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

Why Palin drives the media nuts

Wikipedia defines psychological projection as "a defense mechanism in which one attributes one's own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or emotions to others. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud, and for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as 'Freudian Projection.'" Bill Clinton liked to rail against "the politics of personal destruction." His party's leaders regularly point fingers at the opposition claiming they're "mean." Clinton was a master of exactly what he complained about and the others are right behind.

Take a close look at that definition of "projection" up there and ask yourself whether it doesn't fit today's liberals like a hand in a well-fitted kid glove. Consider, for example, their reaction to nomination of Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin's candidacy for vice president.

Politically aware Lefties had to know from the get-go that Palin would be an awesome force descending on their plans to dominate. Their reaction has been just what one with many years' experience watching liberal leaders would expect: a thermonuclear effort at personal destruction. Destruction of the governor and, not incidentally, her family.

Leave aside the ugly little e-mails allegedly from an individual Alaskan here or there that have gone "viral" on the Internet. Among the prices we pay for having the Internet is the ease with which an authoritative name, or invented credentials, can be fraudulently attached to any message. The more titillating the better. Plus, given the number of backsides Palin has had to kick en route to her 80% approval rating, it shouldn't be hard to find a local critic eager to retaliate - whether or not hiding behind a nom de plume.

Think about the mainstream media (MSM), which appear to collectively adore Sen. Barack Obama and generally display a distinct Leftist bias (think The New York Times and MSNBC). Two subjects come to mind: "gotchas" and experience. Consider the play on Obama's gaffes versus Palin's. He's the guy who skated away from a claim of having campaigned in 57 states and wasn't through all of them yet. Imagine the continuing din if Palin seemed confused over how many states are comprised by our country. That's just for starters.

Experience? "Everyone knows" Palin isn't qualified. Too young. Governs too small a state and for too short a time. Blah, blah, blah. Fair enough, Big Boys of the MSM, but what about Obama?

Let's see. Both are close to the same age. Obama wants the Oval Office. He has a bit of legislative experience remarkable only for its radical Left positions and, as part of the traditionally corrupt crowd that controls politics and patronage in Cook County (Chicago), his claim to be a reformer is difficult to believe. (See, for example, "Soldier for Stroger" by David Freddoso here.)

Palin has an 80% approval rating in governing a real state, and she won that governorship by challenging and defeating a tainted incumbent - a good ol' boy - of her own party. Following her election, she continued to take on political and business interests (e.g., oil companies) that are traditionally connected by liberals to her own party.

What about potential disqualifications?

For 16 years, Obama and his wife worshipped with a profane, ultra-racist, America-hating preacher man named Jeremiah Wright. Obama finally "threw Wright under the bus" after a nationally televised appeal to tolerate the intolerable failed to get Obama past his Wright wrong. That made everything for the Left and the MSM right once again.

Another important Obama distinction the MSM doesn't talk about is his long friendship with Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers. Not just friendship, but they worked together in advancing Leftist causes in the Chicago area. Obama's first political campaign began with a party in the home of Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, both former fugitives from justice from their Weatherman terrorist days who avoided prison on the technicality of prosecutorial misconduct. Great pals for Obama, the former lecturer on constitutional law!

As a governor, former mayor and member of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Palin has certifiable qualifications for public executive office, but Obama's the one running for president.

Going into her debate with Obama's veep candidate, Sen. Joe Biden, Palin was thought to have been totally softened up by relentless media criticism and satire. TV news anchors Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric conducted chip-on-the-shoulder interviews with Palin, which were followed up by others in the MSM feigning horror over errors and openly speculating that McCain would call on her to step aside.

Poor Biden. Palin was anything but softened up. Biden has been in the U.S. Senate for 34 years, three-quarters of Palin's life, yet she had him on the defensive for most of the 90 minutes. The outmatched Biden gave it the old college try, twice reminding listeners that his father addressed him as "Champ" and complaining no fewer than four times about some $4 billion tax benefit for Exxon Mobil. In the end, though, one could only agree with Dick Morris and Eileen McGann: "Biden sounded like the warmed-over has-been that he is ... hypnotically boring."

An aside: While Biden was mostly innocuous, I noted this very ominous comment in addressing a moderator's question about climate change, also known as global warming. He said, "I think it is manmade. I think it's clearly manmade. And, look, this probably explains the biggest fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden - Gov. Palin and Joe Biden. If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That's the cause. That's why the polar icecap is melting."

Biden is right about the need to understand the cause. Unfortunately he quite obviously doesn't, and fixes growing out of his "understanding" will be both ineffective and economically ruinous. For too long Sen. John McCain has been wrong on this, too, but at least he has a running mate in Palin who has her head screwed on right.

The Obama campaign, its surrogates in the MSM, and leftists in the blogosphere have brilliantly displayed for all to see what "politics of personal destruction" means. In fact, we can hope that the raw partisan ugliness of media personalities like MSNBC's Keith Olbermann will create such backlash as actually to improve the quality of political discourse and reporting.

Many will remember with relish Dan Rather's demise, following discovery of fakery at CBS in Rather's reporting on President Bush's military service. I have on my office wall the original of a hilarious cartoon by the Albuquerque Journal's John Trever, titled "The CBS Defense" and depicting law enforcement personnel taking some manacled sap away from a printing press in a room festooned with drying counterfeit bills. The sap is saying, "Sure they're fake, but they're accurate!"

Olbermann makes Rather seem a paragon of objectivity and truthfulness.

The extensive cover story by Stephen Spruiell in the September 15th National Review discusses at length the threat to the very existence of NBC news on account of its subsidiary's Olbermann. Events subsequent, including reassignment of Olbermann and Chris Matthews, may indicate a return toward (distant) impartiality. In any case, reporters all over the country cannot fail to resent the smear of the Olbermann/Matthews betrayal of professionalism. We all have our biases and preferences, but most reporters - just like most of the rest of us - aspire to perform professionally. Few want to look in the mirror in the morning and recognize someone whose journalistic ethics are in the toilet with Keith Olbermann's.

Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric and Gretchen Carlson, please take note.

Say it: He's a socialist

There is a fundamental difference between Marxism, provider of the Socialist philosophy, and Christian teachings. The difference makes the two world views incompatible, in other words, you cannot be both. Whoever says that they are compatible either lies or is ignorant. Marxists believe that a non-Socialist society is to blame for what is wrong with people and therefore, change has to begin with those who are responsible for society, mainly the rich. Others, not they, have to change and the others are in the end all those who oppose Socialism. People are either forced to comply or they are killed, as happened in Nazi Germany. If you put right what is wrong in society, so goes Marxist theory, you will heal injustice and people, products of a hostile society, will become their good selves. Healing is created by installing more and more Socialists in office, Socialist immorality and Socialist programs. Obama has not touched corruption and moral issues. His plans for dealing with issues are of economic nature and are pure Marxism, blaming the non-Socialist enemies and distribution of money to bribe poor voters, make them dependent on government and cement with it your power. Marxism's concepts lead to the welfare state – and on to a totalitarian system built on lies where government is central. There is no real concern for people; power is at the heart of all their projects.

Christianity teaches that what is wrong is the fallen nature of man, who gives in to the evil inside. Moral change in people and restoring the broken relationship with God will change what is wrong in society. Christian teachings are at the heart of our Constitution. Responsibility for oneself is a pre-condition for a healthy society. That is why America is special and prosperous. Government's task is to clear the way for initiatives of their citizens and not block it. John McCain's and Sarah Palin's priority to clean up the government and bring it back to the people is exactly what America needs. They know as we do that Republicans especially those at the center in Washington are also responsible for ousting our Constitution from American society with devastating consequences. John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting at this corruption, beginning with their own ranks. Their priorities are job creation, drilling, and fighting inflation. They are pro-life and so is the Republican Party.

Senator Obama answered the question of the Reverend Warren regarding when life begins during a national television interview with "This is above my pay grade". I think he lied. The Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stated, "I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over centuries the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition…. We don't know. The point is that it shouldn't have an impact on a woman's right to choose." I think she lied. She is neither an ardent nor a normal Catholic; she is a godless Socialist pagan. Colorado Archbishop Charles Chaput commented "Democrats don't know Christianity." No woman has a right to have her child killed.

I heard Senator Biden say that he is pro-life but cannot force his religious views on others. So he is part of the abortion gang like a myriad of Democratic colleagues who also like to be on both sides.

The Democratic Party with the leadership of Obama, the Clintons, Reid and Pelosi and comrades is an illegitimate party which is destroying the Constitution which leads to spiritual, political and economic disaster. It is illegitimate because of policy principles like abortion and also Darwinism being taught in schools. Instead of protecting life this party promotes killing life. The Republican Party on the other hand is legitimate in principle with a majority which wants to do what is right but lacking a national and personal purpose and therefore are so often appeasing what is wrong. Nobody wants to risk his position. It is the Appeaser's Party. There are too many who are looking after themselves first and their country second..

One central theme is enough to clarify why I say that the Socialist Democratic Party is illegitimate. Their policies are Marxist and not American and they promote immorality. It was the Soviet Union, for instance, which was the first state making abortion legal already at the beginning of the twenties. Having grown up in the godless totalitarian Nazi society it is appalling for me to watch that in America politicians can speak of their "Christian faith" and at the same time make abortion, same-sex marriage, homosexuality their party policy. The consequence is the destruction of families and the concept of family without that those who practice or promote these concepts are thrown out of their churches or out of power by their voters. Unfortunately corruption has also entered Christian churches. Democrats are not fit for American Constitutional government.

No government or parliament across the globe has the authority to overrule God. The godless national Socialists, called Nazis, did it and my family, Jewish people, all Germans, and Europeans paid dearly for it because I and millions of others did not see our own evil inside. American soldiers shed their blood to liberate us from Nazi power. It pains me to see America on the same track. Not only those who actively promote the godless programs allowed by our government establishment but also those who for personal reasons or lack of backbone appease them will pay for it, here and when they face their creator. I know the consequence of a godless government. America must have a God fearing government. The abortionists are closer to the Nazis than to our founding fathers. Both base their philosophy and action on lies.

According to an article of Gary Parker, president of the Alabama Policy Institute, in our newspaper Press-Register Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, the national abortion provider, said, "I am still having trouble expressing the depth of my anger about McCain's choice of a running mate." She and Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL, Pro-Choice America, were featured speakers at the Democratic National convention in Denver. They endorsed Obama who supports federal funding for abortions. As Illinois state senator he voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Bill, which would have prohibited the killing of late term babies that survive attempted abortions. You wonder on what information Obama voted. Does he play superficially with human life? The following information is easy to come by. Pelosis' statement at the beginning of this article clearly means that it doesn't matter whether the baby inside the womb of the mother is alive or not we will kill it anyway.

There are various ways to perform an abortion but abortion is said to be more dangerous than child birth. In a late-term partial birth abortion, which is also used for advanced pregnancies, the cervix is dilated to allow passage of a ring forceps. A foot or lower leg is located and pulled into the vagina. The baby is extracted in breech fashion until the head is just inside the cervix. The baby's legs hang outside the woman's body. With the baby face-down, scissors are plunged into the baby's head at the nape of the neck and spread open to enlarge the wound. A suction tip is inserted and the baby's brain is removed. The skull collapses and the baby is delivered. Sharp and suction curettage is continued until the walls of the womb are clean.

Suction Aspiration is the most common method of abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. General or local anesthesia is given to the mother and her cervix is quickly dilated. A suction curette (hollow tube with a knife-edged tip) is inserted into the womb. This instrument is then connected to a vacuum machine by a transparent tube. The vacuum suction, 29 times more powerful than a household vacuum cleaner, tears the fetus and placenta into small pieces which are sucked through the tube into a bottle and discarded.

Another procedure is called Dilatation and Evacuation and is performed during the second trimester, 4-6 months of pregnancy. A pliers-like instrument is needed because the baby's bones are calcified, as is the skull. There is no anesthetic for the baby. The abortionist inserts the instrument into the uterus, seizes a leg or other part of the body and, with a twisting motion, and tears it from the baby's body. This is repeated again and again. The spine must be snapped, and the skull crushed to remove them.

Let me educate Obama, Pelosi and their abortion gang who are exposing an unbelievable superficiality and disdain for human life in dealing with this subject of central importance for our nation. After all, according to the statistics around 50 million killings of living human beings took place since the Supreme Court with one vote majority made unconstitutional abortion legal. The Nazis murdered 6 million Jews and 10 million others – Germans, Slavs, gypsies, handicapped, Christians, their opposition and others.

Life begins at conception. Modern technology allows observing what happens in the uterus of a woman and how fast in only 5 weeks a fetus grows from the size of a sesame seed to a baby developing brain, backbone, heart and everything else what makes a person. Science explains that it is possible that from one cell sex, the color of the eyes and hairs and a myriad of other features can be determined. 18 days after conception there is a heart beat, after 40 days the fetus has brain waves. Nothing changes in the 9 months of pregnancy, everything just grows. My wife Dina and I can watch on photos how our grandchild to come grows from the size of sesame seed to a baby. We also saw in Fox News a video of another baby in the womb of her mother, a bit elder than our grand child. It is fascinating! Abortionists must be stopped killing human beings

We are living in the middle of humanity's insurrection against God. The insurrection consists of the organized abandonment of God's commandments in the once Christian Western world, and the establishment of a global social and political infrastructure, which is contrary to His order but capable of integrating Christian voters with a toothless Christian understanding. The United States are now spearheading this movement. At the same time this nation still has a strong moral substance with people committed to reverse the trend into disaster. America will never win the ideological war unless it can defeat the lies which dominate our society. Change must come, but there must be moral change, each person beginning with oneself. Stop lying, make restitution, and stand up for truth. America should be spearheading lasting freedom across the world. Only freedom based on our Constitution and the absolute truth of God can last.

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.