Two utterly opposite candidates

Mirroring this extraordinary political year the conventions of both parties were unusual, unpredictable and given to striking twists and surprises. Aside from the continuing guerrilla warfare between the Clinton and Obama camps - a media delight - the truly remarkable aspect of the Democratic convention was the stunning spectacle of the nominee’s acceptance speech. Probably not since the Roman Coliseum mounted extravagant triumphs for the return of victorious emperors has the world seen such spectacular pageantry revolving around one man.

Without question the Obama nomination is a historic milestone which certainly justifies a reasonable degree of grandeur. Oddly however despite Obama’s well-deserved reputation for spellbinding oratory, informed opinion concluded that the show was better than the speech.

Throughout the campaign John McCain has struggled to avoid being eclipsed by his opponent’s money, media dominance, and sheer star power. Occasionally his efforts have been rather weak - visiting a German restaurant in Ohio to counter Obama’s entertainment of 200,000 Berliners - but most of his quick-release counterpunching ads have been effective, and they have clearly drawn blood -- notably the brilliant enlisting of Paris Hilton and Charlton Heston to tag Obama as a celebrity lightweight.

McCain, however, surpassed himself with his vice-presidential announcement. The “leak-free” timing - barely a dozen hours after Obama’s acceptance speech - was masterful, and the selection -“surprise” would be a gross understatement - of Sarah Palin turned the whole news cycle upside down and caused a jaded and chronically self-congratulating national media to scramble and rework countless assumptions about the state of the campaign.

Beyond stepping all over any “bounce” from the Obama speech, the Palin selection, when contrasted with the weak and defensive choice of Washington “lifer” Joe Biden, recasts the whole question of who is the real “candidate of change”.

The Republican convention - truncated by the sudden eruption of the hurricane season - sharply contrasted with the doings in Denver. While the Democrats put on a sound and light spectacle - unburdened by any substance - the GOP event was by comparison muted, and even drab, but redeemed by its Spartan brevity and the arresting acceptance speeches of its candidates.

So, in the wake of the two conventions, what can be said about this contest for the world’s most important job?

The dominant reality is the closeness of the polls. Historically Democrats have exited their convention with leads ranging from 16 (Kerry) to 25 (Dukakis) points and then drifted downward. Today the race is virtually dead even. Despite economic distress at home and an unpopular war abroad that had Democrats plausibly dreaming of a 1964-type sweep Obama’s numbers have consistently underperformed what voter identification and generic matchup numbers suggest they should be doing.

There are two reasons for this. The lesser is that in McCain - despite the heartburn he has given conservatives over the years - Republicans ended up with the one and only candidate who could effectively compete in that ocean of independent and weakly partisan voters who decide every Presidential election.

The greater reason however is the continuing mystery that is Barack Obama. Despite unprecedented albeit not-too-probing media focus, Obama remains essentially an unknown commodity. Moreover a significant slice of the electorate harbors abiding suspicion that he is very different from what he claims to be.

Evidence revealing Obama’s true identity is not hard to find. A close reading of his 1995 autobiography - written before he entered politics and therefore surprisingly candid - his associations as a community organizer (ACORN and the Gamaliel Foundation), his record as a state legislator, notably his acquiescence and participation in the notoriously corrupt practices of the Daley machine in Chicago, and various unguarded public and private utterances (e.g. “clinging to guns and God”) unmask not just the Senate’s most liberal member, but rather an extreme radical deeply alienated from and contemptuous of the mainstream culture and value system of the country he seeks to lead.

Only the relentless determination of the national media to hear, see, and speak no evil regarding the “Chosen One” have sustained this stealth candidacy and prevented the American people from discovering the unpalatable truth about Obama. To date only Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers have tumbled out of Obama’s dark closet -- and not even the full story about them.

The truth is that never in our entire history have we had two presidential candidates so utterly opposite in their character, experience, vision, and values. The election will turn on whether this reality is revealed or remains concealed.

William Moloney’s columns have appeared in the Wall St. Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Enquirer, Baltimore Sun, Denver Post, and Rocky Mountain News.

The two nominees: What we know

Now that the conventions are over, a 60 day sprint to the general election for president remains. The conventions were alternately interesting, boring, predictable and downright electrifying -- embodying all that is compelling about American politics. It was great theater. But now it's time for substance, because this is really the most important job interview in the world. The seriousness of this endeavor should be obvious to anyone paying attention since 9/11/2001, and has been compounded further by $4 gasoline, a banking and mortgage mess and a general slowdown in the economy.

The choice we make in November -- particularly in light of a certain Democrat majority in both houses of Congress -- will be extremely critical to the future of the country. While every four years we hear "this is the most important election in memory" -- this really is.

So it is time to get serious. And in that vein, I'd like you to consider the following:

This election will be about more than character and experience -- but it is important to keep in mind that in a president, character counts more than almost anything else. Though Barack Obama's acceptance speech in Denver was full of "I will save the country" promises, the reality is that in our system of shared powers, the president can't work miracles. He's part of a complex dance with the House, Senate and Judiciary. Where the president's decisions alone matter most is in his role as Commander in Chief. Most everything else requires at least some advice, consent or legislation from the Congress.

A good example of the importance of presidential character and judgment is Harry Truman: when he became president in 1945 the only real tools he brought to the job were his good instincts, his basic values and a strong sense of right and wrong. He also brought to bear a strong ethic of public service, which enabled him to avoid the temptations of personal enrichment that ensnare so many in government. The president must have a solid sense of ethics and a well-defined moral code to be successful. It is far more important than any policy prescription -- especially in times of crisis.

On this score the choice is clear. As we saw last night in his speech to the RNC, and as we know from his well-documented bio, John McCain's life has been about public service. He's the personification of courage in so many ways -- a man who has give so much to his country, and understands that the first and last job of holding public office is serving the people -- not himself. Moreover, in a lifetime of being in the public eye, his values, character and judgment are well documented and proven. He's been right more often than he's been wrong, and he has the internal compass and fortitude to stand up to criticism from within his own party -- which he has often been subject to. He's not right on all the issues, but we know who he is and what he stands for.

And what of Barack Obama? He's obviously smart and well spoken. But we really don't know anything about him. Where are his good friends who will vouch for him? His classmates at Harvard who know his background and character? The Obama campaign has been designed to hide the real Obama, by being a carefully controlled, crafted and scripted program that has shielded him from questions about his past.

In the one setting where he took direct questions -- at the Saddleback Church debate with Rick Warren -- his answers were unclear, vague and indecisive. One gets the very real sense that we don't know what he thinks because he doesn't know what he thinks. We don't know why he wants to be president -- except that he wants to "change" America. We don't know how, or why, or what change that is, however. He thinks (and his wife obviously also believes) that America is somehow "broken". But how will he "fix" it?

What we do know about Barack Obama is that on the few issues where he has taken a stand, his judgment has been poor. Here's a sampling:

** We don't know much about Obama's background, but we do know that he and his family attended a a racist and anti-American church for 20 years. We know that the pastor, Jeremiah Wright, married Obama and his wife Michelle and baptized his two children. We know that Obama stood behind Wright until the pastor's comments made it politically untenable, and then (and only then) did he move to distance himself.

** We know that Michelle Obama wrote a thesis at Princeton that promoted black seperatism as a worthy goal and who said 'There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost."

** We know that Obama has had a relationship for the past decade with William Ayres, a noted 1960s radical and unrepentant member of the Weather Underground terrorist group. We know that Obama has been to Ayres home and that they sat on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge together (read more about it here: Obama Needs to Explain his Ties to William Ayers ). As Michael Barone reports:

Ayers was one of the original grantees of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school reform organization in the 1990s, and was cochairman of the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, one the two operational arms of the CAC. Obama, then not yet a state senator, became chairman of the CAC in 1995.

Later in that year, the first organizing meeting for Obama's state Senate campaign was held in Ayers's apartment. Ayers later wrote a memoir, and an article about him appeared in the New York Times on Sept. 11, 2001. "I don't regret setting bombs," Ayers is quoted as saying. "I feel we didn't do enough."Ayers was a terrorist in the late 1960s and 1970s whose radical group set bombs at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol.

** We know also that Obama has a relationship with convicted felon Tony Rezko, who was involved in a shady deal to help Obama purchase his home in Hyde Park, Chicago.

** We know that on the issue of welfare reform, Obama took a position in the Illinois State Senate that he was against it -- fearing (as most liberals did) that it would force people off the rolls and onto the streets. Bill Clinton, to his great credit, pushed the Democrats to support it 1996 and it has been an unprecedented success. Obama admits now that he made a mistake in opposing it -- but it shows that he fundamentally misunderstands human nature: when people have the right incentives, they are capable of providing for themselves. But Obama's judgment is mired in the victimization mantra of the left.

** We know that Obama has been wrong on Iraq. He will claim his judgment about the war itself in 2003 was right, and that he opposed the war from the beginning. But Obama didn't have a vote on it, and it was relatively risk free for him to take that position. And, in any event, his claim that he was right on the war because he opposed it -- because it has been a "failure" -- is not at all a given. We don't know what the long-term results of the fall of Saddam Hussein will be, but if the current events are a sign of things to come, history may very well judge the war in Iraq as a success.

** With certainty, however, we know that he opposed the surge and wanted to remove U.S. troops staring in January 2007. That would have resulted in chaos and the destruction of the nascent Iraqi state, and provide a vital victory for Al Qaeda and the insurgency. It would have been a disaster for American interests, providing Iran with access to one of the largest supplies of oil on earth. Obama can't even admit that he was wrong on the surge -- and has said repeatedly that he would oppose it all over again, even knowing what he knows now.

** We know that Obama's domestic policies on virtually everything -- from taxes to healthcare -- put him on the wrong side of history. We know from our own experiences and the record now in Europe that high taxes on corporations and investments impede economic growth. Obama's plans to raise corporate, dividend and estate taxes are precisely opposite of what the growing economies of the world are doing. His polices on healthcare expand the role of government and place draconian requirements on small and medium sized businesses -- the very engine of growth in our economy. His energy policy is one that is based on extensive government investment in alternative energy technology -- but largely at the expense of current oil supplies that are needed to drive prices down.

** In fact, Obama is on record as believing that higher gas prices are acceptable as a way of forcing conservation. He doesn't seem to care if we pay more at the pump if it facilitates his goals of saving the planet from global warming. In an interview with NBC News in June, Obama said this:

When asked by Harwood if higher gas prices were an incentive to shift to alternative means of energy, Obama said the U.S. has "been slow to move in a better direction when it comes to energy usage." When Harwood followed up and asked if the higher prices then could actually help, Obama responded this way: "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment.

The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly U.S. automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out of this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now."

The goal of lower emissions and reducing greenhouse gasses is a good one -- but doing it in a way that punishes those who can least afford it is not the way to go.

**************** If you want change, voting for Obama/Biden is not the way to go. If you want to shake up Washington, sending Obama and Joe Biden and his 36 years in the U.S. Senate -- to conspire with a Democrat Congress is not the way to go. Obama and Biden will only expand government in line with special interests -- teacher's unions, environmentalists, trial lawyers and all the usual suspects.

John McCain, however, has a record of opposing special interests -- of both parties. He will be a thorn in the side of Pelosi and Reid and serve as a needed check and balance to one-party rule. He will compromise when needed to advance the public good, but he will be a strong advocate of responsible government that will be sorely needed with the Democrat's in control of Congress.

We have a simple choice to make the election: between a man with a solid, known track-record of courage and compromise, and a man with almost no record to speak of. It's a choice between someone who has the right motivations for seeking the presidency, and a man who's background leaves many questions unanswered.

This is no time to take a flier on Barak Obama.

Drill down to candidates' principles

(Denver Post, Sept. 7) Quick, who was Henry Cabbage Cod? Oops, I mean Henry Cabot Lodge. Who were Bill Miller and Sarge Shriver? Ed Muskie and Lloyd Bentsen? All were losing vice-presidential candidates of the past half-century, the first two Republicans, the others Democrats. Go to the head of the class if you knew that. Most people wouldn’t know or care. Outside the Beltway, there’s general agreement that the vice-presidency isn’t worth a bucket of warm, uh, spit, as Jack Garner, VP under FDR, memorably put it. This year we have Sarah Palin the terrific versus Joe Biden the soporific. Their debate will be a doozy. But after November, one will become a historical footnote and the other will become auxiliary equipment, unlikely to either replace the 44th President or impact his administration much. That’s the American way. The 2008 election, like all of them since 1788, is about the men who would be President and the principles by which they would govern, period. While Palin-watching, Ayers-bashing, and other sideshows will continue to enliven the campaign, voters mustn’t be distracted from the big policy issues if we are to decide wisely. Two of the biggest are energy and health care.

Both are vital. To make them more affordable, should government get more involved, or work on getting out of the way? I’d say the latter, as a believer in individual liberty and free markets, based on our country’s unequaled success with voluntary approaches to abundance and innovation. McCain, though imperfect, is closer to this standard than Obama. That’s my reason, more than party or personality, for favoring him.

To illustrate why getting out of the way is better and what it would look like, I call to the witness stand Joseph L. Bast of the Heartland Institute. The nonpartisan Bast – I doubt he’s ever voted Republican OR Democrat – wrote a series of issue guides called “Ten Principles.” As the rhetoric gets thick this fall, these booklets can help cut the fog.

Here are Joe Bast’s ten principles for energy policy: First, he warns, energy independence is an illusion; we’ll always have to import. Gasoline prices are market-driven. Global warming is not a crisis. Air pollution is not a major public health problem. Mercury from coal-fired power plants isn’t either.

That’s five, and by now you’re either liking these or steamed up. But be aware his argument for each (online at Heartland.org) is meticulously documented. The other energy principles are these: Biofuels should not be subsidized. CAFÉ mileage standards for vehicles sacrifice lives for oil. Electric deregulation is still necessary. Liquefied natural gas is part of the solution. Nuclear energy is too.

Emotion and hope favor the windmillers, data and reality favor the drillers. McCain-Palin want to drill, as does Bob Schaffer in his Senate race with Mark Udall. May their tribe increase. Republicans in Colorado and nationally also want to avoid Canada-style socialized medicine, and here too the liberty-minded Bast gives good reasons why.

His ten principles for health policy build on the cornerstone that health care isn’t a right but a service – and as such, best delivered by the market. To minimize government interference, we should repeal many existing regulations, reduce reliance on third-party payers, and help only those who need help. Single payer is not the answer.

Rounding out the Rx list on health care, Dr. Bast urges: Encourage entrepreneurship. Expand health savings accounts. Expand access to prescription drugs. Reduce malpractice litigation expenses. And finally, encourage long-term care insurance.

While you may prefer a different yardstick for health policy or energy, the ones from Heartland Institute work for me. Comparing platforms on these and many other issues, the GOP decisively trumps the Dems. Obama’s big-government future repels me. I’ll take McCain, warts and all.

Maggie & Ronnie, meet Sarah

Slated on Backbone Radio, Sept. 7 Listen every Sunday, 5-8pm on 710 KNUS, Denver... 1460 KZNT, Colorado Springs... and streaming live at 710knus.com.

Rudy Giuliani's powerful RNC speech on "Suppose you were hiring someone" was a primer for voters on the contrast between Kid Obama and Maverick McCain. But if we imagined the same situation for McCain himself as a readiness test for the presidency, the Republican nominee just aced it. In selecting Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for his running mate, McCain made the most insightful and impactful personnel pick for America's future since President Bush tapped Gen. Petraeus to turn around the war in Iraq. The self-described "pit bull with lipstick" has put new teeth in Mac's reform campaign and brought star quality rivaling Obama's own. Palin's brilliant acceptance speech topped Rudy's high-energy warmup act and cheerfully bloodied the opposition. Look out, America. She's here.

Sarah Barracuda is the best thing to happen on the right since 1980. She has the backbone of the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, along with the wishbone and funnybone of our own Gipper, Ronald Reagan. Ronnie from on high and Maggie from her honored retirement in Britain must both have been beaming as Palin electrified the delegates on Wednesday night.

So hold off on Barack's coronation. This is going to be a heckuva race after all, and those styrofoam Greek columns could have to stay in storage for good. Come Nov. 5, the ex-community organizer may wish he'd been a mayor instead -- someone with actual responsibilities.

This Sunday on Backbone Radio, we'll talk about both conventions, RNC and the now-overshadowed DNC, with some great guests including Kate O'Beirne of National Review... former Gov. Bill Owens... Mike Littwin of the Rocky Mountain News... and two Colorado GOP delegates just home from St. Paul, Kathleen LeCrone and Debbie Brown.

Author Peter Schweizer will also be along to focus the lessons of his new book, "Makers and Takers," on the conservative-liberal showdown of this fall's campaign. You can get course credit just for memorizing his Palinesque subtitle: "Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less...And Even Hug Their Children More than Liberals."

Is it just me, or has politics gotten to be more fun since Obie visited Berlin and McCain phoned Alaska? Join us for one of our best-ever shows and find out.

Yours for caribou on the menu, JOHN ANDREWS

Give'em hell, Sarah

Gov. Palin is correct: she and Harry Truman do have a lot in common. Consider this time capsule from 1944: "Poor people of the United States. Truman is a nice man, an honest man, a good Senator, a man of great humility and a man of courage. He will make a passable Vice President. But Truman as President of the United States in times like these?" That was Richard Strout, writing in the New Republic shortly after FDR named his fourth-term VP candidate. In the short time since she was announced as John McCain’s running mate last weekend, the New Republic and other publications have again begun laying judgment on the merits of a choice for Vice President. Peter Scoblic of the current New Republic calls Palin’s resume “frighteningly thin” and the choice of her as VP “arrogant”. Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post said McCain had put “politics over country” in choosing a candidate with so little foreign policy experience. John Dickerson of Slate called it “reckless” and Jonathan Alter at Newsweek is sure she’s likely to “bellyflop” when faced with questions from reporters on issues she’s not familiar with.

They obviously hadn’t met “Sarah Barracuda” yet.

They sure have now. If Sarah Palin’s rousing speech at the Republican National Convention is any indication of how she will handle herself – as both candidate and office-holder -- the media and the pundits will be eating their words. In her speech on Wednesday night she deftly made reference to these doubters in the media -- and to her own unusual road to the nomination -- by referring to “a young farmer and haberdasher from Missouri who followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency.” She was referring, of course, to Harry Truman – a small town man of common means who became both Vice President and later President in a time of war – and ended up being what many now consider one of the better presidents of the 20th century.

It is a comparison that fits Palin well – and may help to quiet those who say that she isn’t yet ready to be Vice President. As noted biographer David McCullough writes in Truman, he was the “son of rural, inland America”, who never went to college and served with distinction as an artillery officer in the Missouri National Guard in World War I. He tried his hand at several vocations before starting his haberdashery business – which ultimately became a casualty of hard economic times. Like the life of Sarah Palin and her family, it was not one of privilege -- rather it was filled with the ordinary challenges of an ordinary American.

Also like Palin, Truman began his political career in small-town politics -- as an administrative judge of the Jackson County Court, where he was known for his honest efficiency and ability to “get things done”. After a series of local government posts, he entered the larger stage as a United States Senator from Missouri in 1934. Truman’s senate career was largely uneventful until the early 1940s when he led what became known as the “Truman Committee”, investigating waste and fraud in defense contracting. He made his name on something that Sarah Palin would certainly appreciate – pushing back on graft and “sweetheart” deals inside the government.

Harry Truman’s experience as a Senator wasn’t especially broad or deep, and it hardly prepared him to be Vice President in a time of war. He was VP for just three months and rarely saw FDR alone before the President’s death. Upon becoming President himself, Truman had little inside knowledge about the key issues facing him: he knew little about how World War II was being prosecuted and knew nothing about the Manhattan Project and the development of the atomic bomb. He also was totally unprepared to deal with Joseph Stalin – who had been pushing around an ill and weakened Roosevelt in negotiations over a defeated Europe. By all measures, Truman was hardly qualified to step into the presidency. As McCullough writes, the reaction in the country was initially one of panic: “Good God, Truman will be President”, it was being said everywhere. “If Harry Truman can be President, so could my next door neighbor.”

And yet, history shows that Truman was more than up to the job. He went to Yalta just after FDR’s death and took the measure of Stalin and saw that he was not to be trusted -- making it clear that the United States would not stand pat while the Soviet Union annexed all of Western Europe. He made the tough decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan because he knew it would end the war in the Pacific. He went on to pass the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe. He desegregated the U.S. armed forces and recognized the state of Israel. In short, he made tough decisions on the most complex issues of the day -- decisions that have stood the test of time.

The foundation for these decisions came not from experience, but rather from a wellspring of solid character, reliable instinct and good judgment. As Mary McGrory wrote in the Washington Post on the day of Truman’s death in 1972: "He was not a hero or a magician or a chess player, or an obsession (emphasis added). He was a certifiable member of the human race, direct, fallible, and unexpectedly wise when it counted.

Unlike Barack Obama, who is an obsession of the left, Sarah Palin from this vantage point looks a lot like Harry Truman: a small town woman with five kids and a husband who has a regular job. She began her career as a small town mayor, close to the people and their problems. She took on the entrenched interests of her state, resigning as Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in protest of ethical violations by another commissioner that were ignored by the sitting governor. When she became governor herself, she quickly broke up the old boys network that is Alaskan politics, rejecting the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” and passing real ethics reform in the state. She’s a reformer who is tough and principled, and who has earned the respect of her opponents. And based on her speech Wednesday night, it is not difficult to imagine Sarah Palin standing firm with Vladimir Putin if put in that position -- much in the same way Truman handled Stalin.

Indeed, those who have seen Palin in action in Alaska attest to her good political instincts, her toughness and her broad-based appeal to ordinary Americans. As Christopher Orr of the New Republic writes: "What the Democrats seem poised to miss now (about Palin) --is that she is a true political savant; a candidate with a knack for identifying the key gripes of the populace and packaging herself as the solution. That keen political nose has enabled her to routinely outperform her resume. Nearly two years into her administration, she still racks up approval ratings of 80 per cent or better."

If the Democrats missed it before, it will be hard (but not impossible – such is their disdain for her) to underestimate Palin after the performance she put on tonight at the Republican National Convention. What they saw was a natural at work.

Orr goes on to make another critical point about Palin: "Sarah Palin is a living reminder that the ultimate source of political power in this country is not the Kennedy School or the Davos Summit or an Ariana Huffington salon; even now, power emanates from the electorate itself. More precisely, power in 2008 emanates from the working class electorates of Pennsylvania and Ohio."

My guess is that in this election year, Harry Truman would have appealed mightily to those working class voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio – regardless of how many Senate hearings he’d held, or how much foreign policy experience he has. And now, after Sarah Palin has had a chance to introduce herself to the American public, I bet that she will, too.