Presidential debates as job interview

The so-called 'foreign policy debate' with Gov. Romney and President Obama was the last of 3 Presidential and 1 Vice-Presidential debates staged for this election cycle.  Presidents and Governors are Executive level positions, spoken with the capital E for government as a branch of government, and often with a lower case E for positions that are heads of companies, institutions and charities.  What Presidents are, by and large, are the ones that need to execute on policy and run day-to-day affairs of whatever organization they are in charge of.  Being an executive is not a mandatory position, not a position one is coerced into doing but a position one must volunteer for through application for it.  For the Executive position of the United States this means going through a long cycle of party primaries and contests, lots of travel, working to form up policy positions, putting forward one's vision of how the policy of this Nation should change (or not change) for it to be successful, and then, if one is skilled and lucky enough, to then interview for the position via 'debates' with one's final opponent to see who gets the job.  Each citizen that is eligible to vote can cast a ballot (and I urge the eligible to do so) to help decide at their district and State level which candidate is to be backed.  As a representative democratic system in service to a republican form of government, this is an honor and a sacred duty to our fellow citizens as they ask it of us by this form of government.

With the final debate now passed I can only offer a few insights into it, but they are critical ones.

First off is that foreign policy is the most difficult for any challenger to accomplish unless they have held a Governorship for a State that has extensive foreign business contacts.  An incumbent President gets a head-start on this, and this should be the time to demonstrate competence, capacity and a clear foreign policy vision for the future path of our Nation amongst our brother Nations.

In theme and tenor, then, President Obama must offer a vision to show that after 4 years he understands what foreign policy is, why it works the way it does, and state quite explicitly what that vision is for the next 4 years.   The past 4 years should offer a plethora of examples of this on low (at the detailed levels) and on high (in our affairs with other Nations), and this area should be the strong point of any President seeking re-election.  Unfortunately President Obama came out to score points against his opponent, belittle his opponent, mock his opponent and then offer no clear and decisive examples of how the course of the Nation is better for having him in charge.  Indeed the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) to end hostilities in Iraq is a transition agreement to slowly withdraw Coalition forces while letting Iraqi Forces stand up.  It is a regularized turn-over and weaknesses in structure in the new Iraqi Forces can be found and examined, solutions proposed and such an agreement put on hold to allow structural weaknesses in the Iraqi government to be addressed.  After WWII this took nearly a decade in Japan, a bit shorter in Germany and in both instances the withdrawal was not a set date or year, but a set of conditions to be met for the capacity and trustworthiness of the new government to actually do its job with bunches of neophytes doing it.  Similarly, in Afghanistan, a time-table is not necessary, but an end goal of a capable Afghani set of forces that are accountable for their actions, have internal safeguards against corruption, and a means to address new problems as they arise are paramount to leaving a relatively stable government in a very rough neighborhood of Rock 3 from the star Sol.  In both cases President Obama is looking to score points (to get out of Iraq and set a time-table for Afghanistan that is rigid) and misses the concept of having an end set of accountable structures in place.  Indeed President Obama ran on getting a SOFA with Iraq and failed, utterly, to do so, which meant that any structural problems Iraqis would meet up with now must be handled on their own without any experienced outside resources to call upon.  In Afghanistan the rigid time-table that brooks no accommodation to problems, that allows for no shifting of schedule to meet unexpected weaknesses or unforeseen changes on the ground means that it is a hard, knife edge cut-off. 

Is that preferable to having forces in Germany, South Korea and other places for decades?  Perhaps, yes, but that case has not been made.  Nor has the case been made as to why continued presence in those Nations is actually to the interest of the US today.  A foreign policy would give hard and fast grounding to just how long the US can and should stay in a Nation post-war, and what the means and methodology for leaving actually are in broad overview.  Why leave hastily from Iraq after ticking off the locals and stay in Germany or South Korea?  What is the policy involved?  Why is it different in each locale?  And since the Korean war hasn't actually ended by treaty, just why is it that decades of presence without a final conclusion is acceptable?  President Barack Obama is incapable of stating his foreign policy goals for post-war systems of turn-over to local control of governments, and so you will never know why he does what he does and does not do what he does not do.

Gov. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has less he has to put forward but all that he must put forward is in the policy arena.  For a challenger this is the time to look confident, capable, relatively fluent with the course of external events, and to tie those events together and how he would approach them into a foreign policy.  In these areas it is best when you have a general foreign policy overview that can be clearly stated and advanced.  Owing to his business experience, Gov. Mitt Romney ties foreign policy back to economics, trade and National capacity to advance prosperity so that we can be the ones who decide when and how to act, not merely re-act to events.  Whilst all Nations are equal, we understand that they differ based on size, economy and moral outlook, so that even the mightiest of Nations can be made humble before a good example and that those seeking to tear down Nations will fear a commitment to liberty and freedom backed by the local population.  By constantly and consistently tying foreign policy strongest to the economic realm, Gov. Romney brought understanding to his outlooks on foreign policy to drive out the practical implementation of it in the way of plans.  Plans, therefore, follow policy and are in service to it, not the other way around, and this is a key understanding of the role of an executive (writ large and small), which is to set out policy, formulate plans and implement said plans within the limitations of power and what can be accomplished by policy.

Beyond that a challenger must offer up continuity with the current President, that the boat will not be turned over, that changes will occur over months or years, and that good works are applauded even when they must be adjusted to fit new conditions on the ground.  Differences can be offered in the way forward, but they are built-upon what is inherited, and wholesale changes cannot happen quickly if at all with foreign policy.  In short the job of the challenger is to make a foreign policy bridge continuity with the current President and yet offer enough differences in policy so that a changed path can be seen.  During the Cold War this was mostly absent as the bi-polar world view set in and things that the US would not have stood for pre-war (coddling tyrants and dictators who were anti-Soviet if not pro-freedom) and the expediency of keeping the continuity going was done in the light of global nuclear war if one wrong decision was made.  By 1980, however, the stark differences between a US in decline and a USSR going into multiple overseas excursions could be seen and the foreign policy of President Carter could be starkly contrasted to the benefit of a challenger who seemed to have a more coherent world-view.  In this first area of policy presentation and Executive readiness, Gov. Romney needed to only state the understanding of what has gone on during President Obama's term, that some changes will be made but not quickly and always done to a different viewpoint of economic liberty in search of increased security to other Nations and our own.  An explicit foreign policy would be nice, yes, but not required at this point in time.

Secondly in the foreign policy area is tenor and style, especially when substance lacks, but tenor and style cannot be divorced from history nor past events.  A smiling, laughing Joe Biden during discussion of what a nuclear armed Iran would mean was jarring, disconcerting and actually quite horrible to behold as this individual could become President with one heart-attack or fall down a flight of stairs or slipping in the bathtub by President Obama.  There is a solemnity to these topics that are the course of the Nation in the world that must be taken seriously, because not to do so could wind up with global consequences of unseen proportion with just one misstep.  Again the sitting Executive should have this area hands-down: being Head of State and Commander in Chief of the Armies and the Navies should give this realm of tenor and style a weight far different than other realms of discussion for the President's job.

Here President Obama did a disservice to himself by trying to tear down his opponent while not properly putting his service into context.  When criticizing Gov. Romney that we don't need a Navy the size of what it was in pre-WWI times, that we have better technology and that we no longer used horses and bayonets, the President in attempting to demean his opponent actually demonstrated that he is lacking a grasp of importance of the US Navy to our own shipping overseas.  Oversight by satellites and drones is not the same as having a warship on the spot to deal with shipping problems fostered by modern Pirates which are just terrorists taken to sea.  The only way to get a sniper to take care of a hostage situation at sea is to have a Navy that is widely deployed and can offer timely assets appropriate to the threat involved.  That means that not only nuclear aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines, but surface combatants and the capacity to field remotely operated or unmanned assets to be coordinated for local sea-going operations is required.  Indeed it is mandatory if a Nation is to have independent trade capacity and not depend upon other Nations for seagoing safety and support. 

Even worse, of course, is that the military still uses horses (particularly in Afghanistan where gasoline powered vehicles must be re-supplied with gasoline) and not only does it still use bayonets but also issues knives as a supplement.  The soldier has a three level threat system that has a specific order: the rifle for long range threats, the pistol for that stuff under 50 yards, and the knife or bayonet affixed to the rifle as form of pole-arm, for that stuff that is up-close and personal.  I would dare say we have MORE knives and bayonets amongst all the services issued to our troops than we did pre-WWI.  By trying to belittle and demean a mere civil opponent, the President demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of just how the soldier on the ground thinks and that there is no such thing as having too many knives or a bayonet mounted to the appropriate platform for it.  If we stress the knife more than the bayonet, it is due to those very technical circumstances the President brought up, not due to the lack of our soldiers needing a close-in weapon.  In attempting to 'score points' on an opponent, President Obama began removing them from his own column, instead.

Does the US Navy need more surface combatants, not just aircraft carrier battle groups and nuclear submarines?  One candidate does and the other does not, looking to replace physical capacity with remote surveillance and distant ships.  If China, say, decided to go after Taiwan and Hugo Chavez thought that seizure of Panama might help his tyrannical ends, then the US would be caught up in two Naval conflicts both requiring ships and support vessels, the full panoply of overhead assets and then be left wondering just who is guarding the Somali coast and the Straights of Hormuz.  If the Panama Canal becomes a US no-go zone and the South China Sea becomes the staging ground for an invasion outwards by China, the US is suddenly faced by having to see most of its shipping go through the Suez and Gibraltar.  Anything that put those at risk would be a crippling blow to the US and to the global economy if the US requirement for free passage cannot be asserted by military power during conflicts in which our foes were hitting at vital trade lines.

Today the modern nuclear ship force cannot be made into a 'Ghost Fleet' as the diesel ships had done to them.  When the nuclear reactor of these vessels is no longer enough to operate it and must be removed, then the entire ship is broken up to get at the reactor itself.  A few of these vessels that are from the first generation of vessels are nearing that point in time, and the end of their sustainment life is coming.  While replacements are being constructed (and some are in service) the idea that nuclear only fleet can do the task of safeguarding US commerce overseas is misguided and misapplied.  While we can make more mighty vessels (like the proposed and shelved DDX platform) the capacity to fine-tune response with firepower that is small, exacting and precise requires a human system at sea.  Be it for stop and search of cargo vessels for war materiel contraband or using a sniper to remove a few terrorists, these things cannot be done well (and sometimes not at all) by large vessels but only by small ones.  Littoral, near coastal, coastal and deep marine requirements all have their own necessities so that the modern US Navy is still covering areas from Brown Water to Blue Water, although less with gunboats and more with delivery systems for both arms and personnel, as well as lethal missiles, so that the role remains the same, the actual spatial area has remained the same or increased, and human capacity to deal with individual situations has to meet the new inputs from all these systems.  Technology has changed, yes, but the nature of the threat is so widely distributed that it cannot be dealt with by our current force mix.  This does not mean more of bigger and badder, but, like with GPS equipped munitions, often smaller, more accurate and less lethal delivered with precision.  It is very possible that a modern version of the WWII Jeep Carrier, that is a small aircraft carrier, light carrier or escort carrier, might become a platform for UAV/UCAVs or for ROVs or for VTOL systems all mixed together on one vessel.  Smaller and more versatile to cover a larger role and relieve stress off the larger battle groups means they can serve as a massive response to situations gone out of control, with the smaller forces serving to deal with localized threats from Pirates and threats that a large battle group just isn't made for.

That is the sort of analysis a Commander in Chief and Head of State must perform so as to clearly state just what the role, size and needs of our military are and should be in the future, not passing off what we have as 'good enough' just because it is relatively modern.  The people doing the threatening are using speed boats, semi-submersibles, cheap drones, and boarding ships with AK-47s, which is an entirely different threat matrix than dealing with Russia or China, say.  Yet the US Navy is required to deal with ALL OF IT.  Does a smaller navy relying on heavier vessels sound 'modern' at all in this context?  If so, then President Obama needs to make the case for that, which he did not do.

The Third major area, and the one that consumed the most time, was economics, but this concentrated more on domestic situations than our foreign trade.  Trade amongst Nations and how our Nation participates in such trade is a thing that the President gets much oversight and needs to foster agreement in the Senate to put trade agreements forward.  In this realm Gov. Romney performed well, as he put forward a clear vision of trade between the US and S. American Nations that would seek to build up their economic capacity and liberalize their trade, which would bolster them and the US, both.  Trade is something that can be 'win-win' for both sides when it is mutual and beneficial to both to have such trade.  This has been stated clearly as far back as 1776 by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations, and continues to be true to this very day.  Gov. Romney later tied this to the expansion of small business in the US to participate vigorously in foreign trade and to set an example by doing so.  One of the greatest differences between President Obama and Gov. Romney is in this realm and President Obama was unprepared to offer up ideas on expanding trade in S. America at all, and only on an extremely limited basis in Asia, while Gov. Romney put forward that better trade relations lessen tensions between Nations and requires less military worries than poor or lacking trade relations.  On the flip side trade is to be between Nations that respect the sovereignty of other Nations and do not export Piracy in the form of terrorism to advance National goals by terrorizing the innocent.

In the non-military part of dealing with Iran, for example, Gov. Romney deployed something close to the unused but thoroughly Constitutional and tested framework of laws regarding Piracy in the US Code which I have handled multiple times, but is most clearly seen by me in this post.  A President gets wide latitude in dealing with Piracy as it is a threat not just to the US but to the system of Nation States, and those performing it are a threat to all mankind.  Gov. Romney put forward that more than just sanctions, and yet far less than war, can be done to the Iranian government by going after those that trade with them, and bringing those companies to heel via vigorous prosecution of them.  This requires that a President is fluent in the treaties the US has with various flag Nations and their vessels, and then be able to cite where their activities are contrary to their treaty agreements in regards to safeguarding trade and not trading with rogue Nations.  By dovetailing both trade and accountability for trade, Gov. Romney put forward a framework far deeper than anything President Obama has ever stated in this realm.  It is well and good of talking about treaties, but they are contracts between Nations and other Nations must be held accountable to what they have agreed to in this process.  In this area of foreign policy, the one that ties Nations together most intimately via trade, the President must be not only fluent but have a coherent outlook on it.  By having no response in general, and by not being able to deploy anything constructive to his foreign policy, President Obama lost not just stylistically (by trying to import that Gov. Romney is a warmonger) but also in substance by not even understanding the scope and depth of this Presidential suite of powers.

Now to the bits and pieces.

One of the stunning bits I learned from President Obama was just how unready he was for the Presidency.  I'm using the CNN transcript for this:

OBAMA: Governor - here - here's - here's one thing...

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: ...here's one thing I've learned as commander in chief.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHIEFFER: Let him answer...

OBAMA: You've got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean. You just gave a speech a few weeks ago in which you said we should still have troops in Iraq. That is not a recipe for making sure that we are taking advantage of the opportunities and meeting the challenges of the Middle East.

Now I thought that this was something that ANYONE who ran for President would know right up-front, at the start and not have to do OJT for it.  This is something embedded in the American culture: the US President is clear, precise and tells you just what he expects so as not to befuddle our allies and embolden our enemies.  No one, and I do mean no one, needs to learn this as it as a thoroughly ingrained expectation of the office and has been since President Washington who set the standard for it.

The nation building trope from President Obama is a tired talking point:

But what I think the American people recognize is after a decade of war it's time to do some nation building here at home. And what we can now do is free up some resources, to, for example, put Americans back to work, especially our veterans, rebuilding our roads, our bridges, our schools, making sure that, you know, our veterans are getting the care that they need when it comes to post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, making sure that the certifications that they need for good jobs of the future are in place.

We, as a Nation, do nation building abroad with Nations that have lost at war with us where the civil population is seen as innocent actors to a malignant government.  Are we war torn at home?  And even if we are, the role of the government is to stand aside and let the American People rebuild the Nation to our desires, not to the ones set out by our government.  Government is to follow the people, not lead the people in this.  Plus aren't the roads and bridges supposed to be FIXED by now due to the awesome power of the STIMULUS?  If not, why aren't they?  And who is being prosecuted for screwing this up so badly?

If the President wishes for the VA to act better, he could get on their case about processing claims in a timely fashion and not allow the backlogs to grow and the time to get something done to expand.

The only way that we can 'free up some resources' is by having government not taking them from the people to run the wars, and that happens once the war funding ends.  The money taken to run the wars is not money normally due to the federal government, and acting as if it IS then becomes an desire to keep spending levels at war time levels but without war time needs.  If America needs to be rebuilt, then it best happens at the local level which is the hardest pressed by war funding.  If the President wishes for things to get better, all he needs to do is stop the spending and not ask for higher taxes to keep spending at war time levels.

A scary-smart thing from Gov. Romney is his knowledge of Pakistan, which is something that President Obama (like South/Latin America) couldn't address properly:

ROMNEY: No, it's not time to divorce a nation on Earth that has 100 nuclear weapons and is on the way to double that at some point, a nation that has serious threats from terrorist groups within its nation, as I indicated before, the Taliban, Haqqani Network.

It's a nation that's not like - like others and it does not have a civilian leadership that is calling the shots there. You have the ISI, their intelligence organization, is probably the most powerful of the - of three branches there. Then you have the military and then you have the civilian government.

This is a nation, which, if it falls apart, if it - if it becomes a failed state, there are nuclear weapons there and you've got - you've got terrorists there who could grab their - their hands onto those nuclear weapons.

ROMNEY: This is - this is an important part of the world for us. Pakistan is - is technically an ally, and they're not acting very much like an ally right now. But we have some work to do. And I - I don't blame the administration for the fact that the relationship with Pakistan is strained. We - we had to go into Pakistan. We had to go in there to get Osama bin Laden. That was the right thing to do. And - and that upset them, but obviously there was a great deal of anger even before that. But we're going to have to work with the - with the people in Pakistan to try and help them move to a more responsible course than the one that they're on. And it's important for them. It's important for the nuclear weapons.

It's important for the success of Afghanistan. Because inside Pakistan, you have a - a large group of Pashtun that are - that are Taliban. They're going to come rushing back in to Afghanistan when we go. And that's one of the reasons the Afghan Security Forces have so much work to do to be able to fight against that. But it's important for us to recognize that we can't just walk away from Pakistan. But we do need to make sure that as we - as we send support for them, that this is tied to them making progress on - on matters that would lead them to becoming a civil society.

If there was a Leftist critique of Afghanistan post-USSR, it was that the US just cut and run from it, to leave the Islamists to fight for control of the place.  Remember that the Taliban were not all that nice towards women, not allowing them to go to school and even executing those who disagreed with the regime publicly in a soccer stadium.  That criticism of not staying behind to help get a better result in Afghanistan was harped upon by the Left, until just after 9/11, where it became the 'vital war' and is now just seen as a place to run away from and Pakistan with it.  Thus repeating the same mistake with Afghanistan they decried, but with a nuclear armed State.

Even though there was material that Gov. Romney 'left on the table' that he could have attacked President Obama with, there was plenty of material he also left on the table that President Obama couldn't address in trade, foreign relations, and military size and scope.  Not every attack needs to be answered in a foreign policy forum, and one can choose to leave attack points aside while putting out statements for which an opponent has no answer.

To try and pick a 'winner' on 'points' for this realm of information is, perhaps, misguided: it isn't about points but continuity of the Nation overseas and putting a clearly defined set of goals in place that people can understand.

Neither candidate did that well, to be sure, but a President should be able to do it fluently, easily and even disdain from attacking his opponent in the one area where continuity is paramount no matter how deep the disagreements.  President Obama would have been well served by having the cool, aloof Obama show up tonight, the one who kept to himself and just played it straight without attacking Gov. Romney.

In this series of debates it is clear that one candidate has a job, but doesn't really know how to interview for it a second time, while the other has interviewed for a few such positions in the past and understands what the role of an executive is.  

That set of characteristics of what makes an executive on small and on large was demonstrated during this 'debate'.  Experience does matter and what you have to learn also matters, as well, and the question of who is better prepared to learn is left up to the individual to decide.  Because you are the one who receives the interview material and must make the hiring decision.  Even if you are outvoted, you must make the best choice of who is to be an executive that will govern in the way you think is more clearly suited to not just yourself but to the Nation as a whole.

Dumb Looks Still Free time on: Experience

Just a short note, but it is worth putting down.

 

I think that all Americans can now agree that touting experience of running a National campaign, of any sort, is not something that can be cited for a candidate's ability to step into the office of President and actually show ability to be Presidential.

 

We can now take that off of all future campaigns as a citation for 'experience'.

My Congratulations to President-elect Obama

Dear Sen. Obama,

Congratulations on being the President-elect of the United States.

I will do with you as I have done with all past Presidents: praise you for what I think you do right, criticize you for what you do wrong and seek to ensure that you faithfully carry out the duties of President of the United States within the bounds and limits set by the US Constitution.

That is my duty as a citizen using my rights to ensure my liberty and that of my fellow citizens. Because all Presidents are citizens *first* and President *second*.

Sincerely,

A Jacksonian

To the supporters of President-elect Obama,

I have heard the 'racist card' played many times in the past 18 months and seen little evidence of *any* racism in the campaign, save on the Democratic Party side of things.

Now that you have a 'hope & change' leader, the very first requirement for change is within yourself.

Those who see the world through the sole lens of race have a word attached to them by doing that.

It is: racism.

For attacking so many in opposition as being racist without any demonstrable proof of that activity, the one proof that is available, that of an individual who is NOT white being elected to the Presidency of the United States, now, in my mind, burns the 'racist' card to be played against America, entire sections of the political spectrum and, verily, anyone who does NOT demonstrate their racism in an obvious manner. No 'code words' or 'ciphers' allowed.

Those who use some attempt to put 'code words' or 'ciphers' for race into politics are racists, also. In decrying it so much, those now doing the decrying are, themselves, open to that attack of being racist.

Hope, change and atonement begins at home.

Which means everyone who has brought up the President-elect Obama's race in the past 18 months or so.

You might want to note that the rest of the country got over this some time ago. That country cannot be intoned with a 'KKK' in it any longer, save as trying to foster racial hatred by those bringing such a slur on this great Nation up to attack the Nation or individuals.

Care to join the majority?

Or will you cling to your bitter tracts, your useless marches and continue to cling to the hatred of your fellow man that is the guiding principle of racism?

Because a few of those who actually judge a man by the content of his character and not the color of his skin are getting fed up with you who are stuck in the past and who see the world in racist terms.

Because hating whites because they are *white* is also racism.

Just in case you missed the point.

So come on and join the post-racial America that has been before your eyes for a few decades now, the one with no special standards, save that of personal achievement, capability and seeing that the ills of individuals are due to their own lacks and not that of society.

This election killed that portrait of America. Best not try to invert the colors and call it 'equal' or 'fair' in terms of racism, unless you truly don't believe that All men are created Equal. That is not a bad America, out there, the one that elects a non-white individual as President.

That majority that voted for him doesn't need the 'healing' any more.

Those clinging to their hatred and malign views based on race towards America?

Yeah, they *do*.

And I noticed none of those campaigning for John McCain or Bob Barr or Ralph Nader did so.

Just in case you missed that point, too.

Good luck on that hope & change business.

You will need it.

Have a nice day,

A Jacksonian

So let me get this straight... Presidential Edition...

We have one candidate that enjoys being 'bi-partisan', which means he is willing to give away just about everything to get someone from 'the other side' to vote for a bill, thus demonstrating any lack of clear vision beyond certain minimal goals.  Namely being able to claim the 'bi-partisan' mantle.  Right?

 

The other candidate has a half-brother living on a buck a month in a shanty on the seashore in Kenya and a poor aunt here illegally and on welfare, and wants to spread the wealth around, so we can 'be our brother's keeper'.  Namely being his brother's keeper. Right?

 

Are you saying my choice for President is between a dim-wit and a slacker?

 

I'm voting for the moose hunter: at least she knows how to get a meal on the table.

 

Food wins *every time* in that sort of match-up.

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.

The sports metaphors campaigns

Americans love sports!

Even better we like to apply sports analogies to politics and war analogies to sports, which is how you get all sorts of strange artifacts showing up in US politics.  You can follow 'The Blitz' from WII to football to politics and not miss a beat.

Team Obama has a passing game, all lofty, aerial and generally going for trying to sneak folks through for sudden leverage.  They dazzled the hell out of Team Clinton's balanced approach which had not formed up a good counter to the air game of Team Obama.  The result was only hitting on the hard tactics to grind through Team Obama, when trying to come-from-behind late in the 4th.  Without a good passing game to keep Team Obama off-stride, Team Clinton would lose not realizing that her balanced attack would only work on Republicans, not a skilled passing game like Team Obama had.

Team McCain is not so balanced, although taking to the air once in a great while to 'keep the other side honest'.  Team McCain has a ground game, willing to use the air when opportunity strikes or the opposition has gotten complacent.  Team McCain uses the ground game to just chew through the opponents and has decent defensive coverage enough to cause turnovers.  To round out their teams, Team Obama picked up a fumble fingered wide receiver in Joe 'Wrong Way' Biden.  Team McCain has a seasoned defense line-up and now can utilize that to stop any chance of a ground game from Team Obama and 'stuff it'.  There is no ground game on Team Obama's side, and while you can win with the air game, it is damned hard and you need skilled, sure fingered veterans.

Team McCain went for a Running Back, Gov. Sarah 'Barracuda' Palin.  She is from the heartland growing up with hunting, fishing and plainly going right ahead with things and shocking everyone when she does.  She knows how to plant a hand in the face of a lineman, jump over him or, even worse, run over him and then look for the next blocker to thwart.  While still a rookie, she is able and sure handed and has done some harsh intramural work in the Republican League.  The rookie QB on the other side had gotten into a few 'pick up' and touch-football games, and only looked half-way decent in constantly passing over Team Clinton.  He has taken a few tackles, but has yet to feel pressed with a Blitz.

Ahhh... football!

I actually didn't grow up with too much football, hailing from a part of a State that had actual snowflakes appear in August (back in the 50's if what I have been told is correct).  That area also borders Canada, and so Monday Night Football would sometimes compete with Hockey Night in Canada... and lose.  I hail from Buffalo, NY by origin, and know good-honest workmen-like sports games.  They may not be pleasing to the eye, but they are appreciated by the fans.  So in hockey terms, having a Hockey Mom on Team McCain, I'll cast it into that area.

If you know hockey, you know 'scoring phenoms' of the minor leagues: guys with great stats, but who just can't make it to the Majors.  You look at a farm team with such a player and wonder: what the hell is he doing in the farm team?  Right up to the moment one of your top forwards goes out for a month or two... then you realize the player isn't conditioned or skilled enough for the Majors.  That is the Center in Team Obama's best line: the 'phenom' who isn't conditioned enough for the Majors.  Usually you get a good game or two from that person until the opponents wise-up and hip-check, back-check and even do some dirty cross-checking on him.  He can't handle that, and is way, way off his game.  Plus the LW team-mate of his brought in with him has never been more than somewhat workmanlike, and has lost a step or two over the years.

Team McCain has something that is rarely seen in hockey: they old, playing star.  The NHL had that for a few years when a start-up league was brought into the NHL, and it was an amazing thing to see.  The team was the Hartford Whalers and the player was Gordie Howe.  He was ancient.  He was grizzled.  He still had a move or two, but his age showed.  And when any rookie happened to disdain him, that rookie would suddenly find himself flying through the air from a blind-sided check.  Often with plexiglass as a final destination.  Gordie Howe knew how to play the game like nobody's business and had served at every position on the ice at one time or another.  Including Goal Tender.

In hockey there is one unit that is under appreciated, save by their year-end stats: the penalty killing line.  They aren't pretty, usually not fast, but are damned skilled at knowing how to take away the puck from the opposition and run out the penalty.  The Center on most of those lines runs the fore-check operation in the opponents zone and the Goalie helps keep ground traffic coordinated  in the home zone.  These are not dazzling players, by and large, but have one extra, added job in life if they have just a bit of speed to them:  take on the star-line of the opponents.  The star line is the line-up of high powered skaters, scorers and just damned good offensive players.  Most lines taking them on are one of two types: the star line of the opponents (going finesse vs finesse) or the penalty killers (who has more stamina?).  If Team McCain has the old star on Defense (and still able to blind-side rookies like nobody's business) then the choice of Gov. Palin is not that of Goal Tender.  She is the Center brought up to work with the penalty killing unit as she has stamina, a good, decent game, and has proven deft at stealing the puck from 'far better players'...

You know, that last always brought the question to mind: if they are so damned good, then why are they the ones to have the puck stolen from them so often?  Usually it is just 'puck handling time' and the star players get more of it because they are more skilled, adept, etc.  But hockey is a game of fluid possession: it has set periods, but no formal hand-over of puck control.  If you watch a hockey game and half a period goes without a referee call then you are probably watching some of the best players go at each other, or one team just dominating the ice... it is either dazzling hockey or one team proving that even their worse line can skate rings around their opponents.  Normally you don't do that sort of thing as it is humiliating and prefer to just 'run up the score'.

What Center Sarah Palin brings is a skilled, tactical mind to her unit and how the best ways are to shut down the star line.  Center Obama has now had his face planted in the ice a few times, and that after having found this Ancient Guy who, somehow, has planted his face in the plexiglass.  In front of his team's bench, which is a bit of salt on the wounds.  Still he had center ice until then, more or less unopposed... now he is finding himself kissing ice, and often finding the puck just clear, flat-out disappearing from his stick control.  With a shower of ice-snow in his face as the opponent Center races down the ice to split the Defense and do some one-on-one with the Goal Tender.  Even worse is that the Left Winger that he relied on to help him in the Majors hasn't proven too able to figure out who has the puck.  And after an initial face-plant from the opponent's Ancient Guy he is wary of this whole confrontation business and leaving it up to him to figure out.  And then, just as he gets back on his skates, and gets the puck? 

*BAM* 

Blindsided hip-check. 

Team Clinton never did *that* to him... just who is this guy, anyways?

Oh, and that penalty killing Center?  She knows how to score when one-on-one with the Goalie.  Stamina, brains and a deft hand by the net.

Really rookie players can be pure phenom enough to bring an entire team to a better level of play.  If they can get on the field... or get their faces off the ice.

I expect the football analogy to work better for some, but Gov. Palin is a Hockey Mom, used to the 3AM routine, the 5:30AM routine and the 'shower as fast as you can and get to work' routine.

When she isn't off on the Bering Sea.

Or moose hunting.

I would suggest whoever gave the Bullwinkle outfit to the Donkey had better lend a hint, there.  I know it is trying to escape being under the bus and ran off the highway, but wandering in the woods with moose antlers on isn't a great idea because, this political season, it is moose season.  Although Sen. Biden does look cute with the Rocky the Squirrel outfit... varmints, right? 

They are always in season.

Just don't question...

This from multiple sources, so H/T: Hot Air's Captain Ed on this for being the first place I wandered across it!

David Harsanyi writing at the Denver Post blog, has an article on 12,000 American flags left for over a week in hefty trash bags on the loading dock at Invesco Field. These were the flags, many never unfurled, that were left-overs from the DNC happenings there and rescued by a worker at the loading dock. The Republican Party will pick them up to help things out... as you really don't have much expectation for things left by the dumpster and abandoned, with one Party's trash being another Party's treasure.

From 4 USC 8 on Respect for the Flag (via Justia) and more at the USA Flag Site:

(k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.

Wrapping flags up and putting them in hefty trash bags is not showing respect to the flag or disposing of it in a dignified way. Even if they were headed to an incinerator:

My thanks to GatewayPundit for the image uploaded for the Harsanyi article at the Denver Post.

You can't buy patriotism, but you sure can trash it very, very easily.

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.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Media

Welcome to the 'so fast a turn-around-in-ethics-it-will-make-your-eyes water' era of the MSM. The MSM has always been biased, just read any news account from the 19th century from two or three different sources and you will find that out very, very quickly. Yet, in that day and age, the individual media organs had a clear and up-front policy of stating their biases, who they supported and why, and generally backing a set of ideals or principles. The vaunted NY Times was supposed to change that but, as they wandered into sole-ownership and that ownership has devolved into pure partisanship, they have lost their way. What did P.T. Barnum call this idea of detached reporters reporting the news? 'A new angle' I believe it was, and 'it just might work' was the follow-on. Yes, 'an angle' and that from the 'a sucker is born every minute' man!

Yes, I have covered this ground before, ad nauseum. They are, as I call them, the Volunteer Fifth Column: doing the work that no one else would do. Probably need some illegal aliens to take their jobs and up the ethics content...

Regardless of which 'side' of the political 'spectrum', that apparently has only black and white making it an either/or concept which makes the idea of a 'spectrum' ludicrous, is that the organizations, themselves, have ethical responsibility to their reading public. As I looked at before in the Jamil Hussein insanity (and, from what I can tell, there is no real individual who will go on record as being 'Jamil Hussein') the AP had its own stated ethics policy to go by:

APME Statement of Ethical Principles
(Adopted 1994 as revision to APME Code of Ethics)

These principles are a model against which news and editorial staff members can measure their performance. They have been formulated in the belief that newspapers and the people who produce them should adhere to the highest standards of ethical and professional conduct.

The public's right to know about matters of importance is paramount. The newspaper has a special responsibility as surrogate of its readers to be a vigilant watchdog of their legitimate public interests.

No statement of principles can prescribe decisions governing every situation. Common sense and good judgment are required in applying ethical principles to newspaper realities. As new technologies evolve, these principles can help guide editors to insure the credibility of the news and information they provide. Individual newspapers are encouraged to augment these APME guidelines more specifically to their own situations.

[..]

INTEGRITY

The newspaper should strive for impartial treatment of issues and dispassionate handling of controversial subjects. It should provide a forum for the exchange of comment and criticism, especially when such comment is opposed to its editorial positions. Editorials and expressions of personal opinion by reporters and editors should be clearly labeled. Advertising should be differentiated from news.

The newspaper should report the news without regard for its own interests, mindful of the need to disclose potential conflicts. It should not give favored news treatment to advertisers or special-interest groups.

It should report matters regarding itself or its personnel with the same vigor and candor as it would other institutions or individuals. Concern for community, business or personal interests should not cause the newspaper to distort or misrepresent the facts.

The newspaper should deal honestly with readers and newsmakers. It should keep its promises.
The newspaper should not plagiarize words or images.

That is from the Ethics code: Associated Press Managing Editors 1999 updated 04 MAY 2004. When AP is called into account it should be 'mindful of the need to disclose potential conflicts' and 'It should report matters regarding itself or personnel with the same vigor and candor as it would other institutions or individuals'. Let me know when you see that, please. But they aren't alone in this endeavor of not being held accountable to standards! Far from it, as Reuters has demonstrated amply, and some organizations, like The New Republic, appear reticent to publish any standards of ethics the public can easily get to. And when you actually try to get the MSM, any organ of it, to do the sort of thorough look at itself that they do to others?

Surely, you jest.

Just the short list of Walter Duranty, Eason Jordan, Peter Arnett, Dan Rather, the reporters covering 'Jamil Hussein', or just understanding that the Geneva Conventions ALSO cover the press coverage... nope! Not one bit of that sort of 'investigative journalism' that the MSM so regularly applies to the other part of the 'spectrum'. Even worse is that there is a segment of the population that believes that there *can* be infallible reporting and that reporters should be unquestioned prima donnas with frail little egos that should be held unaccountable.

Yes, my disdain is obvious. That is honest and transparent reporting: my views are my own, they slant my coverage and I damn well will not slant my ideas towards some greater 'political truth'.

The power of the press is given to the People, not to those who own printing presses. Through technology the one got associated with the other, but now, in this era of DIY reporting and journalism, the absolute right of the People to report on items of interest, be they one's cat or on the nature of the universe, or to offer political commentary and thought, or to put their skills to work confirming information others have reported, are protected. Those who put the MSM together also put accountability in to those large organs, and when those accountability methods are no longer utilized in a robust way, the organs rot from the inside out. We no longer need heroic figures in media, please, just the ordinary working Joe that reports what they see, no frills, and no 'added comment' of a 'human nature' variety.

No such place has appeared as it would kill most of the other news organs around us, today, as it would be unique. Just like the NYT was back in the late 19th century... although it didn't take long for them to get their own 'slant' on the news.

So this brings us to the modern time, and the state of reporting that pronounces itself 'journalism' today. Over at AoSHQ Ace brought this up, yet again, reminding us about the absolute, 180 degree turnaround the MSM has been performing of late. Do you remember the affair of John Edwards and how the story was broken? Was it by the NYT, WaPO, LAT, NY Post, Washington Times, or, indeed, any major magazine or standard MSM news outlet? Remember, it had first been reported long, long months prior to its breaking... by the National Enquirer.

My attitude towards the National Enquirer, as an outlet of news, is that it makes good bird-cage liner. That said, outside bigfoot, UFOs, sightings of Elvis, mutant du jour, and the days when bigfoot runs off with a mutant to be married by Elvis on a UFO, the actual 'real reporting' in politics (and not the latest Kennedy 'scandal', although one does tend to believe those, too) is that they are dead-on accurate. Their reporting in that sort of area of scandal/celebrity/politics is their specialty and they have so inured the populace to the Kennedy scandals that the Kennedys no long make waves with them. But when they aren't extremely outlandish, the National Enquirer tends to prove deadly, and in this case it was not just John Edwards but the rest of the MSM that got the dagger into the back, protruding through the heart, coming out the chest and having a Mayan Priest giving incantations over it.

Ok, maybe not like that, exactly, but the MSM just saw all their 'journalistic integrity' fly the coop because a scandalsheet had just pointed out that the cover-up that was going on was aided and abetted by the MSM. The non-reporting going on and the later attempts to 'protect Elizabeth Edwards' who then gets implicated in the actual affair and cover-up and is, thus, part of the story, is incredible. Yet the scandal sheet has its sources, backs them and has had this wonderful problem of being dead-on *right* in all instances so far, to date, while every MSM organ has been on the *wrong* side of it. Unwilling to investigate the facts, they cover up the news, and when the news breaks, they try to protect someone implicated in the direct story and cover-up, thus showing that they are still covering-up for John Edwards and attempting to downplay the story. That for a man who campaigned as Vice President and was campaigning to get the Presidential slot in his party this year around.

What was that about 'vetting' a candidate?

Not happening, is it?

Apparently the National Enquirer does a better job of THAT than the MSM can do. Maybe they should look at Sen. Obama, considering the piss-poor job the MSM has done with him, so far, in that 'vetting' category. He is more 'protected' than the mistress' love child is.

So, if Elizabeth Edwards was 'innocent' and worthy of 'protection' and the mistress' love child was likewise 'innocent' and worthy of 'protection', then what about Gov. Palin's daughter who just announced she was pregnant and the father of the child is stepping forth to do the right thing and marry her? Isn't she, by not being in politics, by not being involved in the campaign, by being a late-teen adolescent still in the category of 'minor' by age, that being 17, due to be 'protected', also?

Remember, if you are the mistress of a popular politician to the MSM your child can get 'protection'.

And then there are the deluded rantings of those putting forth that Gov. Palin's last child with Down's Syndrome really isn't hers... that she wore some sort of maternity belly to cover for her daughter. Really? Do you have anyone as reputable as the National Enquirer to fact-check this? Because THIS is THEIR territory, save you left out bigfoot, UFOs, Elvis and a scad of photoshopped images of Elvis/Jesus/Virgin Mary/Klaatu appearing in the mist/burnt toast/corn chip/heavenly vision/etc.

Hey! I know who I can trust on 'fact checking' these things, and it sure, as hell, isn't the MSM. If they can't figure out that the vaunted Geneva Conventions apply to THEM, and explicitly so and backed by federal laws, then getting something like who the actual birth mother is of a child might be just a bit too much for them. They are way out of their league, here, if they can't even get the sophisticated stuff right that they crow about so very often.

Next thing you know there will be folks stating that she is on the Cthulhu Ticket with the Alaskan King Crab in her office serving as an altar.

That's my territory and I'm having none of it! Everyone knows *that* position goes to Nyarlathotep...

Gotta staunch those rumors fast!

Which what the MSM is reporting when they can't get 'facts', 'opinions' or 'analysis', not that they ever differentiate between the three these days. Now we can add 'rumor', 'innuendo' and 'making stuff up' into that category of equality of 'truthiness' worthy of reporting... and that they 'protect' only those that might hurt those they support politically or economically.

In doing that the MSM has sunk far, far below the category of 'yellow journalism'.

And even below the National Enquirer which, when they get something 'hot' that requires fact checking and backing, they actually know how to do. Which they are doing, although with more of an eye towards the 'scandal' side of it. Someday, all news will be at the level of the National Enquirer: doing good when they can put their minds to it and concentrate on the 'scandal'. We should be so lucky, huh?

Just one, please

Very well, we now have the line-up of the major parties for the fall:  Sen. Obama/Sen. Biden and Sen. McCain/Gov. Palin.

Can I choose just one?

I want the one without the Sen. in front of their name.

Gov. Sarah Palin.

No, really!  I don't agree with all of her positions, but she has more on the ball than the other three.

What?  "Experience"?

Ok, remove her experience as Governor, Mayor and heading up her own fishing business and what is left in the way of Executive experience amongst the other three?  Heading up a squadron is nice, but that is military leadership, not Executive experience in my book... if someone had to go and defend budgets, project cost expenditures and do the five-year out-cycle projections, that would be heading into military-executive experience.  That is why the 'ticket punching' in the military is necessary for advancement: it gets you into other areas of experience and gives a demonstration of your ability beyond combat leadership and equivalent of civilian-realm execution.

Sen. Obama's time on the failed Annenberg Challenge?  Well, just where did the money go?  Why doesn't he want to talk about it, and Bill Ayers and the money?  Look, if the guy is a failure at that and won't come clean about it, then how the hell can anyone vote for him?  It is 'Executive experience'... negative, yes, but some is better than none, isn't it?  We have had many failures in business and public projects that would be able to recover from those failures as they learned their mistakes.

That leaves Sen. Biden, and he has been in the Senate so long he has forgotten what the world outside of it looks like.  Before that its, what, three years as a lawyer?  Executive experience for him is nil.

So, I have a successful businessman, successful mayor of a small town for many years and successful Governor of a State bordering Putin's Russia, plus having worked a successful deal with Canada on an oil pipeline.

Executive experience?

1 out of 4.

Too bad she isn't at the top of the ticket.

Unfortunately, no matter how good a tactical move, even strategic move this is by Sen. McCain, I have the rest of his record to deal with.  If Gov. Palin is sent on an outreach to the old 'Rust Belt' States and in through the Appalachia from central NY State through Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North and South Carolina to Georgia, plus Michigan, Colorado... then I will start to see something different from the McCain campaign.  Those regions play on Sarah Palin's strengths of having blue collar roots, leading a small business and being on the last, great wilderness of America and being more of a frontiersman than we have seen in over a generation on the political scene.  Her personal strengths and background will play very well in those regions.

If that is the strategic move by Sen. McCain, then the Republican Party may just survive, because there is a whole group of folks throughout those States that started walking out of the Democratic Party in 1968.  Reagan could entice them, but did not fundamentally change the Party to bring them in.  That frontier spirit is still alive and is the single largest rift in America since its founding.  These are the areas where women had to be strong as the wilderness was lethal, and where the men helped to cut a new life from that wilderness for their families.  Later they would slowly move to bend steel to their will along with those who were poor that came to help with good jobs.  They sought the frontiers of the West and finally Alaska.

To bring them in requires that Republicans stop moralizing and start enforcing their ethics on those things they claimed about small government, limited spending, low taxation, and protecting the Nation with her friends and allies in liberty.  Get this god damned government out of trying to do so much and interfere in our lives of freedom and liberty.  For that is the wilderness our founders wandered into - the great belief that each man should accomplish as best he can and society support its wholeness while government protects it.  That is the view of Thomas Paine in Common Sense, and I support it fully as it is rational and an excellent observation.

Government is not a 'solution' to anything: it is our accumulation of negative liberties used sparingly so that we can rest assured that they will not be abused in our names.  They are not good, those things we invest in government, and trying to make them into good assuredly destroys us.  At best we seek equal protection under the law, without government supporting some over others.

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society-the farmers, mechanics, and laborers-who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.

- President Andrew Jackson's Bank Veto Message, 10 JUL 1832 (Source: The Avalon Project)

Our negative liberties are not evil, but their exercise by individuals would destroy society and civilization.  Those that live in wilderness see the Laws of Nature and abide by them and remember that society is precious, just as government is necessary.  "Reform" only is necessary when government has forgotten its place and tries to displace society in many places and utilize negative liberties of coercion and twists them to those means.  Those liberties protect us when applied to criminals or those seeking to make Public or Private War upon us.  They only become evil in their abuse against the citizenry and civilization when government no longer keeps to its limited place.

Gov. Palin, from what I have seen, can bring this message home as she has demonstrated ethics against her own party in the case of corrupt Republicans and 'The Bridge to Nowhere'.  In the single case where there has been a 'scandal' she has so opened her doors to investigation that no subpoena's needed to be issued as all came willingly when asked.  She 'walks the walk' and does not seek to provide special favors to some over others in regulations, unlike the other three who have each supported that... which is why I am allergic to voting for them as they have demonstrated more than enough twisting of the laws to special interests against the humble members of society, seeking to lift some up over others by race, gender or nation of origin.

She is a deep breath of fresh air in the fetid swamp of this Presidential election cycle.

There is a case to be laid out for a new direction of the Republican Party towards tradition, ethics and limited government.

I doubt that the 'maverick' will ever go that far.

But a strong fisherman from the Bering Sea?

She is the 'Deadliest Catch' this cycle.

Because it is 'Tougher in Alaska'.

A serving of moose stew, if you please.