Who said what? Say, what?

Ok, the debate, which everyone is putting down as one of the worst of its kind, so lets just key up some phrases and then identify who said it. I will be using the RealClearPolitics transcript.

First up this bit:

"I think everybody knows now we are in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. And a lot of you I think are worried about your jobs, your pensions, your retirement accounts, your ability to send your child or your grandchild to college."

"Worst financial crisis since the Great Depression"? Yup, Sen. Obama. And the Great Depression was all about retirement accounts, your ability to send your children to college, and...

Say, what?

The Great Depression was about not having enough jobs, loss of faith in the banking industry, runs on the banks, and not having enough money to keep a roof over your head. Does anyone remember the term 'soup kitchens' for those without work and who couldn't even buy enough food? Bread lines? Thousands of unemployed sitting outside factories hoping that, maybe, a job might get posted up today?

No?

That is not only hyperbole, it is grandstanding and clearly mis-stating history. Sen. Obama, you just lost in the American History 101 zone. This is nowhere NEAR the problems of the Great Depression, not even close by a long shot. This might be the largest 'crisis' since 'Stagflation' of President Carter's era, or the Wall Street Bust of 1987, or the collapse of the Tech Bubble that started in 2000. Although 'Stagflation' probably takes the cake amongst these.

Second up comes this lovely bit:

We've got to have a package of reforms and it has got to lead to reform prosperity and peace in the world. And I think that this problem has become so severe, as you know, that we're going to have to do something about home values.

Someone is running for President of the World!

Say, what?

And that is... Sen. McCain.

Hey, I thought he was running for President of the United States... but I guess he is going to take reform to all these other countries like China, Russia, Iran, Egypt, Libya, Syria... maybe even France and Germany! And then we will teach them about reform, peace and prosperity!

Are you sure these guys don't have the same guys writing their talking points?

Now we get to 'bi-partisanship' on the third bit which features both candidates on who they want in the Treasury and I will obfuscate who is which with a [redacted]. First the one candidate:

Well, Warren would be a pretty good choice -- Warren Buffett, and I'm pleased to have his support. But there are other folks out there. The key is making sure that the next treasury secretary understands that it's not enough just to help those at the top.

Now the other candidate:

A supporter of Sen. [redacted] is Warren Buffett [chairman of Berkshire Hathaway]. He has already weighed in and helped stabilize some of the difficulties in the markets and with companies and corporations, institutions today.

Hey! If Warren Buffet is so smart, then why isn't he telling these guys that letting the financial institutions handle this and clear out the bad actors is the way to go? That there is good, personal responsibility like Mr. Buffett has shown and that we need more of that and less 'federal help'? Perhaps Mr. Buffett doesn't believe in a non-activist government?

Yes it was Sen. Obama first and Sen. McCain second, both talking on who would be good to have in the Treasury. From what I've seen Warren Buffett is a nice guy... and I'm damned glad he is on the OUTSIDE of Washington looking IN. Put him in Treasury and his credibility tanks... and you had better damned well make sure his large and deep financial connections via holdings are put so far away out of his reach that there is not even the slightest hint of impropriety.

Fourth bit:

Sen. [redacted] is right that we've got to stabilize housing prices. But underlying that is loss of jobs and loss of income. That's something that the next treasury secretary is going to have to work on.

Say, what?

Current seasonally adjusted unemployment rate as of 03 OCT 2008 for SEP 2008 is 6.1%. Last seen in MAY-SEP 2003 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics where it peaked at 6.3 and then declined. It was also seen in the period of NOV 1990 to JUL 1994, JAN 1980 to JUL 1987, NOV 1974 to APR 1978, OCT 1960 to NOV 1961, FEB to DEC 1958 and MAY 1949 to MAR 1950. Plus a few months scattered in the non 6.1% and above periods. Two things of interest in this: those periods just after the 1950 and just after the 1961 end periods featured the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Yes there are unemployment raises and dips, but, apparently, a Nation at war doesn't have as much problem with unemployment because people are employed in supporting it.

As the modern armed forces quip goes: 'The Marine Corps is at war, America is out shopping.'

That part came from Sen. Obama, who is raising the specter of a huge unemployment problem while it was the policies that were put in place by President Carter and that President Reagan tried to deal with that caused the 1980-1987 unemployment era with all sorts of 'jobs programs' and 'worker support' and the federal government trying to tell people how to do their jobs. That went north of 10% nationally and I remember how all those nice 'ideas' raised those problems even higher on a local basis during the 'Rust Belt' era. And from what I've seen of his 'economic plan' on mandates in health care, involvement in the housing market, and all sorts of other, lovely government expenditures like his new Interior Security Department that will be the size of DoD, that some folks might begin pining for the fiscal soundness of President Carter.

Now, here's the deal: is the 'housing crisis' a CAUSE or an EFFECT of government policies in lending to people who can't hold a steady job?

And if you have people who can't 'make ends meet' because they can't hold a steady job, then why should they seek to OWN a home? If there is a decline in jobs or even a period of low wage growth and the mortgages continue to balloon out of all proportion to what people can earn you see problems in the housing market. Because these people shouldn't have tried to own a home IN THE FIRST PLACE.

To 'stabilize' the housing market you get the federal policies on lending OUT of the picture, let the market CORRECT itself, and abolish the institutions on the federal side that CAUSED these loans to be made. The job market will then sort itself out, the 'bad loans' will hit the economy and the economy will RECOVER ON ITS OWN without any of the 'help' that got it into this mess IN THE FIRST PLACE.

You want to stabilize jobs? Good.

Get out of dictating unsound monetary and fiscal policy on the part of the federal government so that people have to realize that being able to own a home is an exercise in LIBERTY not a RIGHT.

Number five on the 'say, what?' area:

So this rescue package means that we will stabilize markets, we will shore up these institutions. But it's not enough. That's why we're going to have to go out into the housing market and we're going to have to buy up these bad loans and we're going to have to stabilize home values, and that way, Americans, like Alan, can realize the American dream and stay in their home.

Yes, going into the housing market to buy up loans of those who were encouraged to give and get them on an unsound financial basis is to be *rewarded*.

Say, what?

That is from Sen. ACORN... no, wait... Sen. McCain! Yes, he is running with the ACORN bail-out plan, who are one of the leading causes of this 'crisis' and now seek to profit from the 'bailout' by getting lots of federal funds to 'help poor people' that they encouraged to get such unsound loans IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Yes, we have two candidates that can't figure out anything in economics because they are convinced that it is too difficult to figure out. Just give the money away and it will all be fine....

Taxpayer money.

Your money and mine.

Number six, a description of 'socialism':

You know that home values of retirees continues to decline and people are no longer able to afford their mortgage payments. As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those -- be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.

Government comes in, relieves you of your responsibility, acts responsible FOR YOU, then forces YOU to take a deal you could never have gotten on your own. All due to YOU being fiscally irresponsible enough to seek a loan above your means.

Say, what?

That comes from Sen. McCain.

When I say Sen. McCain is a Democratic Socialist, this is what I mean.

Number seven, and its a doozy:

And then long-term we've got to fix our health care system, we've got to fix our energy system that is putting such an enormous burden on families. You need somebody working for you and you've got to have somebody in Washington who is thinking about the middle class and not just those who can afford to hire lobbyists.

So the medical lobbies and energy lobbies aren't that powerful, huh? Can't scrape up a lobbyist between them?

Going to the OpenSecrets Lobbying Spending database we get the top lobbying areas by sector for 1998-2008.

#1 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate - $3.2 billion

#2 Health - $3.04 billion

#3 Misc. Business - $2.9 billion

#4 Communication/Electronics - $2.6 billion

#5 Energy & Natural Resources - $2.1 billion

Say, what?

Who is the solon of wisdom that wants to give more lobbyists for the #2 and #5 lobbying areas more power in Congress?

The quote is from Sen. Obama.

If you thought $3.2 billion in lobbying to get us a $700 billion bailout was bad, just imagine what happens when over $5 billion gets applied to Health and Energy. Because Sen. Obama seems to have forgotten that these groups ALREADY HAVE LOBBYISTS. And Congress is definitely NOT 'looking out for the middle class'. Nor can a President easily STOP THEM.

And note that neither of these swell bozos wants to get rid of Fannie and Freddie, cut AIG loose, and remove the Congressionally mandated lax federal regulations and laws regarding lending. They both want to KEEP the current lobbyists in positions of power and empower two more of the largest to take a larger say in how the government runs OUR LIVES.

Number eight, socialist economics and how it works:

Well, Oliver, first, let me tell you what's in the rescue package for you. Right now, the credit markets are frozen up and what that means, as a practical matter, is that small businesses and some large businesses just can't get loans.

If they can't get a loan, that means that they can't make payroll. If they can't make payroll, then they may end up having to shut their doors and lay people off.

Yes, businesses get loans to pay their employees. They don't do manufacturing, sales, production and such to get income... you see, without credit these big and small companies can't borrow enough to pay people... that is how socialists imagine capitalism works.

That came from Sen. Obama.

Say, what?

Of course you can MAKE PAYROLL without a loan - that is what sales and profit are all about. By adding work value to an item and selling it at the cost of that work plus original materials plus profit to keep overhead & maintenance going, along with any longer term plans sustained, you can, indeed, make payroll. In tough times it is expansion and longer term plans that get cut first to sustain current production and maintaining overhead. Extras get cut out, like 'freebie' lunch programs or other incentives. Or added 'non wage benefits' get cut, like 'health insurance'.

Oh, wait a second, Sen. Obama wants to MANDATE health coverage, thus removing flexibility from businesses and ensuring a good costing of health benefits gets done. And because government will say this MUST BE A PART OF EXPENDITURES businesses will have an ever increasing burden in their infrastructure that they will be unable to do anything with during tough economic times. While it may help in the overall economy, trying to 'share the burden' means that smaller businesses carry a larger proportion of the load because they don't have the infrastructure to properly cope with such MANDATES. Even exempting 'small businesses' there is a great gulf and wealth of businesses between 501 and 5,000 people that serves as a major backbone to the US economy.

Number nine, running down the American worker as we are today:

The point is -- the point is that we can fix our economy. Americans' workers are the best in the world. They're the fundamental aspect of America's economy.

They're the most innovative. They're the best -- they're most -- have best -- we're the best exporters. We're the best importers. They're most effective. They are the best workers in the world.

And we've got to give them a chance. They've got -- we've got to give them a chance to do their best again. And they are the innocent bystanders here in what is the biggest financial crisis and challenge of our time. We can do it.

"We've got to give them a chance to do their best again"?

After saying that we are the best, most productive, most talented people on the earth?

Apparently we are 'innocent bystanders' in this mess, right?

I don't know about you, but as a person who took out a loan that could be afforded, at a good rate and gets payments in promptly and pay down the capital part of that debt, I don't feel like an innocent bystander.

I feel like the TARGET as I am the one who pays my taxes and will have MY money going to those who should have KNOWN BETTER and been REFUSED loans.

Who is the bozo who says we are 'the best' and that we can 'do their best again' who are unwitting patsies in this?

Sen. McCain said that and if it weren't wholly unintelligible I wouldn't be offended. I understand it and I'm insulted. Yeah, Sen. Obama has said the same, they are 'bi-partisan' on this and they have BOTH insulted me.

Number ten, forgetting history:

No, I am confident about the American economy. But we are going to have to have some leadership from Washington that not only sets out much better regulations for the financial system.

The problem is we still have a archaic, 20th-century regulatory system for 21st-century financial markets. We're going to have to coordinate with other countries to make sure that whatever actions we take work.

All of the regulation concepts started in the 20th century and continued on, being 'updated' by those wanting to INCREASE regulation and provide 'incentives' for people to act fiscally irresponsible. A 21st century financial market needs LESS OF THAT not more or 'better'. All of the insanity that we have NOW is because people think they could make it 'better' and more 'fair' by taking out personal fiscal responsibility.

Say, what?

Who has forgotten this recent history? Sen. Obama is the source of that inanity.

Again.

Number eleven, promising but not telling:

You know, you may have seen your health care premiums go up. We've got to reform health care to help you and your budget.

We are going to have to deal with energy because we can't keep on borrowing from the Chinese and sending money to Saudi Arabia. We are mortgaging our children's future. We've got to have a different energy plan.

We've got to invest in college affordability. So we're going to have to make some investments, but we've also got to make spending cuts. And what I've proposed, you'll hear Sen. [redacted] say, well, he's proposing a whole bunch of new spending, but actually I'm cutting more than I'm spending so that it will be a net spending cut.

That came from President Clinton... no, wait, it was Sen. Obama! Almost sounded like 1992 again... having a candidate promise all sorts of spending without telling you how he is going to pay for it.

Say, what?

Here's the deal: for every mandate, government program and promise on energy, the plans of these two, fine bozos are not that far apart. I know. I've looked at them. They suck.

One guy promises to 'cut government programs' which then turns out to be pork and the other promises to 'cut spending' which turns out to be more spending and inability to lay a finger on anything worth cutting. I've got a good list of entire government Departments that we don't need because they haven't done the things they were set up to do.

Dept. of Education - reading rate exactly at the same level of 1958 when poor Johnny couldn't read.

Dept. of Agriculture - the largest Congressional slush fund ever devised.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - more slush funds for Congress.

Dept. of Energy - why do we have recurring energy 'crises' if this Department can't figure out how to get decent energy at an affordable price? Kill it.

These places add regulation, add government overhead, add unaccountable bureaucracy, add unaccountable payouts and don't do the jobs they are set to do. Don't get me started on SSN or Medicair/Medicaid as they should have helped people to find a better way to pay for their retirement and for their health needs WITHOUT billions from government and increasing price supports to the medical industry.

Did I just say something dirty?

Government pricing pushing the cost of medications and the providing of medical services UP? Because it DOES. Providing a tax break for businesses to provide a 'non wage benefit' is one thing. Pumping money into a system that can't track all the payments, can't figure out good health policy, and then decides what you deserve to get or not is not a system that will either keep prices down or ensure that you get a large say in your own health care. Sen. Obama plays up 'letting you keep your doctors' while I have the experience of good doctors LEAVING health insurance groups out of DISGUST for their practices and costs.

And the people who are going to be in charge of 'reform'?

Congress and bureaucrats. See the housing 'crisis'? Guess who was in charge of 'reform' for those...

I will stop here on the debate analysis.

I actually wouldn't listen to this drivel live. I wanted to keep my dinner down, my blood pressure even and my disgust in check. That is because, no matter how the 'performance' the actual meat that is being proposed is rancid and maggot infested, and that comes from both candidates and both parties. I am expected to check my good sense at the door for 'bi-partisanship' or for 'hope & change'.

So sorry, but fifth graders could have come up with these talking points and been more lucid in presenting them. Probably think them out about as well, too, as these two campaigns.

I refuse to vote for putting childish ideas and nonsense in the seat of the Executive Branch of the United States. I want good reasoning based on sound historical understanding that creates good policy from which plans are derived.

That should be simple as it is what executives DO.

Instead we get the rampant communist with a pretty face, Sen. Obama, running on a 'government can do it all' platform and then glosses over the cost of others having tried that. And we also get a social democrat, Sen. McCain, who just can't come to say that there is anything wrong with having so much government that reaches so deeply into the lives of average citizens with so little oversight and controlled by politicians who know what is 'good for us'.

One is soft on terrorism and wants to ruin the economy and leave the Nation defenseless.

The other is strong against terrorism, wants to invite in millions of people from around the world and not bother to check who they are, subvert the defenses of the Nation by not bothering to see who 'all gods children' are that are here and keep the ruinous parts of the economy going.

They both don't give a damn about your money, and see that government intervening in the lives of ordinary Americans is 'necessary'... for the good of government. Neither of these swell fools can ever say that government is now the SOURCE of many problems and must be REDUCED significantly and the tools of manipulation in our economy REMOVED from the hands of politicians. Note that the Federal Reserve not only didn't stop the 'Great Depression' but may have actually helped to cause it via its lending policies. Why is such a tool left in the hands of government? Regulation is to set the bounds of good practices, not 'fine tune' whatever is regulated: that is for the people and their businesses to work at within the bounds of good policy. These two Emirs of Incumbistan want to increase the role of government, increase regulation and have YOU pay for letting politicians meddle with social engineering on the people of the United States.

One can't understand capitalism.

One can't understand socialism.

They alternate on those daily on which is which.

The water through his hands

Back on 05 SEP 2008 I wrote about giving Sen. McCain time to show that he understood what it was that Gov. Palin was about and that he comprehended what his campaign could actually do.  As I pointed out then, his tactical outlook is very good, but his knowledge of strategy and logistics is awful - that goes beyond the military, but to how to run a political campaign.  I even utilized a sports metaphor post so that people could understand those differences, between mere tactics and strategy.  While my postings have been on the decline, my commentary at a site or two have basically summed up my feelings a month on.

I will start with a response to a posting by Mr. Z on the 'bailout crisis' after the first bailout bill did not pass and the sky did not fall nor did the world plunge into a 'depression'.  All errors in syntax, spelling, grammar and logic left in place for the amusement of the citizenry:

I refuse to have Congress bailed out of its insane ideas on the economy. This is not just the fault of Freddie, Fannie, ACORN, La Raza but also that of the Democratic Party and their willing help from the Republican Party for going on 30 years. Did you see how many Republicans *did* 'cross the aisle' in the spirit of 'bipartisanship'?

And got their butts handed to them by the other side of the aisle?

Those are more than just RINOs: they are idiots, fools and willing helpers in this mess. I damned well don't want any 'bipartisanship' as it means - hand over what the Democrats want and cry about it afterwards.

Let these damned things fail and then REPEAL the CRA and all legislation that puts the government INTO the home loan business. It is a long-term failure and so open to abuse that it is NOT a 'public good'. And I would seriously start looking at just what has been handed over to the Fed and SEC as they have been pipsqueaks in their duty to the American people. If these are supposed to be the stewards of the economy, then it is time to seriously look at turning their jobs over to people interested in it. Which isn't the federal government, apparently.

I've had it with this inanity... I don't want any more 'government help' for anyone, or 'government protection' beyond equal enforcement of the law, keeping our borders safe and ensuring threats of the foreign and domestic sort don't destroy the place. Government can't do this job well or effectively just like our founders TOLD US.

The 'spirit of bipartisanship' died when George McGovern decided to throw open the doors of his party after welcoming in the radicals and leftists.  As he now correctly points out, he opened the doors and people started to evacuate the room.  Before that 'bipartisanship' meant being strong on defense, standing up to the USSR and doing everything possible to still keep a vibrant economy even with the overhead cost of the first two.  The great irony is that Democrats were protesting a war *started* by President Kennedy and continued by President Johnson, and they would then turn on those in the party who were 'bipartisan' in that support and betray their Party and their Country all to the tune of State Control over the lives of inidividuals as the 'State knows better' what to do. 

Hey!  Whattabout that war thingie?  Why didn't it know 'what to do better' THEN?

Yeah, they turned pacifist authoritarian, seeking to undermine the Nation's resolve to supporting a government a President and Congress had asked the people to support.

Sen. McCain still wants to live in the pre-McGovern era... the JFK era... the era of 'Scoop' Jackson which would die with him after his press conference on KAL 007.  That era was already winding down when he died, and his death marks the turning point inside the Democratic Party towards vicious partisanship aimed and pro-State and pro-Government agendas to 'help people'.

That era of 'bipartisanship' is dead.

It is as dead as a doornail.

And it isn't coming back.

That is the critical message when looking at 'polarized America' and it is missed by the 'bipartisanship' hawkers:  Americans no longer want 'bipartisanship' and have, instead, voted in Gridlock to achieve their ends.  Whenever the Left ramps up its rhetoric, demeans a politician they don't agree with on the most vicious and childish of terms, their single, solitary goal is to drive voters from voting.  Of course that begins to backfire when they see politicians that they do like doing the same things that they criticize others for, and then don't have the honesty, bravery or courage of their convictions to actually APPLY THEM across the board.

Anyone who wants you to 'rally around the President' no matter who is elected has not faced up to the partisan, vicious tenor of politics started and continued on by the Left in America.  If we still have more civil politics than other Nations who have gone under to this disease, the disease of forgetting that society creates government and supports it and not the other way around, it is because of the Great Interstate Bypass Divide in America, that I talked about in Sen. McCain's second chance.  That is a major problem for the Left as their natural root-base is the same as Socialism in Europe: urban centers.  And America is inherently a suburban, small town and rural Nation.

So, when Peggy Noonan sounds the great trumpet of 'bipartisan support' for whoever is elected next, I have a problem.  Where the hell are those on the Left willing to do that NOW?  Mr. Z looked at that and lets just say that Peggy Noonan has lost several notches in my relatively low estimation of her:

A rant follows, read at your own risk.

Say, Peggy, when are you going to tell the Liberals to get behind more conservative Presidents? And if you have asked, why don't they do it?

Welcome to the land of 'bipartisanship' where *your* side gets to give in each and every time to be 'nice' to the authoritarians. Good luck on that, I tellya.... I've had it with WFB conservatives standing athwart history yelling 'stop!' and then saying: 'well, if you won't I'll just follow along...' Gots a few of those left in the RINO party? We have a lot of those RINOs in VA, where they are always 'reaching across the aisle' to get kicked in the teeth and then in the ass. They NEVER learn. They are not for a party, not for principles and wholly out for themselves.

Stop worshipping at the shrine of WFB and RR. They didn't do what was necessary to say 'NO' and mean it by their actions. And TR was the one who STARTED all the intrusions of the State into your lives, so you might want to think a bit about the man and read his autobiography, and then realize that the powers he sought for the office went with the office and not the man... which he hated when he was on the receiving end of it.

So instead of being athwart history, how about: 'No further and its time to roll back the State as we have given it too damned much power over our lives.'? Because that is what good Presidents *do*... they see the need for limitations on power, veto legislation that goes beyond that, and then call for the repeal of those things infringing upon the rights of the States and the people. Yeah, I like TR, but I see the problems in what he did, how he did it and that he was honest enough to put those both forward to let history decide on him *without* rose colored glasses. That means I like and admire him as a man, see his shortcomings as a politicians and the problems he caused thinking that only good and worthy people will get to high office all the time. He ignored the founders to *our* peril, and lived to see power used wrongly in the hands of a successor.

It is very simple to tell the difference between those who hold themselves accountable and those who weasel out of their past. Which is why I see the decision to be made this cycle between the horrific and the detestable. Between a 'post-partisan' Fascist and a 'bi-partisan' Social Democrat... and I detest, utterly detest, Socialism. Both these guys want to put *more* power in the hands of the government which means Congress.

Can't the Kumbaya Konservatives see where this has gone over the past 90 years?

Sen. McCain has had nearly a *month* to storm Appalachia with Palin and he hasn't even *started*. He wants to 'reach across the aisle' to the metroweenies in the D party and ignores social and fiscal conservatism that strikes to the root of the D party holdings in Appalachia. Can you imagine how he is going to 'reform' the R party if he WINS? I can and am absolutely horrified at the prospect of either of these candidates 'winning'. Just how many more Specters and Grahams do you *want* in the R party, anyways? Because those are the types McCain will *support*. If McCain really backed conservative principles then Palin would have been running hard and non-stop through Appalachia and the Rust Belt and say 'screw the debates'.

He would have said 'screw this bailout, it is Congress' fault and I'm willing to take my share of the blame, but everyone in Congress gets a slice of humble pie, too.' And then call for the repeal of the CRA, Fannie and Freddie all in one bill. He could explain that we do not reward fiscal irresponsibility at the highest levels of government and the Nation will now take its licks for doing something insane through its elected representatives who caused this problem in the first place.
You know? A conservative? Small government? Accountable government? Lean government? Pointy end of the stick?

I would *vote* for that.

Bi-partisanship? Its Socialism with a smiley face to it.

The only good thing is even though McCain sucks like an Electrolux, Obama sucks like a Hoover... and they both suck in great gusts of wind and hot air. Which sucks more? Doesn't matter... they both suck.

I'm fed up with the rah-rah Republicans. And I detest, with a great loathing, the Democratic party.

I love my Nation. Our politicians are not worthy of holding any office. And that says much about us as a people.

I should really trademark Kumbaya Konservatives... but that would be mean spirited to the doofuses (doofii?) they embody in their Maverick RINOness.

Here's the deal: a party that can't even get candidates who actually back up the people in the party isn't much good.  The Democrats chose the easy way out of putting forward any Progressivist, Communist, Fascist, bomb-throwing anti-American, or absolute 'party first, country near the bottom of the list' individuals they can find, as long as they can say sweet words about 'helping you' as long as they get to tax the bejesus out of you for all the 'help' they want to give you... with your money.  They do, indeed, soak the rich, curb the economy, stop capital re-investment and generally work to keep the 'little guy' poor and dependant upon them.  And then reward their cronies for helping to do that and claim it really 'helped the little guy' when millions or tens of millions go to said cronies in no-performance sweetheart contracts.

So, when Mr. Z took up looking at the VP Debates and then Congress was looking to pass a worse bailout bill than the first, which stunk to high heaven so that angels passed out, well, lets just say that I was not enthused over Maverickness:

I, of course, have already said I would vote for Gov. Palin as she aligns more with my values and has more Executive experience than any of the House of Elder Emirs. I liked a few thing Reagan said, and very little of some of the things he did do and those things he *didn't* do that he said he would do. Ronald Reagan is not my touchstone: a good man, yes, but deeply flawed.

If the Republicans could support that shift in culture away from McCain and towards the blue collar to small business side and showing how they are all part of the same spectrum that is better served by small government, accountable government and lean government, then it would have a long-term winning proposition and break the stranglehold of the Democratic party in the Rust Belt and Appalachia. Sen. McCain is the unfortunate one who must see this, and he is blinded by decades of 'bipartisanship' to not see an ill-served community that is willing to hold to a small government ideal if it could now find a party to back that. I do have problems with Gov. Palin, but she is a step in the right direction and away from 'maverickism' and 'reformism'. Reforming government gets you large, inefficient and wasteful government to oversee those reforms... and then, soon, overseers for the overseers... and Congress being unaccountable and causing more 'reform'.

You cannot get from where we are to that path without, at some point, saying good-bye to 'reformers' and welcoming in those who will want small government and less government and more accountable government. And that is something that no Republican has *ever* done by carrying through their lovely words and actually cutting away at the damned government.

You do not get by on good ideas.

You do not get by in *not* instituting those good ideas.

You do not get by without putting lots of hard work in to make sure those ideas stick.

I can't vote for any of the Senators as they don't hold one conservative value that should be near and dear to all conservatism: showing up for work every day and putting in an honest day's work.

Not doing that is called: Elitist.

Voting in and accepting a 4-day work week for CONGRESS, as was done under Republicans is: Elitist. You gave good cover to the Democrats to move it down to a 3-day week.

Gov. Palin shows up for work every day, and so does her husband and they know it is tough when times get rough and you don't have a job to go to so as to do that.

If you can't even dare to espouse basic conservative ideals and hold your elected representatives to them, then *why* should anyone be impressed with your ideals?

You don't mean them.

I *do*, I *state them*, I hold *myself* to them even know when I am physically unable to do very much. I expect the exact, same thing from those I put down my vote for or they do not *get* my vote. That means that the slackluster Liberals get office positions so that they can get power to slack off and order others around to do their dirty work. That could be stopped by elected representatives holding to their ideals, and actually *working* at the damned jobs they *volunteered for* and *willingly*.

Gov. Palin winds hands-down with that. In spades.

The Senators?

Elitists, one and all.

You cannot roll-back Liberalism by claiming it is too tough to do so, and then slack off at the job and then start acting like them. You want to roll it back? Then elect people who will damned well stand up for a 5-day Congressional work week, who will work at least 8 hour days, and who will make sure that anyone who tries to slack off is noticed and put on record as such. The first person to do that will have a full time job in just doing *that*, but it will be a very, very, very good job. Count hours, name the names, and show how much these elected representatives don't give a damn about the common man.

That sort of culture can do this... not a party, but a culture. And that culture is one that has conservative ideals as its outgrowth, no matter how imperfect the persons are who are running. You will know they show up for work every day, don't slack off and force the Liberals to work *harder than they do* to get anywhere.

I can and will vote for that in a heartbeat.

Yup, willing to do the work of the Cthulhu ticket on this one: so that even if IT loses, IT wins.  At least straightforward and honest Chaos with intent towards Evil is something I can understand.

Sen. McCain has let the opportunity of his lifetime which would be to re-orient the Republican Party by creating a new coalition across the Nation to include the 'Rust Belt' and Appalachia slip through his fingers.  He could still do it... but he needs a strategist who can tell him that.  Luckily he chose Gov. Palin who knows how to fight and what to fight for politically better than HE DOES.  She doesn't want to pull out of Michigan (h/t: Allahpundit at Hot Air), which is now the worst run Democratic State in the Union as Louisiana got its wits about it and elected Gov. Jindal to pick itself up from that status.  She knows that what she is talking about that worked in Alaska will resonate and work in Michigan.

That does not mean that the campaign will *win* there, but this isn't about *just* this election cycle: it is about formulating a new basis for the Republican Party that includes working class poor, small businesses and slowly eases the role of big businesses to the side.  Because it is a recognition that the business of America is Small Business and those who work their hearts out for 6 and 7 days a week putting in long hours to create a better life for themselves, their community and their Nation.  Join those two up with messages of small government, less intrusive government, and protection from the fat cat predatory lawyers and Big Business and you can get a working coalition that will shift that entire region because those are the working ethics they utilize day by day.

Republican Elites in DC don't know how to talk to those people.

Gov. Palin can and does.

This isn't an election about 'Maverick Reform': Mavericks bust up the system, not go quietly to their stalls when pitchforks appear to prod them into confinement.  You can't get to smaller and more accountable government by adding on yet another god-damned layer of 'oversight' which distances the problem from your elected officials who are the root cause of it in the FIRST PLACE.  They don't want to be named or ever held accountable and want to create more government to insulate them from criticism on ANYTHING. 

'Reform' makes the problem WORSE.

Not better.

Because the ideas put forward have no place in a Constitutionally based Republic utilizing Representative Democracy that is harshly limited by Amendments IX and X to do much of anything to 'help people' beyond providing equal administration of the law and protecting the Nation.  Government can't take care of you... they can't even figure out how mortgage financing works because almost all of those Upon the Hill have someone else to pay their bills for them.

The job of a 'Maverick' is to find those incredibly weak areas and BUST THEM DOWN COMPLETELY so that a smaller and more well built and understood corral is put in its place.

How do I know that Sen. McCain was grandstanding?

He didn't call for the legislation to be repealed as the very first damned thing out of his mouth.

The absolutely horrific part is that he is, with all that, *still* better than Sen. Obama.

Can someone hand Gov. Palin a cluebat, please?  Because Sen. McCain needs to get over himself, realize he isn't the Progressive Theodore Roosevelt and actually start having some fun busting some legislation and government down.  Because the dream of Theodore Roosevelt has come to bad ends, no matter how well intentioned they were.

And that job will take work, and lots of it.

Some Republicans cheered at the idea that their Congresscritters would actually work, for a change.

Now they are 'mailing it in' and losing the few benefits of that work.

If you can't vote for someone who actually *will* do their job and *work at it*, then you will get what you deserve.  Because sloth is the realm of the Left - the land of giving in and giving up because the boot to your face is so much easier than standing up to 'reform' and the Nannystate they want.

When the Republican Party puts forward a 5-day workweek platform for Congress and throws anyone out of the party who votes against it, then I just might think they actually have a clue.

Because that would be a platform plank to beat people with.

And it would make an awfully nice cluebat, come to think of it.

Don't hold your breath.

Working for a living is a conservative ideal.

And a Jacksonian one.

Fed up with the bully pulpit and the Elites

Just who are the 'Elites' in America?

Mostly they self-identify into a few broad classes: Political, Media, Business and Military.

They are the self-important 'know-it-alls' who are willing to sacrifice liberty, freedom and the Nation to their beliefs that they are the best ones suited to run the world. They are the wannabe ruling class who are always ready to tell you what is good for you, and then use the power they have at hand to try and force that to come to pass. You see they 'know' things and are way smarter and more powerful than you, and they... they 'know' what you want... if you would just let them give it to you.

Take Yuval Levin's link to ABC News and a video clip of Sen. Obama at a Planned Parenthood meeting answering a question on sexual education for children. I'll point out what struck Yuval at The Corner at NRO, and it is extremely telling about Sen. Obama in that portion of the video at about the 3:10 mark:

The one thing that I want to insist on is that, as I travel around the country, the American people are a decent people. Now they get confused sometimes. You know, they listen to the wrong talk radio shows or watch the wrong TV networks, um, but they’re, they’re basically decent, they’re basically sound.

- Sen. Barack Obama, 18 JUL 2007

What that leaves out are the appreciative audience twitters and scattered laughs after 'they get confused sometimes' and 'listen to the wrong talk radio shows'. The audience likes those remarks and do believe that *you* are confused and that *you* listen to the wrong talk radio programs. Way to be for the 'little guy'... the 'they' out there, Sen. Obama, that you talk about as if it is a microbial colony that you are not apart of. Come on in and join the gene pool, Senator. That passage is *not* something that demonstrates that he wants to reach out to the American people, and, just before that, he tells you how he sees the President's role in this just before that excerpt:

You know I... eh...eh... the longer I'm in this race for the Presidency, the more I realize that so much of leadership is about using the bully pulpit to frame the issues in a way that allows us to draw on the best impulses of the American people.

Now C-Span has the dating of that term back to President Theodore Roosevelt and he had a slightly different outlook on the American people than Sen. Obama has, to say the least. On 20 MAR 1912 he gave an address at Carnegie Hall on "The Right of the People to Rule", and it was captured by Thomas Edison and is provided as audio at Project Gutenberg, and I will use the transcribed text at the T.R. site, with the opening paragraph as follows:

THE great fundamental issue now before the Republican party and before our people can be stated briefly. It is, Are the American people fit to govern themselves, to rule themselves, to control themselves? I believe they are. My opponents do not. I believe in the right of the people to rule. I believe the majority of the plain people of the United States will, day in and day out, make fewer mistakes in governing themselves than any smaller class or body of men, no matter what their training, will make in trying to govern them. I believe, again, that the American people are, as a whole, capable of self-control and of learning by their mistakes. Our opponents pay lip-loyalty to this doctrine; but they show their real beliefs by the way in which they champion every device to make the nominal rule of the people a sham. I have scant patience with this talk of the tyranny of the majority. Wherever there is tyranny of the majority, I shall protest against it with all my heart and soul. But we are today suffering from the tyranny of minorities. It is a small minority that is grabbing our coal-deposits, our water-powers, and our harbor fronts. A small minority is battening on the sale of adulterated foods and drugs. It is a small minority that lies behind monopolies and trusts. It is a small minority that stands behind the present law of master and servant, the sweat-shops, and the whole calendar of social and industrial injustice. It is a small minority that is to-day using our convention system to defeat the will of a majority of the people in the choice of delegates to the Chicago Convention.

Yes, a minority that cannot get the most votes, games the system and then pays lip service to ideals of liberty and freedom and then go on to say how wrong-headed the American people can be. President Theodore Roosevelt did come from an Elite family, Elite upbringing and had an Elite stature. While going on safari may be considered an idle of the rich, he also went hunting through various parts of the US from desert sands to the rugged northwest to his trips in the Adirondacks near old familial haunts. He had the money to indulge himself, but that did not stop him from forming up the Rough Riders or becoming the Mayor of NYC to confront the Democratic political machine there. He did not want to be Vice President, but accepted it as a service to the American people. Of course, when in office he took a view that would offend many 'strict construction' views of the Constitution held today, and the attitude of the idea of States rights being a 'fetish' is on that would also be abhorrent to more than a few today... even with the federal government slowly marginalizing and removing duties from the States and the people contrary to Amendment IX and X. Those views he goes over in Chapter X of his autobiography, thus making President Theodore Roosevelt a man who would come to trust the power of the people to rule, only once he was out of office.

Having expanded that power base of the Executive branch, taking a 'if the Constitution doesn't prohibit it, I can do it' attitude contrary to the Constitutional proscriptions in Amendments IX and X, and then citing the problems that those wishing to restrict liberty and freedom will cause when THEY get a hold of that self-same power makes the warning all the more clear: he thought he could be trusted with this power in the office, and forgot that the office holds the power, not the individual temporarily occupying it. The 'bully puplpit' or wonderful speaking platform taken as an advocate for something, then morphs from explaining a President's position to one of telling the American people why they should support this or that legislation. Instead of explaining policy and implementing it within the bounds of the office we get Presidents pushing to change the political landscape to suit their whims. That is a change from the 'stewardship' approach of T. Roosevelt: no longer is the President just maintaining things, the President becomes an advocate of change and wishing to change or alter what should remain in stewardship to be passed on as little changed as possible.

That is Elitist.

President Theodore Roosevelt only learned the wisdom of the founders *after* he left office, not while he was in it. And the moment a candidate who would attack *him* shows up and seeks to utilize the power of the Presidency in ways that *he* doesn't like, does Theodore Roosevelt begin to need to announce the supremacy of the American people in the process of government. Apparently there is 'advocacy' that is 'good' in the mind of one man that may not like when 'advocacy' he considers 'bad' to use the same tools he created to work its ends. Of course he was also seeking office to make sure that his 'good' advocacy would win... and try to marginalize that 'bad' sort.... just like Sen. Obama wants to help those 'confused' American people.

The political Elites are the easiest to pick up: they so continually announce their Elite status that it is hard to miss. Do I have problems with Sen. Obama's opponent, Sen. McCain? You betchya! One of my earliest posts looked at the things that really points to Sen. McCain being at the bottom of his hole and not learning to stop digging. Took me a scant few minutes to put down the things I detested about his positions, his past political works and his Elitism. His anti-pork views? Say, when he was heading up the Armed Services Committee to draft expenditures, why didn't he do much to stop the porking up of those bills? That stuff got worse through the 1990's and then so bad that it would be a problem in the billions of dollars by 2004. The logistics and war reserves necessary for modern operations were inadequate when we needed to operate in Afghanistan and Iraq, and those problems date back over a full decade.

Pork in the budget is not *just* the granting of political favors and cronyism with the public's funds, although that is horrific enough to want it ended. No, all that pork requires programmatic oversight which is NOT added into such appropriations. So agencies not only have to care for their own projects, but then have to stretch their staff (legal, admin, financial, contract) thinner to cover for the pork. That means that the necessary jobs don't get proper oversight. That can run as much as 10% to 15% of the appropriation in necessary agency logistic support to ensure the funds are appropriately spent and accounted for. And that money comes from normal operations to meet the actual duties of the agency.

To be 'anti-pork' means far, far more than not asking for earmarks: it requires the recognition of the bad public policy they are and the threat to the public good by inadequate oversight that those funds cause.

The 'Maverick' stance is to take the 'I didn't ask for any' position, while not doing a damned thing to end the practice, so that you can still use those items being added in by others to grant political favors. Needless to say, I have problems with that. Sen. Obama is on the high pork fat diet and now points to the infrequent twinkies as his commitment against pork... that is after having the whole hog on the Luau. So your choice is: a man who wants to grant political favors by asking for them or one who wishes to grant them by denying a few.

Now I've gone over the larger theme of the status of Elites before, hitting the military Elites or pundits, before. Mostly that is from the outside, although of late there are a number of high ranking personnel who found themselves without backing for their jobs who left the Pentagon to complain about what they saw as wrong-headed policy. Mind you, many of these people left because their way of fighting war from the 1980's and 1990's couldn't address the needs of 2001 onwards. That internal political fight for this or that weapons system then moved from the Rings of the Pentagon to national television, with those who recently left being critics of policy. Because their pet projects went away. And if you look at their last active service deployments in the field, in combat, you begin to understand why they found themselves out of place: they were out of place. Of course a man like Gen. Wesley Clark was already out of place when he was in the field and deployed, and I'll take this from my previous article:

First up is this lovely little item from The Quarterly Journal, No. 1 March 2003 (p.103):

At this point, it is easy to foresee that casualty aversion is not only a governmental problem. Hence, as Weinberger states, fighting in the current context will require a high level of public support. This assumption, largely driven by the U.S. experience in the Vietnam War, directly involves the public as a major actor in this debate. Charles Reiss, in February 2001, related elements of the Future Strategic Context for Defence to this: "The armed forces, both in peacetime and on operations, will come under greater public and pressure group scrutiny." Through this type of attitude, governments seem to project casualty phobia onto the public, and treat it as if it is a weakness in the nation to be fought. The media are the other foci of attention for these concerns in governments. Reiss mentions "the pressure from public opinion and the media for minimum casualties" This is perfectly illustrated by the declaration of U.S. General Wesley Clark after the Kosovo campaign: "When you start to lose these expensive machines (aircraft), the countdown starts against you. The headlines begin to shout, `NATO loses a second aircraft,' and the people ask, `How long can this go on?' Therefore, although governments recognize casualty aversion, they tend to attribute the pressure behind the phenomenon to the media and the public.

Yes, governments and the media project a lack of will to fight on the public... not the other way around. Fun, isn't that? Say how do you like being told by the government and media what is or is not your will to fight? Remember that there are those that want 'zero casualty warfare' in which flowers are strewn instead of bullets, and everyone sits in the campfire and sings together... while someone else sneaks up and slits your throat, I guess. I never could fathom that. But at least they are HONEST in the fact that they are pacifists and that 'no war is just'... or at least semi-honest, since they want all those 'black, brown and other people of color' to be freed, but then complain when that freedom must be paid for. They probably thought the best way to disarm someone out to kill you is to sit down at a conference table with coffee and donuts and figure out exactly when and how harshly you will be killed.

The need for the MSM to fill air time drives news, that news acquisition cycle then presses public servants who are trying to supply information to the people to ask for those things the MSM is interested in and that gets supplied and hyped. Anything else that tries to be supplied gets filtered out: the MSM acts as 'gatekeeper' telling you what it wants you to know... and then asks pundits to pontificate on those things it wants you to know. And the rest of the information? Kept behind the gate, so that the public has to work to find out what our public servants are trying to tell us about. And when those exact, same servants actually can get a word out that discredits the MSM message?

Why that is 'showing political bias'!

And the 'gatekeeping' that advocates a position isn't?

Gen. Wesley Clark would have something far worse on his hands, however, as after having a 'death free' mission, and again I will excerpt and cut off a transition to the conclusion on the military/government/public interface:

Now, since the good General Wesley Clark was involved, lets take a bit of a look at some further things from that same study (pp.105-106):

At first, the public seems to be the favorite source to which to attribute casualty aversion. Nevertheless, this is an assumption that is too easy to make. For example, several studies exist stating that the public is not casualty averse at all. In The Myth of the Reactive Public, Kull and Ramsay conduct an in-depth analysis of surveys done during recent conflicts. The results of this study are simple: the public is much more robust regarding casualties than initially expected. In particular, they reach this conclusion for the Gulf War, the crisis in Mogadishu, and the attack against the U.S. Marines barracks in Lebanon in 1986. After the images of the incident in Somalia were seen, the public wanted more U.S. involvement and retaliation. Likewise, U.S. public support reached its peak when severe losses occurred in the Gulf War and in the days following the terrorist attack in Lebanon. Dealing with the Vietnam War, Jeffrey Record comes to this surprising conclusion: “In retrospect, it is amazing that public support remained as strong as long as it did, given the war's geographic remoteness and the predominantly abstract quality of declared U.S. war aims." Initially, the polls were clear: the public did not respond by demanding an immediate withdrawal. Furthermore, they describe the misperceptions of the public with regard to the number of casualties. Their starting point for this study was a PIPAsurvey in 1999, where American people estimated that 172 U.S. soldiers died in Bosnia, whereas the U.S. actually had no casualties. This survey envisaged different scenarios of degradation. Each time, the public responded with a large majority demonstrating a will to reinforce or to retaliate. A similar survey by PIPA, in 1999, leads to the same conclusions.

Ah, the American people not only think that freedom can be bought with casualties but EXPECT IT! Even when there are ZERO actual casualties, the common folk of the US think that we have paid a price for freedom in blood. And do note that the incidents in Somalia and Bosnia and Kosovo are AFTER the end of the Cold War. Fascinating stuff, isn't it?

All that hard work to cater to the MSM and its voracious news appetite for death during conflict, to stage a campaign that saw zero US deaths and the reward is: the public thinks people died, anyway. The public EXPECTS that actual military conflict will have a casualty toll on it and only the most far Left of individuals believe otherwise... right up to the point they want 'humanitarian missions' to do one thing or another. Deaths in the National interest are to be avoided, yes, but that civil sword cannot remain unbloodied to that end... which is why the far Left is so ready to expend lives in things not to the National interest, because that furthers their anti-Nationalist ends. Incidents like Blackhawk Down in Mogadishu, or the Marine deployment in Lebanon show that when the Nation expends lives in places of questionable National interest, the Nation comes to take a dim view of them. That is because the Presidents involved did not believe in their commitment and to assuage their 'good faith' they expended lives to no good end and diminished the public's respect for them and the armed forces, while emboldening our adversaries. If either of those Presidents had committed to going after those involved, Hezbollah in Lebanon or al Qaeda with warlord support in Somalia, then we would not BE in Iraq or Afghanistan. And Hezbollah would be a footnote of a nasty group that got hunted down until they fled to Syria crying about 'being oppressed' by the US, which would be a lovely Leftist talking point, like what is happening to FARC these days.

This problem with 'peacekeeping' is glossed over by the military pundits and the MSM, both in the Elite structure pushing a worldview where these things are supposed to 'help', while actually rewarding those who caused the problems in the first place. And yet we hear a drone of 'peacekeeping missions' and 'humanitarian missions' and rarely, if ever, the cost in lives of those missions that would require the full commitment of not only the President and Congress, but the American people, as well. And that 'bully pulpit'? Worked great in Yugoslavia for President Reagan, no? So wonderful for President Clinton in the Balkans that those hard problems that have been there for centuries have been fully resolved, right? How about President Bush (41) and that grand coalition with National backing against Iraq, that solved everything by 1992, right? And, say, since nearly every President since Woodrow Wilson has been dabbling in Haiti, just how close is that poor Nation to having things worked out there? That 'bully pulpit' has been so often deployed it is on castors and sits in the wings to be wheeled out every few years...

What comes with the pulpit, however, is the vision of a Priest, most often celibate, talking about the evils of fornication and how you really shouldn't be doing it, except to provide children which is your duty. It is all 'fire and brimstone' the first time through, but by the tenth time it is a polite yawn and check your watch and just what is on for dinner tonight? That 'bully pulpit' has the same problem: it is effective when utilized rarely. But it has seen so many sermons on the same subject that, really, we pay more attention to commercials on the need to floss daily than we do to Presidents on just *why* this or that program or project is vital to the Nation, and you'll get higher taxes to get it, too. The commercials, at least, are short and often pithy, when we don't hit the 'mute' button for them. Sort of like you do with Sen. McCain preaching about the low pork diet, and then making sure the bacon is properly distributed at the pot luck dinner after the anti-pork sermon.

'Fireside chats' with the American people were all well and good from FDR, but he had the novelty of the technology to play upon and showing that he was 'modern' by using that means to effectively communicate. Sen. Obama by hosting a number of anti-American, bigoted blogs loses his ability to show that he understands the medium and that by opening the floodgates you can expect the raw sewage to come out with the rainwater. And if he can't learn to Google 'McCain AND disabilities', then just what the hell is so hip and modern about the guy? Not that the MSM won't eat up that drivel. Sen. Obama is no modern day FDR, nor is Sen. McCain a latter day TR: neither are willing to address the extreme problem of an activist Presidency that the American people don't want.

Gov. Palin does address that, to a degree, but she is on the VP side of things. So, unless she has a stout cluebat to batter Sen. McCain about the head and shoulders with, you can expect him to do asinine things to give up his 'principled positions' to get 'bipartisan support' in which he gives up 90% of his loaf to get 90% of their loaf, which then becomes law. See, he stood for 10% of something he believed in! So 'maverick'.

While politics isn't the cure to many things, it can be the cause of them. Take the latest 'sub prime crisis' du jour of the crisis brigade. Dean Barnett does a lovely job rounding up the mess at The Weekly Standard, and we get to see the heady mix of irrational regulators pushing asinine policy leading to bad loans to NINJAs. That is a term that does not refer to black-clad martial artists stealthily killing those that oppose them... we should be so lucky! No this refers to the class of people who were getting sub-prime loans at the urging of politicians being paid money from the political arms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is a wonderful term! Here are the NINJA loan seekers:

No Income, No Job or Assets

That was the 'new class' of potential homeowners who would benefit by easy money policy backing insane lending practices pushed by wealthy political machines by both Fannie and Freddie which are backed by Federal funds and get political appointees who have no other qualification than a President likes them. Gotta love that oversight, no? While Sen. Obama has been a beneficiary of the political largesse of Fannie and Freddie, being #2 on the recipient parade for them after Sen. Chris Dodd, who was sitting in the Senate when these awful rules were drafted to allow for Presidents to put plum jobs in those institutions to political cronies? And not complain about it, save in the Pork upon the Pulpit way? It is a part of the 'broken culture of Washington' and who hasn't done a damned thing to fix it? If you said Sen. McCain, then grab some bacon!

Now to forestall those that support Sen. McCain, may I point out that even he DID oppose that sort of thing and brought forth a bill or two on Fannie and Freddie, and that he has been ineffective in actually doing anything about it? That 'bipartisanship' is just how often Sen. McCain can compromise principles of his party and that of conservatives just so that *he* can say that he did that. That is not 'effective bipartisanship', but it is a huge problem in showing that his wanting to 'compromise' doesn't equate to actual and effective legislation or addressing the 'Washington culture'. Just like pork.

Whatever Sen. McCain's fixed principles are... yeah, he has written a lot about his background and experiences, but just what is it that he is following is anyone's guess. It isn't classical liberalism of the freedom and liberty for the individual sort. He answered that question years ago with McCain-Feingold. And McCain-Lieberman.

He isn't about economic conservatism, that would put forth that regulation stifles competition and ingenuity and makes it harder for small businesses to unseat large ones to create creative turmoil amongst companies. Sen. McCain loves regulation and talking about the crooked people on Wall Street so much that he has forgotten that the average American now has investments in stock and bond vehicles that were previously not open to the common man by the actions of a very few people leading a few companies to do that over three decades ago. Regulating Wall Street is telling you what you can do with your money within the limits set by the federal government. And its role from the Constitution in that area is...?

Really, when the US deregulated the telephone market prices plummeted, services increased and a plethora of new companies emerged. When the US deregulated the airline industry you got start-ups like SouthWest who could actually try new business models. And the cost of air travel dropped like a rock. And if you want to complain about Freddie, Fannie and AIG, then look to the self-same Congresscritters that have been courting lobbyists and taking cash to change the way loans are made. Hey, how about some regulations for Congress? Those members sure as hell ACT like they are a big business these days.

Sen. McCain brought the military conservatives over to him with his attitudes on Iraq and they have forgotten his votes in the 1990's to support military cuts, which harmed logistics and end-strength to the point of two US Army Divisions going to their lowest readiness levels since Vietnam in 1999. That same Senator then turns around and asks why we don't have more people in the Armed Forces in 2003? But so many just want to 'forgive' him or say that those things are 'unfair' because Sen. McCain has no crystal ball. Which is why you keep a robust military around: you don't know what the hell the future is going to bring and it costs far less to need it and have it than to need it and NOT have it.

So when someone figures out the guidebook that Sen. McCain is reading from, let me know. Remember, Teddy Roosevelt had a number of misgivings about the use and application of Presidential power when he was out of office. He did, indeed, go after Wall Street - monopolies and oligarchies. That is a good thing as it shook up the market and stopped it from having unassailable areas by start-ups. Too much regulation puts those fortifications back in place. Just look at how Big Media have lobbied Congress to make the copyright into near perpetuity via legislation enacted into law. Good job, that, stifling the content of creativity to the common man. And protecting Mickey Mouse and giving the Disney Company the right to erect barriers to creative entry into the marketplace.

My problems with Sen. Obama are fundamental - he takes money from crooks, associates with domestic terrorists and racists, and then bottles that in shiny, new authoritarian bottles of 'home and change'.

Got it?

Sen. McCain complains about the past vintages, but is more than willing to sign on to letting those be poured into the mouth of the body politic because he abstains, donchayknow? And when he wholeheartedly signs up to quota systems and supporting things like the Legal Services Corp. to expend public funds to bring suits against the government on behalf of Leftist interests? Or to stop low power FM broadcasting for local communities that get no service from those bands locally? Or to try to make free political opinion something that should be controlled by the FEC? Or the 'gunshow loophole' to keep track of who goes to gunshows? Or that the federal government has an interest in local cable right-of-ways doled out by local governments? Illegal alien amnesty? Why don't we just help those nice folks from MS-13 become all nice and legal with a sham 3-day 'processing period' for mountains of paperwork. They are 'all God's children' after all....

That is Sen. McCain's version of 'federalism', don't mind that it doesn't look like any form of 'federalism' under any definition of the term.

Sen. McCain loves to complain NOW about things he has been a part of for more than 20 years.

I have a problem with that.

What really gets me is the 13 month (or whatever the attention-deficit disorder length is for conservatives) or so cycle that conservatives have with Sen. McCain. He will join with the opposition, stab you in the back until we get the pitiful 'Et, tu, Brute?'

Then he will strut around, make merry for a few months, condescend to help you out, lift you up... and then join in a new backstabbing complete with 'Et, tu, Brute?' on the part of conservatives.

That has been going on since his first votes not to sustain President Reagan's vetoes on a number of bills. By the third time around it was pathetic. And now the co-dependency cycle works itself around, he puts Gov. Palin on the top spot and... well... I can feel it coming. Will it be immigration? Taxes? Backing out on his pro-drilling conversion and joing the Gang in the Senate? And he will do that just in time for the Feiler Faster Thesis to be in gear for Sen. Obama who will be on his upswing from the dregs and start to overhaul Sen. McCain who will be doing his strutting thing and trying to reach out, again, because, you know, 'he is the best we can do'.

If I don't vote Cthulhu it is because I will do something truly Evil.

I will write in Gov. Sarah Palin for President.

Because SHE is the best being offered this go-around, even where I disagree with her, and depending on the rules for the counting of these things in the States, that just *might* start to change the vote count for the Elector sent to the Electoral College. All it takes is a few of those and the actual election, in the EC. And then we will see *just* how dirty the 'maverick' will fight... to keep his VP out of the top spot.

Yeah, I'm willing to do that.

The hell of it is, that doesn't show up until the votes are counted.

And like President John Quincy Adams said, I will know that I voted for the RIGHT PERSON and to hell with the rest of those wanting me to be 'partisan', I will sleep well at night knowing I voted for the right person even if she LOSES. It is what my country asks of me.

Truly, only Cthulhu could inspire such Evil so that even if It loses, It wins.

Sounds like fun! Plus it is the right thing for me to do and uphold my end of the Constitutional bargain. Who would have thought that something pointed to by so many as a great good, could actually end up being an evil process? Oh, they are the 'partisans'... but then so am I. For my Nation.

Because I have had it with the tyranny of the Elitist minorities and the Big Business that is Congress.

And I distrust anyone with a Sen. or Rep. in front of their names save for a very, very, very few. You want the source of the problems in lending and Wall Street now showing up? Look for the Sen. or Rep. label and you will have hit the rotten fish in the rotting barrel. Remember that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Pol Pot, and the rest of that crew had lovely controlled and regulated economies. And that those Western Nations getting over regulated, France, UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, et. al. all have declining populations, are importing north african and middle eastern islamic populations, face a dwindling work force and all have extremely well regulated economies. Where else can you get the doctors to all walk out for a month of paid vacation and let people die in the hospitals but in a well regulated economy?

I want the power basis of the US to shift to a more representative one and BREAK the power of Congress to act as a Big Business. You want to get rid of the bad fish? Get a bigger barrel and add in a lot of small predators. Soon it will be *all* small predators beholden to YOU. I support the 1:30,000 maximum House under the Constitution, as the best answer for corrupt democracy is lots more democracy and let the rotting extremities of government get chewed away by it. I can't get to there from here through Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain. But Gov. Palin just might understand that concept. She sure as hell has a better chance than anyone else in the race, that is for sure.

Let us join together to dilute the power of the Elites in our government.

You can't get that through reform.

You can get it through vital and diverse democracy.

Just like the founders wanted.

I like that vision of America, where our Congresscritters are beholden to the 30,000 adults in their district.

And more people will realize the power of their vote is not diluted and become deluded with the system, as is happening now with our Fascist and Communist trends towards regulation and diminution of liberty and freedom.

I want my fellow citizens to control this Nation for good or ill, and to take power from these Elites and their huge money supplies and face them with the inordinate task of having to try and bribe a good portion of 10,000 Members of the House. They couldn't hide that. And certainly not from local voters where each and every single vote counts.

You know, local democracy?

That is what the 'reformers' are against.

Accountability for everyone, save them.

And lets put the 'bully pulpit' in the storage attic for a few decades... and find some people who can govern, not rule the Nation.

The Senator and the second chance

Over the last few days I have witnessed one of the greatest changes in the political scene since the fall of Richard Nixon and the rise of Ronald Reagan: the Republican Part went through a sea change then and as its tide ebbed and left the fish flopping on the sandy shoals, I expected it not to return.  I have always counted Sen. McCain as one of those fish, flopping around as the sun baked the set sand and fish slowly dried out.  Of course I view all of Congress that way, and still do.  Senator McCain, however, has been singled out for special ire in his inability to recognize that while he may have gotten Lebanon right and the need for COIN right, he has fumbled on the basics of logistics, supply and training as critical needs for the military to assess those kinds of warfare.  He may get policy right for some things and not right for others, including the peacekeeping and need for Congressional backing in the 1990's, during the time of the great draw down from the Cold War.  I have fundamental and severe problems with hearing the comments of his backers who do not look at his record.  For not holding to fiscal responsibility for military affairs and the support of same, along with the accountability called for by his colleagues, I have deep problems.

In public policy, he has been a supporter of entitlements and organizations funded by the government to actually bring suit against the government for individuals.  He has supported quotas in the media and attempted to shut off citizenry access to low power FM capability where no normal stations reached, that while supporting greater Internet access not seeing that there is a continuum from local to international and that different communities can be served well by different media.  Also in seeking federal intervention into cable right-of-ways, I see a deep misunderstanding of the concept of federalism, where the local situation is the best to make local decisions.  I have seen him 'cross the aisle' to work on the 'gun show loophole' bill, where there was the right of Americans to assemble for their own interests without the oversight of the federal government so as to discuss and practice their fundamental liberties. 

Beyond that his belief that money equals speech for campaigns and his attempts to put overly broad regulations into place that would endanger free speech in the political arena demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding between the role of speech in politics.  Broadcasting a message only means it goes further, it does not mean it gains any depth or sway.  Witness the attempts by Moveon.org and others to sway American's views towards the armed forces and their leader in Iraq and you will see a failed attempt to turn money into politics.  Let us see and hear the idiots for what they are - they self-identify in a world of free speech.  Money is a concern in campaign infrastructure, yes, and if you want the money out of politics then allow no financing, even self-financing of getting 'the message out'.  And anyone who attempts to speak for a candidate that isn't the candidate should not do so - that gets money out of politics and makes candidates speak only for themselves with no intermediaries, no backers, no 'machine'.  If you can't stomach that, then don't complain about the ill-minded wealthy who decide to bring their authoritarian brand of world view to the table... unless you don't trust your fellow citizens not to see authoritarianism for what it *is*.  The antidote for free speech is not restrictions but more speech.  And if Sen. McCain 'gets' the Internet then he should be all for free speech that is no longer intermediated by the MSM.  The gatekeeper is still at the gate, the fence is being removed.

Finally, in the rule of law area, Sen. McCain has not supported a robust upholding of the nation's laws so as to end the intrusion of foreign illegal workers into the country.  This is *not* just about the southern border, but about Snakeheads bringing indentured servants or outright slave labor to work in sequestered areas in our very nation.  It is about rings that are international in scope allied with organized crime to bring in sex workers from overseas.  And it is about terrorists working with organized crime to bring their backers into the US to help fund their groups and probe the nation's weaknesses.  By conflating these problems and not being able to admit to the solution of just enforcing the law for everyone, Senator McCain has gained especial ire from me.

And still does.

Some of those views I can understand, like the Keating 5 scandal leading to try and clean up 'soft money' in politics.  Of course just having every campaign be required to tell who their donors are and limit corporations to the same as individuals is too much for some... makes more sense than the passel of groups we get today with 'reform'.  And anyone that wanted to put up a 'political ad' would also fall under full disclosure.

Others like supporting quotas, entitlements and other such things I am at a loss about from a man who calls himself a 'federalist'.

Then there is the lack of trying to stop pork barrel spending in the military budget while he was the head of the Senate Committee that drafted it.  Yes, he would decry it.  No, he did nothing to end it, which ends up with things like a $2 million biathlon course for a military facility in Alaska, I believe it was.  And running out of ammo early after the start of hostilities and having to buy some from Canada, UK, France and other sources.

That puts me in a bind with Sen. McCain who has made politically expedient moves to get bills through, while claiming to take the moral high ground on those same items.  You either fight for those things or you don't and shut up about them.  Apparently that is not how Sen. McCain operates, and he has left a number of people who had thought him an ally by the wayside during his time in the Senate.  I would be more comfortable with his verbiage if he bothered to explain it, so that one could reconcile his lovely anti-pork message with the problematic position of doing nothing to stop it.  If you support the post-Cold War draw-down, then don't complain about the lack of men, equipment and training a decade later after you had voted to help cause those exact, same problems.

His tactical outlook is very good.

His strategic and logistics outlook is awful.

Gets you lots of great equipment with a lack of batteries, yet another minor problem that showed up in Afghanistan and Iraq early on.

The man has had 25 years or so to 'shake up Washington' and has done very little in that regard.

His tactical brilliance on the campaign trail is dead-on, to the point of picking a pro-reformer Governor, Sarah Palin, who achieved more in two years as Governor of Alaska than Sen. McCain has in his decades in Congress.  She has demonstrated that the future of political conservatism that actually does what it says and means it is bright:  Americans can still pick such people and they can also be popular at the exact, same time.  She is the 21st century of politician while Sen. McCain is still in the 20th century of 'bipartisan reform'.  There are times that I begin to wonder if they aren't from different parties... but they are definitely from different eras.

What this comes down to is that the McCain/Palin ticket has two and very stark cultures at work.  Not only tactically brilliant to choose Sarah Palin, but necessary to kick-start the 21st century of politics, and firmly take a step away from the late 20th century that both parties have been mired in for 8 years.  That cultural shift is a winner, as it takes the step to start reaching out to the blue collar and rural communities of what used to be the solid Democratic center, but is now becoming the forgotten and disdained Democratic Right.  They got their wake-up call in 1968 when, as George McGovern put it, 'we threw open our doors to the public, and people started walking out'.  Walking out on the 'younger generation', the radicals, the Leftists, the Communists, the racial quota backers...

That cultural difference is *not* Right/Left as it has been cast... not political.  That cultural divide is Urban/Rural, and two entirely different set of rules apply.  Cities need strong centralized management, Small Towns need distributed and cooperative ways of dealing with things.  Cities propose all sorts of centralized ways of doing things, Small Towns and Rural areas recognize the necessity of inconvenience to lead a good life.  Cities have tried to claim the suburbs via agglomeration, while the suburbs slowly shift to interior modes of management that is dispersed.  This is the great Interstate Bypass Divide in America:  if you live inside the Bypass you are Urban, if you live outside you join Small Town and Rural America.  Only the truly huge Metropolitan areas don't follow this: LA, Miami to an extent, Chicago, New York City, Boston.  If you life in a suburb and don't work in the city, you fall on the outer part of that divide.

This is also the future of much in the way of work, especially managerial work, but even some industrial work will start to feel the influence of the modern world.  It is called 'telecommuting'.  It is called 'remotely operated equipment'.  It is called 'Open Source Manufacturing/Robotics/Source Code'.  What you do will slowly no longer tell you where to live, and that means that each person and each job no longer requires industrial infrastructure.  Cities will always be hubs of culture, commerce and serve as ways to flex organizations that require co-location to work.  Much of the work, however, for all those things that don't depend on that infrastructure, will begin to see populations shift in America.  And even if you don't shift, due to the attraction of the other things cities offer, you will begin to realize that your culture is shifting away from all of the things that make cities central to life and to one of more distributed outlooks.  That is the future of American work, until we finally agree to start shifting some of that work to a new frontier.

There is a different outlook to these two sections of America and that has been the case since before the Revolution.  After the Revolution the Shaysites nearly brought the place down, as they represented the outer part of that divide.  Sen. McCain is still preaching the centralized, bi-partisan manner of decision making from Washington.  While Alaska typifies the distributed, dispersed form, especially considering that the links of some communities are not roads, but airfields, rivers and ocean-side docks.  That form of thinking that goes with that environment is depending upon yourself, not government, and it is more closely akin to Rural and Small Town America.

That is the majority of the Nation, in case folks haven't had a nice road trip in their lives.  You can drive 12 hours straight on the interstate and *still* not reach the end of America.

Sen. McCain is looking to try and expand the choir.

Unfortunately the conductor is tone-deaf.

We are heading into the dawn of a new era of our Nation.  Many of the old things will be retained: our love of country, love of liberty, support of freedom, and the awesome beauty of the land our forefathers gave to us by dint of hard work over decades.  While we will be more decentralized in our outlooks, the firm need to have a central set of ideals that are supporting them becomes firmer, lest we lose our liberties to government, to tyrants, to dictators and despots of all stripes.  That is where the Republican party stands, today, with its nominees:  one rooted firmly into the old 'reform' ideals and one stepping into the new era of ethical governance.  The ideals remain the same, but what they mean, on the ground, must change over this next decade so that we may shift with the changes that will happen, and yet still hold to the equality of all men under the law.  Where we abide by not centralizing government because that does not reflect the best way to govern save for very, very few things: administer justice, uphold our liberties, and protect our people from the harsh world that would disdain our freedoms and seek to bring down liberty and put tyranny in its place.  This heritage will still be here for all Americans, even if they roam away from the clutches of our gravity: America is more than a place, it is a way to live and conduct oneself with your fellow man.

Can this tone-deaf conductor slowly ease aside his ego and start to look that some of the problems in Washington are part of himself?

Can he give Gov. Palin her opportunity to speak through the rural areas of the Nation to let them hear how it is good culture that creates good government, and that the best government is the most accountable?

Sen. McCain has demonstrated his tactical brilliance in this campaign.

He has taken a strategic march on the opponents of liberty at home and abroad by choosing Gov. Palin.

Can he recognize that?

And will he carry through and do what is necessary to enact those changes and start expanding the Republican Party to these other Rural and Small Town areas that have been ignored by their rivals?

He often talks a good game.

Now it is time to carry through.

And mean it.

The upcoming days and month or so will tell if he understands where he is... or if he is just a brilliant 20th century politician who has had a masterstroke that will turn into smoke as he grasps it.

Americans have always given a second chance to those politicians who have seen that they can and do stray from being what they purport to be.  I am willing to give Sen. McCain that opportunity because the future of my Nation requires it.  My trust is not so easily won, however, given his record.  He has little time to show it, and yet the earnest work is not that hard... if he understands where he is at.

The 20th century is over.

Welcome to the 21st.

The Presidential gut-check

The following is a cross-post from The Jacksonian Party.

The following is a position paper of The Jacksonian Party.

The small Nation of Georgia has sought, and hard, to reach out to the United States and support us, looking towards the US as a friend of liberty.  As part of that they have welcomed our training of their armed forces and have contributed the largest contingent per population size of any Nation in helping us in Iraq (Source and excellent read at Mudville Gazette).  With the current military actions of Russia over the 'breakaway' region of South Ossetia Georgia is recalling the 20% of its fighting force that it has dedicated to the mission in Iraq.  In this series of operations, Russia has been a clear antagonist towards Georgia in being the only Nation to recognize South Ossetia and then supply it with backing and encouraging it to antagonize Georgia via military means.  This is the view of Ralph Peters in his NY Post article and Anne Applebaum, who has been covering the region for years, in her WaPo column.  Austin Bay looks at this is part of an ongoing way of Russia in 'working on' small Nations, citing Kosovo for historical reference.

Michael Totten had coincidentally been scheduled to head to the region and offers this piece at Slate as backgrounder, and also offers a previous piece by Anne Applebaum.

Another ally of the United States, our longest friend in Europe, Poland (Source: Polish Radio at thenews.pl), stands up against Russian intimidation and attempts to dominate Georgia.  This was done in coordination with the leaders of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia as a co-release:

The presidents of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have issued a joint statement condemning what they see as the naked aggression of Russia against the independent state of Georgia, as hostilities continue in the breakaway state of South Ossetia.

The statement says: “The European Union and NATO must take up the initiative and oppose the spread of imperialist and revisionist policy in the east of Europe.”

President Lech Kaczynski told TVP public television that Poland had a mission to inform western countries, and the EU in particular, of the nature of the aggression by Moscow.

He underlined that any peacekeepers in the region must be international. “That peacekeeping troops [in South Ossetia] are only from Russia is simply a farce,” he said.

The President said that Poland would offer Georgia any help it asked for. “We are not planning to send any troops there, but anything is possible.”

Poland, if anyone cares to remember, sent light cavalry to the United States when we had none in a time of dire need by us. 

That time was called the Revolutionary War.

From this we can see how the two major party candidates reacted.

On 08 AUG 2008 Sen. John McCain said the following about this, as reported by the WaPo's Michael D. Shear:

The news reports indicate that the Russian military forces crossed an internationally recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia. Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory. What is most critical now is to avoid further confrontation between Russian and Georgian military forces. The consequences of Euro-Atlantic stability and security are grave. The government of Georgia has called for a cease fire and for resumption of direct talks on South Ossetia with international mediators. The U.S. should immediately convene an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to call on Russia to reverse course. The U.S. should immediately work with the E.U. and the OSCE to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to reverse this perilous course that it has chosen.

We should immediately call a meeting of the North Atlantic Council to assess Georgia's security and review measures NATO can take to contribute to stabilizing this very dangerous situation. Finally, the international community needs to establish a truly independent and neutral peacekeeping force in South Ossetia.

That is a prime 'gut-check' response by anyone wanting to be a President of the United States: a friend of liberty helping our friends to rally around liberty when it is under siege by a tyrant.

At Politico, Ben Smith on 08 AUG 2008 reported the following, starting with Sen. Obama's statement:

“I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict,” Obama said in a written statement. “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war. Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected.”

Obama added briefly that the international community should get involved. More than an hour later, as more details of Russia’s incursion into Georgia emerged, he cited Russia more directly: “What is clear is that Russia has invaded Georgia’s sovereign — has encroached on Georgia’s sovereignty,” he told reporters in Sacramento.

[..]

John McCain’s top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, defended McCain’s direct criticism of Russia in the early hours of the crisis.

"Sen. McCain is clearly willing to note who he thinks is the aggressor here,” he said, dismissing the notion that Georgia’s move into its renegade province had precipitated the crisis. "I don't think you can excuse, defend, explain or make allowance for Russian behavior because of what is going on in Georgia.”

He also criticized Obama for calling on both sides to show “restraint,” and suggested the Democrat was putting too much blame on the conflict’s clear victim.

“That's kind of like saying after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, that Kuwait and Iraq need to show restraint, or like saying in 1968 [when the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia] ... that the Czechoslovaks should show restraint,” he said.

A foreign policy adviser for Obama, Ben Rhodes, said Obama was deliberately measured in response to the conflict, balancing his disapproval of Russia’s “troubling behavior in its near-abroad region” with “the fact that we have to deal with Russia to deal with our most important national security challenges.”

Rhodes declined to discuss McCain’s statement directly, but did indirectly criticize it.

"The temperature of your rhetoric isn't a measure of your commitment to Georgian sovereignty,” he said, noting that the two candidates’ statements shared a substantive commitment to Georgia’s borders. “You don't want to get so far in front of a situation that you're feeding the momentum of an escalation.”

Critics of McCain’s stance said he’d imposed ideology on a complicated situation in which both sides bear some blame.

“McCain took an inflexible approach to addressing this issue by focusing heavily on one side, without a pragmatic assessment of the situation,” said Mark Brzezinski, a former Clinton White House official and an informal adviser to Obama.

“It’s both sides’ fault — both have been somewhat provocative with each other,” he said.

[..]

A public relations firm working for the Russian Federation pointed out Scheunemann’s lobbying past to reporters — a sign that McCain’s stance is not, for better or worse, being welcomed in Moscow — as did Obama’s campaign.

“John McCain’s top foreign policy adviser lobbied for, and has a vested interest in, the Republic of Georgia and McCain has mirrored the position advocated by the government,” said Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan, noting that the “appearance of a conflict of interest” was a consequence of McCain’s too-close ties to lobbyists.

Scheunemann dismissed the criticism, saying he severed his ties to his firm and to his client on March 1 and noting that McCain has been a firm supporter of Georgia’s move toward the West, and away from Russia, since the Arizona senator’s first visit there in 1997.

What Sen. Obama did is come out with not only pabulum, but an unmeasured response that did not take into account Georgia's commitment to helping the United States.  While we work with Russia, we cannot consider it a friend in much of anywhere in the world where it operates.  It is a large Nation and gets consideration due to that size, but liberty and freedom are commitments that go beyond the mere size of a Nation in geography or population.  Even worse, in backing a Russian line on Mr. Scheunemann, Sen. Obama is taking sides in the conflict with the non-liberty embracing Russia against the interests of the US in promoting liberty and freedom abroad.

Further the comments of Mr. Brzezinski show the influence of his father (and both have influence in this campaign, apparently), Zbigniew, who had the unfortunate position of first backing the Shah of Iran, then trying to find if 'moderates' in Iran would take part in some sort of 'Islamic Green buffer zone' between the West and the USSR.  I have detailed Sen. Obama's problematical 'foreign policy team' along with the past views of Sen. McCain.

The one thing the Cold War did demonstrate is the United States *must* be a staunch advocate of liberty and freedom in more than just rhetoric, which is why the response from Sen. McCain demonstrating knowledge of the situation and having previously supported a Nation that supports the US is one to be respected.  As Mr. Smith notes, the view taken by Sen. Obama is a 'European one' that does not apparently recognize that Russia is also seeking to bring all of the pipelines from the Far East that supply Europe with oil and natural gas under the sway if not direct control of Russia.

In this, the most primal of gut checks for who you would vote for as President, Sen. Obama loses and clearly does so by backing a tyrannical regime's attempts to meddle in US politics and puts the blame 'equally' where the blame is unequal and weighs heavily towards one side.

By supporting a friend and ally of the US, Sen. McCain wins and if Poland seeks to step in and asks for our help in remedying the situation, then the current President should back that.

Because liberty is purchased by feeding the Great Tree with the blood of tyrants and patriots, both.

You do not play political games with those who have come to the US seeking our help in securing their own liberty and befriending our Nation in such a hard fight as in Iraq.

 

Both candidates have also had a chance to get a 'gut-check' on another issue, far closer to home, in the area of international affairs:  Mexico.

From AZ Central on 07 AUG 2008, Sean Holstege of the Arizona Republic reports the following:

Four Mexican army soldiers entered southern Arizona and pointed their rifles at a U.S. Border Patrol agent early this week, the Border Patrol said.

The incident Sunday was the Mexican military's 43rd incursion across the U.S. border since October, the agency said. However, it was unusual because firearms were involved. The Border Patrol and the Mexican government are investigating, Border Patrol spokesman Mike Scioli said.

Details remain sketchy, but the incident occurred at 2 a.m. on the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation about 50 miles southeast of Ajo. The incident took place just north of the border in sight of the new border fence.

[..]

In Washington, D.C., State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said the encounter "stemmed from a momentary misunderstanding as to the exact location of the U.S.-Mexican border."

A 'border fence' is a clear demarcation line of a border.

This incident took place within sight of that fence to the North, clearly in US sovereign territory.

I have examined this previously (here) and find that Congress had the Library of Congress create a report looking at the slow incursion of money and foreign operatives with arms into Northern Mexico, and looking to disrupt and take over the old cartel based crime syndicates.  That report, in 2003, detailed influence from Russian Mafia groups, Islamic terrorist organizations, and from FARC which used to have better control over such criminal operations after it took over the old cartel businesses in the late 1990's.  Last year the monthly violence in Northern Mexico passed the violence of levels for Iraq, both heading in opposite directions with Iraq's down and Mexico's up.

As part of the influence brought by outside funds, the Mexican Federal Police and Army have been corrupted to an extent that the older cartels were unable to do.  In many cases individuals now utilize their positions of power (even in such places as the judiciary in Mexico) to aid and abet these purely criminal operations now trending towards terrorist means.

To date neither campaign nor the current President have been able to offer a clear defense of the US border and its sovereignty.  As that is done in neglecting the corrupting influence of organized crime in Northern Mexico, the violence has been spreading with criminal hit squads starting to show up in the US to take out US criminals and take over their local operations.

Many have offered that 'Sen. McCain saw clearly in Iraq on COIN'.

Very well: what is Sen. McCain's view on the COIN needs of the SW United States along the Mexican border now that Mexico is falling into a criminal based insurgency with backing from larger organized crime and terrorist groups?

Sen. Obama is absolutely clueless here and has demonstrated that for months.

Sen. McCain has done no better and some worse in not making any statement that would antagonize the Hispanic population in the US, forgetting that many came to the US to get AWAY from such situations and to be SAFE in a Nation they could call their own.

In this gut-check, they both lose, and horribly.

I expect nothing from Sen. Obama and he consistently delivers less.

I expect much from what those touting Sen. McCain have said about him: he under-performs and is often self-contradictory in his skills and ability to analyze a situation.

As both of these situations are primal defenses of liberty and freedom at home and abroad, I expect any candidate to get both of them RIGHT.  Otherwise the days of refugee camps being reported upon will not be overseas, but right here at home.

I heartily applaud giving good, hard support to our friends and allies abroad.

I damned well expect to have our own liberty and freedom protected from military incursions, criminal insurgencies and not 'helped' by a government that takes liberties in exchange for increased taxation, thus diminishing liberty further.

Defense of the Nation must include supporting those that support the US, and I look for any good signs that we will do so with Georgia as, although having problems, they DESERVE IT.

And so do WE.

Right there, along that southern border before it goes to hell, and the next deployment for major COIN operations is not in Iraq or Afghanistan, but places like Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, California, Nevada... unless you really like the idea of refugee camps in such places as Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah?

America can support freedom abroad and insure our own at home:  it is a prerequisite of those running for President to understand that.

Or God Help the United States, because no one else WILL.