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.

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.

Sarah's got sass

"Like being a community organizer, except a mayor has actual responsibilities." "A pit bull with lipstick." These zingers and others from Gov. Sarah Palin's speech to the RNC Wednesday night were notable not only for the words themselves, but for the combative twinkle in the Barracuda's eye as she delivered them -- along with the playful smile, the athlete's body language, the little taunting drawl in her voice, and her flawless timing as the hall roared and the nation watched. The VP nominee had attitude coming out of every pore, and it was just right, not over the top but not one bit intimidated either. I've taken your best punch, she seemed to be saying to all the jackals of the left, and I'm still standing, glad to have my chance to punch back, and ready for the next roundhouse you may want to throw. Bring it on.

Here is, as she herself told the delegates, a news flash: This woman is a frontier fighter, as happy a political warrior as you'll ever see from any era or either sex, a huge asset to the McCain ticket, a nightmare for Obama-Biden, and a new force on the national scene that's not going away any time soon, come Daily Kos and Sally Quinn in September, win or lose in November. Sarah Palin is here and she's staying.

I've been there for convention speeches since Goldwater said no to an adoring throng at Chicago in 1960, been around Presidents and Vice Presidents and candidates for the job since Nixon went into Cambodia in 1970, written and given a zillion speeches of my own or for others on large and small occasions, and my friends -- as the Original Maverick might say -- this was a hell of a speech delivered by a hell of an American.

I also happened to be there when the jackals ran Tom Eagleton off McGovern's ticket in 1972 -- the Nixon team were loving every minute of it, of course, and RN knew a little about that; they had tried the same thing on him in 1952 and failed -- and my reading after tonight is that anyone on the Dems' side who thinks Palin can be chased away this week, or who expects McCain to panic and dump her, is smoking something.

Sarah's message at RNC St. Paul is that she doesn't scare, doesn't quit, doesn't run. She's a winner and intends to win this round against the odds as she's won so many before. Sarah's got sass.

Left disdains democracy

Regarding this week's violence outside the Republican convention perpetrated by left-wing groups: there is no constitutional provision for rioting and violence! These groups should be grateful I am not in charge! This week we also have the left wing bloggers and Democratic operatives releasing Sarah Palin’s Social Security number, making known their goal to destroy this woman as the Vice Presidential candidate, in a matter of days if they can!

The public should understand in both instances how clearly this demonstrates the left’s disregard for the democratic process. The extreme left wing, funded by George Soros et al, considers the democratic process like a street car. Once you get to where you want to go, (getting your hands on the levers of power) you get off. You change the rules and stay there forever! After all, once “the people" are in power, such formalities are unnecessary. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is the precedent.

This should be a warning to those who are unhappy with the “Maverick” John McCain, thinking they will sit out this election and wait until next time. In every sense, there may never be a next time if the progressives have their way!

Warning: 'Green Can Be Mean'

Editor: Are the Dems ready to fracture down the middle if attacked on the fault line between labor and environmentalists? New contributor Bob McBride thinks so. His message to union members suffering in the paycheck and cost of living from enviros' policies boils down to a cheeky bumper sticker: "Green Can Be Mean." Maybe McBride is onto something. See what you think. Bob McBride writes:

It has been correctly determined that the Democrat Party is a coalition…some say of nitwits and misfits, but an effective coalition nevertheless. For years this coalition approach worked well, the various segments could support each other’s single- focus interest because there was no conflict by and between them. “You vote for my constituent’s interests and I’ll vote for yours” was the way to play along, get along and stay along.

The two primary groups that give substance and strength to the Democrat coalition are organized labor and organized environmentalists. Labor unions not only have and offer money, the mother’s milk of politics, but also provide direct votes and actions influencing other voter activity. The teachers' union for example, is in an excellent position to influence parents' voting activity, by making available yard signs and other literature for school children to take home to their parents. There is no stated penalty for not supporting the teachers’ union election objectives, but there are anecdotal instances of suggestion.

The environmental segment has been incredibly successful in globally positioning itself above mere mortal standards and has cloaked itself in a holier-than-thou attitude toward clean air and clean water. The fact that their current interests and intrusions go far beyond these basics, and negatively impact many areas of economic importance and individual rights, is never given the attention it deserves. The media, either through ideological sympathy or fear of reprisal, never negatively present environmental causes when it is deserved.

What could be worse for a business or an individual than to be branded, constantly and contemptuously, as anti-environment with the emphasis on clean air, water and children? One could spend a lifetime and a fortune trying to disprove the slur.

Both organized labor and environmental organizations are critical to Democrat election victories, for the both are suppliers of funds and feet on the ground. If the Republicans develop a strategy to break the back- scratching relationship between the two, and cause a defection of either from the Democrat party, the result will be electoral victories for decades. The opportunity to do so exists.

Let’s dispense with the myth that organized labor is still run by a bunch of people on or from the factory floor, as in its inception. Organized labor is big business and it’s run as a business by MBA’s. Running a business requires tough decisions and Labor has made such a decision in its strategy for growth.

A union can grow revenue in either, or both, of two ways; raise the dues or increase the membership. Needless to say raising the dues is not looked upon favorably by the union’s customer base, the rank and file. In the past increasing membership in major union- target industries were fairly easy, using restrictive work rules as the instrument. However globalization and world outsourcing has made that much more difficult. Therefore the focus now is on the growth opportunities by organizing employees in new and different industries, and as we have seen, particularly with government workers. As a result Big Labor is spending millions in support of Democrats with the objective of getting legislation that makes organizing much easier and simpler, with little interest in the existing union member’s needs, as we shall see.

The chosen instrument at the moment is the Employee Free Choice Act which is not only a noxious euphemism but action contrary to the core principles of the labor movement… private elections and secret ballots with federal board oversight. The unions want to change the historic rules so that organizers need only 50% of employees to get it done, with individual workers forced to declare in the open. This is known as card check. The opportunity for coercion and intimidation is obvious. This change is so onerous to any right-thinking person that even George McGovern, a noted union supporter and staunch Democrat, railed against this subversive objective in an article for the Wall Street Journal.

The real point is Big Labor has abandoned the long-time union members and the industries in which they work. Where is Big Labor’s wrath at the environmental zealots and their political handmaids that have caused so much hardship and misery with the workers in the heavily unionized airline, automotive, and trucking industries? Why isn’t big labor exercising their leverage with the Democrats to get them to stop inhibiting oil drilling? Where are their efforts to stop the idiotic use of food as fuel, thereby driving the cost of living up for all workers?

Labor has chosen to ignore the past and chase the promise of the future. To labor leadership it is more important to keep the coalition in place, to ensure a Democrat victory and then pressure the winners for favorable organizing legislation, than it is to speak up on their member’s behalf and demand the Democrat Congress pass legislation for tapping our country’s energy assets. As mentioned above, in major industries hundreds of thousand of union members are out of work due to the price of oil and their unions are doing nothing about it.

Union thinking seems to be that the current unionized industries are probably not going to grow, so disregard them and use their organized members as the cash cow to fund the pursuit of greener pastures by the union leadership. So much for how sincerely the unions and the Democrats care about the worker. And that presents the opportunity for the Republicans. Here are the steps I would recommend.

The objective is to cause a fracture in the coalition within the Democrat party with a focus on the conflicting goals and objectives between labor and the radical environmental obstructionists. For the first time this conflict is real and very important .It must be made dramatically important to union rank and file.

First develop an advertising campaign that highlights the fact that union member dues- funds are being spent by the big shots at labor to buy prestige and votes from Democrat lawmakers and the presidential candidate, as well as to party at the recent convention. This ad should talk in real terms about union expenditures on behalf of Democrats and the fact that it is the Democrats that are holding up legislation on domestic and offshore drilling. It should also present the real number of people out of jobs by industry that is the result of the price of oil and its refined products. These ads should feature real people in real hurt. Pristine tundras don’t put reasonably priced food on the table or create paycheck jobs. It is the environmental extremists and their stranglehold on the Democrat party that is causing this misery and strife

In battleground states and particularly hard hit areas use as much local focus and facts as possible. The bumper sticker is “Green can be mean”. Ask the question of the union member: why should your dues be used to keep the party in power that has caused your job loss? Is that what a union that looks out for its membership does, or is the union leadership far more interested in feathering a future nest and cozying up to powerful politicians?

Too late now for this next little gambit --but what fun it would have been to look at the number of United and Frontier airline employees either out of work or soon to be out of work in Denver, and try and mount a picket line of union members at the DNC the final week of August, calling attention to their plight at the hands of Democrats. That could have been a show stopper.

We missed that one, but all sorts of other opportunities to dramatize the contradiction and drive the wedge will come along. The larger point is simply this: We need an incessant drumbeat that pits “enviros” against organized union workers. This should cause the permanent fracture of the coalition. It will be interesting to see which side the party hacks cling to. Will the Democrats choose labor or enviros? Create the atmosphere that they can’t have both.

.