THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

I had the pleasure recently of interviewing financier David Blumberg.

David and his partner Michal happen to be gay. They also happen to be Jewish. Michal happens to be French. They happen to live in San Francisco.

What is extraordinary is that based on everything else, they do not fit neatly into a stereotypical box. They are proud republicans.

They are also proud Jews, and I hope that they and all the Jews of the world are enjoying a sobering and peaceful Rosh Hashanah. Today is also the culmination of Ramadan, as Muslims celebrate with Iftar dinners fit for kings. So Happy Holidays to those celebrating, as I take a two day vacation from politics.

Below is the second part of my three part interview with David Blumberg.

2) Are you “religious?” Is San Francisco as secular a city as it is made out to be? Do you feel some San Franciscans unfairly consider all religion to be equated with zealotry and intolerance?

My partner and I live a reasonably traditional, but not orthodox Jewish lifestyle. We belong to Congregation Emanu-el in San Francisco. We celebrate the Jewish holidays including Shabbat and are actively involved in the community through educational, civic and philanthropic endeavors. We are strongly identified with Israel and travel there regularly. We will raise our children with a strong Jewish identity and an organic connection to Israel.

When growing up in Fresno, California, I was impressed by the vibrant and diverse religious life of the community. Most of my friends in Fresno were active in their churches and most my Jewish friends were active in our Synagogue. We shared their holidays and they shared ours. In contrast, San Francisco is a very secular city. A seeming majority profess they are non-religious and are somewhat hostile to organized religion (except Buddhism) in general and to Evangelical Christianity in particular. In contrast, I respect and appreciate the Evangelical community. They are stalwart, patriotic Americans, friends of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. I know many Evangelicals, and while we may disagree on some issues, they are unfailingly respectful, polite and reasonable. I greatly appreciate their true love of the Jewish People and Israel. Sadly their views are poorly understood by most Jews and most of the secular community.

I have many deeply religious Jewish and Christian friends and none of them abandoned me when I came out as gay. They were respectful and have remained true friends despite theological condemnation of my orientation by their denomination. On the other hand since becoming a Republican, I have lost a number of long-time friends and had many unpleasant conversations and arguments with “Progressives” and so called “tolerant Liberals”. It is been far more difficult, painful and even dangerous to come out as a Republican among SF Liberals than to identify as a gay man to my Evangelical Christian and Orthodox Jewish Republican friends.

Sadly, the equation of Christian religion with zealotry is widespread. Like Dennis Prager, I think America is a better country when it is more religious and it is specifically better for Jews and other minority religions. I think the greater and growing danger is pervasive, dogmatic secularism of the sort pitched by Jeff Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris in their recent books attacking faith and religion. That type of radical, intolerant secularism is pushed by the ACLU and its various allies on the political Left. I try to make a point of thanking Christians for their support of the Jewish People and Israel at Jewish Community events. Sometimes I am looked at strangely, but more often than not, I also have fellow Jews come over and say, “Thanks for making that important point.” So I am hopeful for the future. I know that as the Jewish Community becomes more observant and the proportion of Orthodox grows, the relations with Evangelicals will improve. It is the secular Jews who have the most difficulty accepting and getting along with Religious Christians. I wish it weren’t so, but demographic changes are already making inroads.

3) You and your partner are Jewish, gay, republican men in San Francisco, and one of you is French. Do you face intolerance or bigotry, and is this from those on the right objecting to your being gay, or those on the left objecting to your being republican?

We have rarely faced bigotry from being gay anywhere in the US. We were called fags once in liberal, beautiful, buccolic Bolinas, CA were threatened in the Russian River, CA and faced real discrimination in Sharm-el Shaikh, Egypt, but we haven’t experienced much other in the way of anti-gay comments or problems. On the other hand, we regularly hear anti-Republican, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, anti-business sentiments in SF and most wealthy urban centers.

4) How big a role does the gay marriage issue loom for you? What do you think of the marriages performed by Gavin Newsom? Some claim that it created a backlash, because the marriages were illegal. Is this valid, or cover for bigotry?

We think support for families with children is a good and worthy goal of society and government. We think that supporting equal financial, housing and medical rights for all couples is also important. We are not dogmatic about the term “Marriage” per se. I think overall it is a good goal, but I would like it to be approached by persuasion and through the legislative process, not to be imposed by judicial fiat. I am a follower of Edmund Burke, the UK politician and philosopher of the late 18th and early 19th century. He argued that social change needs to come first and then political change would follow naturally and organically without popular resentment. In contrast, when social change is imposed from the top as it was in gay marriage in Massachusetts, Row vs. Wade and similar cases, it inspires protest and backlash.

5) How do you want to be seen? As a Jewish person, or a person who happens to be Jewish? A gay person, or a person who happens to be gay? A republican, or a person who happens to be republican? Should these categories define you or be peripheral?

I think those categories are and should be peripheral.

6) In 1996 Bob Dole’s campaign returned a check from the Log Cabin Republicans, stating that the group did not adhere to republican beliefs. The group incredulously and correctly stated that their beliefs included lower taxes and less government. What political issues are most important to you?

I think Dole made a great mistake then and I think the lesson has been learned. I believe national security and a strong economy trump the social issues in a Presidential election. The President has real authority over the former and very little to clout regarding the later.

7) Has your partner faced any Anti-French hostility, and has that lessened since the election of Nicolas Sarkozy?

Yes (minor) and yes.

Tomorrow I will bring the conclusion to my three part interview with financier David Blumberg.

eric

To the Jewish people of the world, Monday night begins the Jewish New Year of Rosh Hashanah.

To the Muslim people of the world, Tuesday marks th end of the holy month of Ramadan.

To the Christian, Buddhist, and others of the world, may you be partners with your brethren for world peace.

To the Atheists and Agnostics of the world, to quote Anthony Clark, “I hope you win the lottery dude.”

I will not be blogging on Rosh Hashanah, but thankfully I have some pre-written columns.  

I had the pleasure recently of interviewing Financier David Blumberg of Blumberg Capital.

Like me, David is a member of the Republican Jewish Coalition Leadership.

My desire to interview David stems from the fact that he is an amalgamation of many different groups. He and his partner live in the Haight Ashbury area of San Francisco, famous for being the hotbed of liberal activism. David is gay and Jewish. His partner is gay, Jewish, and French. Yet the strange aspect of their life is that they are both staunch republicans.

David’s background allows him to offer insights on various topics as few people can. While he is very political, as a finance guy he can more than hold his own on economic issues.

I had the pleasure of meeting him and his partner when they hosted a Hanukkah event featuring notable Jewish republicans such as Mona Charen, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, and John Podhoretz.

David is aware that I still cannot figure out why lesbian conservative radio host Tammy Bruce will not go out with me. He also knows that as a single man, I am pro gay rights because it reduces my competition for women.

We disagree on my hard line stance against lesbianism, although he understands that I only condemn it when the women are attractive.

Most importantly, I am glad to have David as a friend. He is a genuinely nice person, and his orientation is secondary to his political instincts, which are very keen.

With that, I present part one of my three part interview with David Blumberg.

1) How does a nice Jewish person from a good family end up, horror of horrors, politically republican? As for your partner, how does a French Jewish person end up supporting American republicans? Given that you happen to be gay, how does this fit into your being republican?

 

I was a moderate Democrat for my entire adult life until 2002 when at age 43 I changed my registration to Republican. I was a Democrat chiefly because my parents and grandparents and most of the folks I knew growing up in Fresno, California were Democrats. The vast majority of Democrats I knew in Fresno were moderate to conservative. We knew a few families who were noticeably leftist, but we considered them slightly wacky, too radical and didn’t take them very seriously. Most of the moderate Democrats I knew were comfortable with the traditional Democratic positions on the Cold-War and a strong defense perspective that produced Congressmen Henry “Scoop” Jackson and Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Presidents Truman, Kennedy and Johnson. Most adult men I knew were my father’s age or older, so they had served in the US military in Korea or WWII and were quietly proud of their service and their country.

 

Most of the families I knew weren’t passionate one way or the other about the Vietnam War, but they thought the protesters at UC Berkeley and other campuses were too radical and were insufficiently respectful of fundamental American values. For example, I recall my parents went to see the rock musical Hair in San Francisco in the early 1970s. The show was designed to offend traditional morés of middle class Americans, but my parents put up with the foul language, gratuitous nudity, raunchy sexuality and political mockery until an actor burned the US flag on stage. At that point, my Korean War veteran dad gently took my mom’s hand and they walked out of the theatre in shock and disgusted by the in- your-face anti-Americanism on stage.

 

I have always been an idealist believing in individual rights and a realist because I believe it is our individual and societal responsibility to advance towards the good. I think that free markets and the resultant culture of innovation, consensual politics and religious pluralisim are the greatest promoters of a better life for the greatest number of people in the shortest possible timeframe. Hence I think that limited government, technological innovation and consumer choice are fundamental principles for positive change. On most domestic issues, I tend to agree with the maxim, “The government that governs least, governs best”.

 

In the realm of international affairs, however, there are still too many dictatorships and other rogue states which would be characterized by what the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes termed the “State of Nature”, which he described as – short, nasty and brutish. It is a stark fact that nearly all our current adversaries are tyrannical dictatorships, unsavory and criminally corrupt regimes and terrorist groups who oppress and harm their own people and use terrorism as a tool of warfare to threaten our national interests as well. Hence as the world’s only remaining superpower, it is vital for the US to maintain a capable military posture to prevent rising threats when possible and to respond quickly when needed to protect our interests and support our allies.

 

From a very young age I had developed a keen interest in politics and international affairs. I was active in student government in high school and participated in statewide and national political events ever since. At Harvard, I majored in Government and focused on International Relations with a good dose of Economics and History. I was very active in the Harvard JFK School of Government Institute of Politics and other organizations and in many election field campaigns – almost all for Democrats until my great awakening after 9/11. Like too many Democrats, I had naively and ignorantly come to believe that most Republicans were smart and rich, but they were selfish and heartless. The Democratic talking point mantra was that Republicans were old, rich, straight, white, Christian men who wanted to oppress or ignore all the rest of America. During most college summers, I worked in Washington, DC, first for the Export-Import Bank of the US, then AIPAC and Congressman Tony Coelho (Democratic Whip). Each role provided some insight into the workings of Washington including the excitement and dynamism, as well as the dysfunction and unsavory nature of the political world.

 

I also developed a strong Jewish identity rather early. One day at age 11, I returned from Temple Beth Israel’s Sunday school and announced that I wanted us to celebrate Chanukah and no longer have a Christmas tree. I also developed a very strong connection with Israel and became a lifelong Zionist. My interest in Israel and Zionism led me to study and recognize the dangers of the fundamentalist Muslim and secular dictatorships of the Middle East, often allied with the communist dictatorship of the Soviet Union and kleptocratic dictators in the developing countries. I learned that those countries represented a witches brew of oppression and demagogically fomented hatred which posed a real threat to their own peoples, neighboring countries, and Israel. Moreover, as the technology and “successful” use of terror increased, the threat to the US and Western Civilization grew more obvious – or so I thought. In the 1990s many of us were temporarily lulled into a false sense of security as the Soviet Union crumbled under its own “internal contractions” and with a good push from President Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher.

 

Nevertheless, since the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979, the growth of Islamic radicalism and other forces aligned against Western Civilization has been much on my mind. I think the best antidote to radical Islam is political reform along the lines recommended by Minister Natan Sharansky who wrote The Case For Democracy and Ambassador Mark Palmer who wrote Breaking The Real Axis of Evil, How to Oust The World’s Remaining Dictators by 2025. The perspective elucidated by both authors is a principal reason we must support a secure, strong, independent, secular Iraq, governed as a consensual republic with rule of law, free markets and constitutional protections for human rights.

 

My partner, Michel Armand, worked for the French Foreign Ministry for seven years, but he has generally supported the US foreign policy initiatives of President Bush. Michel supported the wars to help liberate Afghanistan and Iraq. He was a vocal critic of Chirac and a strong supporter of Sarkozy so we are fairly well aligned. He supports a strong defense against radical Islam and concurs in the view that political reform of dictatorships is an important goal for global, human well-being and long-term stability.

 

With regard to issues affecting the gay community, I believe in an evolutionary approach, not a radical, confrontational dogma. I think that science creates the fundamentals of new technology which lead to businesses commercialization then behavioral change by consumers, which then leads to changed attitudes which in turn leads to political changes. This is because most politicians are followers, not leaders – especially on deeply held issues of religious or emotional commitment to view on abortion, gay issues, prayer in school, etc. Politicians very rarely vote contrary to the polling data on such matters in their districts. This makes politics a rather ineffective medium for change. Nevertheless, I prefer legislative change to judicial interference in such matters. I think that legislated changes are much more easily accepted by the population and engender less backlash and social strife. I prefer an incremental approach that makes a series of small improvements rather than pressing for major and radical jump-shifts in policy. I am less interested in symbolism of equality than in equal opportunity and treatment under law. In recent times I have come to see issues of National Security and Economic vitality as much more important than most other domestic issues. Without success in the former two characteristics, the other issues pale in importance.

Tomorrow I present the second part of my three part interview with David Blumberg.

eric

After much guessing, the on again, almost off again, 2008 Presidential Debate was back on again.

Barack Obama and John McCain squared off in Oxford Mississippi.

The moderator was Jim Lehrer, who has a reputation being tough, and more importantly…fair.

Jim Lehrer once said that he stays humble during debates because before he goes on stage, he looks in the mirror and repeats to himself several times, “This is not about me.”

If only more people in the media had his sense of honor and ethics, the Fourth Estate would not be held in such low esteem.

The debate was supposed to only be about foreign policy, but life is event driven, not topic driven. Therefore, a healthy dose of economics was to be interspersed with global events during this debate.

Before getting to the debate itself, I would like to shamelessly self promote a debate between a pair of gentlemen who will be making the case for their respective candidates. If you are in the Los Angeles area, please check out my debate with this other fellow. Below is the flyer for that event.

FROM LEFT TO RIGHT
TO THE MIDDLE EAST:
A DEBATE ABOUT 2008

FEATURING

RANDY S
DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST

ERIC G
REPUBLICAN BLOGGER

MODERATED BY
BRAD G
JEWISH JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16TH
MEET ‘N GREET: 6:45 PM
DEBATE: 7:15 PM

HOSTED BY:
CHABAD JEWISH STUDENT CENTER @ USC
USC HILLEL

CHABAD @ USC
2713 SEVERANCE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CA 90007

[email protected] FOR DETAILS OR TO RSVP

While I make the case for John McCain and Randy makes the case for Barack Obama, last night the candidates were on their own. Below is my recap of their debate without my surrogacy, although perhaps my analysis will make up for that. I do not expect either of them to provide analysis of my debate with Randy, but time will tell. With that, here is the debate recap.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/drunkblogging-the-first-presidential-debate/

 

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/26/a-historic-night-the-first-presidential-debate-of-2008/

 

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/d4dcfc4c-0f20-4580-b9aa-86dc97b3d9a7

 

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckPersona&U=3a86a5c341684631abb59d87c02a2df8&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a3a86a5c341684631abb59d87c02a2df8Post%3aec9d034f-e49d-4a39-9420-976a206ad4a6&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending&sid=sitelife.desmoinesregister.com

They were both asked about the financial crisis. Obama called this “the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.” No, it is not. He said that we have to move “swiftly,” and “wisely.” He spoke of “oversight.” Naturally, he blamed President Bush, and linked him to McCain. It was standard boilerplate.

McCain started by offering prayers for Senator Ted Kennedy. While it was a very gracious thing to do, I personally am getting sick of McCain’s graciousness. It is never returned, and is seen by the left as weakness. Senator Kennedy has nothing nice to say about those on the right, and given how the left treated Jesse Helms, the right should offer nothing towards Senator Kennedy. McCain then spoke about the beauty of “coming together,” which is code for republican surrendering, liberals getting everything they want, and then blaming republicans anyway.

One of the reasons Jim Lehrer is such an excellent moderator is because he wants to get to the meat of the discussion. Realizing that neither man offered much substance in their opening remarks, he firmly asked each of them if they favored the current bailout plan.

Obama danced, saying that he “had not seen the language yet.” He then shifted to how the problem started. He simply does not answer questions. “We did not set up a 21st century regulatory system.” That phrase says nothing.

When asked if he would vote for the plan, McCain said, “I hope so.” He then said “sure.” He then shifted to accountability. “Greed is rewarded, corruption is rewarded.”

Obama agreed with McCain about accountability before bashing Wall Street.

McCain blamed Washington, DC, and Wall Street. McCain also praised the American worker, which sounds nice but means little.

The candidates were then asked how they would solve the financial crisis.

McCain spoke about cutting spending, saying he would “veto every spending bill that crossed his desk.” He then spoke about the 932 million in spending Obama has requested earmarks for.

Obama agreed that spending was out of control, and claimed that he no longer requested earmarks for his home state. He then claimed that McCain would give tax breaks for the wealthy. This was standard class warfare, not breaking any new ground. Obama again claimed that he would cut taxes for 95% of Americans, which would be tough since only 62% of Americans pay any taxes at all.

McCain then pointed out that Obama suspended his earmark requests out of political expediency, and not out of altruism. He also pointed out that Obama was proposing 800 billion in new spending. “The worst thing we can do in this economic climate is raise taxes.”

Obama then interjected, saying that he only wanted to “close loopholes.” That is code for raising taxes. Obama insisted he pays for all of his expenditures on things like health care.

McCain correctly pointed out that the United States has a 35% corporate tax rate, while Ireland has an 11% rate. McCain wants to lower our corporate tax rate, and Obama wishes to raise it. McCain wants to double the dividend “from $3500 to $7000.”

Obama kept agreeing with McCain, but he made a fascinating assertion. He claimed that due to loopholes, American corporations actually pay among the lowest corporate tax rates. This is ludicrous, but fascinating nonetheless. He also claimed that McCain wants to tax health care benefits.

McCain again hammered home that he has tried to control spending while Obama has not. Obama appeared to be holding back laughter at that point. They sparred over tax breaks for oil companies.

Lehrer then asked another hard hitting question. He wanted to know what the candidates would give up if the $700 billion dollar bailout plan was passed. This was a great question because candidates talk about cutting spending, but were now being asked for specifics.

Obama did not answer the question. “It is hard to anticipate what the budget will look like next year.” He then talked about how his energy plan would “free us in 10 years from foreign oil.” This had nothing to do with the question. He mentioned health care and education. He saus we must “invest” in them. Of course when he says invest he means “spend.” He also wants to fix the infrastructure. In fact, the entire answer was about new spending he would enact. The question was what he would cut. He wants to eliminate programs “that don’t work.” Of course, he did not name one.

When McCain mentioned that Obama had the most liberal voting record, Obama again laughed. I am not sure if this will be seena s Al Gore eyeball rolling in 2000 or George W. Bush angry sighing in 2004, but it was a tad obnoxious to me.

As for McCain, he actually listed specifics. He would cut ethanol subsidies, and cost plus contracts at the Defense Department.

Obama could not bring himself to cut anything. He again agreed with McCain, saying that we have to “make some cuts.” He did not offer one tangible cut.

McCain laughed himself when Obama claimed that he was liberal because he needed to counterattack President Bush. Obama claimed to work with conservative Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

McCain then proposed a spending freeze on everthing but defense, Veterans Affairs, and entitlements. The problem is that entitlements are the biggest part of the budget.

Obama stated that a spending freeze “takes a hatchet to what might require a scalpel. There are some programs that are currently underfunded.” He simply does not understand that a machete is needed. He wants to spend more on early childhood education. He wants to spend less on Iraq.

As the discussion tilted towards energy, McCain pointed out that Obama is against drilling. Obama kept laughing, which seemed condescending.

Lehrer then asked the candidates to answer if the current economic climate would even affect their budgets. Obama acknowledged that it required tough decisions, before going into the standard stump speech.

McCain then gave a strong response, saying that he did not want to ‘turn the health care system over to the Federal Government.” He then pointed out that Obama is proposing 800 billion in new spending, and that he could cut spending by canceling some of his own proposals.

Obama then referred to President Bush as “your President.” McCain reaffirmed the maverick credentials of him and Sarah Palin.

The debate then shifted to Iraq. The candidates were asked what the lessons of Iraq were.

McCain reaffirmed his concern with the initial post invasion strategy, before mentioning that he supported General David Petraeus and the surge.

Obama insisted we should not have gone in to Iraq in the first place. Obama keeps insisting how brave he was to stand up and oppose the war. It was not risky because he was not in the Senate at the time. He also insisted that “Al Queda was stringer than at any time since 2001.” This is completely false, but Obama has every right to be wrong.

McCain then pointed out that Obama was against the surge, which Obama claimed “exceeded his wildest expectations.” McCain then hit hard by pointing out that Obama did not go to Iraq for 900 days, and despite chairing a subcommittee dealing with Afghnaistan, never held a hearing.

The best Obama could do was praise his selection of Joe Biden. Obama even said that General Petraeus “has done a brilliant job.” Give Obama credit. He is smooth. He then stated that McCain was wrong about the war about WMD and the initial war.

McCain then pointed out that “Obama does not know the difference between a tactic and a strategy.” McCain reminded the audience that Obama will not admit that we are winning in Iraq. Obama keeps saying that is not true. McCain then pointed out that Obama voted to cut off funding for the troops.

Obama claimed that the funding issue was about a disagreement on a timetable. Obama stated that in 16 months, we should reduce our troops.

McCain mentioned that “Osama Bin Laden and David Petraeus both see Iraq as the central front in the War on Terror.” He pointed out thatr the success of the surge may have succeeded beyond Obama’s expectations, but not his own.

The debate shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan. The candidates were asked if more troops were needed there. More specifically, Mr. Lehrer wanted to know how many troops were needed, and when.

Obama eventually said that he would send 2 to 3 brigades, but other than that mainly carped about Iraq without answering the question. He said that we need to “press” the Afghan government. He did not say what that meant. He also said we need to “deal with Pakistan.” That also was left unexplained.

McCain pointed out that threatening to cut off aid to Pakistan was irresponsible, as was threatening military strikes into Pakistan. This was McCain pointing out that he was the adult in the race by saying, “You don’t do that. You don’t say that out loud.” He also kept reminding America that he has been to these places, and Obama has not.

Obama then dodged the issue, instead going for a rankout contest by criticizing McCain singing the “Bomb Iran” song to the tune of the Beach boys “Barbara Ann.” He stated that America “coddled” Pervez Musharraf. This is an area where Obama is fundamentally wrong. Working with Musharraf was the right thing to do.

McCain then spoke about his long record. It was another reminder of his experience vs the inexperience of Obama. Both candidates then told the obligatory story of the average citizen that agreed with them.

Obama then launched a broadside. “It was not true that you were always concerned about Afghanistan.”

McCain then shot back hard. “If you were that concerned, you would have gone to Afghanistan.” McCain reminded America of the places he has been, that he speaks from actually having been there. When McCain stated that Obama did not understand the situation, Obama laughed again.

Mr. Lehrer then shifted the debate to Iran.

McCain spoke forcefully, saying a nuclear armed Iran is “an existential threat to Israel.” He also added that “We cannot have a second Holocaust.” He again mentioned his “League of Democracies” proposal. He also stated that, “Iran has a lousy government.” He also brought up that Obama voted against the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that would have labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Obama insisted that he believed the IRG was a terrorist organization, and always has. This man truly does know how to be for and against everything. He does not get called on it. He stated that we “cannot tolerate” a nuclear armed Iran. He wants more sanctions. Somebody ought to remind him that sanctions failed, and will fail again. Obama also mentioned why we must talk to people.

McCain then reminded the audience that Obama would meet with Armageddonijad “without preconditions. Obama tried to explain that preconditions was not the same as preparation. He would make sure that there were advance preparations. McCain accused Obama of parsing words. McCain emphasized the preconditions, and Obama laughed again.

Then Obama said something that made McCain laugh. “Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. He might not be the right person to talk to.” The Mullahs notwithstanding, this was a way of hiding on Obama’s part. Armageddonijad is absolutely the public face of the country.

Obama criticized the notion that “unless you do what we say, we won’t have direct contacts with you.” I wish McCain had said, “Exactly. Now you get it.” Obama seems to think that laying down tough parameters is a bad thing. Obama called Iran a “rogue regime.” He then admitted that it “may not work.” It is outstanding that Obama concedes that his methods may not work. He also insists that wasting time on a method that does not work will strengthen our position.

Obama blamed the current North Korea problem on our disengagement with them. Actually, it was Bill CLinton and his need to talk everything to death that allowed him to declare dialogue a complete success. North Korea simply violated the agreements they made. Obama alluded to McCain wanting to get tough with Spain.

McCain dismissed the Spain comments, and referred to Iran’s comments about Israel as a “stinking corpse.” He used that to explain that preconditions were required, and that Obama’s views on the subject were “naive and dangerous.”

They sparred over remarks made by Henry Kissinger. Obama was clearly on the defensive, as McCain reminded Kissinger was a 35 year friend of his.

Mr. Lehrer then brought up Russia, and how America should see Russia.

Obama blathered. He said that Russia”s actions in Georgia were “unacceptable” and “unwarranted.” We would “explain” to Russia the right way to behave. I am sure they would listen to us and thank us for the explanation. Obama never actually did say how he viewed Russia. He insisted again that he worked with Richard Lugar on securing loose nuclear warheads. This is sheer fantasy. He did not.

McCain brought up Obama’s reaction to the Russia-Georgia situation. He called Obama’s initial response “naive.” McCain also connected the dots by showing that the situatio between Russia and Georgia had worldwide effects on energy. He also stated that he would admit Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO.

Obama agreed with McCain, but insisted that he was tough from the beginning as well. He claims that he stated that Russia’s actions were “illegal” and “objectionable.” Somebody ought to explain to Mr. Obama that this is why many Americans see the democrats as soft on defense.

Obama then springboarded onto his green agenda, although thankfully he did not use the idiotic phrase “green collar jobs.” Obama explained that we had to “walk the walk, and not just talk the talk.” Perhaps he was referring to himself.

McCain mentioned that Obama is against nuclear power despite his protests to the contrary.

As for Dick Lugar, Obama laughed when McCain claimed that he was the one who supported Nunn-Lugar back in 1990.

Obama seemed very defensive when he actually decided to become the moderator of the debate. He turned to Lehrer and said, “Let’s move on.” He truly believes that any time he is asked a tough question, we should just move on.

The last question dealt with whether the candidates thought there would e another 9/11 type of attack on America.

McCain said that it is “much less than it was after 9/11. We have a much safer nation, but we are not yet safe.” He then again emphasized his bipartisanship on the issue. He also said, “I know our allies, and I can work closely with them.”

Obama again spoke of getting away from Iraq and towards Afghanistan and Pakistan. He also claimed that it is important that we are “perceived in the world” better. He insisted that we are “less respected now.” I wonder who he thinks does not respect us. Perhaps he worries that Iran does not respect us.

Obama laughed for the umpteenth time when McCain said that, “Obama still doesn’t understand,” with regards to the necessity to succeed in Iraq. Specific dates for withdrawal is an area of disagreement among the men.

McCain then firmly stated that he “doesn’t believe that Obama has the knowledge or experience, and that he has made the wrong judgments in a number of areas.” All the platitudes in the world from Obama do not minimize the truth of this statement.

For some reason Obama laughed again when McCain accused him of stubbornly clinging to beliefs, such as the surge not working. McCain also made it clear that Veterans knew that he “loved them and would take care of them.”

McCain ended very strongly by saying, “I don’t need any on the job training. I am ready to go right now.”

Obama then concluded by talking about his father in Kenya, and the 1960s. He mentioned that our standing in the world has slipped. This did not rebut the inexperience issue. He again mentioned education in what was a foreign policy debate.

McCain finished by saying, “I know how to heal the wounds of war. I know how to deal with our adversaries. I know how to deal with our friends.”

On style points, the debate was a draw in the sense that neither candidate landed a knockout blow or made a major gaffe.

I am curious to see if Obama’s constant laughing will be seen as condescending in the same manner that was Al Gore and his rolling eyeballs.

On substance, of course John McCain won. He has plenty, and Obama has none.

Yet image does matter, and despite being unable to offer anything tangible, Obama evades very well. He offers nothing, but makes it seem like he is actually saying something.

As expected, Jim Lehrer did an excellent job. He remains a first class moderator. He struck the balance of being tough but remaining polite, and not making himself the focus.

Obama comes across as a cerebral academic professor, which is what he was. He remains cool and detached.

This debate probably changed few minds. However, one positive was that it did deal with issues, and did not spend time on nonsense. I again give Jim Lehrer credit.

The answers were sometimes lacking, especially by Obama, but the questions were substantive.

This was a good debate about issues that mattered.

eric

Today will be a painful column for me. I wish I did not have to write it.

I will not be discussing Wall Street or the bailout because there is no deal, and even if one is reached, it will take years to know if it was the right thing to do. I am against the bailout, although people I deeply respect are in favor of it.

Today I will be focusing on a less significant issue due to time constraints. I will also, sadly enough, be eating somebody who should be one of my own. Again, this is not a happy decision.

A movie will be coming out in several days. The brains behind the movie is David Zucker, who has produced, “Naked Gun” and “Airplane.” This movie is called “American Carol.” It is a conservative republican slam against Michael Moore. David Zucker is a Jewish republican in Hollywood, a rare breed indeed.

I should be one of the biggest supporters of this movie. At one point I was. My plan was to help light up the blogosphere to promote the movie. Due to events that occurred recently, I have switched sides, and am now advocating against it.

I am absolutely still a proud Jewish conservative republican. My politics have not changed. This is personal, not political.

At the Republican Convention in Minnesota, I saw a screening of the movie. The Chicago Cannonball was with me. She is not a republican, but she is reasonable, and clear thinking. She is also open minded. What we saw left us aghast. She will never attend another republican event ever again, and I do not blame her.

The movie itself is simply not that funny. It has some very funny scenes, especially early on, but after awhile it becomes preachy and self righteous. It becomes everything I criticize liberals for being. Whether it be David Zucker, Rush Limbaugh, or Howard Stern, the entertainment factor has to come first. People do not tune in to Howard or Rush because of their views. It is because they are good entertainers.

Adam Sandler got it perfect with “Zohan.” I did not like the ending, but the movie itself was very funny, with some politics thrown in. “American Carol” is a political movie with some funny moments. It begins very strongly and then gets worse as it goes on.

Yet that would not cause me to be against it. Liking a movie is a matter of taste. I still cannot find people that are willing to give Oscars to Rob Schneider in “Deuce Bigalow,” or the entire cast of “Old School.” Taste is subjective, and I cannot help it if nobody I know besides me has good taste.

This is not about the movie. This is about comments that David Zucker made after the movie to a packed theatre.

He began by praising the movie “The Passion of the Christ.” I have not seen the movie, and religious Jews I respect have disagreed on whether the movie was anti-Semitic. As for Mel Gibson, he is certainly not good for Jews. Nevertheless, many Christians saw the movie, and they are not anti-Semites. So this in itself did not offend me. What happened next did.

In praising the movie, he said, “Nothing brings in money like making a three hour movie about Jews beating up God.”

My jaw dropped, as did the Chicago Cannonball’s as well. Zucker continued.

“What would really make money is if we followed that up with a couple more hours of a movie about Jews beating up the Pope.”

He then offered a third line.

“Jews voting republican is like Indians voting for Custer.”

The overwhelmingly Christian audience laughed hysterically, although some of it was nervous laughter.

I am aware that David Zucker has made these remarks to Jewish audiences before. What bothers me intensely is when Jews make self deprecating remarks in front of Christians. When Chris Rock does his routine criticizing black people, he does it in front of black audiences, not white ones. He also reaffirms his pride in his blackness.

David Zucker is not a liberal Jew, but he used to be one. Most liberal Jewish comedians are pathetic. They put down Jews in order to gain acceptance. It makes Jews look weak. It makes us look like we are begging Christian America to “Please like us. We will promise to put ourselves down as long as you promise to like us.” It is appeasement, which never works.

I am not an angst ridden, guilt wracked Jew. I am a Paul Wolfowitz Jew. Heck, on angry days I am a Jack Ruby Jew. I have no patience for self hating or self loathing Jews. When I ask a Jew if they are Jewish, and they respond, “Yes, but I am not religious,” I want to deck them across their apologizing faces. I then tell them, “I did not ask you that.” Christians and Muslims do not speak like this. Liberal Jews are scared of their own shadow, scared to death of offending people.

I take a different approach. If you don’t like me, then f*ck you, and if you’re a foreigner, and hate me, then I want my government to blow up your country. Then we can negotiate the price of me selling the body parts of your family on Ebay. Sorry if this is too rough for some, but one Holocaust is enough.

This is what makes me so shocked at David Zucker. He is dedicated to using humor to attack the very leftists and Islamofacists I want to attack. He detests appeasement as much as I do. He and I should be kindred spirits.

I was going to light up the blogosphere with his comments, but friends of mine told me to talk to him first. Perhaps he would be reasonable. I thought about it, and decided that perhaps if I approached him very politely, he might consider my comments and decide to stop saying such things. My goal was not to condemn the man. It was to show him that his remarks were harmful. For one thing, getting beyond that such statements in such settings are wrong, it also backfired. The Chicago Cannonball, as I said earlier, will never listen to a republican message again. She was persuadable, and now is not. I don’t blame her one bit.

Last night, I finally met and spoke with David Zucker. He made the Custer joke again, but it did not bother me in this setting. Again, A small Jewish audience is not a large Christian audience.

When I introduced myself to him, I told him I was a Jewish republican blogger that takes brickbats to the Daily Kos. He vigorously shook my hand. He was enthusiastic. I had a lump in my throat knowing his enthusiasm would dissipate rather quickly.

I was very polite, and I expressed my concern. I then said, “I don’t know if I have the right to even ask you this, but would you be willing to stop making such remarks in front of Christian audiences?”

He was not rude. He was not dismissive. He was very respectful and genial in his reply. Yet he was also firm, and he let me know that he would not stop doing it.

“Comedy is edgy. I have offended virtually everybody. Part of humor involves making people uncomfortable. I understand you were uncomfortable, but making people uncomfortable is what I do. Some jokes will hit, and some will miss.”

Most Jewish people I have spoken to, including Jewish republicans, did not find his comments funny. Yet they were not offended either.

One person advised me to pick my battles carefully. After all, this guy is a proud Jewish republican. We have so many outside problems. We don’t need inside problems.

I am aware that this will not make me popular in certain social circles. Worse than that, it might give me praise from leftists. In the same way that the first President Bush was dead in the water when Walter Mondale praised him for raising taxes, the last thing I want is for leftists to praise me for going after a Jewish republican.

I am doing it because one star in the movie is Trace Adkins. I bought his book, which is entitled, “A personal stand.” Although Mr. Adkins would not like me boycotting a movie he is in, I hope he understands that I am making a personal stand.

I do not hate David Zucker. I do not believe he is anti-Semitic, or a self hating Jew. I agree with him on most political issues. I simply vehemently disagree with him on his making anti-Jewish jokes, even in jest, in front of Christian audiences.

One thing he also said to me was, “I cannot say I am wrong when I believe I am right.”

I prefer that to a mealy mouthed phony apology. He stuck to his guns.

I still believe he is wrong.

I will not be encouraging people to see “American Carol.” I also will not be burning copies of “Airplane” or “Naked Gun” in effigy either.

David Zucker has his opinion, and I have mine. I wish Mr. Zucker would understand that preaching to the converted is one approach. Trying to reach out is a better approach. Reaching out does not mean diluting one’s own message. It means expanding appeal without losing one’s core. It is not easy.

What I know is that the people who praised him were already on his side. Those that went in with an open mind…I believe that the Chicago Cannonball’s reaction was appropriate, and representative of open minded people.

David Zucker has lost my support. I doubt he will lose sleep over this, but I will sleep better knowing that I maintained my integrity, spoke my mind, and did so in a fair and decent manner.

I will not lead an active boycott since that might have the reverse effect. I will simply not encourage anyone to see the movie either, and tell them why if they ask.

Mr. Zucker has deeply disappointed me, and disappointment is part of life.

For those that find his comments troubling, please consider boycotting American Carol.

I remain a proud Jewish republican, dedicated to fighting for my beliefs. I have taken on Islamofacists and liberals, and will continue to do so. Yet sometimes I have to take on somebody that should be part of my family.

I am prepared for any consequences or blowback. I may have burned some bridges.

Yet when I look you, whoever you are, in the eye, you will know where I stand.

Hineni. Here I am. Jewish, republican, and proud.

eric

The other night Larry King insisted he was not deceased while interviewing Iranian President Armageddonijad, who wanted him deceased. Larry thanked the madman for his graciousness and asked him about his family.

Thankfully, adult conversations with intelligent questions of people that have insights actually worth sharing also took place that night.

Sean Hannity interviewed Ambassador John Bolton. Three weeks earlier, at the 2008 Republican Convention in Minnesota, so was I.

For those who do not know, Ambassador Bolton was the man who successfully overturned the horrible U.N. Resolution that stated “Zionism is Racism.”

As a reward, the cancerous wing of the democratic party consisting of many liberal Jews tried to block him from becoming Ambassador. Nevertheless, as he communicated to Sean Hannity, Ambassador Bolton remains undaunted.

Out of respect for Mr. Hannity, I will present his interview with Mr. Bolton first. For the cynical among us in society, I am giving myself last licks. Below are the remarks of Ambassador Bolton, answering the questions of Sean Hannity.

“What has the UN done to stop terrorism? They can’t even agree on a resolution on what terrorism is.”

“5 years of Europe trying to talk Iran out of acquiring nuclear weapons has left Iran 5 years closer to achieving that objective.”

“He (Ahmadinejad) also said that Zionists control the financial markets.”

“Deciding when you negotiate should come from a cost benefit analysis. With Iran we do not have to calculate. We have had 5 years.”

“As unattractive as the military option is, Iran with nuclear weapons would be even more unattractive.”

“Iran is the largest financier of international terrorism in the world today. The notion that they do not possess the same nuclear arsenal as the former Soviet Union does not mean they are not a serious threat.”

“Many Americans are at the point of the U.N. I have one reform regarding the U.N., and that is that we make our contributions voluntary. We abolish the system of mandatory contributions.”

Mr. Hannity sat down with Ambassador Bolton for several minutes. I had a rapid fire walk and talk with him. One thing that is evident from the very first glance is that Ambassador Bolton is a serious man with a serious purpose. Like many people, he wants to save civilization from blowing up. Unlike most people, he actually understands what civilization should do to rescue itself.

With that, my interview with Ambassador John Bolton is below.

1) How do you feel about the Vice Presidential nomination of Sarah Palin?

JB: “It is a good nomination. Sarah Palin will be an asset to John McCain. She was a good choice, and has a history as a reformer who fights corruption. I’m happy with the choice of Sarah Palin.”

2) Who are your 3 political heroes?

JB: “Edmund Burke, John Locke, and Ronald Reagan.”

3) With regards to the situation between Israel and Iran, is it time for Israel to strike Iran, or is there any diplomatic option that is still feasible?

JB: I don’t see anything other than 2 options. There is regime change, and the targeted use of force. It is a choice between a bad option and a worse option. Diplomacy has not worked. As awful as having to enact regime change can be, allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is worse.”

4) How would you like to be remembered 100 years from now? What would you want people to say about John Bolton the person?

JB: “I was somebody who did his best to stand up for human freedom.”

I thanked Ambassador Bolton for his time, and for his staunch support of Israel. I also appreciate his recognition of the United Nations as a worthless entity. Those are my words, not his. For somebody that is not accused of being diplomatic, he is more diplomatic than me.

I wish that sharpshooters simply waited outside the CNN studios, and after Larry King fell asleep, put a couple bullets into Armageddonijad.

This is why I am not an Ambassador.

I may not know diplomacy, but I do know that the world would all be better off if John Bolton were allowed to do his job.

It was my honor Mr. Ambassador.

eric

The terrorist and the apologist joined hands and started a love train.

The murderer vowed to continue murdering, and the Zionist victim interviewing him thanked the murderer for his graciousness.

The Jewish newsman gave the Holocaust denier the platform to spread his bile.

As my friend Evan Sayet has said on many occasions, Larry King Live is an oxymoron. I have said that Larry died 20 years ago, and nobody told him. Nevertheless, in the spirit of the movie “Weekend at Bernies,” Larry King’s corpse was wheeled onto the stage, where his spirit asked warm and lighthearted questions of a mass murderer.

Iranian Terrorist and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spent the day in New York attending an anti-semitic rally, known as a United Nations forum. While the world leaders did not chant about death to America or Israel, they did sit silently and allow Armageddonijad to spread his lunacy.

Armageddonijad then decided that he needed a forum to air his views where he would not be challenged. While nobody has hard evidence that Larry King ever asked Adolf Hitler if he preferred the Whopper or the Big Mac, he did have a chance to share warm fuzzies with the man who dreams of inflicting the next Holocaust.

Below is the best of the worst of the interview.

LK: “Do you like being in New York?”

He could not say he liked coming to New York. Larry never got to ask him if he preferred the Yankees or the Mets, or what he thought of the Joe Torre situation.

MA: “Hostility is not coming from our end. We want friendly relations. Hostility is one sided from American politicians.”

LK: “Are you controversial?”

Larry at that point was handed a memo indicating that water is wet, bears actually do take care of their business in the woods, and despite rumors to the contrary, the Pope is a practicing Catholic. Larry then debated whether to consult with Barbara Walters and ask her what kind of tree she would be.

Come to think of it, Armageddonijad should go on “The View.” The imbeciles can all talk and laugh together in their hatred of George W. Bush. He can let them know how terrible it is that women are oppressed in America. Joy Behar will indignantly agree at the top of her leftist lungs.

MA: “Never has the Iranian nation taken a misstep against another nation. We are for peace and are friendly with others. The only war against us was Saddam Hussein, and the U.S. supported that.”

Yes, we played both sides. I was disappointed the day the 1988 Iran-Iraq war came to an end. Thank you Ronald Reagan for keeping Israel safe, by allowing the enemies to murder each other instead.

MA: “Defending our nation does not mean we infringe on the rights of other nations.”

He could not say he was happy the U.S. took out Saddam even though he hated Saddam.

He and Palin were both mayors. How charming. He did not state he would meet with her.

MA: “The U.S. incited Saddam to attack Iran.”

The left really should give this warm furry fella a big socialist hug. After all, he keeps reciting the talking points of the Democratic Party.

MA: “Our religion teaches us to be against weapons of mass destruction. The atomic bomb has lost its use in political affairs. The bomb did not keep the Soviet Union intact. It did not help America win in Afghanistan and Iraq. Can it save the Zionist regime?”

At this point Larry King donned his Captain Obvious superhero outfit.

LK: “What do you mean by wiping Israel off the map?”

Somebody please buy the man a dictionary for his birthday. The phrase is rather literal. This is different from a less literal sentence, such as the fact that nobody watches CNN. I really did have nothing to do last night.

MK: “We oppose the Zionist regime because of peace and justice.”

I oppose the Iranian President and wish that we would shove a grenade up his hide and pull the pin while he is visiting the world’s only simian opthamologist, Bashar Assad of Syria.

He then pretended to care about the Palestinians.

MA: “Three big wars were started by the Zionist regime, the last one in 2006 when they attacked Lebanon. Our solution is a humanitarian one. The Palestinians must determine their own fate.”

LK: “Why not sit down and talk with Israel?”

Larry then taught Armageddonijad the lyrics to “Kumbaya.”

MA: “The Zionist regime is an uninvited guest in the Middle East.”

Somewhere at a violent peace rally Medea Benjamin orgasmed and ruined her new Code Pink Protester Panties.

MA: “The Apartheid regime of South Africa, The Soviet Union, where are they today? It was not talking, it was resistance. This Zionist regime is fundamentally illegal.”

LK: “You don’t want to see Israelis die. Do you?”

To think my grandfather and father escaped Nazis to see another liberal Jewish apologist share cookies and milk with a murderer of Jews.

http://hiram7.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/protesting-adolf-ahmadinejad-at-the-united-nations/

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/25/unholy-alliance-mahmoud-and-left-wing-religious-leaders/

MA: “When we speak of disappearance, crimes, murder, and terror must disappear. Our solution is humanitarian and democratic.”

Only a naive fool working at CNN could believe such nonsense.

LK: “Does Israel remain Israel?”

MA: “Let the people decide.”

I am a person. I decide we turn Iran and SYria into 50,000 hole golf courses.

MA: “The root cause of the problem is the others that came and harmed the Palestinians.”

This guy wants to explore phony root causes of crime. Maybe he is a liberal. I wonder if democrats would vote for him over George W. Bush. I wonder who they hate more.

MA: “We must allow for free elections in Palestine.”

We had them, and terrorists were elected.

LK: “Do you wish the Jewish people harm?”

MA: “There are Jews in Iran. Zionists are not Jewish people. They have no religion. They wear a mask of religiosity. How can you be religious and occupy lands of other people?”

LK: “Do not Zionists come from persecution?”

MA: “No one is allowed to freely discuss the history. Let more research be done on that history. Even if it did happen, it did not happen in Palestine, it would have happened in Europe. Why should the Palestinians be victimized? The Jews can be given Alaska.”

Oh good. Now we know that despite protesting to the contrary, he dislikes Sarah Palin. After all, hates Jews, and wants them to be placed in her state. This guy might be leading the current demagoguic party in secret. How come we never see Armageddonijad and Nancy Pelosi in the same room at the same time? Khalid Sheik Mohammed turned out to be Rosie O’Donnell. Stranger things have happened.

LK: “Do you have any concerns about the future of your country?”

MA: “I have no concerns. The worst thing the U.S. Government can do is attack us. Israel is much smaller. Have you visited Iran?”

LK: “I am planning to visit next year.”

Isn’t it illegal for American citizens to visit Iran? I am nevertheless thrilled that Jewish Larry King would bypass Israel, which depends on tourism, for Iran, which finances terrorizing tourists.

LK: “Do you have human rights problems in Iran? Do you deny that there are homosexuals in your country?”

MA: “God’s rules are to improve human life. In our religion, this act is forbidden.”

So is murder.

LK: “What happens to gay people?”

MA: “Are you concerned for 70 million Iranian people or a few hundred homosexuals?”

MA: “It will benefit everyone if the U.S. leaves Iraq. The U.S. must limit its excursions to the United States alone.”

LK: “If you could go anywhere, what would you like to see in this country?”

MA: “California and Los Angeles.”

Yes, the land of fruits and nuts would welcome him. Perhaps UCLA Hillel could invite him for an interfaith dinner (I attended USC).

After being asked about his family, Armageddonijad announced that he sired three future terrorists.

LK: “You don’t look old enough to have married children.”

Yes he does. Larry King has not been the same since Martha dumped him at the altar for George Washington.

Larry King found the interview “illuminating.”

The only thing that should be illuminated is the part of Tehran containing the Mullahs.

Larry then had a heart attack on stage. Armageddonijad let him die before harvesting his organs. He took Larry’s heart and lungs, had them coated in steel ball bearings, and used them as miniature bombs to be dropped on Israel. Armageddonijad then blamed the Jews for the attack since Larry is Jewish.

Ok, so I made the last part up, but it was not any more nonsensical than the idea of this interview.

The moment this animal steps on American soil, well placed sharpshooters should be ready to take him out. This man was one of the animals responsible for the taking of American hostages for 444 days in 1979. Given that a democrat was in the White House at the time, we did nothing to respond to the terrorism.

Now those on the left do less than nothing. We interview them on television and treat them like they are Hollywood Celebrities. Then again, that would explain Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins planning a fundraiser for his 2010 democratic congressional primary. Barbra Streisand will be singing for him, which might be the one thing that might make him finally crack.

Sean Hannity interviewed Ambassador John Bolton last night as well, proving that intelligent discussion does still exist, just on Fox News, not CNN.

eric

At the 2008 Republican Convention in Minnesota, I had the pleasure of meeting Former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland Michael Steele.

http://www.gopac.org/chairmanscorner/bio.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_S._Steele

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7wjJyMDUH0

Despite his lighthearted manner, Michael Steele is no Pollyanna. As a republican who happens to be black, he has seen the ugliness of ideological bigotry. He has had Oreo Cookies tossed at his feet. this was not done by conservatives.

Nevertheless, he keeps his head level and his disposition ultra sunny. Below are some of his comments that had the crowd rollicking at the convention.

“Are you ready to party in this house tonight?”

“We need a leader who understands the meaning of hard work and self sacrifice.”

“We need somebody who leads for the public interest, not the glamour for public applause.”

“Do you want to put country first?

Drill, baby, drill, drill now!”

“Do what keeps us safe, not what is politically correct. Let’s win the war on terrorism.”

“Associations, who you hang out with, does matter.”

“The corruption of our school systems leads to the weakening of our families.”

The crowd erupted, and fed off his passion. He was exuberant when I met him as well.

With that, I present my “walk and talk” interview with Michael Steele.

1) What are the most important issues of 2008?

MS: “The economy and energy. We have to get off of foreign oi, and that means doing everything, including drilling right here, right now.”

2) Who are your 3 favorite political heroes?

MS: “Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.”

3) How would you like to be remembered 100 years from now? What would you want people to say about Michael Steele the person?

“I was someone who gave a d@mn.”

4) The democrats play identity politics. Given that the republicans are the party of John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Michael Steele, and the democrats are represented by Barack Obama and John Edwards, are the democrats bigoted against the follically challenged? Can John McCain finally crack the glass ceiling in the modern era? Is America ready for a bald President?

(Governor Steele cracked up, and was fabulous about answering the question.)

MS: “Absolutely! The democrats absolutely are prejudiced against the follically challenged! The republican party represents everybody. Yes, we can elect a bald guy President. Yes we can, yes we should, and yes we will elect bald John McCain the next President. That question was the question of all questions. Excellent question. I love it.”

Mr. Steele then turned to his handler, whose job is to get the Governor through the throngs without being slowed down, and said, “Get that guy’s information. Get his business card!”

He shook my hand vigorously, gave me a healthy pat on the back, and laughed on his way to the elevator. I ran into him a couple more times thorughout the convention, and he waved to me and smiled a wide grin.

As I said, his manner was affable, sincere, and fun. It was a pleasure meeting and interviewing Michael Steele because of his incredibly likable personality.

Also, for those who claim that America is racist unless we elect a black President right now, I say that they should put up or shut up, and get to work on helping Michael Steele reach the White House after John McCain and Sarah Palin finish their terms.

I will drill this message into the heads of people. If others request I take an easier approach, I will just respond as only Michael Steele can.

Drill, baby, Drill!

eric