It is about responsibility.

Obama doesn't think Acorn should take responsibility for the people they hire to get signatures (more to the point that they PAY FOR signatures).

Obama doesn't think he should take responsibility for what his supporters say.  That way he can watch as they throw mud while he looks on spick and spam and claims to run a clean campaign.

Obama doesn't think the Democrats should take responsibility for the horrendous damage their party has done to the American Economy.

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"

They said it again:

“We can’t drill our way out of this.  We produce 25 percent of the world’s oil, but we only have 3 percent of the world’s oil reserve.”

I’ve heard this from Hillary, Pelosi, Obama and recently at the veep debate, I heard it from Biden.

It is a talking point.  It is a talking point in the sense that everybody says it.  Nobody thinks about it. It is not a thinking point.

But like all statistics, it says something very specific, but it doesn’t say what they say it says.

What does it say?

It compares our production to the world’s production.  They produce three times what we produce (25% vs. 75%)

It compares our reserves to the world’s reserve.  They have about thirty time the reserve that we do (3% vs about 90%).

All this really means is that the rest of the world has a heck of a lot of oil.  Much more than we do.

What doesn’t it say?

It doesn’t compare anybody’s production to anybody’s reserve.

It doesn’t say anything about what how much we need to become energy independent. Specifically, it doesn’t say anything about how much we would need to “drill our way out of this.”

I am not saying we can or can’t drill our way out.  But they are offering this statistic as proof that we can’t and we just can’t conclude that from this statistic.

What can we conclude?

We can conclude that we would run out of oil way before the rest of the world does.

What can we not conclude?

We don’t know from this statistic WHEN we would run out of oil. Since there is no comparison between anyone’s reserve and their production, we don’t know if we will run out in 10 years, 30 years, or 1000 years.  We can conclude that we will run out first, but if we will run out in 1000 years, knowing that we will run out first doesn’t really matter that much, does it?

We also don’t know from this statistic how much we can increase production.  Since there is no comparison between our production and our reserve, we could, conceivably,  double our production.  We might run out sooner, but since we don’t know from this statistic whether that would be in 15 years or 500 years, this statistic doesn’t preclude increasing production.

Therefore, we don’t know from this statistic whether we can drill our way out of this or not.  It doesn’t tell us by how much we can increase production and it doesn’t tell us how much we would need to increase production to drill our way out.

I am not offering statistics that say we can drill our way out.  I’m sure the numbers are out there and smarter people than me can figure this out.  But I know this statistic—this talking point—doesn’t make that case.

The next time I see this statistic in the context of a debate, I want the opponent to really take them to task.  Don’t let them get away with using this shabby statistic.  If they can prove—really prove—that we can’t drill our way out, make them prove it.

Just the idea that the MSM is putting out that bad economic news favors Obama is incredulous.

The simple idea that to decrease price you need to increase supply is beyond the liberal democrats in general and Obama in particular.

The idea that we can't get oil from drilling until five years from now, and, therefore, it won't help today, but research into alternatives that are either 10, 20 years away or completely infeasible makes a lie any claim that Obama has to economic expertise.

Then there is health care. He seems to think that coming up with billions of dollars to pay for everyone to be insured will solve the problem.  But health care is a scarce resource.  Too much money chasing too few goods makes the price skyrocket.

The only way to increase the availability of health care is to increase the supply.  We need to increase the numbers of doctors, nurses and hospitals in this country.  What Obama wants to do will exacerbate the situation further.  If we control the price (though not the cost) of health care, somewhere along the line, doctors will be paid as salaried employees. And pretty low salaries at that.

I don't doubt there are many doctors who go into the business for altruistic reasons, just as I'm sure people go into teaching for altruistic reasons. But to ask someone to spend that much time and money getting a medical license, and then pay them very low wages, will test the altruism of even the most well meaning pre-med.

If we try to have government control healthcare, we will have mediocre care for everyone, with month-long waiting lists for medical care, and days-long care for emergency treatment.  Say good bye to innovation.

We could, like the UK, go overseas to get the doctors we would need.  But the solution for the medical personnel shortage in the UK merely exacerbated the security problem there, with some of the newly imported medical personnel being implicated in some of the terrorist attacks.

Let's make sure everyone can buy a house.  If they can't afford it later on, we'll have the government buy up all the bad mortgages and latter we can accuse the people we forced to lend money of lending money to people who can't afford houses.

We don't like companies taking jobs overseas?  Let's increase their taxes and that will make them want to bring the jobs back (sarcasm).  Obama will stop companies from taking jobs overseas.  He'll make the whole company relocate overseas.

And of course increasing the taxes on big corporations will cause them to create more jobs (more sarcasm!).  Eating into the revenues of big corporations simply means higher prices and fewer jobs.

Let's increase the capital gains tax.  Obama knows it won't result in increase revenues.  He has admitted exactly that.  He just wants to do it out of fairness.  Can anyone explain that to me?

Tax cuts for the middle class!  Who cares that many of the people that Obama wants to help with his tax cuts already pay little or no taxes.  Let's give them a refundable credit.  Never mind that this is nothing but enforced charity (the lowest kind, according to Maimonides).  But of course, we can't call it charity.  Proud American's don't take charity.  Handouts from the government are another matter.  Besides, if it really were charity (instead of a government program) we might actually have a large percentage of the money actually getting to the people that need it.  We can't have that.  Not in Obamaland.

I don't care how many Clinton aides Obama has around him.  The only thing to recommend them is that they happened to be working in the government during the tech bubble.  If anything, that disqualifies them from having any knowledge of economics since their views are skewed by having a growing (or bubbling) economy during their tenure.  Anything they did worked.  Experience is about knowing what won't work.  These people know nothing of that.

We are told that he was a great student in school.  I guess he never took Econ 101.

From WashingtonPost.com Convention Update: (my responses are not from WashintonPost.com)

Advance Excerpts: Obama's Speech
The Obama campaign has released advance excerpts of his remarks, "The Promise of America," set for delivery later tonight. He is expected to say:

"Four years ago, I stood before you and told you my story - of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren't well-off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to.

<Of course, if they believed in America, you might expect they would raise him in America, not Indonesia>

"It is that promise that has always set this country apart - that through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can pursue our individual dreams but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams as well.

<Nothing here about government handouts.  Interesting.  Check out Michael Medved>

"It is why I stand here tonight. Because for two hundred and thirty two years, at each moment when that promise was in jeopardy, ordinary men and women - students and soldiers, farmers and teachers, nurses and janitors -- found the courage to keep it alive.

<Again, the American Dream is about the American people, their hard work and courage, not the government giving you what you want.>

"We meet at one of those defining moments - a moment when our nation is at war,

<We've been at war for quite a while.  Whether you start counting from 9-11, the USS Cole, the African Embassies, the Lebanese Embassy bombing, the first bombing of the twin towers or even back to Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates, we've been at war for quite a while.  The only difference is that now, we have been fighting back.  Finally.>

 our economy is in turmoil,

<Two reasons for our economic problems.  Energy, caused by our inability to drill at home and to build refineries and not to mention nuclear power plants, and Housing, caused by our well intentioned efforts to make sure everyone can afford to buy their own home.  Well, not everyone can afford to buy a home and what happens when you buy a home you can't afford?  You lose your house.  The effect of this is overstated.  The rate of foreclosures is not that much higher than before.  The rest is panic and misguided consumer sentiment.  Who kept us from drilling, building refineries, building nuclear power plants and getting people buying homes they can't afford?  This is when the American Dream took a left turn.  Well, the republicans may have cooperated, but that is republicans acting like democrats.  The answer to that is NOT more democrats.>


and the American promise has been threatened once more.

<The American promise is being threatened by an appealing radical many people think can be president>

"Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less.

<I like the quantification here.  More out of work from when?  From the unsustainable technobubble of the 90's?  From the depression?  Whatever Obama wants to say, he can't refute the fact that we are still at an enviable 5% unemployment.  The Dems are talking about our economic mess, but no one is giving any numbers other than comparing where we are now to the technobubble.>

More of you have lost your homes and more are watching your home values plummet.

<How many people have lost their homes when they bought homes they could actually afford?  If you buy a home you can't afford, you are going to lose it.  The rest is panic.>

More of you have cars you can't afford to drive,

<Well, I could never understand the infatuation with huge SUVs, the rest is fuel prices.  See above.>

credit card bills you can't afford to pay

<Well who is holding a gun to your head?  If you can't afford it, don't buy it. And don't EVER keep a balance on your credit cards.>

and tuition that is beyond your reach.

<I went to a state school.  Where did Obama go to school?  It didn't seem that skyrocketing tuition was beyond his reach.  But of course, he is better that the average man.>

"These challenges are not all of government's making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed presidency of George W. Bush.

<The response is more damaging that the challenges.  The "failure to respond" may be noted by history as some of Bush's greatest actions.>

"America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this."

<True.  But we are also a better country than the socialist country Obama dreams of.>

***

"This moment - this election - is our chance to keep, in the 21st century, the American promise alive.

<And we will, as long as the government doesn't muck with it.>

Because next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third.

<Better a Bush third than a Carter second>

And we are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look just like the last eight. On November 4th, we must stand up and say: "Eight is enough."

<High flying rhetoric comes down crashing and burning with a reference to an old sitcom.  Obama and I are remarkably alike in age, and I also used to watch "Eight is Enough."  But not even Dick van Patten ever actually said, "Eight is enough.">

"Now let there be no doubt. The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and respect.

<We are going to be hearing this until next November.  There is as much sincerity in this as in the Clintons' declarations that Obama is qualified to be President.>

And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need.

<This has never endeared McCain to republicans.  But at least he HAS been bipartisan.  The only claims that Obama has to bipartisanism is his work on the Ethics bill.  But, a) that assumes that ethics is not something democrats want (they finally admit it) and b) this bipartisanship ended when Obama was taken aside by party leaders and told not to cooperate.  After that, he didn't.  How disingenuous is it to claim to have gone against your party when you worked on something but then you quit when you were told to by your party>

"But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time.

<Well, this is a good thing, except that some issues in that missing ten percent were biggies.>

Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush was right more than ninety percent of the time?

<What does it say about judgment when whenever you say something substantial, you need to clarify your statement the next day.  Whose judgment would you prefer to emulate, Bush or Resko, Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers?>

I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance on change."

<I'm not even sure what this means.  But let me say something about change.  There is a scene in Stand and Deliver where Escalante is driving Pancho's car.  Pancho has decided to leave the calculus class so that he can work in his uncle's auto shop making real money.  Escalante asks Pancho where he should turn.  Excited and agitated, Pancho finally tells him turn right here.  They end up at a dead end.  Escalante tells him that that is his problem.  Always concerned about the next turn, never on the destination.  Change for change's sake is bad.  Movies and TV shows agree with common sense.  People who want a change because "Things couldn't get any worse," find out to their misery that they always can.>
***

"You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country.

<Yes and no.  When you measure progress by what people who work hard can achieve, as when they talk about the personal histories of Mr. and Mrs. Obama and Biden and the Clintons, then that is exactly the measures republicans would use.  When they talk about what the government should do for people, then, yes, they do have a different measure.  Trouble is, why are they applying the republican measure to themselves and a different measure for everyone else?>

"We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put away a little extra money at the end of each month so that you can someday watch your child receive her diploma.

<Well, this sounds pretty good.>

We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created when Bill Clinton was President - when the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 instead of down $2,000 like it has under George Bush.

<One word.  Technobubble.  What use is creating 23 million jobs if they are bound to disappear BEFORE the end of your term?  Obama may find it very hard to replicate the 23 million new jobs unless he can invent a new internet.  Hey, if Bill and Al can do it, why not Obama?  And the millions of new jobs created under George Bush will be around for a long time.  Longer if Obama doesn't get his hands on them.>

"We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off to look after a sick kid without losing her job - an economy that honors the dignity of work.

<You don't honor the dignity of work by paying people a living wage not to work.  You don't honor the dignity of work by giving people almost as much money for not working as for working.  You don't honor the dignity of work by taking money away from those who are working to pay for someone in the company half of their salary because they choose not to work so they can bond with their new baby.   You don't honor the dignity of work by taking a bigger tax bite so people will have less take home pay for the same work.>

"The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great - a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight."

<Well he is standing there because of a superb speech he gave at the convention four years ago, but never mind.>
***

"That's the promise we need to keep. That's the change we need right now. So let me spell out exactly what that change would mean if I am President.

<That would be nice (if you excuse the expression) for a change.>

"Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.

<Lobbying is not strictly a republican sin.  And, although many people would like to change this, Don Quixote would look at this windmill and give up.  Certainly the freshman senator from Illinois won't be able to do this.>

"Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship our jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.

<So the companies will give up taking jobs overseas and move there altogether to avoid the increased tax burden that Obama is promising.  Net result:  fewer jobs in America>

"I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

<Of course during the primaries, after being told that increasing capital gains taxes does not result in an increase in revenue, Obama said that he would increase capital gains taxes anyway, not out of a need for revenue, but as a matter of fairness.  I should be pleased that he wants to eliminate certain capital gains taxes for some companies, but a) this is probably one of those promises (preceded by flowers and chocolates) that are promises you don't intend to keep.  In any case by the time small businesses and start-ups actually have capital gains, they probably would no longer be considered small businesses or start-ups>

"I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

<First of all, for all of the spending he is promising and all of the tax cuts he wants us to believe he will propose, he will need additional revenue.  What he would discover (as all democrats need to discover) is the problem with taxing the top 5%.  Taxing the top 5% (beside the lack of fairness) doesn't get that much revenue because the tax base has so few people.  You can't expect the top 5% to provide all of the revenue that they will need for all that they want to provide for the remaining 95%,  95% is a lot.  5% is very little.  In addition to the fact that most middle class Americans are amazed to find out how low the income threshold for 5% really is.  Ultimately, the only way you can finance all that the democrats promise is to raise taxes on the middle class.  Which will Obama (and his democratic congress) give up first:  the promise not to tax the middle class, or their pet projects?>

"And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

<If he really meant this, he would allow drilling and he would allow us to build more nuclear power plants.  You can't do this with everything else alone.>

"Washington has been talking about our oil addiction for the last thirty years, and John McCain has been there for twenty-six of them. In that time, he's said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil as the day that Senator McCain took office.

<The last thirty years (1978-2008) includes the aftermath of the Arab Oil embargo, two years of a Carter presidency, the entire presidency of Bill Clinton and many years of democratic controlled congresses.  Of course it is McCain's fault.  In referring to the amount of oil we import, we also have to consider how much more oil we are producing and how much more oil we are consuming.  Our economy has grown tremendously.  Our production and consumption of oil has skyrocketed.  The problem is that our consumption has grown faster than our production.  But allowing drilling and nuclear power plants would have had a much greater effect in reducing our oil imports than the increased fuel efficiency standards and increased government investments in renewable energy.>

"Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.

<This is a big statement from someone who was telling us not too long ago to check the pressure on our tires.  "Stop-gap" and "not a long-term solution" are strange things to say when the democratic argument against drilling used to be that we wouldn't get a return for ten years.  But in the near future, (say twenty to twenty-five years) drilling and nuclear power will provide much more power than non-nuclear renewables.  But of course we should do both.  The choice is not one-or-the-other.  The choice is, for each alternative, whether or not we do it.  Let's say yes to all.>

"As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology,

<"Invest."  Good word.  It points out the lie in the democrats' energy programs.  Private industry will invest private money in anything viable.  If we need government money, it is because it is not viable.  Energy companies are investing in clean coal.  We don't need additional government investment.>

 and find ways to safely harness nuclear power.

<In splitting this up, I hope you didn't lose the subject here.  The subject (look back to verify if you don't believe me) was "I".  As in, "I will find ways to safely harness nuclear power."  On the one hand, I do not think working as a community organizer qualified someone as Nuclear Engineer.  At least Carter really was a nuclear engineer.  I suppose this is related in some way to the new internet he will invent (see above about the 23 million new jobs).  What this probably means however, is that unless we can find ways to harness nuclear power safely, he won't allow it.  This means he won't allow it.  It already is safe.  It is safer now that 30 years ago. Chernobyl was a Soviet design run by Soviet workers.  Three Mile Island, catastrophic as it may have been, killed not one person, gave no one cancer, and released very little radiation.  It already is safe.  If he is going to wait until it is safer, he is telegraphing that he will not allow nuclear power.  He just doesn't want to admit that he will not allow nuclear power.>

I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America.

<Market forces are taking care of this.  They are doing this out of self-preservation.  Did you notice that the typical hybrid is $5000 more than the comparable all-gas car? And yet there are waitinglists for many of these cars.  We do need the batteries to be built here, but, in time, any help that Obama provides will be referred to as corporate welfare.  In any case, he doesn't seem to talk about which fuel-efficient cars he talks about.  Hybrids really only provide marginally greater fuel efficiency.  Electric cars do not help if we are using fossil fuels to generate the electricity we will need to charge them.  Fuel cell cars sound great, but they are leashed to their hydrogen generating stations. And, also, we use fossil fuels to generate the electricity we need to produce the hydrogen.  As I said, if there were viable solutions on the horizon, we would not need government help.  In the meantime, I do not trust Obama or congress (or McCain or Mitt, for that matter) to decide which technologies will bear fruit and which won't.>

I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars.

<More government giveaways.  More middle class tax increase.  People's hard work will achieve the American dream, but Obama wants to tell them which cars to buy.>

 And I'll invest $150 billion over the next decade

<In other words, a middle class tax increase>

in affordable, renewable sources of energy

<If it was affordable, private industry would be aboard quicker that Obama can say "change">

- wind power and solar power

<both of which require more power now than we get by running them--but, of course, Obama has the engineering expertise to know which to promote and which to abandon>

and the next generation of biofuels;

<I hope, "the next generation."  What happened to the last generation?  We needed more energy to produce and to bring these fuels to market than what we saved by using these biofuels--not to mention the problems caused by taking food out of the food markets to use them as fuel.>

an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced."

<I keep repeating myself.  If it is viable, it will happen without Obama's help and it will lead to new industries and five million new jobs.  If it needs his help the industry will be tiny with few reliable jobs.>

***

"We are the party of Roosevelt.

<Like we need a New Deal giveaway>

 We are the party of Kennedy.

<Except Kennedy said we would pay any price and bear any burden in defense of freedom.  Kennedy knew that tax cuts increased revenues.  Kennedy was a democrat.  Obama is a democrat.  But Obama is no Kennedy>

So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country.

<Democrat won't defend this country.  The legacy of FDR and Kennedy is dead>

 Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe.

<Democrats won't keep us safe.  Does anyone remember the senate majority leader telling us that we had lost the war?  Does anyone remember "Willing suspension of disbelief," or "general betray-us"?>

The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans

<We removed a vicious dictator was defying UN resolutions, corrupting UN sanctions, firing at American fighters and threatening Americans.  We also killed his sons whose greatest accomplishments were the efficiency with which they raped and tortured.  We also have not had another terrorist attack on our soil since 9-11.>

 -- Democrats and Republicans - have built, and we are to restore that legacy.

<By talking to thugs?  That doesn't work.  That never works.  It didn't work with Hitler and Chamberlain.  It didn't work with Hitler and Stalin.  It didn't work with Arafat and Camp David.  It didn't work with Arafat and Oslo.  It didn't work with George 41 and Hussein ending the first Gulf War.  It didn't work with Clinton and North Korea.  It won't work with the recent agreements  between the current administration and North Korea.  We are always talking, if indirectly.  It never works.  They will agree to what they need to agree to to get the carrot while planning ways to avoid the stick.  There is, indeed, only one word for the Obama legacy.  Appeasement.  We will get burned while we give away all our carrots.>

"As Commander-in-Chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation,

<"Unless there is a country run by a madman dictator where all of the intelligence tells us he is building weapons of mass instruction.  Because, you see I know more than everyone else, so you can trust my judgment."  He forgot to add that.>

but I will only send our troops into harm's way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.

<This is Obama speak for "I will never send our troops into harm's way."  In other words, the only response to terrorists we can expect (and terrorist can expect--they know this) is long range ineffective cruise missles attacks and abandoning our military commitments to our allies and protectorates.>

"I will end this war in Iraq responsibly,

<Easy to say NOW. The surge has worked and the extra troops have been removed.  If Obama had had his say, we would have left Iraq before 2007--in a way that could never be called responsible.>

 and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

<The fight is much further along now.  Al Qaeda is emmaciated.  That was Bush.  Thank you, George.  And he would finish the fight as long as he doesn't have to send American troops into harms way.  Of course, not only would he fight in Afghanistan, but follow them into Pakistan--bombing our ally.  All they while he is having a party with our enemies in Iran.>

I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts.

<Sure.  I mean Bill Clinton was a REAL friend of the military.>

But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

<The personal force of Barack Obama's charisma will cause the Iranians to give up their nuclear weapons.  Please.>

 I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism

<losing in Iraq, as Obama wanted to do a year and a half ago, would have really gone a long way toward this.>

and nuclear proliferation;

<with only the sheer power of his charisma>

 poverty and genocide; climate change and disease.

<don't forget migraines and reality television.>

 And I will restore our moral standing so that America is once more the last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future."

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.

I could not attack Obama for his relations with Pastor Wright.

We cannot attack someone for his religious observance (assuming it is legal).  Even if we confine our attacks to his handling of the situation--his lying, his deception, his failing integrity, and his lack of judgement--if we allow no way for him to have handled the situation properly, then our attacks are reduced to an attack on his religion.

Whether it is true or not, I need to allow that all three of these to exist at the same time:  a) Obama attending his Church, b) Obama being honest and trustworthy, and c) Obama having a viable campaign.

b), above,  may or may not be true.  But if true, I cannot allow a) to be the sole obstacle to c).  There must be a way for a) and c) to be true if b) is also true.

As long as I did not have a way for c) to be true if a) and b) are also true, the attacks on Obama are attacks on his religion.  But what is an honest, trustworthy Obama (assuming such an animal existed) to do?

This is why the statement Obama never gave matters.  That he did no handle it that way, we know that b) is not true, and hence c) is not true.  Obama's campaign has lost viability not merely because he attended his church, but because b) is not true.  He has shown himself to be deceptive, opportunist, and lacking the ability to handle a difficult situation honestly and with integrity.  If he cannot do it as a candidate, how could he do it as a president.

In many of our minds Obama’s relationship with Pastor Wright and his handling of the Wright problem disqualify him for the job of President of the United States.  Even for mainstream Democrats, the whole situation has cast a pall over the exuberant campaign of Barak Obama.

One question that needs to be answered is whether his relationship with his Pastor itself was a deal breaker for his election.  I hope and believe that it was not.

I hope it was not because that would tell every parishioner of Pastor Wright’s church and, if we believe Pastor Wright that he is the rule rather than the exception with black churches, every member of those churches that they could never be president.  Forget hard work.  Forget whatever package of integrity, experience and ideas you plan to put together, you will never be president, and probably never even hold statewide office--once your religious affiliation is revealed.  It has disqualified you.  That would be sad.  That would indicate that this country is a little less great than I believe it is.

I believe that Obama’s campaign was not doomed from the start because I can imagine a statement he might have given at the beginning of this thing that would have told the truth, and preserved the excitement that was his campaign.  I will present an example of that statement at the end of this message.

That he did not give that message is the poison that doomed his campaign.  That he, at first denied that the statements were representative of Pastor Wright’s views, and then, after it was shown that they were, denied that he had heard them, and finally, denounced his Pastor (whom he could no more disown than he could disown his own grandmother--has anyone checked with Granny lately?) shows that he is a politician.  No more, no less.  Not trusting us with the truth or, perhaps not trusting the truth, he lies.  He is an opportunist, doing what he needs to do to get elected.  He lacks the integrity of who he is, and he lacks the confidence that that is someone whom we would want to elect.  He knows who he is, but he keeps that from us because he thinks he is not someone people would want to vote for.  He is no change.

This, by the way, explains to me Michelle Obama.  They both sat in those pews for 20 years absorbing the views of the pastor.  Barak, being a good politician, would know to keep those views out of his public life, whether he agreed to them or not. Michelle may be a brilliant woman, but she is no politician.  She absorbed and has come to agree with the pastor’s politics, but is not politician enough to hide it.  As a member of his family, Michelle should not be attacked.  but when she gives speeches on his behalf, she becomes a campaign operative and, as such, needs to be responded to.

The statement that he should have given would admit what we know from his books.  That he was captivated by the charismatic pastor from the beginning.  That the pastor was a mentor to Barak and very important to his family. But also that he was aware of the pastor’s politics.  It would explain why he stayed there for 20 years.

I do not know how much truth there is in the statement I present.  I suspect that only Barak would know that.  It may true, however, that with the tangle of lies he was woven over the past several months he might no longer know.  I am sure there is truth in it, and I believe that it is close to the truth.  I think it could have saved his campaign.  I think it is too late now, because we learned too much about him in his mishandling of the whole situation.  But this is what he should have said:

“Much has been made about my relationship with Pastor Wright, and about Pastor Wright’s political views.  I have written in my book, The Audacity of Hope, that form the first sermon I heard him give, I was captivated by his charisma and his power and his ideas.  He inspired me and guided me in my work as a community organizer.  I was very young at that time, and my political views were in flux.  Since that time, we have become close.  He has always given me spiritual guidance.  He presided over our wedding.  He baptized our children.  He has been an asset to the church and the community and for that I admire him.  In that work, I have tried to emulate him.

“As my political views have developed, my views have grown apart from Pastor Wright’s.  We have discussed politics in private.  I have never told him that he was wrong, partly because of the respect I have for him, and partly because, as you all know, it is almost impossible to try to change someone’s politics.  But he is wrong.  I know he is wrong.

“The question becomes, then, why not leave the church?  Why sit in those pews for 20 years, if I disagreed with the pastor’s politics.  The truth is, we don’t attend church for the politics.  We don’t choose which church to go to because of the politics.  The truth is, we have developed deep ties to the pastor, the church and the community. And those ties are the reasons we belong to a church.  We belong just as much for what happens the other six days as for what happens on Sunday morning.  If we could never attend a Sunday Worship service again, we would want to remain in that church.  We would want to remain members of that community.

“There is also a larger truth here.  I do attend Sunday Worship services.  I do hear Pastor Wright’s sermons.  I value what teaches me each Sunday.  Not as history, because there, he is plain wrong.  Not as political doctrine, because his doctrine is repugnant in many ways.  But what he teaches is parable.  When he compares our soldiers in Iraq to the Roman soldiers that occupied the Holy Land, I know he is wrong.  I know our soldiers are carrying out a noble mission nobly.  We may disagree about the motivation of the politicians that sent them there.  We know the handling of the war was dreadful from the start. But we know our kids are the best.  We need to decide when they can stop the noble mission and come back home to the families that miss them and need them.

“What I learn form the pastor is that  power corrupts.  Not that our power has corrupted us.  But that there is always the danger that we could be corrupted.  This is a valuable lesson for me should I become president and commander-in-chief of the most powerful country in the world.  I will always have my conscience in the form of Pastor Wright’s sermons whispering in my ear the parable of the Roman soldier, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

“When he deplores the handling of the native Americans in our history, I know that it was wrong to mistreat them.  I also know that, should we have the power to undo all of that, this country would not be a great country.  We can mourn for what happened to the American Indian. We can be thankful to be living in the greatest country on Earth, and we can learn that we need to tread lightly when in the presence of another culture, another civilization. We need to beware of how we treat the people of Iraq, of Afghanistan, of Darfur, of the Balkans, of Columbia and everywhere else where we put boots on the ground.  We can not, and, perhaps we should not undo what was done to the first citizens of this continent, but we can certainly make sure that history does not repeat itself.

“The government did not develop AIDS to kill African Americans, but from that I learn that the United States has an imperative to do what it can to try to cure AIDS in Africa.  The Israelis did not develop a nuclear weapon that only kills blacks and arabs.  But I learned that the specter of nuclear war knows no boundaries, not national, not racial, and not religious.  We cannot be blamed for the attack on our country on 9-11.  But our actions have consequences--a lesson that all leaders need to learn.

“I could go on.  I sit in that pew and I hear the extreme politics, the separatist politics, some might even say the dangerous politics of my pastor.  Some people might say they are rants.  I might agree with those people.  But there is wisdom in those rants and great men learn from people with whom they disagree.  I aspire to greatness.  I want to be President of the United States.  A great country needs a great president.  I hope to be a great president.  I believe I will be a better president because I have absorbed the wisdom, the spirituality, if not the politics, of my mentor and friend, Pastor Wright.”

I've already commented on Obama's shift to the middle.

Donald Lambro documented his shift and includes this comment from a Democratic leader:

All of these and other changes in his campaign positions were "signs of increasing maturity and growth" in the young senator, former Democratic National Committee chairman Steve Grossman told me.

For my money, we need to leave Obama on the tree to finish ripening.  We should harvest no fruit before its time.  The presidency is no place for people to mature and grow.  It is certainly NOT another line on your resume.

I am reminded of A Man for All Seasons where Thomas More tells his future son-in-law that, "A year ago you were a passionate Churchman.  Now, you're a passionate Lutheran.  We can only hope that when your head stops spinning that your face is to the front again."

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.

Well, Hugh was on This Week this week.  This made for a fun This Week, but there were a few issues with today's installment.

The show began with an Obama supporter and a Gov. Pawlenty for McCain.  And again, an Obama supporter was pressed for an instance of when Obama ever went bipartisan--going against the party for the sake of what is better for the country.  And again, the Obama supporter came up with Ethics reform.  The subtext is if you believe in ethics, the Democratic party will be against you.  I'll take it.

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.