Experience? Yeah it's still on the table.

I first heard about McCain's pick for Vice President from a friend of mine. He sent me a text at 7am and it read "McCain picks Palin for VP!! Victory is Ours!!"

My friend was definitely excited about it and I must admit I was a bit jazzed myself. A few months ago when we were speculating about who would get the nod from McCain we discussed several possibilities but most were eliminated due to one reason or another. My personal favorite was Fred Thompson. Old "Law and Order" has remarkable oratorical skills and has party views that provide a nice balance to McCain's less conservative stances. However, for a party that is regarded as out of touch with the youth, the senior laden McCain/Thompson ticket doesn't make for good marketing material. My second favorite choice was Liebermann. I have always admired Liebermann, even as Al Gore's running mate. But as a lifelong Democrat, his historical positions would put him at odds with many in the Republican leadership. The two potential candidates that got us excited the most were Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal. Both of these Republicans were young, well rounded, ethical and astonishingly smart. They provided the perfect counterpunch to the insipid moronic behavior that comes from the Obama camp. The choice of Palin excited me because she is tough, intelligent and balances out the McCain ticket with youth and an authentic conservative track record. Outside of the fact that she wasn't Mitt Romney, I wasn't surprised by this pick too much.

What did surprise me on the other hand was the reaction by the Democrats and the media to this pick. They univerally panned it. Now I expected them to not like the pick because they've already consumed so much McCain Hater-ade that he could have chosen Jesus Christ himself and they still would have hated the pick. What surprised me was the one thing they used to slam her and that was her "inexperience".

Yeah, I'm laughing too. Where is Alanis Morissette when you need her because isn't this ironic?

No less a luminary than Senator Barbara Boxer herself slammed Sarah Palin as saying she "hasn't even got a single hour" of foreign policy experience. The Distinguished Senator from New York, Mr. Charles Schumer chimed in "“While Palin is a fine person, her lack of experience makes the thought of her assuming the presidency troubling"
B-b-bbut..
And get this statement from the head of MoveOn.org "It’s not only fair, but critical in this case, to ask if she’s up for the job of commander in chief. We just can’t afford a gamble like this with our future."

Wow! I am surprised indeed. That seems exactly the type of criticism that should be levelled at a certain Messianic Presidential candidate. Now I'm the first in line to agree with them that experience matters. But contrary to their points of view, Sarah Palin does not take away the experience argument against Obama. It reinforces it. Big Time.

Sarah Palin's 2 years of experience as the Governor of Alaska and her history as the mayor of a small town in Alaska vastly trump Obama's few weeks as a Senator. Being a Governor means you have to be active and accountable. Paychecks get cut, crisises get averted and lives are saved due to the decisions governors must make. You can't be indifferent and just show up to vote present 90 percent of the time. Don't get me wrong, Senators are vital pieces to our government, but the big decision making is left to senior members who draft critical legislation or who control vital posts on important committees. McCain has exactly that type of senatorial tenure and has been able to accomplish a considerable amount. Obama on the other hand has done nothing. Honestly, he has not been accountable for squat.

I took this point to my Obama friends who exuberantly rejoiced that their candidate was no longer the most inexperienced person on the ticket. "The playing field is level now" they cheered. But I asked them to name me in which way Obama's experience was superior to Palin's? While they could not point me to any specific accomplishment, they could direct me to several speeches where Obama has suggested, inferred or promised to do something great. Therein lies the great contrast. For many things Obama has promised, Sarah Palin has already delivered.

Meditate on this for a bit will you?

• Obama has promised to reform government, but Sarah Palin has actually reformed government eliminating certain earmarks, taking on special interests, the federal government and even her own party.
• Obama has promised to reduce spending, Sarah Palin has already cut programs and spending by $237 million dollars.
• Obama makes lots of promises about getting energy companies to pay big bucks, Sarah Palin has both taken on and cooperated with the oil companies, crafting an energy policy that has produced extra revenue for the citizens of her state.
• Obama talks about lowering taxes, Sarah Palin has lowered taxes both during her term as Mayor and as Governor.
• Oh, and did I mention she controls the National Guard for the only state that borders Russia?

But hey, don't take my word for it. Check out this MSNBC clip, no less, where a pro-Obama Senator attempts to list just one of Obama's vast achievements. I won't give it away, but suffice it to say that the best part is towards the end when you can hear studio members laughing in the background.

Experience is still on the table, and the McCain/Palin ticket is hoarding it all up, asking Obama/Biden to pass them the butter and biscuits.

This is a great pick. "Victory is Ours!"

The wacky brilliance behind the Palin pick

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that selecting Palin was a brilliant idea. She is completely immune from personal attack, which means the only real debate in the upcoming election can be about policy.

Criticize her sex, and you lose the women's vote.

Criticize her foreign policy experience (or lack thereof), and you invite painful comparisons to Obama, who wants to be President, not just VP.

Criticize her executive experience, and you invite even more painful comparisons to Obama, the wannabe President.

Criticize her youth, and you again have a problem with Obama, since he, with only three more birthdays than Palin under his belt, is aiming for the executive office.

Criticize her U of Idaho degree and you (a) invite painful comparisons to Biden, no Ivy Leaguer himself; and (b) invite charges of elitism.

Criticize her kind of goofy Alaska accent and lack of European sophistication, and you further alienate the embittered gun owners and religious nuts the elite Obama denigrated a few months ago. (By the way, I'm sarcastically quoting Obama when I refer to those embittered gun owners and religious nuts. His view of them, not mine.)

Criticize her small town roots, same thing: alienate embittered gun owners and religious nuts who make up the heartland.

Try to raise Alaskan political corruption, and you run smack into the fact that she attacked corruption head-on. You also open yourself up to invidious comparisons with Obama (Annenberg and Rezko) and Biden (repeat plagiarism)

Add to this that she's a good speaker, who will make Biden look overbearing and bombastic during debates, and you're just looking at a brilliant choice. She's bullet proof.

I should add, though, that her appeal is to the undecideds among us. I live in liberal land, and was able to hear lots of gleefully negative opinions about Palin today. The personal ones involved smears (and it's amazing how quickly they got around) that probably don't have a lot of truth to them. The first smear was that she abused her office to get her ex-brother-in-law fired. Patrick Casey neatly rebuts that one.

The next smear is that she's a rabid creationist. There is no doubt that she is a creationist, a view that I consider to be in the realm of faith, and unrelated to the science of evolution. As for me, I'm an evolutionist and, if anything, hew to John McCain's view on the subject: "I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also." "The hand of God" -- a rather lovely and poetic phrase for the mysteries that even science cannot answer.

So, she's a creationist, which is a little unnerving to those of us who believe that science and faith don't intermingle well, but is she rabid? Charles Johnson, of Little Green Footballs, who is himself a rabid evolutionist, and who tangles repeatedly with conservatives on the issue, has examined her position and is willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

The actual fact of the matter is that Palin has said that, while she would not push for creationism to end up on the science curriculum, she believes that, if the subject arises in class, it can be discussed, rather than shut down. I agree with that too. Discussion acknowledges the existence of a heartfelt belief amongst many Americans, and allows students to understand that science can only deal with the physical record and the conclusions that can be drawn therefrom, and that it's smarter to leave to God knowledge of his role in that record.

What this means is that the two biggest substantive attacks against her are either false or exaggerated. Giving the full story, of course, won't change the liberal diehards, but should be interesting to for the undecideds among us -- especially since we know that it is they who will determine the outcome of this election.

Another thing I heard from the chattering libs was that "she's not one of us," meaning that Palin lives a lifestyle that is the opposite of that embraced in blue regions: she's pro-Life, she hunts, she actively believes in a traditional God, she doesn't support gay marriage, etc. The beauty of these charges against her, of course, is that they are all substantive. Her presence on the ballot allows a debate on the issues, without getting derailed by personal attacks. When it comes to Palin, no one can say, "Well, you may talk the talk on being pro-Life, Gov. Palin, but what would you do if that test showed your baby was defective?" Her life is an example of the depth of her belief systems.

Finally, when a few people nattered on about her inexperience, I politely pointed out that McCain might have been savvy by putting her on the ballot, because Obama doesn't have any more experience than she does and, quite possibly, less (which earned a nasty remark about small towns and Alaska) -- and that Obama is seeking on-the-job training in the President's spot, not the Vice President's.

The response to that one was "But McCain's an old man," the implication being she Palin's is more likely than not to be the kind of VP who ascends to office via the President's death, rather than a full elecction. "Yes," I agreed, "but he's still unlikely to die within minutes of taking office."

Silence. "

Well, that's why Joe Biden is on the ticket. He has great foreign policy experience." I forebore to point out that he's had the experience, but seems to have learned little from it, since his understanding is limited and his choices are rather consistently bad. I'd rather have a smart neophyte, than a dumb old hand.

Back to my opening point, then: With every passing second, I'm more impressed by the choice, and that's not even covering how impressed I was by the timing of the announcement, which sucked all the air out of that generic, unexciting, vicious Obama speech.

Dream Ticket McCain-Palin! Plus, Thanks God MLK was no Obama

My friends :D,

I put below what was supposed to be the beginning of my posting today... That is, until I learned that Sarah Palin has been chosen to be the VP nominee of the Republican Party.
I must confess that up until the announcement I was convinced that Mitt Romney was going to be picked, since he was almost unanimously perceived as "the safe choice". Yet, in another demonstration that John McCain is the true maverick and the independent mind in this race, he picked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin! You have all about her in that wikipedia link, including her fight against politics as usual. Now for those who were looking for a new era of politics, you don't have an excuse! The McCain-Palin ticket offers the experience of a war hero who has worked in the US Senate for more than two decades with both parties to successfully bring in legislation that benefits Americans together with the youthful, energetic, and inspiring Sarah Palin. She'll be ready to be our first woman to reach the US Presidency if required. To paraphrase our Fox friends, "Governor Palin, the Republican VP candidate, has more executive experience than Senator Obama, the Democratic Pres. candidate.". The choice for Americans couldn't be more obvious.

McCain - Palin '08!



After all the hype surrounding Obama's acceptance speech at the DNC, I am deeply disappointed. As the old saying goes, much ado about nothing. This is the night we were supposed to know about Obama's concrete plans; about how, if elected President, he would bring about "change", that "change we could believe in". I am still as clueless about how he plans to do that that. But I am even more clueless about what "change" actually means if in fact it meant anything at some point.

During the primaries I was convinced that "change" meant that he planned to put Washington upside down; you know, get rid off the old guard, inject new blood, etc. Do things in a non Washington way. A new beginning we were told! It was a gullible idea back then but it seemed to inspire a lot of people, specially young people unfamiliar with the working of American politics. Apparently, once he realized that it was too naive of a proposition, so naive and impractical that he was forced to bring into his ticket the most hawkish and Washington-like among all the Democrats serving in the Senate, he said to himself "to heck with change". So much for the new beginning.

Tonight's speech didn't have any substance plus the guy wasn't at his best in the oratory department. His whole message message was: "I am clueless about the Presidency but believe me the other guy, that guy who has more than two decades of experience in the Senate, who has served honorably in the American military, who has worked with both parties to pass legislation important for the American people, who has disagreed with Bush in matters of importance such as the conduct of the war in Iraq by suggesting a winning strategy... he is no better". Unfortunately for you dear Barack I know better. Because I know better I say that I passionately support John McCain to be the next President of the United States over you a thousand times if necessary.

And BTW, Americans of all walks of life should feel fortunate that MLK was no Obama. No, this is not a mistake by a foreigner lacking proficiency with the English language. It is a self evident truth that Obama is no MLK. My point is that had MLK been an individual as empty as Obama is, the American South might still be segregated to this day. True agents of change, true American heros, such as MLK, work diligently to bring about change instead of spending the their time bragging about how to bring about change to end up doing nothing, as it has been your case, Mr Obama. After 8 years as a state senator in Illinois and 4 years as a US Senator, even the most faithful amongst your supporters is unable to mention a single significant legislative achievement of yours. And you have the guts to lecture us about John McCain? Give me a break! To quote NY Times' columnist David Brooks: "It’s about the future, and Barack Obama loves the future because that’s where all his accomplishments are."

Obama for President 2028! (not 2008!)

Obama for President 2028! (not 2008!)

That’s right. I said, “Obama for President 2028!” Let me explain…

Yesterday, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, the junior senator from the State of Illinois, and the son of a Kenyan foreign exchange student and a white American citizen was officially nominated for U.S. President at the Democratic National Convention. This is an historic moment for a couple of reasons and as a white dude, I will carefully select my words to make certain that I am not misunderstood.

Senator Obama’s nomination is a milestone moment for diversity in America, but let us be clear on the fact that he is not a descendant of African-Americans who suffered the oppression of slavery. Arguably, there is much to be done to remove any remaining barriers. However, in a sense, the race barrier has been broken in America with Senator Obama’s nomination for President, and with due accolades, let us move on to the problem of the timing of his historic candidacy.

There is an enormous problem with the timing of Senator Obama’s candidacy: at this point in his career, he would bring absolutely no relevant leadership and management experience to the Oval Office. In fact, he is really quite new to the U.S. Senate and national politics as well, spending most of his first three years running for President. His lack of national political experience is also historic and perhaps even more historic than this Kenyan heritage. Yes, he did serve in the Illinois State Senate for eight years. Still, there has not been a presidential candidate in modern times who ran for president without completing a term as a state governor or in the U.S. Congress. There is no track record of business or political leadership in this man’s background! It is no wonder that Bill and Hillary Clinton are hopping mad about the 2008 Presidential election. It is astonishing that Senator Clinton was defeated by a candidate who would bring almost no relevant skills to the job of Commander-in-Chief.

There is no doubt that Senator Obama is very short on experience. Of course, this is why I think Senator Obama might make a good Presidential candidate for 2028. Delaying his candidacy by twenty years will give him a chance to gain some important experience before running for President. As it stands, Senator Obama can not be compared to Senator McCain. Race or ethnicity have nothing to do with the comparison. There is simply no paradigm in which the two men can be compared. Obama is not experienced and McCain is very experienced. Senator Obama is barely a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois. Senator McCain is in his fourth term (22 years) as a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona. Senator McCain is the only choice for President in 2008.

Just say NO to Obama 2008 and perhaps MAYBE to Obama 2028…

Joe Biden. Really? Joe Biden?

As much as the left likes to attach George W for his speaking gaffs, Biden has quite a few of his own. Including the one tonight, that he and Obama “Share a Common Story” but I’ll get to that a little later. In the interim, here are some memorable quotes from Biden (disclosure: quotes could have arisen from Biden’s two prior aneurisms)

“There's less than 1 percent of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than 4 or 5 percent that are minorities. What is in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you're dealing with...." (Biden when responding on why DC schools perform worse than Iowa schools)

“You CANNOT go into a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts without an Indian accent."

“Here at home, when Americans were standing in long lines to give blood after the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we squandered an obvious opportunity to make service a noble cause again, and rekindle an American spirit of community.”

I’ll be sure to have more that follow in the remaining weeks…

Back to what I was saying. Joe Biden and Barack Obama share very little of the same story. Let’s compare:

Obama: Elected to the Senate in 2005 at the age of 44
Biden: Elected to the Senate in 1972 at the age of 29

The story Obama has is of an outsider of Washington, whereas the story that Biden has, is someone who knows nothing other than Washington. In fact, Biden was shaped by Washington. How can Obama preach change, when is VP is the youngest person to be elected to the Senate in modern history?

Keep it simple people. Week after week we are waiting to find out who Barack Obama is, and he just threw us another curveball…

Democratic Convention

Are you watching the convention? Are you organizing drinking games where whenever somebody on the podium says "change," you take a shot? If you are, I doubt you'll be able to make it past one or two speeches. It just makes me want to change the channel. Not that I'm against change--actually, as a conservative, by definition I guess I am against change--but I don't want Obama's "change." Plus, I don't think he's really going change anything. It's a lot of fluff without much substance.

But I digress. Back to the convention...

I actually thought both Michelle Obama's and Hillary Clinton's speeches were pretty good in terms of delivering what they were supposed to.

Mark Warner's speech on the other hand was tedious and boring. Plus, Warner's basic theme about this being an election for the future and not the past could be given next week at the Republican Convention. In case you missed it, Warner first talked about his past about as businessman where after two failed businesses he got into the cell phone industry and became successful. That's a good story but I think it speaks more to the Republican issues about how people can be successful on their own and don't need the government babysitting them, raising their taxes, or regulating them.

Then, Warner tried to point out how he believes America can be an economic leader in the 21st century and how he brought hi-tech jobs to his state of Virginia. I agree with him, but I don't see how Obama's policies are designed to do that. In the primaries, Obama was promising to renegotiate NAFTA and promising protectionism. If the US follows that path, I can guarantee you we're going to lose our economic leadership position. Free trade benefits the United States by bringing foreign jobs into the United States, supplying the US with cheaper goods which overwhelmingly benefit those with lower incomes, making us more economically competitive, and opening up markets to American companies. As a former chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, McCain understands this. McCain understands that economic competition can make the United States stronger and believes that individual Americans are strong enough and capable enough to compete in a globalized world. I'm not sure Obama as a former community leader in Chicago really understands this point.

Finally, we heard a lot from all the speakers about how a McCain presidency would mean 4 more years of George Bush. They like to throw around that McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. That is true over the 8 years, but Obama voted with Bush 40% of the time in 2007. In addition, McCain voted with Bush only 77% of the time in 2005. In my opinion, what is more important than votes are the number of times McCain has criticized Bush's policies, be it on the war in Iraq when McCain called for more troops a couple of years earlier than Bush's surge announcement or McCain's calling for Guantanamo to be closed or McCain's criticism of Bush's Medicare prescription drug plan because of its cost. The point I'm trying to make is that you may not agree with McCain on every issue but you can't say that McCain will blindly follow Bush's policies.

This is kind of mean, but when I saw the tribute to Ted Kennedy on Monday night and the whole water metaphor, I couldn't stop thinking about Chappaquiddick.

Next week, I'll be at the Republican Convention and I'll give you a few posts on what the RNC looks like from the Twin Cities.

You Call That a Plan?

So much for being above negative politics. Politico reported that Obama had some harsh words for John McCain at a barbecue in a local park in Eau Claire, Wisconsin yesterday after attending a local church, showing that it's back to politics-as-usual (which I'm not necessarily against, I'm just telling the guy “I told you so”).

To a group of 300 supporters, he said:

"If we can spend $10-12 billion a month in Iraq, we sure as hell can pay $10-12 billion right here in the United States of America to put people back to work."

He also said that he's the candidate for the middle class, "the teachers and nurses and the cops and firefighters." McCain, he said, "doesn't really have an economic plan, and everybody sort of knows it."

Did Obama have a few too many beers at this bbq? It's one thing to disagree with your opponent's plan, but he's starting to sound like the kids who ran against me in student council elections. And maybe he should take a look at McCain's detailed economic policies.

As for Obama's vision, the numbers say far more than any turn of phrase: he's planning on spending $800 billion, and that's going to hurt middle-class citizens the most. Why? Because that money has to come from somewhere, and it will be drained out of an economy that is already far from robust. And when the economy goes south, the jobs of middle-class Americans go with it. Ultimately, the middle class will pay for that extra spending in higher taxes, because Obama just won’t be able to squeeze that much money from “the rich.” Obama’s tax plan would reduce the incentives for the most productive Americans to work; the total combined marginal tax rate on additional labor earnings (or small business income) would rise from 44.6% to 62.8%. Obama’s plan amounts to a cut of one-third in the amount that these people keep from their earnings, after taxes.

So what will the high-earners do? Work less and produce less taxable wealth. Either that, or find ways to shelter their income from taxes. In both cases, the bills for Obama’s return to big government will come due for the same middle-income wage-earners he claims to defend.

Did the crowd in Eau Claire get to hear that?