THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

To quote the cast of the former MTV claymation program Celebrity Deathmatch, “At this point it’s all over but the shouting…and the kicking…and the punching…and the biting…”

Below is a hilarious mock headline.

http://www.ncobrief.com/index.php/archives/palin-the-death-monger/

Joe Biden brought his gaffe a minute machine to face off against Sarah Palin, the newest conservative that the deranged left loves to hate. Gwen Ifill of PBS, who applies “Eau D’Obama Anus” perfume to her private areas before each shower, was the “moderator.” Apparently Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann were unavailable. Actually, they were in rehab being treated for rabies.

Nevertheless, the show went on.

The debate started with the disaster known as the bailout package. When asked if it was the best or worst of Washington, Biden said it was neither, before bashing President Bush. This is what he does when he cannot answer a question. He listed Obama’s four point plan, which is not an actual plan. It is four platitudes.

Palin did not answer the question either, because neither of them wanted to condemn the bailout. She did point out that McCain wanted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac oversight in 2006.

Both candidates were asked about reaching across the aisle. Biden claimed that he “had almost as many friends on the republican side of the aisle as the democratic side of the aisle.” No, he does not. He then showed his mean streak by saying that McCain was “out of touch,” a cheap shot about his age.

Palin pointed out tht 96% of Obama’s votes were the party line, and that only McCain reaches across the aisle. She said that she respected Biden’s years in the Senate, but that America needs something “new and fresh.”

Ifill correctly pointed out that neither candidate answered the question. She then asked who was responsible for the subprime lending situation. She blamed greedy lenders because to be truthful and admit that average Americans got greedy and irresponsible. That is like gay marriage for Biden. It is a land mine. Palin did call for personal responsibility.

Biden simply blamed deregulation. Perhaps he prefers a central command economy. He said it was wrong to blame the irresponsible buyers because gas prices were high. Yes people are hurting, but that does not leave them blameless. The working class are not always innocent, and the wealthy are not always guilty.

Palin pointed out that helping the working class meant lowering taxes, and helping the private sector grow. Obama and Biden have voted for the largest tax increases in history.

Biden disputed the charge, and then devolved into Senate speak about procedural votes. He then pointed out that Palin failed to answer the question about deregulation.

Palin pointed out that it was Biden that was ducking the tax issue. She then offered a fabulous line that she “might not always answer the questions the way the moderator or her opponent want her to. She will talk straight to the American people.”

This is why I like her. She knew Ifill was hostile, and stayed pleasant while speaking what was important. Ifill then responded by cutting her off. Apparently the king of all windbags, Joe Biden, does not need to be cut off. Ifill was clever about it, but her PBS bias was on display. I was hoping Palin would promise to defund PBS, but sadly enough Ifill will continue to exist.

Ifill then shifted the debate to taxes. She asked Biden about class warfare, and Palin about hurting 5 million people by throwing them off of health care rolls.

Biden then offered fantasy about Obama’s plan. He keeps saying that 95% of Americans will get a tax cut. Only 62% of Americans even pay taxes. Biden and Obama call this “fairness.” That word was used several times.

What Biden calls fairness, Palin pointed out was “redistribution of wealth.” She pointed out that “small businesses will pay higher taxes, resulting in fewer jobs.” She pointed out that Biden stated that “paying higher taxes is patriotic.” Palin pointed out that “paying higher taxes is not patriotic. Government should get out of the way. Obama is producing a trillion dollars of new spending. That is the backwards way to deal with the economy.”

Palin then discussed McCain’s plan for health care, and pointed out that a “$5,000 health care credit would be budget neutral.” Where the candidates differ is on “mandates,” which Obama supports.

Biden insisted on fairness, while bashing Exxon Mobil. Maybe he thinks they are on the ballot.

Ifill pointed out that Biden and Obama disagreed on the bankruptcy bill, which Biden voted for. Biden babbled about how the issue “was complicated.” At least he did not say it was above his pay grade.

On energy, Palin repeated how Americans keep chanting “Drill, baby drill.” She pointed out that Biden spoke of “raping the outer continental shelf.” She pointed out that Biden and Obama say “no” to everything. She mentioned that she did not like “East Coast politicians dictating energy policy to places like Alaska.” She also mentioned that the terrorists win when we do not allow ourselves to use the supply of domestic energy we have.

Biden spoke about global warming, but said that McCain is “for everything if the private sector takes care of it.” That sounds great to me.

On same sex benefits, Biden enthusiastically support them. he then mentioned same sex marriage, which was not the question. Palin stated that she would not be in favor of same sex marriage, but that she was “tolerant” of how adults live their lives. She made clear that nobody in a McCain-Palin administration would deny benefits and hospital visits.”

This had Biden on the defensive, insisting that neither he nor Obama favored gay marriage. It must kill him to say that. Regardless of how one feels, at least Palin truly believes what she says on the issue.

The debate turned to foreign policy.

Palin pointed out that the surge worked, and that Biden initially criticized Obama for voting against funding the troops. Obama promised otherwise, but buckled under pressure when running for President. The truth hurts, and Biden did not like this. Palin said it “would be a travesty if we quit now in Iraq.”

Biden insisted that Obama had a plan, and that John McCain did not. He insisted that McCain voted against funding the troops. Biden then said the key line. He and Obama agree that “you have got to have a timeline.” Biden is as dead wrong on this as he was about his Iraq partition plan. He then said, “We will end this war.”

It would be nice if he said, “we will win this war.”

Palin rapidly pointed out that the Obama-Biden plan was “a white flag of surrender.”

Biden protested that McCain voted against funding the troops, but that charge will not stick. Biden can complain about timelines, but any timeline is wrong.

Those who complain about what is good for the troops should listen to them.

When asked to compare and contrast the dangers of Pakistan and Iran, Biden seemed to think that Iran is not close to acquiring nuclear weapons. I wonder if he gets his information from Armageddonijad. I would not take that hope at face value. He insists that the next attack will come from Afghanistan, and not Iraq. He has no way of knowing this, although removing Saddam Hussein certainly helps reduce Iraq as a threat.

On Israel, both candidates spoke positively about Israel. The difference is that Palin actually means it. Biden talks like a man that understands facts and statistics, but there is no warmth. Sarah Palin passionately explained that “there cannot be a second Holocaust.” She repeated the horror of Armageddonijad’s comments. Biden spoke aloofly about how President George W. Bush is to blame for Hamas getting elected. I was not aware the President campaigned for them. Biden got a bit pompous when he said that “nobody has done more for Israel,” than him. Actually, his record on Israel is less than stellar.

Biden speaks like an academic. He keeps saying that Armageddonijad does not control Iran, because the mullahs do. Armageddonijad is the public face, and he is a terrorist.

Palin also pointed out that “for guys that keep talking about change and the future, you spend a lot of time looking backwards to the past.”

Biden said that the McCain policy on Israel, Pakistan, and Afghanistan was “the same as that of President Bush.” That sounds fabulous to me. Perhaps Biden is endorsing McCain and preparing for 2012 against another McCain supporter, Hillary Clinton.

Ifill then quoted various republicans who favored diplomacy, including Colin Powell. Ifill could have asked Biden about democrats that favor force. This was her first biased moment.

On interventionism and the use of nuclear weapons, Palin explained that our weapons are an effective deterrent. In Afghanistn, Palin pointed out that we were building schools, not “air raiding villages,” as Barack Obama claimed. Palin pointed out what an irresponsible comment that was.

Biden also criticized the notion that a surge in Afghanistan would work because it is different from Iraq.

Palin pointed out that the strategy would not be exactly the same, but the overall goal would have some similarities. General David Petraeus is at Centcom, and he and Ray Odierno have stated that their will be similarities. “The principles of a surge would work in Afghanistan, and the counterinsurgency strategy can work in Afghanistan. Our military leaders have not said anything but that.”

Biden pointed out that we hear less about Afghanistan in the news because “it succeeded.” He should have said that about Iraq.

Biden repeated the outright lie that Obama reached across the aisle to work with Richard Lugar on securing loose nukes. Lugar himself disputed that assertion. Biden also complained that we spent more in the last 3 weeks in Iraq than the last 7 years in Afghanistan. That, even if true, is irrelevant.

Biden took credit for saving Bosnia. He also said that he voted to authorize the President to have the power to go to war, but that did not mean he was voting for going to war. Yes, democrats truly believe what they say. The vote was not for sanctions that were failing. It was a vote for war. Biden was willing to send troops into Darfur, to stop “genocide.” Saddam Hussein committed genocide in Iraq. That does not count because President Bush favored that war, which supersedes anything else for the left.

Palin correctly pointed out that it was a war resolution, and compared Biden to John Kerry “voting for it before he voted against it.” She pointed out that Biden was “for the war until he ran for President. He was against the Obama position until he was selected as Vice President.

Biden continued trying to link McCain to President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Biden compained that he “never supported John McCain’s position on the war.” I suppose that was a confession that he was in favor of losing. He also lied, claiming that McCain and Cheney said it would be easy.

Palin did not back down. She pointed out that “tomorrow the pundits will look at your statements, find the tapes, and see what was said.” She relished letting Biden know that he was making stuff up. She said that, “John McCain knows how to win a war.”

When asked how a Biden administration would differ from an Obama one, Biden chafed at the question, saying that it would be a tragedy. I would love to see that quote manipulated for strategic purposes, but it was a fair answer. However, Biden went into gasbag mode when he said that this was “the most important election since 1932.”

Palin pointed out that “with a team of mavericks, there will be disagreements. They disagree on ANWR.”

“Government, get out of my way, if you’re gonna harm me and mandate more things.” Palin was right when she said that.

Biden said that the people in his neighborhood “get it.” Apparently that means something.

Every time Biden criticized President Bush, Palin referred to him as “say it aint so Joe,” and “play it backward, Joe.” The democrats were criticizing the past, while Palin was pointing towards the future.

Moderator Gwen Ifill was asking intelligent questions, but her question on both candidates mocking the role of the Vice President in the past was a waste.

I had to laugh when Palin said that McCain “tapped” her for something. I forgot what, but she is so pretty, and I could listen to that phrase over and over.

Ok, enough fantasizing about her naughty librarian hair. The debate returned to seriousness.

Ifill then asked a gotcha question about Dick Cheney asserting that he was a member of the legislature and not an executive. It allowed Biden to say that Cheney was “the most dangerous Vice President in history.” If this was not liberal bias I do not know what is. Ifill had no need to ask it.

Ifill then asked about their weaknesses, Palin being inexperienced and Biden being undisciplined.

Palin spoke about her son fighting in Iraq, as well as her special needs daughter. She spoke of understanding the concerns of ordinary Americans, and that she had executive experience. She spoke of democracy, tolerance and freedom.

Biden spoke of his 35 years in public office, and how he was not going to change now. This is fabulous for a campaign about change. He then repeated the lie about 100,000 new cops in 1994 that never happened. He spoke about losing his first wife and child, and that he “knows what it is like to raise two kids alone.” He choked up.

Palin spoke about the diverse supporters of McCain from Lieberman to Lingle to Romney. She said about McCain that “He is the man we need to lead us at this time.”

Biden said that he “Loved John,” but that McCain was not a maverick on anything that mattered.

The last question was an issue where they changed positions. Biden spoke about how when he got to the Senate, he believed that the only thing that mattered in a judge were their qualifications. He now realizes that ideology matters. This is him admitting that he could care less about the Constitution.

Palin wishes she had vetoed more bills. She said that she wanted to cut taxes even more, but did not always have the support. She said that on the big things, she stuck to her principles.

The candidates were asked how they change the tone in Washington.

Biden hesitatingly admitted that McCain has reached across the aisle. He promised that he does question the judgment of people, but not their motives.

Palin spoke of appointing people regardless of party affiliation. “You walk the walk, not just talk the talk.” Nevertheless, she mentioned how important it was to lower taxes, not raise them and kill job growth like her opponents.

Palin used her closing statement to offer a slap at the media that is hostile towards her. She mentioned that she and John McCain have “always been proud to be Americans.” She also said McCain would “fight for you.”

Biden attacked President Bush. That is what he gets paid to do. He attacked the wealthy and praised those paying for their mortgages. Biden spoke about his neighborhood. Apparently he does not understand that Sarah Palin’s neighborhood is just as noble.

I doubt many minds were changed this night. Analysis I heard from others was that even if Biden won on points, this was a victory for the republican party because Palin did fine.
Neither made any gaffes, but Biden simply made statements that were not true over and over again. He also spent more time running against President Bush than John McCain.

Joe Biden is a skilled debater, but all the words will not change the fact that John McCain has an actual record, and Barack Obama has a pleasant smile.

The debate was probably a draw. Those who want pure debating points like Joe Biden. Those that like honest straight talk like Sarah Palin.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/02/sarah-rocks/

eric

I have had the pleasure recently of interviewing financier David Blumberg.

Interviews, like the beautiful holiday of Rosh Hashanah, eventually do come to a conclusion.

The first part of this three part interview was his personal story. As a republican in San Francisco that is also gay and Jewish, with a partner that is gay, Jewish, and French, David’s story of how he became a republican is compelling.

David has expressed that while democrats play identity politics, republicans focus on the republican message. In other words, outside of being a republican in San Francisco, he does not see his story as astonishing.

Nevertheless, questions about his sexual orientation comprised the second part of the interview, if only to lessen their relevance.

While it is perfectly acceptable to ask him about his lifestyle, it is not the only thing he discusses. He will happily and proudly discuss it if asked, but his passions are the same political issues that many republicans focus on.

Therefore, rather than treat my interview with him as interviewing a gay, Jewish republican, I preferred to approach it as the shocking story of a republican couple living in San Francisco, who, oh by the way, happen to be gay and Jewish.

The third and final part of this interview delves into David’s insights on the fundamental economic and political issues facing the United States today.

8.) Without giving an endorsement unless you choose to do so, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the five main republican candidates?

I supported Rudy Giuliani because I thought he had the right policies and demonstrated experience both on national security issues as well as complex economic and operational topics.  I thought his turn-around of NYC was nothing short of remarkable and would be a great model for what needs to happen to the Federal Government and in many State Houses and Chambers of Commerce.

Now I support John McCain wholeheartedly.  I think he will make a great president.  He has the maverick streak like Teddy Roosevelt and the experience of war and military operations and many years as a leading Senator.   He is a man of principle who also takes good counsel.   I like his policy positions on most major issues – national security and economics.

9) With regards to foreign policy, what have we done right, and what have we gotten wrong, in the last 8 years, and what steps need to be taken to improve the situations that require improvement?

Too long a response – for another time.  Generally, I think the US and the world are better of because of what the Bush Administration has done.  There are challenges to be sure and mistakes were made, but the first term was marked with some game-changing wins and great statements of principle backed up with appropriate action.  The second term of the administration has been less successful, except for the Iraq War – which has gone on to become a great victory – due to the change in tactics of counter-insurgency lead by General David Petraeus – a hero if there ever was one.

10) What were the main challenges you faced in your life? What were your greatest successes, and what do you need more time to accomplish?

Too long a response required.  More later…

11) Where were you when 9/11 happened? How did it affect you, how did your life change if at all?

I was in Singapore.  It was surreal watching the TV as the planes hit.  At first I thought it was a TV horror movie.  The Singaporeans were very hospitable, sympathetic and supportive.  I immediately thought the attacks should and would finally awaken the Western governments to the threat of radical Islamic terrorism.    I was confident we would react and take action to go after the rogue states that supported terrorism globally.

12) You are a finance person. The American dollar seems to be in free fall. Should government get involved, and is this even a problem at all? If so, what needs to be done?

No, I think the government should generally preserve a stable dollar and minimize its monetary interventions.  I tend to favor Milton Friedman’s recipe which said keep monetary policy steady and let cycles work themselves out.

10) Who are your three favorite American political leaders of all time?

Washington, Madison and Lincoln

11) Who are your three favorite world political leaders of all time?

Our biblical patriarch Joseph, Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher

12) What would be the main qualities and criteria you would look for with regards to potential Supreme Court justices? Could they disagree with you on major issues, and still be qualified? How do you feel they should rule on the two second amendment cases in front of them?

I favor a rather strict constructionist approach to judicial interpretation.  I resent judges legislating from the bench.  I think that legislators should write and pass laws and judges should decide whether they are consistent with the Constitution.   Judges who want to legislate can be either right wing or left wing, but neither are justifiable in my view.

13) Many Jews see Judaism as being in lockstep with liberalism, even though the highest form of Tzedakah involves helping someone achieve self-reliance, a very conservative philosophy. How do you explain the synthesis between Judaism and political conservatism, or at least republicanism, to others?

Your point about the paradox of Jewish attitudes on “liberalism” is apt.  We should teach tough love, love of liberty, independence and what many used to think of classic American self-reliance. The other point that is not well understood by most Jews and other Liberals is that liberalism is a slippery slope to ever greater state control of the economy and the lives of individuals.  Hence, liberalism is closer to fascism than most adherents can fathom.  Jonah Goldberg’s book on Liberal Fascism is a great exploration of that topic.

14) Former Attorney General John Ashcroft once said that if the law conflicted with his religious beliefs, he would resign. Alabama Justice Roy Moore refused to obey a law requiring that he remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom, based on his beliefs. Has American law ever conflicted with your religious beliefs or other deeply held beliefs, and how did you or would you handle this conflict?

I am a supporter of more religion in the public square, not less.  I am convinced the Founding Fathers wanted to prohibit the establishment of one official American Church, such as the Church of England, but I doubt they intended the extreme concept of separation we now have in place.   I used to object to Christmas as a National Holiday, but I am now comfortable with the concept that we live in a country with Christian origins and Judeo-Christian ethical heritage.

15) Do you support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive action? Do you feel that it may be necessary to take pre-emptive action against Iran?

Yes and Yes.  In fact it was Al Gore’s renunciation of the pre-emptive doctrine – here in San Francisco, when he spoke to the Commonwealth Club in 2002 that finally convinced me to leave the Democratic Party.  As he spoke I thought, if the US President lacks the capability to preempt an attack on the US, who will defend my family, our country?  Must we wait until they attack again  so we can then  sue them in the International Court of Justice?

16) What Americans call 9/11, Israel refers to as every day life. Israel is then asked to show restraint. What is your view on Israel taking pre-emptive action, including a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities if necessary? What about with regards to the disputed territories such as Gaza? What about against Damascus, who funds Hezbollah?

Israel is to Western Civilization (Europe and North America) what the canary is in the coal mine – a clear, but fragile warning sign of potential danger.   Israel has through necessity developed the culture of self defense and self reliance.  It is a basically healthy culture and one that minimizes self indulgence and drama.  Israel needs to act preemptively and so does the rest of the world when facing the rising menace of radical Islam.  This is even more true in the age when weapons of mass destruction (Chem, Bio and Nuke) are so widely produced and to often transportable to rogue regimes and/or to terrorist organizations whether through commission or omission.

17) San Francisco is often a whipping boy for political conservatives. Given that you live there, what are the biggest positives and negatives of San Francsico, and what needs to be improved?

The gorgeous geography and temperate climate are the best parts of Northern California.  I also enjoy the ethnic, cultural, religious mixture, although I would prefer more political and intellectual diversity.  I would like the City in particular to be a more family-friendly and child-friendly place.  I would like to cut taxes and wasteful spending on feather-bedding and entrenched interests of businesses, unions and Non-governemental organizations that all depend on government for their sustenance. I would like to reduce the ridiculous level of government red-tape and intervention in every nook and cranny of the economy – housing for example.  The market would solve many of the politician-made problems that afflict all the residents of the beautiful Bay Area.

18) Attempts to partially privatize social security and fix the ticking time bomb of medicare have been met with hysteria about throwing old people on the street and leaving them to die.Again, given your expertise in finance, do you favor any privatization of social security? If not, why not?

Yes, I favor the plan broadly known as the Ownership Society that President Bush has proposed.  For example in the realm of retirement savings the proposal would provide a voluntary path enabling personal retirement accounts that could earn market returns, tax free and compounded for decades – like 401Ks on steroids.  It is simple, functional and necessary.  The demographic forecasts show that we must reform the broken Social Security system soon, or the problems will scale out of control and become exceedingly expensive or even intractable.  Medicare and health care in general are similarly broken and need to be reformed, mostly by ridding us of the distortions of government “fixes” from the past that have resulted in third party payer systems that distort incentives, create a waste layer of insurance and create more bureaucracy and paperwork.  A better system would be much simpler with middle class and richer folks mainly buying only catastrophic health care insurance and paying out of pocket for normal needs.  Of course our advanced and wealthy society could also offer a safety net for the truly poor and in need.  They could obtain very low cost or even free health are if they are at the lowest levels of income.

We are a far wealthier society now than in the 1930s when many of the New Deal programs such as Social Security and Medicare were conceived and implemented.  As the times have changed and our society has evolved, the programs need to be revamped as well.  The best thing politicians could do is stop ruling from the grave.  They should sunset most laws they pass.  Then future generations could decide to enact new laws to meet the evolving needs of tomorrow.

19) How do you think the USA can win the War on Terror? What do you do in your daily life, if anything, with regards to this issue, whether it be portfolio divestments, certain voting patterns, plane flights, or anything else?

I think knowledge of and recognition of the problem is a key first step.  Then the world view of tough love and an understanding that in a world of bullies the best defense is not diplomacy.  Diplomacy works within the context of mutual respect and commonly accepted rules of engagement, justice,  and morality.  The world view that we must adopt and embrace is that consensual government is the G-d given right of every human being and that we must strive to help everyone obtain it.  We don’t need to declare war on every dictator all at once, but we should make it very clear and repeat it constantly that we are on the side of freedom and liberty and limited government.  We should support opposition groups who press for human rights and other freedoms while suffering under dictactorship.

I try to speak up for freedom and against the intrusion of government into every corner of our lives.  I speak out against terror and the soft complicity of appeasement and pacifism.  I work in the political process as a volunteer and a donor.  I contribute to philanthropic and educational endeavors that promote the freedom agenda on a global basis. We need to elect politicians who understand the fundamental issues and will work to protect our freedoms and support those of others.

20) Without delving into your personal life, what would you want Americans to know about you as a person? 100 years from now, what would you want people to remember about you, and what would you hope the history books say about you?

I would want Americans to know that I was raised by parents and grandparents and immigrant ancestors who were deeply grateful to this country for the liberty and opportunity it afforded us.  In addition to the values I learned from my family and community, I would want others to know that institutions such as the Boy Scouts, Temple Beth Israel Sunday Religious School, Reform Jewish Youth Group, and various Public Elementary and High School experiences helped instill in me the same love of country and respect for freedom of prior generations.

I would want them to know that this country has given me and my family much, and we have given in return by serving in the armed forces, paying taxes, voting, holding public office, contributing to non-profit institutions and building a great free society.

There is yet much to accomplish for as the Talmud says, Life is short, the task is great and the Master is demanding.  Further, we should plant trees for those who will follow us in generations yet to come.  And as Rabbi Hillel said some 2,000 years ago, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me?  If I am only for myself, what am I?  If not now, when?”

It was an absolute pleasure interviewing David Blumberg. We can all learn a lot from him about tolerance and acceptance. More importantly, we can learn much from him on politics and economics.

I suspect that the world we live in will only become more open minded in many areas. His being gay will most likely elicit a shrug of the shoulders, if it does not already. Being gay and Jewish is fairly ordinary, since many Jews tend to be liberal, and therefore less worried about religious pressure.

Yet no matter how open a society we become, the one type of diversity that remains lacking is ideological diversity. I believe that years from now, people will look at David, and ask one question.

How in the heck does a nice guy from San Francisco end up a republican?

Luckily, David already answered that question for us.

I wish David and his partner Michal much success in life. The republican party is grateful for their support, and the Tygrrrr Express is thankful for their insights.

I am most happy to have David’s friendship. Now if only he could use his political connections to get Tammy Bruce’s phone number for me. I keep hearing she is a lesbian, but then again, if she rejects me for being heterosexual, wouldn’t that be discrimination?

Even a fine mind like David Blumberg is not going near that conundrum.

eric

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