THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

On Sunday we play the Superbowl. On Tuesday we have Super Tuesday. For democrats, yesterday was both.

While the republicans are much better on policy, the democrats have proven better at getting their clowns off of the stage. How can the republicans eliminate Al Queda when they cannot even eliminate Ron Paul from the debates? The democrats may be useless, but at least they can stand up to Dennis Kucinich.

Before getting to the democrats, Sean Hannity announced his support for Mitt Romney, While Arnold Schwarzenegger joined Rudy Giuliani and Sly Stallone in supporting John McCain. Newt Gingrich insisted on staying neutral between the republicans. Ann Coulter shocked the world (which for her I did not think was possible) by saying that she would vote for Hillary over McCain. My head exploded, but I found my eyeballs on my carpet and popped them back into the sockets, and watched the debate. Alan Colmes then shocked the world and said something so offensive that I have to question his patriotism as an American. I have never attacked his liberalism, but he said, “I don’t care about the Superbowl, is there a good movie on at the time?”

Mr. Colmes, I can no longer agree to disagree with you. That was the first remark you have ever made that was unamerican. I pray for the love of all things holy, that being football, that you apologize and do volunteer work for NFL Youth. Nothing said in the debate would bother me as much.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had their final debate before Super Tuesday. There were no other candidates to distract them, and nobody to hide behind. I judged the debate not based on what I think of them, which is virtually nothing, or in Hillary’s case, less than nothing. I judged them solely on who won the debate.

I expected zero questions about Iran or North Korea, and time wasted on whether or not Hillary was snubbed by Obama, and why Bill Clinton does what he does. The answer? Because he does…oh, and because it works. I expected a question on how the split in the Kennedy family exists in the race, as opposed to a better question about why anybody should care what the most overrated family in America thinks about anything.

I was hoping this would be a replay of the Vice Presidential debate Between Joseph Lieberman and Dick Cheney in 2000. That was the gold standard of debate, a pair of adults sitting at the table discussing serious issues in a dignified manner, with one moderator who stayed in the background.

No, instead we had two separate chairs, followed by self congratulatory praise for several people who are apparently special because they ask questions. I refuse to elevate them into significance by mentioning their names.

With that, here is the recap of Obama vs Hillary, Mano a (Wo)Mano, or to be more accurate, Mano a (practically) Mano.

With that, here is the recap.

They started with opening statements.

Obama sucked up to John Edwards (who had dropped out the day before) and then mentioned that he and Hillary will remain friends after the race. This will of course only be true if Obama loses. He said the debate was not about race or gender, but the past versus the future.

Hillary laced into President Bush, although less briefly than normal. She sucked to Edwards as well, and listed a litany of problems we face.

Hillary was asked an intelligent question, that being what she thought the most significant policy distinction was between her and Obama. She mentioned that she favored universal health care, and Obama did not. She stated that she wanted a 5 year interest rate freeze, and that she wanted a more realistic foreign policy agenda than Obama with regards to meeting with dictators. She hammered home the point that they were both better than republicans.

Obama stated that on health care the issue is cost reduction, while Hillary wants to force people to buy health insurance. He stated that the enforcement mechanisms would make things worse. He stated that an interest rate freeze would actually cause rates to go up, hurting people Hillary wants to claim. He stated that he wants to reduce the influence of lobbyists, unlike Hillary. Lastly, he reminded the audience that he was against Iraq from the beginning, which reflects on both of their judgments.

Obama was asked why he had the superior health plan if it leaves 15 million uninsured. He explained that anybody who wanted coverage would be covered, but would not force those that do not want it to get it. However, he also emphasized that it is that they cannot afford the cost. He disputed the 15 million number. He praised Arnold Schwarzenegger on health care, and mentioned the Massachussets plan.

Hillary stated that her plan is the equivalent of the congressional plan. It was designed to be affordable. Hillary mentioned that a single payer system was difficult to achieve, as was an employer mandate. She stated that Obama was against mandates solely because it was politically scary.

Obama stated that people who try and cheat the system can be dealt with, and that Hillary’s plan did not have sufficient subsidies. He wants to not just cap premiums, but lower them by 25%. He cited his endorsement from Ted Kennedy. He mentioned that all parties should be brought together, and that the hearing should be broadcast live on C-Span, rather than operate in secrecy. That was a thinly veiled reference to Hillary’s 1994 task force.

Wolf Blitzer actually asked him if this was a swipe, and Hillary smiled broadly. Obama said it was not, as Wolf did her dirty work for her.

When Hillary was asked about her secret task force, she ducked the question, mentioned the -Chip program, and blamed President Bush for vetoing something. She then said we need to regulate the health industry more, and that nobody should ever be denied ever again. Perhaps she does not understand that companies need to make money to survive. She then stated that taxpayers pay for the research of the drug companies. No, they don’t. The companies pay for it themselves. She blamed the health industry for being “clever” and “extremely well funded.”

The candidates were asked how they could fend off attacks from republicans that they were “tax and spend liberal democrats.” Obama smartly replied that the republicans have no right to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility, and that while John McCain was initially right to oppose the Bush tax cuts, somewhere along the line “the wheels fell off of the Straight Talk Express.” He then offered class warfare rhetoric that must have made John Edwards proud.

The camera then turned to show Jason Alexander, who played George Costanza on “Seinfeld.” I have no idea why.

Hillary would redistribute wealth, although she used other words to describe it. She complained that our health care system had the most money, but not results to match. She then said she would rein in the HMOs, who are supposedly as bad as the Bush administration. She then spoke of bipartisan negotiations with Newt Gingrich and Bill Frist, and mentioned the RAND Corporation positively. She mentioned electronic medical records.

When it was pointed out that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would raise taxes, they both chimed in that only the wealthy would be effective. Obama joked that the well dressed people in the audience would be ok with it, and Hillary mentioned that rates would go back to what they were in the 1990s, and people did oh so incredibly well then.

The next question was an illegal immigration question, and it was absolutely brilliant. I have said more than once that the democrats are a bunch of narrow interest groups that band together out of need, but really hate each other. This immigration question mentioned that illegal immigration disproportionately helps blacks. Yes, blacks against Latinos, a chance to see real tap dancing in action. It is impossible to kiss four rumpus cheeks at once.

Obama avoided the powderkeg by saying people of all stripes felt the economic pinch, and it was before the most recent wave of immigrants. He called blaming immigrants for the problems people face to be scapegoating. The crowd roared with approval. He then did offer a few mild words about border security, and cracking down on crooked employers, before mentioning a path to citizenship. He complained that tax cuts went up instead of down. I guess he forgot that this is positive.

Hillary also went after crooked exploitative employers. She then spoke about a black man who had a construction business complaining about illegal immigrants, before talking about bringing people together. She referred to “undocumented” workers. She said illegal immigrants should “come out of the shadows,” and that “we will register everyone.” They should also try to learn English. Why make them succeed? They only have to try.

Obama was asked how his immigration policy was more humane than Hillary’s plan. He spoke about working with Ted Kennedy and John McCain, stating, “although he might not admit it now.” He basically ducked the question.

Wolf Blitzer kept pressing, Obama began stammering, and Hillary grinned the widest grin I have ever seen. She truly enjoyed seeing Obama being targeted as an empty suit. Obama for some reason refused to criticize Hillary. He kept saying he disagreed with many people, but would not single her out.

Hillary was asked if she was missing in action while others were tackling the problem of immigration reform. She stated that she took the lead on this issue in 2004 before Obama entered the Senate. She then went overboard, even for her. She stated that the republicans wanted to criminalize good samaritans who assist illegal immigrants in any way. She said that would criminalize Jesus Christ himself. So now the republicans are against Jesus Christ. She then spoke out against demagoguery and mean spiritedness, which means her home does not own any mirrors.

She also mentioned that she takes this personally. She takes everything personally, which means she takes nothing personally. She stated that she had the endorsement of the farm workers. She also claimed that those who made immigration a political issue were “undermining the values of America.” I tried to see her, but her moral high horse is so far above me that can only gaze from afar. She then spoke about bringing people together. She then implied that trying to round up all illegals was not cost effective, even though none of the serious republican candidates ever mentioned doing that to begin with. She stated that she still did not favor giving illegals drivers licenses.

Obama finally decided to get mildly tough, expressing that Hillary had several positions over the past 6 weeks, and that she did make this political. He stated that she does not have a clear position, but it took awhile. He then backtracked, scared of being seen as too harsh. This is why Hillary can eat him alive. He calmly expressed that it was a complex issue, but she had changed positions. He stated that he supported Bill Richardson’s approach, and that Hillary’s newest ideas were ones he had already been working on.

Hillary pointed out that she said she would support Governor Richardson, but that Obama waffled. She then offered pablum about bringing people together in a coalition of democrats and “fair minded republicans.”

Obama answered the question about his lack of experience by ticking off his political life story. He does have accomplishments, and he mentioned all of them.

Hillary was asked what being First Lady has to do with experience, since she has very little more Senate experience than Obama. She then mentioned the phrase “35 years,” and I fell asleep. She is morally superior because she worked for children’s issues instead of joining a law firm. She mentioned about reforming the education system in Arkansas, neglecting that this was a failure and cost her husband the Governorship. She also went to 82 Countries, claiming that she negotiated agreements. She spoke about teaming up with Lindsay Graham to work on health care for veterans.

Another excellent question came in the form of an issue often brought up by Mitt Romney. It was pointed out that neither Obama or Hillary have ever run a business. How could they run an economy?

Hillary blathered that the USA is “more than a business, it is a trust.” She then made my eyes jump out when she said the USA IS “not out to make a profit, it is out to help the American people.” What is it about businesses making profits that this woman cannot grasp? Businesses should make profits. Profits are good. She then slammed President Bush as the “CEO MBA President.”

Obama joked that Mitt Romney “has not gotten a good return on his investment” in this campaign. He was willing to compare his own management style to Romney’s any day.

The debate finally got very substantive when the candidates were asked about Iran and North Korea. The candidates responded forcefully, showing they were ready.

JUST KIDDING. The idiotic question about Ted Kennedy was finally asked.

Hillary praised Ted Kennedy, reinforced her own support from JFK’s useless offspring, and then spoke about change and having a woman President. The election was about us.

She is as boring as Obama is inspiring. They both say nothing, but he does it better. She then claimed to be excited and humbled.

Obama was asked if Americans are right to remember the Clinton years fondly. Before the question could be answered, somebody should go to Wolf Blitzer and ask, “What do you mean ‘we,’ Kimosabe?”

Obama was trapped, and stated those years were much better than the Bush years. He also gently reminded the audience that people need to be judged on their own merits. He correctly pointed out that he has bringing in so many new voters. He then drifted into class warfare talking points. He then reverted back to his strongest point, that voting has doubled due to his participation. This was the first time all night Hillary looked dour, although moderately so.

Hillary was asked how she could be an agent of change when we have had only 2 families in the White House for the last 30 years. Actually, it would be 20 years, unless one counts the 8 years the first President Bush was Vice President.

She then played to the crowd by stating that she “deeply regretted that there was a Bush in the White House at this time.” She said that “we are all judged on our own merits,” even though she is hiding behind her husband, as she has been her entire married life. She then took credit for her husband’s administration, and got off a very powerful line after that. She said, “It took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it might take another one to clean up after the second Bush.” The crowd would have cheered all night had the moderator not eventually stepped in. Hillary smild broadly, basking in the glow of getting in the line of the night. She had won the sound bite war, the equivalent of a triple reverse slam dunk on ESPN.

Hillary was then asked why voters should not see her Iraq position as an open ended commitment since she does not have a specific withdrawal timetable. Hillary attacked the Pentagon. Other than that, her answer was incomprehensible, as if she cut herself on the sharp edge of her triangulator. She sees the issue as complex. Then she blamed President Bush. I disagree with at least half of her positions, but perhaps not all of them.

Obama stated that “we will not have permanent bases” In Iraq. He also had “the audacity of dope” to state that John McCain does not “understand the situation.” Next he will say Hillary has no idea how to be a woman. Ok, bad example, but you get the point. He also reminded the crowd that he was against the war from the beginning.

The debate was practically a lovefest, as the candidates refused to drag each other down further. Hillary then announced support from Maxine Waters, which makes her qualified to do…well, nothing. Hillary expressed the perils of withdrawing too soon, and blamed President Bush some more.

Hillary was asked why she voted against a particular amendment restricting President Bush’s authority with regards to the war. She stated that she voted for another amendment that would have limited his authority to one year. She said that if she knew then what she knew now, she would not have given him the authority. However, that is the typical Clinton non-apology apology. She did not say “I apologize,” or “I was wrong.” She also stated that her vote was not an authorization to go to war. I guess in her mind it was a vote to authorize people to think about it and dither. Perhaps she truly does think we are the United Nations. Had she been completely truthful, she would have stated that she does not want to limit Presidential power because she wants to be President. She would have to be more tactful about expressing it, but that would at least be honest.

She then truthfully pointed out that the republicans are committed to President Bush’s policies. Yes, and they should. She claimed that the republicans, especially McCain, accused her of a policy of surrender. Yes they did, and they should continue to state this. She welcomes this debate. So do I. She also used the word gravitas, a very veiled reference to Obama being a neophyte. She spoke very forcefully.

Obama stated he wants the Iraq mission completed “honorably,” but wants to bring people home. He also, using very careful words, stated that we are not winning right now. Obama parried the gravitas issue by stating that he was against the war from the beginning.

Wolf Blitzer has been criticized during most of the CNN debates, but in this debate I have to give him what the kids would call “props.” I think that means “proper respect,” and I think the kids do still say that. For the second time during the debate, Wolf posed a question five minutes after I had already posed it (scout’s honor, even though i was never a scout…Tygrrrr’s honor perhaps). He wanted to know why she could not just say her Iraq vote was a mistake.

The real answer is because she simply can’t. She can’t do it. I cannot leap tall buildings, and she cannot ever apologize for anything.

She babbled about believing in “coercive diplomacy.” I credit Obama for keeping a serious look on his face. She then again blamed President Bush. Had she been President, we would have focused on Afghanistan. She said we must be as strong or stronger than the republicans on national security. I saw pigs growing wings somewhere, but it could have been the special brownies I ate…oh no wait, that was the Clintons as well (no no, he did not inhale). When she criticized President Bush on the issue of body armor, Wolf failed to cut off her filibuster.

Wolf Blitzer then asked her, “So are you saying you were naive in trusting President Bush?”

Hillary flashed a major fake smile. The crowd was mostly cheering, with some booing, as Hillary said, “Good try Wolf.” Obama had his moment to smile broadly, but he was smiling along side her. It was her turn to twist. When Wolf asked Obama if Hillary was naive, Hillary interjected by saying that the question was asked of her, and she should answer it.

This was odd in that a hot potato could have been tossed away from her, and she chose to take it back. Either this was hubris, or perhaps she thought answering was better than leaving the question unanswered. The Wolf remarked, “I thought you weren’t going to answer it.” She then again remarked, “That is a good try Wolf.” She continued to ramble about the consequences of President Bush’s actions, and how the resolution was only about inspections. She stated that “we” bombed Hussein in 1998 over inspections.

She then offered one of the best attempts at triangulaton in history, and if it succeeds, Hillary is every bit a genius as her husband, and the AMerican people are imbeciles.

“I offered a reasoned judgment, but the person executing the policy did not.”

I could picture Bill Clinton saying that and everyone believing it. Whether or not Hillary can pull it off might be talked about 30 years from that line. She never answered the question, and it should be asked over and over until it is answered.

Obama had to tread lightly, because whenever he criticizes her, he is being “mean.” This is ironic given that he is a nice guy and she actually is mean, but perceptions of hitting a girly girl have really weakened his ability to strike back. He stated that the language of the vote stated that it was an authorization to go to war, and that was obvious. He stated that “Senator Clinton claims experience on day one, but one has to be right on day one.”

That line was the equalizer to her earlier comment about a pair of Clintons and a pair of Bushes. Yet her line contrasted with republicans. His line contrasted with her.

The candidates were asked about censoring television programs that were obscene with sex and violence. Obama remarked that his children watch Nickelodeon, but that he was aware that they “knew how to operate that remote.” He also mentioned the internet, but mentioned that censorship was not the answer. He felt that the industry should show some thought. That is asking too much.

The female moderator who I care not to remember wanted to ask a question about Presidential spouses. Hillary offered fake laughter,and Obama immediately let her off the hook by saying that “Michelle Obama could share some stories too.” I am amazed that he keeps rescuing a person who wants to drown him.

Hillary was asked how she could control her husband in the White House when she cannot even control him on the campaign trail. She cackled loudly, which she does when she is enraged. She could not give a true answer, which is either…1) she can but chooses not to do so…2) she can’t.

She stated that she and Barack had “passionate spouses that defend them at every turn.” Obama concurred for his own safety. Michelle Obama is not a lightning rod. Period. Yet Hillary continued.

The issue is not about defending, it is about slashing attacks. Hillary made it clear it is her campaign, which ducks the question.

Although it was most likely a camera angle issue, Obama looked like he was asleep. He almost looked smug in the sense that his nose was in the air (literally in terms of posture) and his eyes were closed. As we learned on “South Park,” smug people listen and talk with their eyes closed. I know this is not substance, but the only time he gets in trouble is when he reminds everybody that he is better than she is. People have to conclude that without him looking like he is actually expressing it.

The last question was a waste. Wolf Blitzer brought up the issue that most democrats saw the two of them as a “dream ticket.” This was the largest approval line of the night, and it came from the moderator. Hillary cackled loudly, and then in perhaps a bizarre coincidence, the camera panned to another woman famous for an odd laugh, “The Nanny” Fran Drescher. Yes, this debate was in Los Angeles, although Jack Nicholson did not yell “Go Lakers” during the event.

Yes folks, what John Kerry would call “the heart and soul of America,” continued to repulse me. I wonder how many ordinary people were in the audience. My guess was zero, not counting ushers.

When asked if they were open to a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket, Obama smartly replied, “well obviously there is a difference between those two.”

Like an Al Pacino movie where he starts calm but spends the last third making bombastic angry speeches, a calm Hillary near the end of the debate could not stop cackling.

Obama stated that such speculation was “premature and presumptuous.” He then spoke about what he wanted in cabinet members. He said something very intelligent when he stated that he wanted people who could “say no to him,” which would avoid group think. He did not want “yes men and yes women.” He admitted that he “is not right all the time.” Can anyone picture Hillary saying that? He ended on a very positive, lofty note. When pressed further about Hillary, he said that “she would be on anybody’s short list.”

Clinton stated that she “agreed with everything Barack just said.” She said that “there will be a unified democratic party.” She then plugged her next online internet townhall meeting. Wolf joked that “We do the plugs around here.” Hillary cackled again, and Wolf let her off the hook.

The candidates then shared a very warm moment, although their words were not audible. They whispered in each other’s ears for a few moments.

Each candidate had one good line, but overall I felt the debate was a draw. The crowd liked them both, and neither one delivered a knockout blow. I also felt that each blunder would not matter because their own voters would let them off the hook. The goal was not to impress me. It was to impress democrats.

I would argue that a tie goes to the favorite, which would be Hillary. I think Obama had to knock her from the top, and he did not succeed.

They are both smart, and must have observed how turned off the republican crowd (myself included) was by the intra-party fighting.

Yes this was a stage, and I am sure once they exited the Kodak Theatre they went back to tearing each other’s eyes out. Yet they were on stage, and they made nice.

This was a deadlock.

Now that the democratic debates are over, I can thankfully quit being an objective analyst and go back to being a partisan. They are both dreadful candidates against the republicans.

eric

I was on Fox News last night ever so briefly as part of a focus group of republican voters.

I signed a confidentiality agreement, so there are certain things I cannot say for ethical and legal reasons. However, after participating in a focus group, I can honestly say that I could have gotten a better feel for the debate watching it at home on television.

As you see on television, each member of the focus group is given a dial. The more they like or dislike what they hear, the higher or lower they turn the dial.

I was a Rudy Giuliani supporter backing John McCain, but I wanted to hear them to see how committed I was.

There were a few celebrities there for reasons I still do not understand. John Cleese of “Monty Python” fame was a very pleasant individual. “Entertainment Tonight” star Mary Hart was in attendance. I have always thought of her as a lightweight because of what she covers, but she is actually very intelligent, and a hard news junkie. I gained a new appreciation for her. Steven Weber and Joe Daly from “Wings” were there. Again, I can only shrug.

Pollster Frank Luntz conducted this affair. He did not come across as a very nice guy. He was abrupt with people, and was very tightly wound, as if his career would crash if one of the voters misspoke. To be fair to him, he might have been the most stressed guy in the room. I hope that his demeanor when the pressure is not on is that of a more likable guy.

One thing that he did zealously tried to guard was the integrity of the process. Yet some of the questions we were asked were vague. I was asked if I was a conservative or a moderate conservative. Because I am moderate on social issues, others would consider me a moderate conservative. However, I am hard right on economics and foreign policy, and resent being labeled a “moderate” by others. So I labeled myself as a conservative, which is truthful to me, but perhaps not to pollsters with other criteria.

As for the process, we were there for 3 hours, knowing that the entire segment that would actually be shown on television would be about 6 minutes. That would have been enough time to show comments from most if not all of the 30 voters. Instead, about a minute was given to John Cleese to discuss British politics. Another minute was spent on a Ron Paul supporter, even though there were only two of them in the whole group. This was a disproportionate amount of time that was spent on somebody that well over 90% of the group had no interest in.

So while people who know me recognized me on television, what I actually said was edited out. The only reason this irks me is because the question that was asked by Mr. Luntz about the low quality of the questions CNN asked was brought up by me.

As for doing the recap of the debate while I was there, it was impossible to type and work the dial machine. Yet it is for another reason that this debate recap will be more a synopsis.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/01/31/reagan-vs-mccain-on-profits-business-and-the-free-market/

The debate was dreadful. The best candidate, Rudy Giuliani, was not on the stage, having dropped out earlier. Ron Paul continued to suck up airtime with pointless rants. Mike Huckabee continued to be funny, likable, and unelectable. A debate between Mitt Romney and John McCain only would have been better.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper may not be a liberal partisan shill, but he most likely is one. He asked questions designed to encourage republican fratricide, with several questions designed to try and get the candidates to criticize President Bush. Legitimate analysis is not the same as cheap shots, and this was a debate of cheap shots.

McCain and Romney hacked each other to pieces, to the delight of CNN and other liberals everywhere. This is where the ethics of rating the debate were key.

I had to judge the candidates by how I liked their individual responses, not by how I liked them personally. For instance, Ron Paul did cause me to turn the dial near zero on a couple of occasions, but when he had a rare moment of sanity, talking about economics, I did rate those remarks highly. Conversely, the McCain-Romney argument over the difference between the phrase “timetable for withdrawal” had me rank both of them low.

McCain insisted that Romney wanted a timetable for withdrawal. Romney insisted that he did not. Those who agreed with McCain thought that Romney was being weaselly and evasive. Romney supporters thought McCain was hitting below the belt and taking the remarks out of context.

Mike Huckabee had many one liners that had the crowd laughing. He is incredibly likable. John McCain had some good one liners in the first half of the debate, but this was marred by his second half spat with Romney.

The main problems were the questions themselves. There was nothing about Iran or North Korea, and virtually nothing about Iraq or the overall War on Terror. The candidates were asked who Ronald Reagan were vote for if he were alive today.

I can only imagine that the democratic debate will be worse. Does anybody think the moderators will pass up the chance to ask Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama about the controversy over whether he snubbed her by refusing to shake her hand at the State of the Union? I mean who cares about Al Queda when we have “snubgate?”

I can sum it up quickly. Yes, Obama deliberately snubbed her. He lied by saying he did not do so. Hillary is a phony by talking about her outstretched hand of graciousness. She is the least gracious woman on the planet, continuing to stare angrily with her arms folded as President Bush spoke. He is aloof, and she is nasty. She is unlikable, and he dislikes her.

This has nothing to do with policy or governing. It is nonsense.

The focus group had the potential for substance, but by reducing everything to 30 second sound bites, all it did was come across as shallow.

Bad questions by bad moderators led to bad answers. The focus group never had a chance.

One clip that I am thrilled was not aired was when each person was asked to say something to Sean Hannity. I cheerfully said, “Mr. Hannity, I met you at the 9/11 Freedom Concert. I think you’re fabulous, and I look forward to seeing you next 9/11.”

A reasonable person would assume that I meant that I wanted to see him at the next Freedom Concert to be held on 9/11 of 2008. A person wanting to manipulate that comment could make it sound that I was cheerfully hoping for the next 9/11 itself. A couple people thought the worst, but most of the group understood what I meant.

This is our world. Good people are packaged into tiny boxes with no air holes to breathe. Journalists gather like jackals waiting for a gaffe.

Most of the voters in this country are not imbeciles, but they are packaged as tightly as the candidates. The result of this is that the candidates never truly get to hear what voters want, and the voters rarely ever get to address these unknown concerns.

At least I was paid for my time, and the sandwiches they gave us were good.

On style, Mike Huckabee won the debate.

On substance, the entire process lost.

eric

President Bush gave his final State of the Union.

While some Americans honestly disagree with him out of convictions that are deeply held, many of his opponents despise him for being alive and existing. This is not because of the War in Iraq. It is because of the 2000 election that his opponent failed to steal.

As expected, President Bush was gracious to the end, and those that disagreed with him ranged from dour and beaten to downright rude and scowling. The scowler wants the job next year, and she will be in for a rude awakening of her own if she thins her lack of decorum will be forgotten.

Before getting to the speech itself, Fox News conducted a one hour interview with president Bush entitled, “Fighting to the Finish.” Here are some excerpts.

“Those who kill the innocent to advance their political agenda cannot recruit based on ideology, only where there is hopelessness, disease and hunger cause people to be hopeless.

The country has to make up its mind, confront the conditions causing radicalism, or retreat, say it costs too much to help others.

The biggest idea internationally is the advance of democracy and freedom. I fully recognize that some want to promote stability. Stability hasn’t worked. That does not address the underlying conditions to why people join radical groups.

I am a combination of idealist and realist. I believe in this fundamental truth, there is almighty, that gift of the almighty is liberty, which is freedom. Freedom yields peace. The ideology of freedom must trump the hatred of those who spread hate.

There are killers who want to stop liberty. The job of comfortable nations is to help others realize freedom. It is the calling of our time.

Victory in Iraq is going to be gradual. It takes awhile to recover from a tyrannical situation.

People criticize me for having a personal friendship with Vladimir Putin. I don’t see how you conduct foreign policy if you don’t have a personal relationship with Vladimir Putin.

The NIE did not say Iran is not a threat. In fact it confirmed that Iran is a threat and needs to be taken seriously. I don’t know what goes through the Iranian mind, but they have a choice to make.

Whoever the candidates are, they better be ready for pressure. They have to protect America and make sure we have a vibrant economy. The fundamental question will be whether the next president will use the Presidency to advance peace. Some say we don’t move until everybody is holding hands. The right way is to say here is the vision, here is the common goal, here is what we must work to achieve, and we will take the lead and work with you. If you come, we’d love to have you on board, but if not, the United States is still going to lead.

I hope immigration is not the debate for the next election, because if it is it will turn ugly if we start bashing immigrants. An emotional debate pitting people against each other could cost America to lose its soul.

I will gracefully exit the political stage at the proper time.

Washington is an ugly town, too ugly as far as I am concerned. I worked to be a uniter, and it didn’t work.

It is important to have a set of principles from which one will not vary. Faith helps develop a set of principles form which decisions should be made.

There is no question a President gets tested, but there are tests all throughout life. Faith can bring light in moments of darkness.

I want my administration to have written the hopeful and strong first chapter in this ideological struggle that will play out over the course of our lifetime. The best legacy a President can leave behind is to say to a dad that your young son is more likely to live in peace as a result of the policies I’ve put forward.

It is normal for people not to have a sense of urgency about an attack. It is not normal for someone in government not to have a sense of urgency. If you pay attention to the realities of the world, there is an enemy out there that wants to kill us.

Lincoln based his decisions on a fundamental moral truth that all men are created equal under God. I believe in the fundamental moral truth is that there is a God and the gift of that God is that every man, woman and child on the face of this Earth is freedom. Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, and I and other Presidents want to lift people from the bonds of tyranny.”

Now, for excerpts of the State of the Union itself.

“Issues call for vigorous debate. I think it’s fair to say we’ve answered the call.”

Harry Reid sat stone faced.

“Let us show that democrats and republicans can compete for votes, and cooperate for results at the same time.

We believe in the power of individuals to determine their destiny, and shape the course of history. The most reliable guide for our country is the collective wisdom of ordinary citizens.

We must trust people with their own money, and empower them tog row our economy. America has added jobs for a record 52 straight months, but jobs are now growing at a slower pace.

Attempts to load up the (stimulus) bill will delay it or derail it, and neither option is acceptable. This congress must pass it as soon as possible.

Unless Congress acts, most of the tax relief we’ve delivered over the past 7 years will be taken away. Some in Washington will argue that letting tax relief expire is not a tax increase. Try explaining that to 116 million American taxpayers, who will see their taxes rise by an average of $1,800. Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome your enthusiasm. I am pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders.”

Many clapped at that remark, while Hillary Clinton was her typically ungracious self. I am not sure if this is because she lacks human emotion, or if she fears leftist voters so much that smiling at the President could cost her votes.

“There is only one way to eliminate uncertainty. Make the tax relief (from 2001 and 203) permanent). If any bill that raises taxes reaches my desk, I will veto it.

The budget I will submit will keep us on pace for a surplus by 2012.

If you send me a appropriations bill that does not cut the number and costs of earmarks in half, I’ll send it back to you with my veto. If these items are truly worth funding, congress should debate them in the open, and hold a public vote.”

The chamber all clapped, and not one of them was sincere. When he mentioned making healthcare more affordable, Nancy Pelosi smiled and clapped, Barack Obama studiously took notes, and Hillary Clinton maintained her angry look.

“The best way to achieve that goal (health care) is to expand consumer choice, not government control. Congress must also pass Health Savings Accounts, and confront the epidemic of junk medical lawsuits. Decisions should be made in the privacy of your doctor’s office, not in the halls of Congress.

6 years ago we came together to pass No Child Left Behind. Last year 4th and 8th graders had the highest scores on record. Last year African-American and Hispanic students reached all time highs.”

He then offered Pell Grants for kids.

“I applaud the Congress for approving a trade agreement with Peru. I now ask the Congress to approve agreements with Columbia, Panama, and South Korea. I we fail to pass these agreements, we will embolden the purveyors of false populism in our hemisphere. We must show our neighbors in the region that democracy leads to a better life. Trade brings better jobs, better choices, and better prices.”

For those who did not know, an average nondescript bald white guy named Samuel Bodman is the current Energy Secretary.

“Let us generate new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. Let us increase the use of emissions free nuclear power. Commitments (to reduce greenhouse gases) will be effective only if it includes commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride.”

He also mentioned the new skin cell breakthrough that replicates embryonic stem cells before turning to judges.

“The Constitution means what it says. I have submitted judges who will rule by the letter of the law, not the whim of the gavel.”

He then delved into illegal immigration, refusing to back down from his views.

“By the end of this year, we will have doubled the number of border patrol agents. Yet we still need to acknowledge that we will never fully secure our border until we come up with a lawful way for foreign workers to come here and support our economy. This will allow law enforcement to concentrate on those who wish us harm. Illegal immigration must be dealt with in a way that upholds our laws and our highest ideals.”

He then shifted to foreign policy.

“In the last 7 years we have witnessed stirring moments in the history of liberty. We have seen people in Lebanon take to the streets to demand their independence. We’ve seen Afghans emerge from the tyranny of the Taliban…we’ve seen jubilant Iraqis holding up ink stained fingers and celebrating their freedom. These images of liberty have inspired us.

We have also seen the images that have sobered us. We have seen wedding guests blood soaked, staggering in Jordan, Afghans and Iraqis blown up in Mosques in Markets, and trains in London and Madrid ripped apart by bombs. On a clear September day, we saw thousands of our fellow citizens taken from us in an instant. These horrific images serve as a grim reminder…the advance of liberty is opposed by terrorists and extremists.

Since 9/11 we have taken the fight to these terrorists and extremists. We have stayed on the offense, we will keep up the pressure, and we will deliver justice to our enemies.

For the security of America and the peace of the world, we are spreading the hope of freedom.

We are adding 3,200 marines to our forces in Afghanistan.

While the enemy is still dangerous and more work remains, the American and Iraq surges have achieved results few of us could have imagined just one year ago. Many said that containing the violence was impossible. Killings are down. Al Queda had sanctuaries in Iraq. Today it is Al Queda searching for safe passage. Some may deny the surge is working, but among the terrorists there is no doubt. Al Queda is on the run in Iraq, and this enemy will be defeated.”

Somebody yelled from the balcony “You’re wrong,” which means that either Al Queda infiltrated the building, or a Moveon.org supporter burst in. Either way it is hard to tell the difference among these unwashed and unshaven creatures.

“(Turning to the soldiers in the room) In the fight ahead, you will have all you need to protect our nation. Congress must meet our responsibilities to these men and women by fully funding our troops.

More than 20,000 of our troops are coming home. Any further drawdown will be based on conditions in Iraq. General Petraeus has warned that too fast a drawdown could result in the disintegration of the Iraqi security forces, Al Queda regaining lost ground, and a marked increase in violence. We must not allow this to happen.

The Iraqis have a distance to travel, but after decades of dictatorship, reconciliation is taking place and the Iraqi people are taking control o their future. It is in the vital interests of our nation that we succeed.”

He then reiterated why a free Iraq benefits us and a failed Iraq harms us.

“We will not rest until this enemy has been defeated. We must do the difficult world today so that years from now people will look back and say that this generation rose to the moment, prevailed in a tough fight, and left behind a hopeful region and a safer America.”

He then offered hopeful words regarding Israel and the Palestinians that I ignored.

“Wherever freedom advances in the middle East, the Iranian regime is there to oppose it. Iran continues to enrich uranium, which could be used to make a nuclear weapon. Our message to the Iranian people is clear. We have no quarrel with you. We respect your traditions and your history. We look forward to the day when you have your freedom. Our message to the leaders of Iran is also clear. America will confront those that attack our troops, and America will stand by our allies, and defend vital interests in the Persian Gulf.”

“In the past 6 years we have stopped numerous attacks, including a plot to fly a plane into the tallest building in Los Angeles, and another to blow up passenger jets to America over the Atlantic.

We need to know who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and where they are planning. Unfortunately Congress set the legislation to expire February 1st. That means if you don’t act by Friday, our ability to track terrorists threats will be weakened, and our citizens will be in greater danger. Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the effort to defend America. We have had ample time to debate. The time to act is now.”

He then offered warm fuzzy sentiments about Darfur and other 3rd world nations in an attempt to make liberals like him. Of course, that will fail.

He called for buying crops from developing nations, and proposed another 30 billion dollars to fight AIDS over the next 5 years.

He then shifted to reforming Veteran’s benefits.

“Troops should be able to transfer their unused education benefits to their spouses or their children.”

“The secret of our strength, the miracle of America, is that our greatness lays not in our government, but in the spirit and determination of our people. So long as we continue to trust the people, our nation will prosper, our liberty will be secure, and the state of our union will remain strong.

So tonight, with confidence in freedom’s power, and trust in the people, let us set forth to do their business. God Bless America.”

The history books will be very kind to this man. I will help right this history, and I will be right. I already am, but vindication will be sweeter when there is a more peaceful world. For some, it is not about winning elections, or tearing down good people. It is about actually improving the world.

Well done Mr. President.

Luv ya Dubya.

eric

While I have consistently backed Rudy Giuliani for President, I have gone out of my way to praise his competitors, and have written very few articles about Mayor Giuliani himself. Simply put, blogs that become one trick ponies bore people quickly. I am making an exception today, since time is critical.

I had planned to discuss President Bush today and Mr. Giuliani tomorrow, but I can cover the State of the Union tomorrow. I cannot wait until people go to the polls on Florida Tuesday. I need to get to them on Pre-Florida Monday.

First, here is a clip of Mayor Giuliani speaking at a Synagogue in Boca Raton, Florida.

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

For those who wish to help right now, which I hope is everybody in America eligible to vote. Make sure you are registered.

http://www.joinrudy2008.com/

Below are previous columns about Mayor Giuliani. As I said, there have been very few.

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/03/why-rudy-is-right/

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/10/my-meeting-rudy-giuliani/

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/10/rjc-in-dc-rudy-giuliani/

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2008/01/why-a-rudy-giuliani-win-benefits-american-politics/

I want to say for the Milli Vanillionth time that the other republican candidates are fine men. If Mitt Romney or John McCain win the nomination, I will enthusiastically back them. I would have done the same with Fred Thompson. I hope that supporters of other republican campaigns give Rudy one last look. I hope undecided voters flock to Mayor Giuliani. For those in my Jewish community…there is no comparable option.

There are no moral electoral victories. Those who win elections govern. Those who govern have power to affect the world. Those who lose elections get to sit on the sidelines and wonder what went wrong.

There is no question in my mind that all of the aforementioned republican candidates would be fabulous in the War on Terror. The democrats were asked whether winning or getting out is more important. The democrats stated that getting out is most important. They are wrong. Winning is the only option. We lose, we die.

All of the republicans would be better on taxes than the democrats. All of them would be best for those that understand that free trade works, and protectionism does not.

Yet issues are meaningless if the candidate loses.

I could say a ton of positive things about Fred Thompson, but he has withdrawn from the race. I wish him and his family well.

Mitt Romney is a good man. I admire much about him. I also fear that he would lose in November. He has no experience in foreign policy, and we are at war.  He is already being painted as a flip flopper. He is a Mormon, which many people cannot accept. To vote against him based on his religious beliefs is bigotry. His supporters argue that America is better than that. I pray they are right. If he wins the nomination, I will go to the wall for his campaign. His executive experience is phenomenal. He is a good candidate in a normal year, but this is not a normal year. He is simply not the best candidate.

I supported John McCain in the primaries in 2000. He is a hero, and somebody made a great point about his time in Washington. It is hard to say he has spent his life in Washington given that major years of his life were in Hanoi. My fear of McCain is that too many conservatives are saying that he will rip apart the republican party. If he wins the nomination, I will be the first person to scream at the complainers to fall into line, and to get into line now. If any other man besides Rudy Giuliani was running, I would be fine with McCain. Nevertheless, we need to be united for the general election, and too many republicans are hostile towards McCain. I believe this hostility is misplaced, but I am only one person.

I have met all of these men in person. I have shaken their hands, asked them questions, taken pictures with them, and looked into their eyes. I met Romney in Los Angeles at a party convention in Century City. I met John McCain on the University of Southern California campus. I attended an event in Washington, DC, where both of those men attended, although I did not speak to them on that day. That day I did meet and question Fred Thompson.

Rudy Giuliani was at the DC event, and I also saw him at Sean Hannity’s Freedom Concert on 9/11. I did not meet him on either occasion. I met Hannity at the concert, but not Rudy. Yet sandwiched inbetween those events, at a private home in Beverly Hills, I did meet Hizzoner. I spoke to him, looked into his eyes, and listened to his words.

He is the only candidate that traces the War on Terror back from its origins to the current situation. I do not understand why the other candidates do not just repeat his words.

It is not just 9/11. There is so much more.

This is a man who keeps mentioning the coldblooded murders of Israeli athletes by Palestinian animals at the 1972 Munich Olympics. This is a man who reminds the world about Leon Klinghoffer, an innocent man in a wheelchair who was thrown overboard from a cruise ship by Islamofacists, left to die in the water. This is a man who keeps reminding the civilized world about the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. He reminds us about the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the bombing aboard the U.S.S. Cole.

Yes, this is a man who was confronted with the horrors of 9/11. Millions of people panicked, cried, and flailed uncontrollably. This is understandable, and human. Yet leaders do not have time to do this. They have to lead. The worst terrorist attack in the history of America, worse than Pearl Harbor, was confronted by a leader that vowed to fight back.

Yes, this has been said over and over. Good. It needs to be.

For those who need an endorsement, the Jayson Blair Times hates his guts. If that is not the best endorsement on Earth, I do not know what qualifies. Below are some reasons why the Jayson Blair Times despises Rudy Giuliani.

“The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.”

Crime dropped everywhere, especially black on black crime. He did it without placing his head squarely inside the rumpuses of well known criminals and racial hustlers. So the black leadership hates him, but more young black men are alive because of his methods of dealing with crime.

“He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn’t share the limelight.”

So on the one hand the crime policies were terrible, but on the other hand the man who supposedly helped the mayor implement them was a good man. Double standards aside, the Mayor can fire anybody he wants for any reason. That is another aspect of leadership. It is called making tough, unpopular decisions. Truman fired MacArthur. It was unpopular at the time.

So why does the Jayson Blair Times support John McCain? For all the wrong reasons. The areas that McCain is right on are where the paper disagrees with him.

“In 2006, however, Mr. McCain stood up for the humane treatment of prisoners and for a ban on torture. We said then that he was being conned by Mr. Bush, who had no intention of following the rules. But Mr. McCain took a stand, just as he did in recognizing the threat of global warming early. He has been a staunch advocate of campaign finance reform, working with Senator Russ Feingold, among the most liberal of Democrats, on groundbreaking legislation, just as he worked with Senator Edward Kennedy on immigration reform.”

On the above issues, John McCain is well intentioned, noble…and forgive me sir, since you are a hero…wrong.

The Jayson Blair Times is ill intentioned, which makes them even more wrong. They are wrong on the issues, and morally.

The Jayson Blair Times, through ideologically clenched teeth, had this to say.

“Why not choose the man we endorsed for re-election in 1997 after a first term in which he showed that a dirty, dangerous, supposedly ungovernable city could become clean, safe and orderly? What about the man who stood fast on Sept. 11, when others, including President Bush, went AWOL?”

President Bush did not go AWOL, but today is not a day for rebutting every disgusting assertion that this rag magazine makes.

So what about the man discussed above?

That man is still here. He is just as good, if not better.

He will lower your taxes. I know this because he has done it.

He will fight to win the War in Iraq. He has consistently supported this cause.

He will fight to win the War on Terror. He is prepared to hunt down every single terrorist.

He fights those that want to spread religious bigotry by showing paintings of crosses in urine and the Virgin Mary in feces.

He will defend Israel because Israel is a democracy, and because they are fighting the same war on terror that America is fighting.

This man has fought teachers unions and the Jayson Blair Times. Does anybody think he will be scared of Iran? This man cleaned up New York City. Fallujah would be doable.

This man led the city of the state where I was born and raised. I have been to Ground Zero, most recently 3 weeks ago. I saw the hole in the ground. I saw the souls of 3000 Americans that have been taken from us due to pure evil.

I also saw heroes in the form of firefighters, police officers and EMTs. They are good men, but good men can only do their job effectively if they are led well.

They were. Rudy Giuliani is a hero, and a leader.

The world needs leadership. America needs heroes. It needs giants.

A giant is about to give his last State of the Union Address. I pray that one year later, another giant will give his first.

We are at war. We need a warrior who is battle tested.

We need Rudy Giuliani. He must win.

Vote for him, and find every single person you know, and insist they do the same.

Good luck Mayor Giuliani. You are the right man, and you are in my prayers.

Godspeed sir.

eric