We can trust McCain with our security

Arizona Sen. John McCain has long been regarded as the most credible candidate when it comes to national defense. He has always supported a defense establishment second to none in the world, but no less the prudent use of that power at the lowest reasonable cost. He supported the invasion of Iraq and unfortunately his advocacy for a larger troop commitment to deal with the insurgency was for too long unheeded. But when Gen. David Petraeus implemented the "surge" two years ago, the tide turned in the Iraqi peoples’ favor and McCain was proved right. Sen. Barack Obama imagines that in opposing the decision to invade he is vindicated in his criticism of the subsequent "soft-footprint" counterinsurgency. But the decision to topple Saddam Hussein’s expansionist regime with its history of chemical warfare was the right one, and any failures subsequent to that hardly discredit the original strategy. Obama not only advocated premature withdrawal from Iraq but denounced the surge as a failure. He tries to distract attention from his reckless position on Iraq by insisting that the United States "took its eye off the ball" when it followed up its successful toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan with the decision to eliminate the regional threat posed by Baathist Iraq.

But there is no more reason to believe that Obama would prosecute the campaign in Afghanistan than he would in Iraq, for his overall military posture is to draw down military forces overall and around the world. The fact is, terrorists have been thwarted in all their efforts since 9/11 to strike at our homeland. Obama will revert to the discredited Clinton Administration policy of trying to defeat terrorism largely by legal means, with undue concern for the terrorists’ "rights."

McCain is proud of America, not only for its republican form of government and security for the citizens’ liberty and equality, but also proud of its determination to defend our nation and others against aggression. To that end, he did not hesitate to support our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of the infamous terrorist attack on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. He understood that nations that harbored terrorists or cooperated with them must be dealt with in whatever manner the nature of the threat they pose indicates. Afghanistan was the base of the Taliban and al-qaeda, the former providing cover for the latter to carry out terrorist acts.

Saddam Hussein had violated the terms of the truce following the 1990 Gulf War we successfully fought in response to his attack on Kuwait, and he had used chemical weapons in an earlier war against Iraq in the 1980s and even against his own citizens as well. Obama repeats over and over again his lament that America’s reputation has suffered in the world for doing its duty and securing its interests. While carefully concealing his long involvement in radicalism behind a cover of alleged concern for American interests, Obama cannot be trusted to go any farther than Bill Clinton in his half-hearted response to international terrorism.

Given his long association with men like the anti-American Rev. Jeremiah Wright and onetime Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, there is every reason to be concerned that Obama would be disinclined to give America the benefit of the doubt in international relations. His willingness to meet without preconditions with the dictators of Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela may be all that voters need to know. Whether it is a conceited claim to persuasive powers that have eluded all past American presidents or naivete’ that borders on the recklessly irresponsible, we would be best advised not to place our country’s fate in the careless hands of Barack Obama.

America needs President McCain

Tuesday night’s town hall debate format between John McCain and Barack Obama was supposed to be advantageous to the Arizona Senator, and perhaps for the first hour or so when domestic economy was the chief topic, it was. But between the Illinois Senator’s clever speaking, "moderator" Tom Brokaw’s unwelcome intrusion with his own questions at the expense of those being asked by the citizens present or from the Internet, and McCain’s own inability to articulate adequately his thoroughly defensible positions, the public interest in sound deliberation was not served. In what follows, I will attempt, from fresh and not-so-fresh memory, to flesh out the issues at stake. Even though McCain staked out a much more credible position on domestic economy than Republicans traditionally have been able to do when public concerns about high prices, tight credit, growing unemployment and fears of massive losses are dominant, he failed to make as clear, as he needed to, that the Democratic party in general and the government-backed mortgage industry in particular are the cause of the current debacle. As my friend Prof. Richard Williams of Glendale Community College recently reminded me, only the United States government has the power to cause a massive economic crisis. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as the quasi-governmental agencies that dominate the housing market are affectionately known, have put into effect Gresham’s Law, or "bad money drives out good."

It begins with federal legislation that permits so-called "subprime" (translation: bad) loans to be made to people who do not qualify because of low income, poor credit history or lack of collateral, or all three. Yet trillions of dollars in such housing loans were made in the name of diversity or increasing opportunities for enjoyment of the American dream, especially to members of racial minorities. When, beginning in 2003, Republicans raised questions in Congress about this impending runaway train wreck, they were stiffed in both the Senate and the House of Representatives by Democrats who not only unwisely supported the financial bubble but were receiving huge campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, chief among them Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Sen. Obama, a rising political star and a member in good standing of the Congressional Black Caucus. Cries of racism, designed to intimidate those who raised questions, were thrown at conscientious Republicans, who, in one of history’s greatest ironies–if not one of politics’ greatest deceptions–are now condemned by the Democrats for their failure to regulate Wall Street bankers and investment houses!

Obama recites this claim like litany, hoping that public ignorance will enable him to take advantage of the made-to-order economic distress that promises to deliver him the lofty office which he now seeks. He says that the free market is the culprit, when any fair-minded analysis will demonstrate that the trillion-dollar colossus constituted by Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac is the one. McCain is right to single out greed, but the guilty parties in question are not private investors both caught up in and affected by the much larger transactions of their government-backed competition, but powerful men in the government. When private entrepreneurs make bad investments, they must pay for them. When government "entrepreneurs" make them, the taxpayers are on the hook.

The term sub prime reminds the historically minded of the sub treasury scheme of the Democratic party in its earliest days 170 years ago during the era of Jacksonian democracy. President Andrew Jackson vetoed the charter of the Second Bank of the United States in 1832, which helped win him the election by an electorate suspicious of bankers, but which left an unstable financial system to his successor, Martin Van Buren. Whereas the federal government had once invested its surpluses in the National Bank, the absence of that institution led to storage of excess cash in the basement of the Treasury building. There it sat "winking" at officials in charge of safekeeping it, several of whom decided to abscond with funds and flee to foreign countries. As Abraham Lincoln shrewdly observed, the interest of these officials was in conflict with their duty, for they could not make money for anyone from investments so they simply helped themselves to it rather than let it go to waste!

Similarly, current Democratic party hacks presiding over federal mortgage agencies saw a way to profit even as surpluses from a previous administration offered the hope that guarantees for bad loans could be made in an expanding economy. McCain has the duty, as well as the opportunity, to make the case plain to his fellow citizens that the cause of our current credit contraction is not the multitude of decisions made by free people in a free market but by a handful of well-placed profiteers who used governmental power for their own financial aggrandizement. As Franklin Raines and Timothy Johnson walked off with millions of dollars, the nation suddenly found itself on the short end of the stick. The great virtue of republican government is public accountability, precisely what is needed now.

McCain’s taxing and spending policies are the best antidotes to the wild spending spree generated by the Democrats. He proposes to raise no one’s taxes so that private individuals, rather than government-protected financial manipulators, can risk their money in enterprises governed by traditional standards of lending. Lowered tax rates generate more economic activity than higher rates, even as they generate more revenue for the government from the most successful entrepreneurs. Refreshingly, however much he may deplore greed, McCain sees no reason to punish anyone for being successful. Obama professes to be for the "little guy," promising a tax cut for 95 percent of our citizens. That appears to be based on the calculation that those who make $250,000 annually are in the remaining five percent. The large majority, according to Obama, work hard for their money, but those in the top five percent apparently just play with other people’s money.

When McCain was asked at Saddleback Church by Rev. Rick Warren what was his definition of "rich," (the question lurking behind this was, who gets taxed the most) he jokingly said "$5 million." Democrats saw this as more evidence that Republicans simply want to avoid taxation. But more likely McCain was signaling that the definition of wealth is not, and cannot be, static, and there’s nothing shameful about success in business. All the more reason to regard with suspicion Obama’s fixation on a quarter of a million dollars as the indicator of taxable wealth.

To maintain that the moment an American grosses $250,000 through long hours, hard decisions, high costs of doing business, in an unpredictable marketplace he becomes "rich," is both absurd and unjust. Thus far and no farther? Be successful but not too successful? Don’t make the transition from small business to big business or else we have license to commandeer as much of your income as we decree? We Americans have every right to ask, Why should we strive to provide an increasing amount of goods or services when our reward is to be treated like an enemy of the people?

Under all "progressive" income tax schemes, at least one of the two things happens. Either people rein in their dreams and settle for less than they are capable of, or they examine tax laws carefully for legal ways to avoid paying taxes. McCain is right therefore to prefer taxing and spending policies that reward rather than punish entrepreneurship, and Obama is wrong to flatter the prejudices of those who covet the wealth and resent the success of merchants, bankers and investors. Worse, Obama is discouraging the very virtues that have made America the most prosperous nation on earth. Government has an important function to protect all of us in a fairly regulated marketplace. But government cannot of itself generate prosperity. It can only facilitate it by low taxing and spending

Early Debate Returns: Bad for McCain

I watched the debate tonight with growing frustration at John McCain's failure to attack Obama squarely on his confiscatory economic policies. I've finally come to the conclusion that John McCain is unable (or unwilling) to promote the kind of conservative economic message that I think much of this country is wanting to hear.  Instead, he's splitting hairs with Barack Obama on the economy -- and losing in the process. I'm always interested in the views of Steven Hayes at the Weekly Standard -- he's a smart, reasonable writer who I read frequently.  His review of the debate is that Obama won. Here's part of what he had to say:

"John McCain had a very strong debate tonight. It’s too bad for him that it came on a night when Barack Obama was nearly flawless.

The debate began with questions on the economy and for thirty minutes Obama answered those questions with the kind of substance that I suspect anxious voters wanted to hear and with exactly the right tone – empathic, aggravated and determined. Most important, he spoke to voters in their own language. In his first answer, in response to a question about things the government can do to help average Americans through these tough economic times, Obama spoke of a $400,000 junket that AIG executives took after the government bailed them out. “Treasury should get that money back,” he said, “and those executives should be fired.” Sure, a little demagoguery. But it’s exactly the kind of story – in a debate that included back-and-forth accusations and lots of statistics – that voters will remember and talk about tomorrow with their neighbors.

McCain took that first question and he turned immediately to energy. “Americans are angry, they’re upset and they’re a little fearful. And it’s our job to fix the problem. Now, I have a plan to fix this problem and it’s got to do with energy independence.  It didn’t work. Two months ago, when gas prices were nearing $5 and the cost of oil dominated the headlines, the McCain campaign deftly used anxieties about energy as a proxy for anxieties about the economy. So when McCain proposed to lift the ban on offshore drilling, voters responded positively and the polling reflected their enthusiasm."

This is what I was afraid of: McCain being unable to clearly articulate why Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress is a danger to our economy. The reflexive return of McCain and Palin to the energy issue is a comfort zone and understandable -- but not good enough in this economy. McCain seems unable to explain to the American people that Obama's tax policies and his liberal record will be a poison pill to an economy that needs liquidity. It needs low taxes to fuel growth -- something that simply isn't possible with Obama's tax-and-spend plan.

Even worse, McCain's populist instincts are taking him down the wrong path. Rather than returning to a free-market solution to what should be a free market problem, his instinct is to increase regulation and government control -- exactly what Obama and the Democrats want to do. He again misses a chance at differentiation. Here's Hayes again:

"But while energy issues remain important and cannot be separated from the broader economic picture, the convulsions in world markets over the past two weeks and the need for a $700 billion federal bailout have rendered worries about gas prices and energy independence to second-tier status. It’s not that these issues don’t matter, it’s just that they matter less now than they did over the summer. He later broadened his answer to include spending, tax cuts and his jaw-dropping plan to have the federal government buy up “the bad home loan mortgages in America” to “let people make those payments and stay in their homes.” So bigger government is bad, quasi-governmental entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “ignited” the current economic crisis, too much government spending is leaving us broke and we want the U.S. Treasury to renegotiate individual home mortgages? Seriously? No thanks."

No thanks is right. The correct and powerful answer here is to reignite the economy through lower taxes to stimulate jobs and growth so people can pay their mortgages -- NOT to have the government take over that role. This mess in the housing market is partly an issue of personal behavior -- not simply predatory lending. I, for one, am not interested in my tax dollars going to bail out people who made bad decisions. I think many Americans would agree with that. Unfortunately, McCain's instincts don't lead him down that path. He's still in the "Wall Street greed" mode.

I hate to throw in the towel here, but...it is now clear that the issues that many conservatives have with McCain are legitimate and real. That despite his great personal story, his maverick personality often betrays a message that would greatly appeal to a great swath of America. He's actually give people less of a choice by co-opting the position of Obama on so many issues.

My guess is that the polls are not going to be good for McCain after this performance tonight. In a debate where he really needed to help himself, I'm afraid he's come up short.

We'll see.

Words worthless to halt aggression

(London, Oct. 6) The mistaken belief that clever diplomacy was a substitute for force of arms led to Athens’ defeat by Sparta, according to the ancient Greek historian Thucydides. Two thousand years later the French statesman Cardinal Richelieu- himself a master diplomatist- observed that diplomacy was useful only when it was the “velvet glove adorning the mailed fist.” Finally we recall the 19th century German Chancellor Bismark who famously stated that “ the great questions of the day are decided not by speeches in the Diet but on the battlefield by Blood and Iron.”

These ideas may sound harsh to some contemporary ears but they remain highly applicable in our very imperfect modern world, as the Russian invasion of Georgia reminds us yet again.

Russia’s aggression has rudely shattered illusions and highlighted unpleasant truths worldwide.

Prominently revealed in the wreckage is the terminal disunity of the European Union. While French President Nicholas Sarkozy flew to Moscow to appease Vladimir Putin- reminding many of Neville Chamberlain’s infamous flight to Munich to appease Adolf Hitler- the Presidents of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Ukraine flew to Tbilsi to support the embattled President of Georgia.

Besides revealing the stark divide between “Old” and “New” Europe this sad scenario puts a final end to EU dreams of being a coherent diplomatic and military power on a par with Russia, China, and the United States.

Thoughtful commentary across Europe is now realizing the EU is trapped between its ongoing hostility to its nominal American ally and its newly revived fear of Russia’s imperial ambitions. Equally clear is the fact that answers to these challenges are different in virtually every member state and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

The major lesson here is that diplomacy and the attendant speeches in the U.N., European Parliament and U.S. Congress are utterly useless absent a credible determination to impose serious consequences on aggressors.

Just as Hitler correctly perceived the flabbiness of the Western democracies at the time of Munich, so too did Putin calculate that he would face no serious consequences for his invasion of Georgia. Also like Hitler, no one should believe that he sees Georgia as Russia’s final territorial acquisition.

The hard lessons that Europe is relearning have considerable implications elsewhere in the world and are highly relevant to the choice Americans will make in the upcoming Presidential election.

Within the coming year the United States will face important decisions regarding the next chapter in Iraq and Afghanistan. Similarly the nuclear confrontation with Iran may reach critical mass.

As their first debate illustrated, Senators McCain and Obama have starkly differing worldviews and approaches to the projection of American power around the globe.

While Obama ritually insists that “all options are on the table” and casually repeats a willingness to send U.S. troops across the Pakistan border, absolutely everything we know about him and the Democratic Party he now leads strongly suggests that the preferred options favor talk over action. These include deference to the U.N., the World Court, the E.U., and “world opinion” generally. He worries that the U.S, is not “liked” and believes this should be corrected by a multilateral approach to just about everything.

When asked how he would handle Russia, Iran or other tyrannies Obama’s usual response is “tough, direct diplomacy." As Hillary Clinton pointed out he has a “naïve belief in the efficacy of sitting down face to face with dictators."

What exactly would he say to them? Does he really believe that his breathtaking eloquence would persuade Putin to leave Georgia, Ahmadinejad not to exterminate Israel, or Kim Il-Jong to cease his nuclear program? Would he be willing to actually threaten them with consequences, even if he lacked the full backing of the U.N., E.U. etc.?

McCain is much more like Truman or Reagan: Utilize diplomacy when helpful, but always be willing to take forceful action when needed. Seek allies whenever possible, but be prepared to go it alone when vital American interests are at stake. McCain’s motto as he noted in the debate is that of his hero Theodore Roosevelt who said “Speak softly and carry a big stick."

The worldview, policy inclinations, and attitude toward their country of these two men is as divergent as their life experiences. Not within living memory has a Presidential election presented Americans with a clearer choice. ---------------- William Moloney’s columns have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Denver Post, and Rocky Mountain News.

Set Sarah free!

I mostly listened to the Vice Presidential debate on radio, though I did get to see some of it on TV. Palin held her own and well exceeded the low expectations that the media had set for her. She was confident, poised and articulate -- even as she faced off against the verbosity machine that is Joe Biden. Biden was...Biden. He spoke quickly with an authority that is designed to make his statements seem like fact -- even when they aren't. Palin took him on effectively, and wasn't afraid to confront Biden's frequent exaggerations. I thought that had John McCain done that well last week against Obama the Republicans would be in better shape today.

Palin missed some chances tonight, specifically to refute the Obama-Biden claim that McCain was responsible for deregulation which got us into this mess. That's clearly only part of the story; Congress has been a big part of the problem by forcing too much regulation on Fannie and Freddie. If Fannie and Freddie had been forced to react to market risks on loans, they would never have made the vast number of sub-prime loans that they did.

Palin also missed a big chance to wack Biden on the War in Iraq -- specifically on his claim that Obama supports the same withdrawal plan that Maliki and Bush are negotiating about. Hello? The only reason anyone is talking about a withdrawal now is because of the surge that John McCain supported and Biden and Obama opposed. I wish that Palin had hit him over the head with that.

One thing that I didn't like about Palin's performance tonight: her consistent use of "corruption" and "greed" to describe Wall Street.  Certainly, some corruption always exists at the nexus of money and public policy -- but to make blanket statements that tar and feather an entire sector of our economy is populism worthy of John Edwards, not the Republican Veep candidate.  The mess we are in is more about the corruption of Capitol Hill and the lax interest rate policies of the Fed than it is any systemic disease on Wall Street.  Banks took advantage of the rules and pushed the limits to make money.  With risk comes reward -- and often failure. 

Also, I would have liked to hear Palin say also that the behavior of  borrowers played a role in this mess, too -- and that it wasn't just the responsibility of "predatory lenders".  People have to take personal responsibility for their decisions, and if this is not a theme promoted by McCain-Palin then they become nothing more than the victim-baiters that Obama-Biden are. 

In any event, my suggestion to John McCain is this: Set Sarah Free!

Let her go. Let her be spontaneous. Let her be the maverick, fun woman that she is. She's the only candidate who can relate to the American people as a real person. It is something that helps to differentiate the McCain-Palin ticket from Obama (effete, Chicago intellectual) and Biden (career Senator). It's what turned on the Republican base and got independents excited about McCain after the Convention. He needs to let her work her magic.

McCain's campaign -- and thus his chances to be president -- are in bad shape at this point. All polls in the battleground states are now leaning for Obama. He needs to do something dramatic to turn this around.