than) 57 states.  Republicans think this disqualifies him for Chief Executive.

James,

You can make up names and badmouth people all you want.  But the choices for president in November are Barak Obama or John McCain.  If you think we would have a "liberal tyranny" if we elect McCain (and Romney?), you haven't yet thought about what a radical tyranny we would have during SIXTEEN years of Obamas (8 for Barack and 8 more for Michelle).  This guy is not even a Liberal Democrat. He's a radical.  And you and every other protest vote is putting him in the oval office.  I don't know if Baldwin is good or not, but right now it is Obama or McCain.  A vote for Bladwin is definitely a vote for Obama.

Luke seems to be missing part of the equation, however.  Romney lost in the south, not because he is unacceptable to southerners.  He lost in the south because Huckabee seemed more appealing.  If Huckabee wasn't on the ballot, we'd be choosing between Obama and Romney.

So why didn't Romney win?  All of those people who voted for Huckabee didn't vote for Romney.  You may question how much of a conservative Romney is.  But he is much more conservative than McCain, and he's a clear shot better than Obama.  By voting for the guy you liked, (Huckabee, or, if you'd prefer, Baldwin) you elected the more liberal guy (McCain, or Obama) instead of the more conservative guy (Romney or McCain).  People who voted for Huckabee and got McCain should have trouble looking in the mirror.  If you vote for someone else and we end up getting Obama instead of McCain, you should have trouble looking in the mirror.  Don't make the same mistake a second time.  This one counts.

As for the Massachussets Supreme court, remember that Romney's job was to execute the laws.  He can't pick and choose which he wanted to enforce and which he wouldn't.  I've read stories of legal maneuvering which may or may not have worked.  And even if it worked, they may have had such a backlash that it might have advanced the cause of gay marriage instead of having the backlash against it that we got here.  In any case, the same thing is happening in California, and I don't see any legal challenges in the works.

As for the life issue, I believe that you believe in life.  There are people who don't.  Isn't it possible, don't you consider it probable, that someone with good values who studies the issue might change their mind and come to agree with you?  Isn't the purpose of the pro-life movement, or any movement for that matter, to change the minds of people who look at the issue closely.  So here you have a "convert" to your side.  Someone who converted while he was governor, not while he was running for president.  And you assume bad motives for the conversion.  Do you have such little faith in your side that anyone who agrees with you must have come to your side for reasons other than, well, reason?

So the two big issues this election are security and the economy.  We need someone in office who understands the economy.  Well, we can't get Romney (except, perhaps) for VP), but certainly McCain is better on Security than "we'll be out in eighteen months" Obama.

Why is it that on both the interview segments and the round table segments on This Week, this week, McCain is accused of flip-flopping because he is moving to the right to cement his base, but when Obama moves to the right to capture more of the independent voters he is engaging in brilliant politicking?

Hopefully, the effect of Obama's move to the middle will be the drying up of the support he is getting from MoveOn and its ilk who are providing him with so much financial help.

Many are putting forth Pawlenty as a possible Veep nominee.  I still want Romney.  I saw Pawlenty on This Week.  He was OK, but not impressive.

George again brought up the report from the American Tax Policy Institute (I assume it is the same one Howard Dean used last week when, as the data supported Obama he lauded the study, but as the data went against Obama, Dean just said, "They are wrong.") that gave estimated tax savings from McCain's tax proposals.  The amounts of tax savings went up by orders of magnitudes as your position in the tax structure went up.  This supposedly shows that his proposals are Bushian tax cuts for the rich.  What the report didn't say, or perhaps did say, but which was not reported by my friend George, was the percent of the tax bill that the savings represent.  $150 may not seem much for the bottom number, but the largest number may be a significantly smaller percent of the final tax bill for that household.  The left always leaves out the unproportionate amount of the tax bill for the rich.  You always need to keep that in mind when talking about who gets the biggest cut of any tax reduction.  The "tax cut for the rich" people always talk about absolute numbers when discussing the tax reduction--never the percentage of the tax bill.

So they finally selected Obama.  Not that that has been in doubt any time within the past months.

It does bring to mine Leiberman's adventures in the last election.  Essentially, the radical left in Connecticut dumped Lieberman in favor of the anti-war Lamont.  There is nothing else that can describe him.  That is the only thing he ran on.  As Lamont ran as a Democrat, Leiberman ran as the CFL (Connecticut for Lieberman) party.  Of course, assuming that Connecticut was just over half-left and just under half-right (I know it isn't but, just follow along), and assuming the left was just over half anti war, and just under half war neutral (perhaps they have other priorities), this provides enough vote for the anti-war candidate to run for all of the people of the left, but only 25-30 percent of the general electorate.  In fact, Lieberman won 50% of the vote to Lamont's 40%.

The lesson is that when the radical left chooses their darling to run, that leaves out half of the country who would never ever ever choose such a radical candidate.

The lesson is that Obama will have a tough time with the great Middle since he is so far to the left. McCain, being center-right, should be a much easier fit for the great middle.  This is not a prediction for November, there are too many electoral variable to do that.  But, though Obama will be extremely popular in the reddest of red states, he should have a harder time in the more purple areas of the country.

Ken Timmerman reports on McCain's latest comments trying to woo the right.  McCain tempered his comments by saying we must be humane to illegal immigrants.

What is more humane than not enticing them to come in the first place?

What is more humane than a fence that will prevent them from breaking our laws?

What is more humane than not giving them a false hope that we would accept them as citizens even if they get here illegally as long as they get here?

What is more humane than preventing a rush into this country that would let in a terrorist or two along with people who are hard working and want a new life?

What is more humane that to fix our system so it is possible to immigrate legally?
 
The most humane way to deal with illegal immigrants is to not allow them to become illegal immigrants.

Fred Barnes has made the suggestion that others have.  McCain should pick Romney for VP.

He solves so many problems for McCain's presidency, that it just doesn't make sense for him not to select him.  Assuming people voted for McCain for his appeal to the independents, that does not make McCain necessarily more electable.  What profit a man to gain the independents if he loses the base.  They chose McCain for his military experience and his steadfast position on the war.  But McCain's expertise in economics is sketchy at best.

Romney could help secure the base as McCain goes for the independents.  Romney could shore up the administration's economic credentials.

And let's not even get to what the Vice Presidential debate would be like with razor-sharp Romney on a one-on-one with some Democrat.

The argument goes that McCain and Romney just have too much enmity to pair up on a ticket.  McCain may be stubborn as an old mule, but you can befriend a stubborn mule with a little sugar.  Surely McCain can see that he needs Romney.  As for the enmity, as soon as Romney conceded he came out and endorsed McCain.  Not even McCain's old friend Fred Thompson did that.  Romney did it not to secure a place in the new administration, but out of loyalty to the Republican party.  McCain should show his loyalty to the party by burying the hatchet and going after Romney.

The Vice President serves at the pleasure of the President.  If Romney pledged to clean up Washington, let him.  Let him go through every department and every budget and let him clean the place up.  Surely this would accomplish much more than the earmark and pork that McCain wants to get rid of.  Whatever he is not able to clean up, he will be better able to deal with later.  The credit would go to McCain.  The experience would go to Romney.

We hope and work for McCain's victory in November.  But if his age works against him this year, imagine four years from now.  Give McCain his four years.  But perhaps a 76-year old McCain would step aside and give his Vice President a chance.  With four year's experience as Vice President, with the greater name recognition and a more solid record for his positions, Romney would have a better chance next cycle than this one.

It is good for McCain.  It shores up his administration's credentials and makes his election more certain by securing the base as he goes after independents.  It is good for Romney, gaining experience and name recognition as he prepares for his chance to serve.

I don't expect McCain to announce anything soon.  But when his selection is made, it should be Romney

In 2006, the net roots were able to defeat Lieberman for the Democratic nomination for senator by running someone whose entire platform was being against the war.  Lieberman decided to run as an independent.  Getting a majority of the democrats to elect someone who is anti-war is not that hard.  Getting the general electorate to then vote for that person is a different story.  The problems with the democrats is that being in control of MoveOn and their ilk, they have been moving left, even though the country as a whole has not been moving left.

By nominating Obama (as they seem intent on doing), they again seem to be moving left, lining up behind their more liberal candidate.  They are nominating a senator with an unambiguous anti-war record.  We can only hope that McCain is able to make the case for the war and that the nation as a whole sees the danger of electing Obama.

Of course, should Obama win, our hoping shifts to hoping that, faced with the reality of the Global War on Jihadism, that Obama faces an Epiphany and realizes that the safety of the country depends on him breaking his election promises.

Readers of my previous post may wonder if I hold Clinton responsible for 9-11.  Let me clarify.

I do believe that his actions and his inaction directly led to 9-11.   The structural faults in our intelligence machines, the treatment of terror attacks as criminal matters rather than something more serious, the ineffective responses to acts of war against us, the cutting down of the military all added to or allowed the Jihadists view that we were a paper tiger and that we would not prevent them from attacking us and, if attacked, we would not respond effectively.  Fortunately, Bill Clinton was not in office when the attacks actually occured.

Having said that, there is no way that Clinton could have known definitively what the consequences of his actions would be.  There may have been people around warning him, but there are enough conspiracy people around that it is difficult enough to hear the soothsayers among the cacophony of cooks.  We may question the wisdom of his actions, we may say that it was not hard to foresee the consequences, but there was no way someone with his world view could see what was coming.

So I do not blame him.  He may have been negligent, if you will, but not criminally so.

Then we come to today, or rather, pitifully soon after 9-11.  First, the complaint was that the administration was incompetent for not connecting the dots and preventing the attacks (of course, this doesn't include the loonatic fringe that believe the administration orchestrated the attacks).  It wasn't long after that people were complaining about airport security, about the Patriot Act, about "domestic eavesdropping."  You have to wonder if, after having seen what Jihadists are capable of, how people can critique the then administration for not connecting the dots and preventing the attack.  One could argue that if we did not know what might happen,  the measures that we were an unnecessary and inconvenient infringement of our freedom.  But having seen what Jihadists are capable of doing, how can people strain under the yoke of what has been determined to be necessary to prevent the next attack?

So when Pelosi and her accomplices allow the FISA to expire, they will be responsible, criminally negligent, for any attacks that occur because we didn't have our ear to the ground.  When Obama Billary bring our soldiers home, followed on their heels by the Jihadists, they will be responsible and criminally negligent.

And what does that say about the people who elected them?  Particularly the conservatives who decide to protest by not voting for the only candidate who might keep us safe?  The people who recognize the dangers and vote (or don't vote) in a way that endangers our safety?

That is what Ann Coulter seems to be saying in her latest article.  But we can't "Make a deal."  And it does matter that you choose the right door.  The Right door.

Let me confess something.  I like Ann's work.  Many conservatives may not admit this.  But RightTeacher1 will.  She is . . . caustic, to be sure.  And I do disagree with her on occasion. 

On the other hand, she defended Joe McCarthy as a man who was actually right.  That if people know exactly what happened in that "Have you no decency?" episode, they would have a different opinion than they would just reading history books and watching movies of the event.  (How many people still think SENATOR McCarthy had anything to do with the HOUSE Unamerican Activities Committee.)  That he was a man more sinned against than sinning.  But he was, well, . . . caustic.  I tried to get people on leftist boards to defend history's verdict.  They were very helpful about how much they hated Ann.  They were very helpful about how much they hated McCarthy.  But when I would solicit facts about why he and Ann are wrong and they are right, they would tell me that that is not what their board is about--they aren't interested in facts.  They had no real critiques about what he did.  He just rubbed people the wrong way.

Ann rubs people the wrong way.

And she does that as she tells people that we now have to choose between three senators for our next president (meaning of course, that our next president will be a senator--something that hasn't happened since JFK) and that all three are democrats.

Well, she's wrong.  McCain has an R next to his name.  He may be to the left of anyone who might be reading this, but his is no RINO.

She refutes my previous posts (OK, not directly) that McCain may have an 82 LIFETIME conservative rating, but that RECENTLY his rating has been closer to 62.  Fine.  Probably a good point.  But we need to look at a number of things.

First, if I understand this rating correctly, 62 would still be "conservative."  Not as conservative as we'd like (I'm still a Romney guy, even though I'm a McCain guy), but certainly no democrat.

Second, what are the ratings of Obama or Billary.  That is what democrats should look like.  McCain is no democrat.

Third, we already know some of his colossal blunders.  He's already taken a hit for them.  We already take those into account.  Don't hit him a second time because those blunders lowered his conservative rating.  Is there anything that the 62 ratings tell us that we didn't already know?

We know about immigration, Bush's tax cuts, campaign finance reform, judges, and the environment.  Isn't that alone enough to lower his rating to 62?  Is Ann telling us there is more?

But McCain is no democrat.

He is right on the war.  Take either Billary (Ann's choice) or Obama, and we will give up in Iraq.  Does it matter that we're winning?  I recall a tape made by one Osama Bin Laden from December 2001, where he talks about America as a paper tiger after eight years of Clinton 41.  And that is just because we didn't engage when threatened several times over those eight years.  We all remember the result.  We will never forget the result.  Imagine how much more of a paper tiger we would seem to Jihadists if, after all this time, all this blood and all this treasure, we ran away when we weren't losing, just because our leaders didn't have the stomach to finish the job.  They would try something worse than 9/11.  Something that might even succeed if the Obama Billary people manage to weaken FISA and the Patriot act and other acts and agencies that have kept us safe for almost seven years.  This would not happen with McCain.  Ok, there is still the torture issue, but that is understandable.  McCain is still no democrat.

On immigration, McCain has said we would do enforcement first.  I hope someone asks him if that means that we'll get our damn fence.  I hope he gives the right answer.  I hope he means it.  Certainly his position is better than Obama Billary's.  Not giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants is a necessary, but not sufficient condition.  If he asks me, I'll tell him what to do.  I also hope he appoints people who can give him good advice.  After all, McCain is no democrat.

On the Tax Cuts, we understand why he did it.  He believes in the integrity of the budget.  But we're at war.  He knows that.  He wants to keep non-defense spending under control.  Does anyone reading this disagree with that?  He needs to have Romney or Rudy explain to him about taxes and a vibrant  economy.  And he'll listen because McCain is no democrat.

On campaign finance reform, I don't have a response.  I hope he's seen the error of his ways, but is too stubborn to admit it.  Certainly after one campaign running against Obama Billary and their 527's, he will come to appreciate what a mess he made.  Certainly then, he'll be no democrat.

On judges, he has said and I believe that he will pick Roberts's and Alitos.  I prefer Scalias's, but that is just me.  His problem with judges was over procedures, not over the kind of judges we will need.  In that case, it may be good to keep him out of the senate.  He is no democrat.

On environment, I am hopeful that an educated McCain will not blunder.  The need for energy independence and his understanding of national security would compel a change on his ANWR stance.  The enlightenment he needs to get about business and the economy would make him renounce his McCain-Lieberman farce.  I am hopeful because I know he is no democrat.

This is not an impassioned defense.  In my refrain, I am not taking my cue from Mark Antony.  I am not being ironic.  I wish I could make a better case.  I know Romney (or Rudy) would be better.  I am a month behind in listing to talk radio podcasts, and so I am hearing about a wistful time when Romney was still in it. But, McCain has won according to the rules, as George Will reminds us.  I know there are still problems with McCain that I don't have answers for.  But we are stuck with him.

Right now we have a choice of three and soon we will have a choice of two.  One will have and R after his name and he will win the war, cut spending, and appoint good judges.  The other will have a D after his/her/his name and will appoint activist judges, raise taxes, increase spending and lose the war.  The person with a D after his/her/his name may get us killed.

That is the choice we have.  We can't make a deal.  Door number one, door number two, or door number three.  Which ever you choose, it is vital that McCain is on the other side.