THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

First, a quick housekeeping note that I beam with pride in mentioning.

Yesterday my blog reached 100,000 hits. This was done in about 320 days, or 10 1/2 months. That averages 312.5 hits per day, although given how few hits I had when I started, my daily average is much higher. I had about as many hits yesterday as my entire first month, which was 20 days instead of 30. I remember looking excitedly at the counter the first few days, and was thrilled when my number of hits doubled from 10 to 20. Now I hope that the next 100,000 hits will come in less time. Nevertheless, from March 11th, 2007 to January 24th, 2008, hard work paid off. Heck, I even won the 2007 Bloggers Choice Award for Most Passionate Fan Base. That is humbling.

I hope my blog grows, and that I have not leveled off. I thank everybody who has supported me, and I hope to keep my commitment to writing quality columns, and being a place where conservatives find common sense and liberals find they will be treated fairly and respectfully even in disagreement. I look forward to raising the level of discourse.

Now back to business.

Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee debated in Florida. Fred Thompson was not there since he had dropped out. Unfortunately, Ron Paul was there. The debate was held at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton. I go there whenever I go to Florida, so I am an honorary Owl.

The moderators were Tim Russert and Brian Williams, proving that Ron Paul would not be bringing up the dumbest issues of the evening. Paul Tash of the St. Petersburg Times was also asking questions.

The candidates were asked about President Bush’s stimulus package.

Mitt Romney wished the plan went further. He wants to increase FHA loans, and appreciated that President Bush proposed this.

John McCain would make the Bush tax cuts permanent and cut corporate income taxes. Only Japan has a higher rate among industrialized nations. People should be allowed to expense new investments in equipments.

Rudy Giuliani pointed out that we need to cut down on regulations. London could surpass NYC as the financial capital of the world. The stimulus package is ok, he would support it, but it is not aggressive enough. He also wants to reduce the capital gains tax. We are overregulating and oversuing, which means businesses go elsewhere.

When asked if he was weak on economic issues, McCain pointed out that he had support from Jack Kemp and Phil Gramm, and that he was at the forefront of the Reagan revolution.

Huckabee was asked if he trusted Romney as a tax cutter. Huckabee said that was for the voters to decide, and then discussed his own record, such as eliminating the marriage penalty. He felt that the stimulus package might benefit China more because the rebate checks will go to buy Chinese products. He also discussed infrastructure, including building more lanes to I-95, which 1/3 of the population travels on.

Romney conceded that everyone on stage wanted taxes and spending reduced. He met a 3 billion dollar shortfall in Massachusetts without raising taxes, and balanced the budget all four years. He pointed out that he supported the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which McCain opposed at the time but now wants to make permanent.

McCain was asked if the fees Romney raised counted as raising taxes. He replied that the people that paid the fees felt that way. He again stated that he voted against the tax cuts because there were not offsetting spending cuts. Republicans lost Congress in 2006 because of out of control spending, and that if we had stopped spending, there would be even more tax cuts now.

Ron Paul was asked if government should have any role in stimulating the economy. He said there should be lower taxes, less regulations, and have sound monetary policy, rather than just print more money and expand the deficit. He pointed out that the “dollar is crashing.” He then stated that we are “spending money overseas on our empire.” He is Ron Paul on economics, but on the War he is back to being Rupaul again. He did state that he was against Sarbanes Oxley from the beginning, which is a very valid point.

Giuliani was asked if it was unamerican for U.S. financial services firms to seek money from foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia. He explained that unlike the blood money from Saudi Prince Alaweed, which he refused, private businesses have more latitude than governments. A different circumstance exists between a country, and one bigoted individual. He mentioned how America was scared of Japan in the 1980s, but that free trade works, and the global economy should be seen in terms of how much we can sell and invest in other nations.

Moderator Tim Russert asked why republicans should be trusted with an economic record that is seen as dismal in terms of higher deficits and gas prices.
McCain stated that democrats will raise taxes, spend more, and regulate more. They will not restore stability to government programs such as social security. He mentioned the 35 billion spent on pork barrel projects in the last 2 years, which could have been used for $1000 tax credit per child.

Huckabee said he was not there messing it up. He did say that he did not think the President messed things up, that he was busy trying to keep us safe. He also mentioned “trickle up economics,” and that had we listened to those at the bottom, we would have known bad economic times were coming.

Romney said he would not run on the republican record. He would run on his own record, and run away from the record of Washington. Both parties have failed for the last 30 years, and when republicans act like democrats, America loses. It was a good line.

Giuliani stated that he was the only one on stage that had turned around a government economy. He stated that the package in Congress that the Club for Growth supported was his plan.

Ron Paul said we were moving into a new era, and it was not a good one.

McCain was asked about an unsustainable economy and military, and how can we keep troops in Iraq. McCain shot back that no military general agreed with the question from a military standpoint, and then laced into Hillary Clinton’s Iraq position. We can have an American presence provided we reduce the American casualties. We have presences around the world. Hillary wants to “wave the white flag of surrender.”

Romney was quoted Barry McCaffrey, who said the U.S. Army was “too small and poorly resourced.” He was asked what to do, without a draft. Romney spoke of the “welcome home bill,” paying tuition for those that serve. The GI Bill has gotten old and needs to be updated in terms of funding. He then ripped the democrats for saying that they would not commit to winning in Iraq when asked if winning or getting out was more important. “It was audacious and arrogant for the democrats to say that they were responsible for the success in Iraq. General Petraeus gets the credit, not General Hillary Clinton.” The crowd clapped.

Each candidate was asked to say if the war was a good idea, worth the blood and treasure, and we should stay.

McCain pointed out that the war was right, but the Rumsfeld strategy was flawed. We are now on the right track. It was a good idea, not worth the failures, but worth it at the end of the day.

Giuliani pointed out that when the polls favored the war, so did Hillary. He was always for it. A stable Iraq is an ally of the USA.

Rupaul was against it. The crowd erupted in applause, which made me wonder how so many democrats made it into the theatre.

Huckabee said he supported the President, as did the democrats, and that we owe him thanks. Just because we did not find WMD does not mean they were not there. That was a fabulous point.

Romney said it was the right decision, and that he supported it then. It was not well managed and underprepared and underplanned. However President Bush and General Petraeus have turned it around. Democrats talk about the beginning, we have to talk about what we do now.

The candidates were then allowed to ask each other questions.

Romney asked Giuliani how trade can be level, where we compete with China but protect our economy. Giuliani stated that free trade reduces military hostilities. The rise of China is good. 20 or 30 million people coming out of poverty equals 20 or 30 million new customers. We can sell them health and information processes, and energy independence. We have to think like aggressive American entrepreneurs. We must substantially rebuild the military to make up for the damage Bill Clinton did.

McCain asked Huckabee about the FAIR Tax, and the criticism that a flat out sales tax would hurt lower income Americans more, and why people like it. Huckabee responded that people want the IRS abolished. The FAIR Tax encourages earning and saving. The regressive aspect is mistaken. The poor do ok because of a “prebate.” People under the poverty level get credits to make sure they do not get penalized. This hurts the “underground economy, such as drug dealers, prostitutes, pimps…and democrats.” The crowd laughed. It is transparent, as opposed to now where “everybody is working under the table.”

Huckabee was asked how a 30% sales tax would help the 93% of Americans only paying 15% now. Huckabee pointed out that when the embedded hidden taxes are included, the rate is 33%, not 15%. It was a solid question by Russert and an equally solid answer.

Rupaul asked McCain that was so convoluted that it took a moment to understand it. It dealt with who he would rely on regarding economics. McCain mentioned Kemp, Gramm, Warren Rudman and the Concord Coalition, among others.

Huckabee asked Romney about the Second Amendment, and Romney’s being ok with the Brady Law and the “so called” assault weapons ban. Romney stated that we do not need laws, but current laws should be enforced. He did state that the assault weapon’s ban initially was ok. At least I think he did. I honestly was not sure if he was for or against it at first. He was obviously uncomfortable. He stated it was a bill worked out between pro and anti gun lobbies, which is not entirely true. He stated that the current President would sign it. President Bush did not sign it.

Giuliani asked Romney about the difficulty of people obtaining property insurance. McCain is against an emergency fund as a backstop, while Giuliani supports it. Romney stated that he, like Giuliani, did support it. Romney stated that people in one state should not subsidize people in other states, but that in high risk areas a fund was necessary. When Giuliani pointed out that Romney’s plan involves mandates, and that Romney was against mandates, Romney was flustered. He said, “That is another question, I’ll come back to it.”

McCain said the issue can be addressed regionally, insurance should be spread across state lines. The bill that came through Congress was a bad bill. He stated “we can work together,” but did not say how.

Russert turned into Al Gore and asked Giuliani why he was against a cap on greenhouse gases, which would destroy Florida. Giuliani mentioned nuclear power, and pointed out that we have more coal reserves in the USA than Saudi Arabia has oil. We should look at liquid natural gas. “Caps are negative incentives that would destroy the U.S. economy, as China and India would release more greenhouse gases. We must solve it as a world problem, not just a United States problem.”

McCain says he is in favor of capping trade, not greenhouse gases. A global agreement must include China and India. Climate change is real. McCain then said one thing that was awful, that if there was no climate change problem, meaning if we were wrong, it would still be ok if we did something because our kids would have a cleaner world. While he did say this was better than being right and doing nothing, no, it is not. It means wasting money and crippling industry on a fruitless cause. If we are wrong, and the climate change people are wrong, spending one dollar would be a dollar squandered. Insisting they are right is one thing. Stying that it is irrelevant if they are wrong is foolish.

Giuliani was asked why he has cratered in the polls. He stated that he will surprise everybody just like the New York Giants did. All the candidates are good, but he will win the nomination.

McCain was asked how he could unite the party when so many conservatives are troubled by him. He stated that he was proud of his record, including voting for justices Alito and Roberts. He stated that he won a majority of republicans in New Hampshire, which is debatable. He stated that the main issue was the War, which he is conservative on. He also mentioned climate change for some reason again, and then mentioned his support for Israel. However, he then went after Rumsfeld again, as well as Jack Abramoff. He would “put his country above his party every single time, but I am a proud republican.”

Romney was asked how he would run against Bill and Hillary Clinton. Romney joked that he “can’t imagine Bill Clinton back in the White House with nothing to do.” The crowd laughed. He stated that Bill is not the issue, Hillary is the candidate, and she is wrong on issues from taxes to health care to the War in Iraq. “She is exactly what is broken in Washington. She is Washington to the core.”

Romney was then asked by Russert how much of his own money he spent on television commercials in Florida. It was an obnoxious question, and Romney refused to give in to the stupidity. Romney stated that he will disclose it by law on the required day, and not a minute earlier, saying, “You’ll just have to wait, Tim.”He then made what could be seen as a gaffe by saying, “I’m not concerned about the voters, I am concerned about the other guys on the stage.” He then went on by saying that divulging his resources could affect his competitive advantage. From a strategy standpoint it makes sense, but one should never say they are unconcerned about the voters. Yes, it would be taken out of context, but he allowed it. He then stated he has raised more than the other candidates, not including his own money. He contributed less personal wealth than John Corzine, Steve Forbes or Michael Bloomberg. Nobody owns him, he is not beholden. He made it clear that he earned his money, and running for President is putting it to good use.

Romney was then again asked about his Mormon faith, and the poll showing 44% of Americans would not support a Mormon. Romney refused to believe the American people would make an issue of it. He then blasted Hillary again, saying that the race was about freedom, not religion.

Rupaul was asked about his statement wanting to abolish social security. Rupaul stuck to his guns, to his credit. He still wants to abolish it, but not all at once. He went back to being Ron Paul again on that answer, albeit temporarily. The program is a failure, and never should have been created. The benefits will never keep up with costs.

Huckabee was asked how he would save social security. He first stated that Romney had five wonderful sons, and the solution for all would be to elect Huckabee President so he could make America better, and let Romney leave his wealth to his sons so everybody wins. The crowd liked the joke. I did not. He went back to the FAIR Tax as a funding system for the social security. Yet when pressed that the FAIR Tax was unlikely to pass, Huckabee refused to concede that point. He offered feel good rhetoric of us being “can do people,” but that is a copout.

Romney was asked if he would do for social security what Reagan did in 1983, in terms of raising payroll taxes and the retirement age. Romney said he would not raise taxes, which would be the worst idea. It takes money from people, slowing down the economy, putting people out of work. The solutions are to sit down with the democrats and compromise on personal accounts, recalculate wealthier Americans in terms of benefits, and raise retirement age. Of course the democrats will refuse to compromise, making his first pillar pure fantasy.

Giuliani was asked why he was airing an ad in Spanish if all immigrants should learn English. Giuliani stated that English was vital, but that learning additional languages on top of that is positive. We can stop illegal immigration, have tamper proof ID cards, and “teach new behavior.” Additional languages are great for America, but English is a must.

Giuliani was then asked why Cubans can stay, but not Mexicans or others. Giuliani responded that the Cuba policy goes back to the 1960s, and that Castro is the longest serving dictator, and a murderer. Other cultures have to prove persecution, with Cuba it is already proven.

Huckabee was asked about Chuck Norris’s comments about McCain being too old. Huckabee handled this one well. He stated that he did not disagree at the time, “because he was standing next to him.” The crowd laughed. Huckabee then stated that McCain has the rigor to be President. We can pick on him for other things, but not that.

McCain made the crowd laugh by stating that now that he has the endorsement from Sylvester Stallone, he was sending Sly to beat up Chuck. He also stated that he was proud to have the endorsement of Norman Schwarzkopf.

Giuliani was asked about the Jayson Blair Times supporting McCain in the republican primary, and their vicious editorial attacking him. Giuliani nailed this one. He stated that in eight years as Mayor, he did nothing the paper liked, and if the paper did like him, it meant he would not be seen as a conservative republican. The crowd applauded. He pointed out that welfare reform is not mean. It is real compassion.

Romney was asked about his “changing positions with the wind.” He was pointed out that the Jayson Blair Times rated Romney as the “most disliked of the five (remaining republican candidates). Romney stated that he did not care about their opinion. He said that “to understand where he stands, look at his record as Governor.”

McCain was asked about his temper, and if it was an impediment. McCain replied, “I don’t.” The crowd laughed. He stated that he had close and warm friendships across the aisle and in his own party. He called Giuliani an American hero, and how he united America after 9/11. He respected all of his fellow candidates, and “will respect them after the campaign as well.” The remarks were very gracious and sincere, and echo previous positive comments Giuliani made about McCain. It is easy to be warm and fuzzy when one is seen as winning. Time will tell if McCain shifts if he falls behind.

Huckabee was asked about his faith making others uncomfortable. He said that he would never use government to push his faith, but he would not run from it, because it defines him. We should respect people who do not have a faith at all. People do not need to share his faith to share his love of America, but if they hate him for having faith than they are not a good American. It was a solid answer.

Rupaul was asked if he would form a 3rd party and hurt republicans. He stated that he had no intention of leaving, but it was the other candidates deserting the party principles. He then stated that leaving might “keep them on their toes.” It was not a complete disavowal.

It was also an appropriate ending in the sense that the entire debate was worthless.

From a strategy standpoint, I cannot tell who won. None of the candidates were thrilling, and none were a disaster. Rupaul does not count since he is an afterthought.

Usually a tie is helpful for the frontrunner, but at this point I cannot tell who that actually is. Some say Rudy Giuliani is slipping, but the polls do not factor in the large number of absentee ballots that have already voted, many from Jewish New York snow birds. Virtually every nominee has been in front and written off, often within days of each other.

Nothing is certain, and this debate settled nothing. It was a four way draw.

eric

Yeah, I’ve had it. There is a time for graciousness and a time to be strident. Welcome to strident central. Too many adults are acting like a bunch of spoiled children. I have a simple message to these crybabies. Grow up! All of you!

Hillary Clinton…grow up. Knock it off. Stop trying to have it both ways on every single issue. Take some clear stands. Tick people off for the right reasons. Tick people off because they disagree with what you stand for. Stop ticking people off for refusing to stand for anything. Enough obfuscating, triangulating, and calculating. Stop treating every person that disagrees with you as either an imbecile or evil. Stop talking about how tough you are and then hiding behind your husband when the boys hit back. You are not the girl who got beat up in school. You are an adult. Fight your own battles.

Bill Clinton…enough! Quit blaming the media for the fact that your wife is stiff as a board. You had a quarter of a century to teach her how to be likable. She failed. It is either your fault…or more likely, hers. The media had their heads so far up your hide in the 1990s that it was tough to tell where you began and they ended. Now they like Barack Obama. Are they biased? Sure. You were fine with this when they were fawning over you. You kept claiming it was about the people. Prove it. Be quiet, let the campaign unfold without you, and let the people decide. You have bullied enough people. Now you are trying to bully liberal reporters and even liberal voters. I would tell you it won’t work, but knowing you, it will. It does not make it right. I know you grew up in the 1960s, but enough already.

Disenchanted conservatives…stop it! Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and (recently departed from the race) Fred Thompson are all fabulous. They are not perfect. Giuliani is not a social conservative. McCain is not your illegal immigration guy. McCain and Thompson supported that awful campaign finance law. Romney is liberal on social issues, or at least was for a long time. So what? Ronald Reagan raised taxes. We are electing a President, not a saint.

Some conservatives want to form a 3rd party to teach the republican party a lesson. You will be marginalizing yourselves, not the party. No sane conservative is happy about the spending under GOP rule in this century. Then again, no sane conservative wants Hillary in the White House. For those who think a moderate republican is no better than Hillary, just remember how Bill Clinton made you feel. Multiply that 100 fold…that is Hillary. Stop craving perfection. You sound like 40 year old women crying because they rejected every man at age 25, and are now childless at 40. There is no perfection. There is good enough. Support your candidate in the primary, and when the nominee is decided…Fall into line!

Investors…stop crying. The stock market is gambling. It will not go up every day. There will be losses. Do not blame your brokers, your God, or the person who gave you the stock tip. Stop trying to get rich overnight. Oh, and you might want to actually read your statements, and the company reports. Buy real companies with real earnings. If you are too busy to do the research, then shut up, by a boring mutual fund, and check back in 20 years. If you want to buy individual stocks, either go along for the ride. If riding roller coasters makes you airsick, by bank CDs. Just quit crying.

For those of you who bought subprime mortgages, it’s the irresponsibility stupid. You would have screwed up your life in some other way given the chance. You wanted something for nothing. You blame greedy lenders, but nobody forced you to buy, and nobody denied you the right to read what you signed. I would love to buy, but prices are high. I rent. I have seen guys drive $100,000 cars, and then have those cars repossessed. They laugh at my car, but I own my car. The bank does not own it. It is 100% mine.

Populists…shut up. Profits are good. Higher corporate profits are better. Corporations make stuff or provide services. If they lose money, they stop providing stuff. If you confiscate their profits through punitive tax measures because you are jealous of their success, they will stop researching cures for diseases, insuring homeowners, heating your homes, or providing the food and drink on your kitchen table. Businesses are not hear to work for free. Do you individuals work for free? Do you want 1/2 your money taken away? Well neither do corporations, which last time I checked, were run by people.

Hollywood…Stay on strike. I only watch news and sports. This is not a labor-management dispute that anywhere near rivals the issues that real businesses that matter deal with. This is not the right to earn overtime, have safe working conditions, or feed a family. These are millionaires fighting with billionaires. It is liberals who write about republican greed fighting with liberals who produce shows about republican greed. They are at each other’s throats because they are all greedy. Let them cannibalize each other. Or better yet, act like adults, and reach an agreement, or the 12 people who still care might stop caring. These parasites are replaceable.

I wake up in the morning, and realize that nobody will benefit my existence but me. My boss, my friends, and my family can listen to me up to a certain point, but they cannot give me what I need. I lead a happy life because if I don’t, nobody will care, so I might as well be happy. Plus, there are worse things than being young, caucasian, and successful in America today. I wouldn’t mind being taller and wealthier, but life is not perfect. Would I like to take Shannon Doherty until we shatter the headboards? Sure. Will anybody care besides me if I don’t? No.

So what do I do? I look down, and notice that I have a pair of testicles. I recommend that if any man does not have them, grow a pair immediately. For those who are female, grow something that makes you act in the same tough and dignified way men act when they have aforementioned appendages. Everybody, just grow a pair already.

Then get ready to celebrate my favorite holiday. I call it “Shut the hell up and go to work day.” It should be celebrated 40 hours a week, 50 weeks per year, and perhaps even when on vacation.

For those who I forgot to verbally rap upside the head, snap out of it before I do get to you. For those of you that actually do possess (not so) common sense, thank God for you. You may be diminishing in number, but you are appreciated in terms of quality.

eric

One quick piece of business…I was on Political Vindication Radio last night. As always, Frank and Shane are fabulous. It was a two hour program, but I was the guest for the second hour. 

http://www.politicalvindication.com/

Now for the world beyond me. 

Deputy Dog, aka Fred Thompson, has ended his campaign for President. Perhaps he can take Bubba Bill Clinton, the man who has been campaigning for the last 20 years, with him.

I want to make it clear that I like Fred Thompson. When I call him Deputy Dog, it is meant in an endearing way. Had he won the republican nomination I would have enthusiastically supported him in the general election.

Below are previous columns I wrote regarding Fred.

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/03/from-the-king-of-the-hill-to-the-white-house/

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/10/rjc-in-dc-fred-thompson/

One of the biggest criticisms of Fred was that he was lazy. He was seen as not having the fire in the belly. What many people fail to understand is that Thompson exited the way he entered it, as a man completely comfortable in his own skin. He freely admitted that he did not spend every moment of his life hungering to be President of the United States.

Some would say his approach was aloof, bordering on arrogant. Others would say he was laconic. Others still would say that he was dignified, and did not want to compromise his dignity, specifically with regards to certain campaign rituals.

One example was his refusal to put on a fireman’s hat. He said that he had a rule against funny hats. Now some would say this is incredibly condescending. Yet how many times have we seen candidates wearing idiotic outfits? John Kerry put on a space suit and looked like a giant condom. He was ridiculed for it. If one puts on the funny outfit, they get ridiculed on You Tube. If one refuses to wear the funny outfit, they risk alienating voters.

Fred Thompson did not want to look foolish. He wanted to do everything on his terms. He entered late because he wanted to do so. Yet the other candidates have their own unconventional attitudes as well. Rudy Giuliani skipped the early primary and caucus states despite being told he could not do so. John McCain advocated a full escalation of an unpopular war despite being told this was political suicide. Fred Thompson had his convictions, and he stuck to them.

He also exited the stage gracefully. Some people refuse to leave the stage. They hang on indefinitely, because they are more interested in getting publicity than actually winning. This explains people such as Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. An elderly man (rest his soul) who resigned as the Chairman of the Board of a university once said to me that, “it’s better to have people question why you are leaving than when you are leaving.” Fred left with his dignity intact. Some people would rather hang on forever.

That somebody is Bubba, aka Bill Clinton. I have repeatedly compared Bill Clinton to Bill Murray n the movie “What about Bob.” He just won’t go away. He has been campaigning his whole life, and he cannot stop. He cannot leave the stage. Everything is about him and his narcissism.

Bill Clinton claimed that Barack Obama is not ready to be President yet. He cited his own decision in 1988 to stay out of the Presidential race until he was more seasoned. This is nonsense. In 1988, the Gary Hart scandal over Donna Rice exploded. Bill Clinton had plenty of “bimbo eruptions,” to be dealt with, and the country had not lowered its standards far enough into the gutter for him to be a viable candidate. The only thing that changed between 1988 and 1992 was that the economy had a brutal recession. It had nothing to do with Bill Clinton.

In his first two years, he blundered repeatedly, lost the congress, and then played defense for the last six years of his Presidency. He was not bad. He was just peripheral, aka the Seinfeld President. He won reelection against a weak candidate in good economic times fueled by an internet age that he was lucky enough to preside over.

In 2000, he wanted to keep campaigning, this time for Vice President Al Gore. Gore refused his help, a stinging rejection (that in all fairness might have cost him the election). So instead, Bill plunged himself into his wife’s Senate campaign. Al Gore lost a narrow election, while Hillary Clinton won in a state that tilts heavily to democrats anyway. Yet for Bill Clinton, the campaign was proof that, as he protested years earlier, he was still relevant.

After barely containing their glee at President Bush defeating John Kerry in 2004, Hillary began her 2006 Senate reelection campaign, which was just to kill time until the 2008 Presidential race. Hillary Clinton was supposed to cruise to a coronation, and then Obama got in the way by being the one thing Hillary cannot figure out how to be…likable.

The codependent relationship that is the Clintons continued to benefit both of them. Hillary needed Bill to save her faltering campaign, because she has never achieved anything in life without him. Let the feminists have their heads explode. Hillary Clinton owes her entire career, which to her is her entire self worth, to the fact that she married well (on some levels). Hillary needs Bill. Bill needs to be needed. He depends on her dependence on him.

Some former presidents stay on the public lecture circuit and make millions. Bill Clinton has done this, but the crowds are hundreds, not millions. Money has always been less important to him than power, and power for him is adulation. He could build houses for poor people, but that would only be useful if the cameras were on.

Bill Clinton cannot stop campaigning. It is a narcotic for him. A good parallel would be the late (rest his soul) coach of the San Francisco 49ers, Bill Walsh. Walsh retired after the 1988 season, but spent the next 20 years hovering, missing his job. George Siefert and Steve Mariucci were on the sidelines, but Walsh was always behind the scenes, offering advice. Yes, he was brilliant, but he cast a long shadow.

Bill Clinton will not let go. He can’t. He sucks the oxygen out of a room because the campaigning is his oxygen. He needs it to breathe, and it is his oxygen alone.

Fred Thompson had sound policy proposals, but was not into the politics aspect of becoming President. For Bill Clinton, the politics are the ends, and the policies are merely the means. If Hillary becomes President, Bill’s life will be dedicated to her reelection. Then they will try and choose her successor. One day a democrat not beholden to the Clintons will run for President. The fight for the one oxygen tank will be intense.

Fred Thompson leaves with his head held high, and his dignity intact. He has his lovely wife, his adorable children, and his successful career outside of politics.

Bill Clinton has nothing else. Politics is his existence. He cannot become an elder statesman. He needs to be an attack dog for his wife. This should be beneath him. It would be beneath most men. It would be beneath a man with dignity and self respect. It would be beneath a man comfortable in his own skin.

Fred Thompson will be missed, but he will put his talents to use no matter what he does. If Arthur Branch cannot get his old job back, he can always be useful to the next republican president as the next Attorney General.

Perhaps you can hire Bill Clinton in case your daughter runs for student council one day. It is never too early to prepare. Just keep him away from Geri Thompson. She does have a weakness for southerners.

Then again, never mind. She prefers men of substance.

Take care Alpha Dog. It was fun while it lasted.

eric

Several days ago I was a guest on News Radio Magazine. The conversation with Kevin Liger was enjoyable, and very general.

http://www.directradionetwork.com/NRMGuests.html

Tonight I will be a guest on Political Vindication. The topic I will be discussing is Ideological Bigotry. Other topics may be discussed as well. I will be on 7:05pm PST.

www.politicalvindication.com

Oh, and the democrats had a debate in South Carolina on MLK Day. Here were the instructions from the moderator.

“Good evening, and welcome to South Carolina. You are all as candidates instructed in your answers to keep your lips no more than six inches from Martin Luther King’s rhetorical anus at all times. You are to mention him in every third sentence.

You are to castigate republicans, conservatives, and George W. Bush in particular. You are then expected to speak about unifying people in the great tradition of Dr. King.

You are to treat the audience like black sheep, refusing to discuss issues in any way except to insult their intelligence. Every issue in 2008 must be related to Selma, Alabama.

You are allowed and expected to use provocative words such as lynching and nooses provided it is related to the republican party, and anyone in the Bush Administration. Dick Cheney and Halliburton should be related to slavery.

You may make one gratuitous football remark to convince people you know anything about football. Hillary Clinton has always been a New York Giants fan, John Edwards can feel the spirit of the Carolina Panthers, and Barack Obama can mention Tony Dungy or Lovie Smith for no reason.

You must mention how nothing has changed since 1863, but that if you get elected, racial harmony will immediately begin.

Good luck, and remember to pucker up. If you can fit your whole head inside Dr. King’s rumpus, extra points will be given.”

With that, here is the recap.

Hillary Clinton was asked about her stimulus plan. President Bush has not taken the mortgage crisis seriously. She wants to freeze interest rates for 5 years. She is offering people rebates, which is exactly what President Bush proposed. She mentioned “green collar jobs” again. However, her rebates are the “right” rebates, and his rebates are wrong rebates. She complains that the Bush plan does not help peope who do not pay taxes to begin with. Her praise of Dr. King and the Congressional Black Caucus was brief.

Barack Obama claimed that Dr. King’s “I have a dream,” speech was mainly about jobs. He then bashed President Bush. He asked for rebates before Hillary thought of it. He seems to have been against or for everything from the beginning of time. Nobody else ever thinks of anything first. He wants a $500 rebate, Hillary wants $650, Bush wants $800. He also wants extra social security payments.

John Edwards does not offer a rebate. He then pursed his lips perfectly, in keeping with the moderator’s instructions. Wolf Blitzer tried to rein him in, and he explained that he supports benefits in green infrastructure, and long term solutions, not just short term solutions. He then bashed the Peru trade deal, which his colleagues supported. He then refused to elaborate on why he refuses to give a rebate.

Obama correctly pointed out that long term solutions are good, but short term solutions are necessary. He astutely mentioned the financial markets dropping. He pointed out that he was against NAFTA while Hillary supported it. He stated that he supported the Peru trade deal because it had safeguards that NAFTA did not. He pointed out that Edwards favored normal trade status with China.

Hillary again announced she did not want the Bush tax cuts to be permanent. The Bush package is bad. She mentioned green collar jobs again. She then praised Oakland Congressman Ron Dellums, and mentioned solar power for some reason.

Edwards said his plan would have an impact within 30 days. He again mentioned his father the mill worker, who actually did own the mill. He “would not trust George W. Bush to enforce anything”

Obama got off the first great line by saying that in a year “it will be me that is enforcing” the rules.

Obama was asked about Hillary’s criticism of his economic plan. He responded that her assertions were “not true.” He then went after Bill and Hillary Clinton, saying that they were the “same old politics.” Hillary pursed her lips as well, but in anger. Obama hit the Clintons very hard.

Hillary said, “I could not agree more,” and reiterated her claim that Obama praises Ronald Reagan and republicans in general. Yes, she took his remarks out of context, but the key would be if he could survive the attack. Hillary believes that “elections are about the future,” before going after Obama’s credibility. She praised Obama’s opposing the war in 2002, but said that in 2003 he reversed himself.

Obama tried to speak and Hillary kept interrupting. He pointe dout that while “he was on the streets helping people, you were a corporate lawyer at Walmart.” The crowd erupted. He then mentioned that it was Bill and Hillary playing political games, and praising Reagan in books.

The last debate was a lovefest. This was a smackdown.

When Hillary announced that she was on stage, and not her husband, Obama remarked, “Sometimes I do not know who I am running against.” Hillary kept trying to tie Obama to the republicans, and he kept rebutting her. Hillary then tied Obama to Rezko, a slumlord, and the crowd booed Hillary.

Edwards played the role of peacemaker, and stated that the squabbling between Obama and Clinton would not help children get healthcare. Going back to fiscal responsibility, Edwards claimed he had the most “aggressive and progressive agenda.” He also pointed out that Hillary has no plan to save social security, and that Hillary will refuse to admit that taxes need to be raised. He tied himself to Obama.

One moderator currently stated we were in an “economic mess.” A race card question was asked, whether or not the subprime mortgage situation was racially tinged.

Edwards took the bait, and agreed emphatically. He brought up slavery, segregation and discrimination. Apparently greedy lenders only want to hurt black people, since most of America is white and their money is no good.

Hillary said her plan for a moratorium is a “workout, not a bailout.”

Obama said we have a “history in this country in praying on low income people.” Like Hillary, he did not say it was anti-black overtly. He did mention opening up bank branches in all neighborhoods. He was against the bankruptcy bill while Hillary “voted for it but hoped it would not pass.”

Obama also answered Hillary’s charge about being a slumlord. He then mentioned that we must be able to trust our leaders, or nothing can get done on issues. “Consistency matters. Truthfulness in campaigns matters.”

Hillary stated that she regretted voting for the 2001 bankruptcy bill, and she opposed the 2005 bankruptcy bill. She then said Obama “did the bidding of insurance companies.” She said Obama had a “hands off attitude about his record.” Hillary claimed Obama was against a 30% ceiling on credit cards.

Edwards stated that Obama favored no limits on interest at all.

Hillary then stated that “Obama never takes responsibility for any vote.” The crowd booed loudly. She stated that Obama voted “present” on sex shop bills, sexual abuse victims bills, etc. “It is very difficult to get a straight answer out of Barack.”

Obama pointed out that the sexual abuse bill was one that he personally sponsored. He mentioned his own daughters. He accused Hillary of distorting his record, and that Hillary will “say anything to get elected.”

Edwards asked Obama why he voted present so often. Obama explained that sometimes that was procedurally necessary. Edwards responded that Obama was cherrypicking votes in the same way Hillary was doing.

Obama spoke of reforming the death penalty in Illinois, keeping juveniles from being charged as adults, opposing the Iraq War, all decisions that were not popular politically at the time.

Hillary was asked about a comment about how she played the race card involving AIDS, stating that the problem gets ignored because it affects black women more. She spoke of her own health plan, and then bashed the republicans and health care companies. She ignored the question itself.

Obama was asked about charges that his plan does not cover everybody, and should illegal immigrants be covered. Obama said he would not cover illegal immigrants because we have limited resources. He stated that Bill and Hillary Clinton messed up health care reform because they acted in secrecy in 1994, excluding the American people from the process.

Edwards stated that he believed that none of the three candidates favor covering illegal immigrants, but spoke that undocumented people who became citizens could get coverage. He stated that he and Clinton cover everybody, but Obama does not. Obama takes money from drug companies, and Hillary takes money from insurance companies.

Obama stated that mandating coverage for all adults is problematic because it forces people to buy health insurance. He stated that at least Edwards states how that mandate would be enforced, while Hillary does not. Obama stated that the key is not mandates, but out of control costs. He threw in a brief dig at President Bush in passing. Also, Edwards and Hillary have a “hardship exemption,” which defeats the concept of universal coverage.

Edwards compared Obama’s “opt out” plan to President Bush’s social security opt out provision.

Hillary stated that everybody had to be covered. She would “not leave 15 million Americans out of healthcare.” She pointed out Obama’s shifting positions away from a single payer system.

Obama claimed that people would rather pay a fine as opposed to coverage they cannot afford. So they pay the fine and still have no coverage. He stated that we should never try to have a single payer system, that it was good in theory.

The debate shifted to Iraq, and Hillary was confronted with good news. Does Hillary want to end the war or win it?

Hillary said she wanted to bring the troops home, and that she supports the troops. “There is no military solution.” She refused to say she wanted to win the war. Republicans should make that the first general election campaign issue. She is “committed to withdrawing the troops.”

Edwards was quoted John McCain saying “we must win.” When asked why the surge was wrong, he stated that even President Bush realized it was wrong. He then said, “If even President Bush realizes it was wrong, then you know it is wrong.” Edwards said he would bring all combat troops out of Iraq in his first year.

Obama stated we must get combat troops out safely as well as quickly. He stated that it is not just the tragic loss of life, but the financial unsustainability of the war. Money could be spent on broadband in South Carolina. He stated that Al Queda is more powerful than at any time since 2001.He got that fact from himself.

Hillary stated that nearly all the troops would be out within a year. She then stated that President Bush is negotiating a permanent base in Iraq, without going to congress. She is against permanent bases. Perhaps she wants to remove the troops from South Korea.

Obama was asked about comments by Rep. Charles Rangel, who supports Hillary, that voting for Obama is a feel good gesture. Obama replied that he agrees with Rangel in principle, but that Obama can unite and inspire people most effectively. He looks forward to working with Rangel when he becomes President.

Edwards was asked that voting for a black man would be good for black America, and what he thought. Edwards stated that he does not have the right to tell anybody who to vote for, but that he has been the best on issues such as ending poverty.

Hillary spoke about working for Marian Wright Edelman on children’s issues 35 years ago. She stated that black people did better under her husband than the current President.

Out of nowhere, the camera panned to Dave Chappelle. Nobody knows why, except that he is a celebrity.

Obama reiterated that he started out working out in low income neighborhoods. He then stated that the media has been focused on race throughout South Carolina. People want to move beyond those divisions. The crowd cheered. He said, “I don’t want to sell the American people short.” He then bashed republicans for not going to diverse forums.

Edwards spoke of his work with urban ministries in North Carolina. He then bashed Bill O’Reilly. He then offered one of his heart tugging stories.

Obama was asked about Bill Clinton being the first black President. He did praise Bill Clinton’s “affinity with the black community.” He then joked about investigating “Bill Clinton’s dancing abilities before accurately judging that he was a brother.”

It was a stupid question, a pathetic answer, and Bill Clinton was caucasian because race is about pigmentation, not attitudes or feelings. Hillary offered platitudes about how proud she is of her fellow candidates. Out of nowhere, her smile was replaced by a scowl as she lambasted President Bush. This woman wants to unite people. Hillary thinks we should “act like Americans,” whatever that means.

Obama pointed out that Edwards and Hillary were coming after his because he was “doing pretty good.” He clarified that while people should not be elected based on race or gender, but that race issues should still be spoken about. He cited the disparities in criminal sentences.

Hillary pointed out gender disparities in pay. She complained that “republicans are not talking about any of this.” Apparently they are trying to win the War on Terror, which she is against based on her prior comments.

Edwards spoke of things that democrats don’t talk about either. He stated that we need to start living together. He spoke of the 9th ward in New Orleans.

Hillary was asked about her husband’s voice becoming too loud, and overshadowing her. Hillary praised her husband and then quickly deflected to who has the most experience.

Obama was very careful in discussing the issue, but stated that he was troubled by how the former President portrayed his record. He then stated that the political map needs to be redrawn. He can reach out and inspire independents and even republicans. He said the one thing Bush and Cheney have done that is good for democrats is to give their own party a bad name.

Edwards stated that McCain will likely be the republican candidate, and that Edwards can compete against him in all 50 states. Democrats can compete in urban areas, but he can compete in rural areas. He then went on to differentiate himself again as not being beholden to special interests.

Obama spoke of reaching out to all people. He spoke proudly of his Christian faith, and spoke of reaching out to evangelicals. He felt that vote should not be conceded.

Hillary pointed out that if McCain is the nominee, the election will be about national security, making her the strongest democrat to face off against him.

Edwards stated that given McCain’s cleaning up the money in politics, Hillary would not be the best choice to face off against him. He challenged Hillary not to have lobbyists in the White House. She demurred. He challenged her again, and she pointed out that he took on people that worked for and married to lobbyists. When Hillary said that trial lawyers supported him, he stated that trial lawyers were for democracy. When he stated they had divergent views, Hillary disagreed. She said, “You’ve got to say no and stand up to lobbyists.”

Obama disagreed with Hillary’s assertion that she was prepared from a national security standpoint. Obama stated that he would contrast McCain more, while Hillary voted for the war. He again stated that we should talk to our enemies.

Edwards labeled our foreign policy as belligerent.

The candidates were then asked one final dopey question about why Dr. King would endorse them if he were alive today.

Edwards mentioned his commitments to equality and ending poverty.

Obama smartly replied that Dr. King would not endorse any of them. He would hold them all accountable. His career was about transparency and accountability.

Hillary mentioned John Lewis and James Clyburn, but did not answer the question

This debate was hard to gauge. The exchanges between Hillary and Barack clearly had Barack as the winner. Yet in the last debate, Edwards sided with Obama. This debate Edwards sided with Hillary. Edwards won his exchanges with Obama.

Hillary was booed on several occasions, and Obama was cheered the most. Edwards did not make any mistakes, but he took the racial bait question, which was disgusting. He also failed to break through, knowing he was on the verge of being on the outside of a two person race.

Hillary clearly lost, but between Obama and Edwards, it was a standstill. Given that Obama was ahead of Edwards, this is a win for Obama.

eric

Monday, January 21st, 2008, is Martin Luther King Jr. Day. The financial markets are closed, and I have the day off from work. Whatever the morning rituals are, I missed them, given that days off involve sleeping until noon.

Normally I would say that MLK Day does not have any special meaning for me. Before the politically correct crowd tries to play the race card, I do not know many non-Jews that even know who the Lubavitche Rebbe Menachem Schneerson was. Martin Luther King Jr. was a hero to many. To me he was a decent man who made great speeches and tried to improve society. Yet his death occurred before I was born, so I do not feel any emotional pull from his existence.

Yet this MLK Day is different. MLK Day is always on a Monday in January, but this year it is specifically on January 21st. This is significant to me because on Monday, January 21st, 1985, 23 years ago today, I had my Bar Mitzvah.

A Bar Mitzvah is a very sacred ritual in Jewish culture. Shortly after a boy’s 13th birthday, this rite of passage is when a boy becomes a man.

Becoming a man is a relative term. I was not allowed to stay up later, and I certainly was not allowed to smoke, drink alcohol, or curse in my home. On the flip side, I did not have to worry about paying bills or holding an actual job outside of school. The only adult task I had was the painful, arduous process of writing thank you notes to all the people that gave me Bar Mitzvah presents, mostly in the form of cash that I never got to see. My parents held it until college, when I had all the spending money I needed.

So much has changed in the last 23 years since I had my sacred ritual on Dr. King’s sacred day. While so many things have changed for the better, from internet communication to advances in medicine, race relations remain a charged issue. Relations between blacks and Jews could be significantly better.

One thing that many of Dr. King’s supporters have forgotten is that Dr. King wanted a better society for all people. Dr. King was not a racist or an antisemite. He had a deep respect for Jewish people, and he believed in the goodness of non-Jewish white people as well. He did not have rose colored glasses. He knew racism existed. Yet he also knew that the silent majority consisted of good people.

I do not see this optimism in the black leadership of today. I see racism and antisemitism, led by race hustlers that benefit from conflict. Some would say that without struggle, there is no progress. This is reasonable. What is not reasonable is to argue that the struggle has been pointless, and that there has been no progress at all.

For those who see no progress, they have ignored one biracial man, one woman, one latino, and one Mormon all being considered for the highest office in the land, the President of the United States. These people were children once, and as adults, Dr. King’s dream truly is being advanced. This is our society entering adulthood as well.

Being a man is not about a simple ritual. It is about making hard choices that adults have to make every day. It is about taking personal responsibility for actions, without blaming other races and genders for internal problems. It is about refusing to accept failure as institutional.

It can start with small decisions. As a teenager, I did not drink, smoke, or do drugs. Today I am a productive adult in society, and I still do not smoke, drink or do drugs. I do not have out of wedlock children, which is one of the leading causes of our decaying moral society. 1/4 of white children are born out of wedlock, and a staggering 2/3 of black children are born to unmarried parents. This is not the fault of racism. It is simply moral failure.

Martin Luther King Jr was a flawed man. He ran around with women outisde of his marriage to Coretta Scott King. Yet he still managed to be a good father, and his children today are decent members of society.

There are so many pitfalls in society today, and to simply believe that better days ahead may seem simplistic. However, if one does not believe that better days are ahead, why go on? Dr. King became a leader at a time in history where an entire race was barely more than 3/5 of a human being. Yet while there is still room to go, there has been so much improvement, and to deny this is to deny reality.

Racism and antisemitism are despised by most people. The days of publicly humiliating races and creeds in office buildings are long gone. Yet even though things are so much better, those that benefit from spreading poison speak loudly.

The day of my Bar Mitzvah, I had a black girlfriend. She was also Jewish, the adopted girl of white parents. We were both too young to understand the significance of an interracial relationship, but why is becoming aware always a positive thing? When I look back, I realized that it was not race that broke us up. We were kids, and she broke it off because we lived 45 minutes apart and could not see each other.

We start in such a hurry to grow up, and then we spend our adult years trying to slow the clock as it rapidly advances. When all is said and done, very few of us ever make a difference in this world. We enter with nothing, we leave with nothing, and there is virtually no evidence that we ever existed. Some may find this depressing, but it is reality.

Yet to the small circle of people who know us, we matter greatly.

If there is anything we can and should take away from MLK Day, it is that dreams are possible. Miracles happen every day. Two years after Dr. King was assassinated, the United States put a man on the moon.

On January 21st, 1985, I was young enough to believe that all people were capable of loving and helping each other. One year later Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev shook hands.

On January 21st, 2008, I am old enough to believe that all people are capable of loving and helping each other. At the very least we need to tolerate each other. We have to. We are stuck with each other. So we can either spend our lives attending protest marches and rioting in the streets, or we can reach out and help our neighbor.

One year from now, George W. Bush will no longer be President. This is a joyous thought for some, a saddening thought for others. One year from now, when Martin Luther King Jr. Day rolls around, a new leader will have been just sworn in.

That leader will have much work to do. It will require rolling up sleeves, but it will also require a heavy dose of optimism. Somewhere out there is a 13 year old boy about to have his Bar Mitzvah. He will be 36 one day, and when he looks back on his journey, it will all have been a waste unless life is better in the future then it is now.

I believe this boy will be ok. Things turned out fine for me, and I will help this boy along. So will members of other communities, because he will be playing with their children, and those kids will be too young and naive to hate, unless their parents teach them badly.

Dr. King wanted love and peace to be spread. He believed that we are all God’s children. The best thing we can do to honor his memory is buy a much bigger dinner table, and make sure that good people of all races and creeds are invited over to break bread.

Let us all say, in a thunderous voice, “Amen.”

eric

I often receive requests from people around the world to blog about certain topics. I try to accommodate people, but sometimes the subject matter is just not relevant. A couple days ago I received a request from a retired Veteran of the War in Afghanistan. His request of me is more than relevant. It is important. So rather than briefly discuss his remarks, I will present them in their entirety.

http://vetsforfreedom.org/

This cause is noble. May it flourish. Thank you to all our Veterans. Thank you and welcome home.

eric

The Jayson Blair Times is descending into madness. It is now officially the equivalent of a drug addict unable to come clean. It is in a downward spiral, and it is determined to drag everybody down until there is nothing good in America left. We can argue over whether it takes a village to raise a child, but it seems that it only takes a newspaper to burn the village.

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/06/the-collapse-of-the-jayson-blair-times-palestinian-style/

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/01/24/americas-fishwrap-endorses/

For the sake of full disclosure, for those who truly do need to be hit upside the head with a bar towel to know they are in a bar, I find the paper formerly known as the New York Times to be a contemptible piece of trash run by disgusting individuals that long ago gave up on concepts such as honor and integrity.

I want to make it crystal clear that my objection to this paper is not political. I disagree with liberals. I detest the JBT. I detest the fact that they will allow blind partisan hatred to get in the way of making America happier, healthier, and safer.

I am a conservative blogger. Yet if you are a liberal, you will be welcome on my blog. You will not be castigated. I will treat you politely. We will disagree, but you will be welcome as would any guest in my home. When watching football on Sundays, I know some of the guys sitting on my couch are liberals. They know they have a place to watch the game. I want my blog to be equally welcoming.

The JBT would rather destroy than reach out. They are sinking in readership because they have taken so many repugnant actions that only their most ardent ideological warriors will read them.

Some people will bemoan the state of politics today. They will say it has gotten coarser. We were better off before Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the blogosphere lit up society. Things were so much more peaceful “back then.”

No, society was not more peaceful. There was not harmony. Debate was merely stifled. When a liberal says, “Be bipartisan,” what they really mean is, “Shut up and agree with me.” The New York Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, and NPR ruled with iron fists…iron liberal fists. Conservatives were simply not allowed to speak. The debate is coarser today because liberals have not been able to silence and bully the conservatives back underground.

Yes, there are plenty of strident conservatives out there. They will argue that they were bullied, so therefore they have every right to get down and dirty. This is wrong. This is how entire groups of people who have been victimized in the past seek vengeance rather than justice. Some people run for President fueled by this vengeance. What conservatives should do is what most of them are already doing. Do not get in the gutter, but be a worldwide group of ombudsmen that expose every liberal lie. This is a full time job when it comes to the JBT, but here are some examples of how they have sunk.

They became the JBT by promoting Jayson Blair himself. He was unqualified, and incompetent. He continued to rise in the ranks, passing over better qualified and longer tenured caucasian employees.

Affirmative action is a sensitive issue. I have enraged many conservatives myself by not being rabidly against it. Yet at the same time, promoting Jayson Blair hurt everybody. The critics of affirmative action made him the poster boy in an attempt to destroy an entire structure meant to help people. Where the JBT went wrong is that they sacrificed quality in favor of ideology. There are plenty of capable black people in America, a majority of them liberals. Instead of picking somebody who happened to be black, they picked somebody because he was black.

Yet the Jayson Blair imbroglio was a molehill. Other scandals have been mountains.

In 2004, Mary Mapes and Dan Rather used their powerful positions at CBS to try and bring down President Bush. In conjunction with the JBT, memos that were “fake but accurate” made it on the air. If the new media did not exist, John Kerry would have won the election. That in itself is not the tragedy, since many people wanted him to win. The real horror would have been when the scandal erupted after he was sworn in. His Presidency would have been paralyzed. It would have made Monicagate seem like child’s play. America would have been irreparably harmed.

Yet just because President Bush was reelected does not mean we can all say, “no harm, no foul.” Attempted murder is not murder, but it is still awful. Whether or not President Bush shirked his military duties would have been a legitimate story if there was hard evidence. CBS and the JBT let ideology trump quality, and let emotion override facts. They continued to hasten the destruction of their own brands.

If trying to rig an election was sinister, then trying to get innocent Americans killed was bordering, if not crossing over, the line of good and evil.

The JBT has gone beyond reporting the war in Iraq and the War on Terror. They have openly cheered for America to lose. This is treason. It is sedition.

Some may ask how an inanimate object can hurt or harm anything. This inanimate object has a flesh and blood owner. His name is Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger, Jr. Pinch Sulzberger has a long history of despising his own nation. Like all rich children of guilty white liberals, he managed to join the counterculture. Unlike others who took part in that wretched movement of drug loving hippie excess, he never grew up. While his father, Arthur “Punch” Sulzberger Sr., was a liberal, even he had his limits. He asked his son who he would want to die in a conflict between an American soldier and a Vietnamese soldier. Pinch replied, “The American soldier should die because we invaded his country. The Vietnamese soldier is just defending himself.”

One does not have to support a war to wish that our soldiers come home safely. Pinch has continued his warped thinking to this very day. On the day that Iraqis voted in their third democratic election, The JBT chose to break the wiretapping story involving the Bush White House. Reasonable minds can disagree on whether this was a story to begin with. Yet the story could have been reported one day earlier or one day later. It was not time sensitive. The day of the Iraqi election was historic. To give it short shrift was horrifying.

Yet even more horrifying was the JBT giving away secret troop movements, endangering the lives of American soldiers. This is not about right vs left. It is about right vs wrong. Our troops may overwhelmingly vote republican, but they conduct their missions with honor, regardless of who at any moment in history is their Commander in Chief. Those who say they “support the troops” cannot condone this activity. These young men and women should not be blown to kingdom come because one man is against war in principle and American victory in practice. Ideology has blinded him. There is no decency left.

In the last few days alone, there have been three more big black eyes at the Gray Lady.

The first is mild in comparison. It involves the furor of the paper in general for hiring commentator Billl Kristol, who happens to be a conservative. Notice I did not refer to him as “conservative commentator Bill Kristol.” He is a human being first, and I do not recall the Wall Street Journal refer to “liberal columnist Al Hunt,” when he was a columnist there. That is because the WSJ was able to place quality above ideology. This allowed it to export both.

Daniel Finkelstein, the editor of the Times of London, wrote a brilliant article questioning why a movement obsessed with diversity would object to a columnist offering ideological diversity.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2008/01/an-open-letter.html

The reason is because that type of diversity is frowned upon.

“A quality newspaper should have columns reflecting a wide variety of opinions, even those uncongenial to the majority of its readers. While the bulk of a paper’s columnists may reflect the publication’s character and view, there must always be space for an alternative opinion.”

Apparently Mr. Finkelstein believes the JBT is reasonable.

“Considering that Kristol represents a large strand of American opinion (even if it is a smaller strand of NYT reader opinion) it is entirely unremarkable that his columns should be commissioned.”

This is because ideology is what they want, quality is irrelevant. Expanding the readership is only irrelevant for people who want to grow their business. Judging by the collapsing stock price, Pinch simply does not care about increasing circulation.

“The job of a reader’s editor, surely is to defend the rights of its readers, all of its readers. It is not to start picking a “Fantasy Columnist” team to reflect his own politics. What of people who agree with Kristol? Do they not deserve the protection of the reader’s editor?”

Clark Hoyt, the ombudsman at the JBT, did not want Mr. Kristol hired because he had the nerve to criticize the paper in the past. Internal dissension is healthy. It avoids groupthink. Come to think of it, the very things that the JBT has accused the Bush Administration of being guilty of is what has affected the JBT itself.

Mr. Hoyt stated, “This is not a person I would have rewarded with a regular spot in front of arguably the most elite audience in the nation.”

Mr. Finkelstein’s reply was brief, to the point, and deadly accurate.

“Isn’t this the most pompous sentence you have ever read in your life?”

This is the JBT mindset. They have between one and two million readers, and think that 7 billion people agree with them. Even for liberals, this is too much arrogance.

The second black eye is a repeat of 2004. Many people feel that Rudy Giuliani is the strongest republican candidate (Disclosure: I am supporting Rudy Giuliani for President). While many on the left and right are not fans of Rudy, he was the frontrunner in the polls for some time. Then a scandal broke about secret service protection for his mistress, now his wife, Judi Nathan. In the end, there was no scandal. The expenditures were legal, and charged to the appropriate account.

So no harm, no foul, right? Wrong. The scandal was on the front page. The retraction was on page 37. Rudy Giuliani might still become President, but if he does not, that scandal is what sent him down in the polls. The JBT failed to get President Bush in 2004, but they fired their guns on Mayor Giuliani, and derailed a strong republican…and more importantly, a staunch advocate of an aggressive continuation of the War on Terror. Ideology reigns supreme, and any man further to the right of President Bush with regards to the Bush Doctrine must be destroyed.

Yet if attacking one man falsely is disgusting, continuing to disparage our troops is vile.

The newest story slandering the troops comes in the form of the JBT Claiming that 121 murders have been committed by American troops returning home to American soil. This is to show returning soldiers as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder induced crazed, murderous lunatics. The story has already been debunked, since when taken as a percentage, American civilians who have not served in the military are 5 times more likely to commit murder. Soldiers are better behaved, more disciplined, and less violent. They are not “killing machines.” They are humanitarians who love America, and defend our citizens. To portray the entire group as murderers is to hate the troops.

It is not that the JBT is liberal. It is that they are pernicious, wrong, and unapologetic. They get the story wrong, issue mealy mouthed apologies, and continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. Sometimes honest mistakes happen. More often than not, the paper engages in deliberate smears.

It is no wonder that the JBT and its ever dwindling number of readers despise Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and their less popular brethren. The JBT repeatedly lies. They have always lied. Only in recent years are they getting caught.

The New York Post does not have this problem. The Wall Street Journal does not have this problem either. It is not that they are conservative. It is that they are obsessed with getting the news right. Not right politically, but right accurately. On the rare occasions they make mistakes, they issue loud mea culpas. They also have liberal columnists, or to be more accurate, columnists that happen to be liberal. They are not token hires. They simply write well.

My blog will succeed because my belief in conservatism, while strong, is secondary to my obsession with integrity. I will be wrong from time to time. I will blow a story. Yet I will place the value of my brand above my pride.

I will not allow myself to become the conservative equivalent of the JBT, because conservatives have to be thrice as good as liberals to survive. The main stream media loves to show conservatives fouling things up, so they can claim that everybody does it. I will not fall into that trap.

The JBT will continue to rot from its arrogant liberal head. They prefer madness to goodness. Quality is job zero. They will burn the village, and yes, some decent republicans will get singed. Yet the JBT will be burning right next to them, their own reputation burnt to a crisp, tattered and charred.

Conservatives will be better when the Gray Lady gets euthanized. Liberals will not realize this until later on, but they will be better off as well. Society will be better.

The JBT is the politics of personal destruction. The debate will be less coarse when they expire worthless. This will not eliminate liberalism. Another liberal publication will take their place, obsessed with avoiding the same mistakes. They will choose honesty over treachery, and a rich, deep national debate can continue, free from hatred and lies.

I hope there are enough liberals that value integrity enough to prove me right.

eric

I had the pleasure of meeting columnist and author Mona Charen In December of 2007. I attended a policy forum in a Synagogue in San Francisco hosted by the Jewish Policy Forum. After the forum had ended, she agreed to do an interview with the Tygrrrr Express.

She is the author of the best selling books “Do Gooders,” and “Useful Idiots.”

Her columns can be read in political publications such as National Review and Townhall to religious papers such as the Jewish World Review.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen.html

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/archive.shtml

She is also a Jewish conservative republican Neocon that puts her principles first, which is good for those who know her given that those principles are decent and well grounded.

I also want to say one other thing about Ms. Charen. She is one of the nicest people I have ever encountered. I drove her and a mutual friend back to their respective hotels after the policy forum had concluded. She is a patient person, finding humor in the fact that only yours truly could get lost using a GPS tracker. After 16 consecutive right turns, I realized that we were only 196 laps away from completing the Indy 500. While “Right Turns” is Michael Medved’s book, Ms. Charen would have been trapped in San Francisco had we not at some point allowed ourselves just this once to turn left.

Only after we saw a street known as “Bush Street,” did I realize things would be fine. First of all, David Frum wrote “The Right Man,” about the President, and even in San Francisco, to get anywhere successfully, one had to pass through Bush Street.

Ms. Charen found some of the above remarks funny, which only proves how overwhelmingly gracious she is. As for the conversation in the car, it shall remain confidential out of respect for her privacy. Nevertheless, to say she was delightful to get to know was also an understatement. I also feared that if she was not dropped off at her hotel safely, her next column would be about a planted blogger from the Daily Kos or Moveon.org trying to derail conservatives by any means necessary. I am a genuine conservative, and she was dropped off safely. I wanted her to have a safe and easy flight back because her flight to San Francisco had her near a passenger downing five vodkas. Contrary to rumors, as a friend of mine at the event pointed out, it was not Senator Ted Kennedy causing the problem.

To know Ms. Charen is to like her. With that, below is my interview with Mona Charen.

1) How does a nice Jewish person from a good family end up, horror of horrors, politically conservative?

I became a conservative in part because I listened to talk radio before it was cool. In the 1970s, Barry Farber held forth on WOR in New York City. He was a North Carolinian, silver-tongued Jew, who was a staunch anti-communist and conservative. I learned a great deal. Also, my parents were becoming more and more disenchanted with the Left and the Democratic party during the 60s and 70s.

2) A large segment of our society seems to have an irrational fear of anyone deemed “religious.” Do you feel this is true, and how do you balance your deep commitment to your faith with the noble goal of educating some Americans who may unfairly consider all religion to be equated with zealotry and intolerance? 

That sounds like a question from someone who lives in San Francisco! I think most of the country is not at all uncomfortable with religion. This is the case only in liberal-land.

3) What can ordinary citizens do, besides donating money and buying your books, to help win the War on Terror? What obligations do we have, and how can we help?  

Vote. Write letters to the editor. Send cards and gifts to the troops.

4) It is one thing to ask people to have faith in God. It is much tougher to ask people to have faith in Government. What does our government do right, and what does it need to do better so people can start believing in their government again?

As a conservative, I don’t necessarily want to encourage trust in government. A good skepticism about government is healthy. But I would encourage faith in American ideals and American civic culture – and those are under unceasing assault by the Left.

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

See my column on Romney.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWExZDFjMzYyNDU4MzUzMTA3OWEwYjZmM2FhMWIxZDc=

6) 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?

This question would require a book – and perhaps I’ll write it but not today.

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

I’ve had challenges aplenty. But I’m a believer in dogged hard work. It has gotten me through many difficult situations.

 

8.) Our country is incredibly polarized. Outside of another 9/11, is it even possible to unite Americans? What can be done to help reduce the acrimony among Americans today?

I grieve at the level of vulgarity and viciousness that is commonplace on the internet. I’ve always tried to be polite and civil when I debate Democrats and liberals. We need a return of the concept of shame in many areas of American life but perhaps we can start by shaming those who engage in vitriolic political attacks and personal invective.

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

Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, and George Washington. Very unimaginative you may say but there it is. Hamilton for his vision and brilliance; Lincoln for his genius with the English language; and Washington for being the purest incarnation of the democratic idea in the whole history of the world.

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

 Churchill, Moses, and Anastasius I (he cut taxes and provided a strong defense).

 

11) 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?

My model for a Supreme Court justice is John Roberts – impeccably well qualified, informed, humorous, temperate, and wise.

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

 Judaism also requires self-discipline, marital fidelity, respect for the sanctity of life, and a reverence for tradition. It requires us to teach our children the laws of God and to be strong in the face of our enemies!

 

13) 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, and how did you or would you handle this conflict?   

 Well, there are laws with which I disagree but they have not caused a crisis of conscience. I disagree with the abortion regime in America but I do my best to change people’s minds.

14) Without delving into your personal life, what would you want Americans to know about Mona Charen the 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 have tried to live as well-balanced a life as possible. I hope people who know me would say that I do practice what I preach. I’ve put my family before my career. I try to treat everyone as I would like to be treated. And I think I’m a great appreciator of the talents of others.

I would like to again thank Ms. Charen for her time, her pleasantness, and her thoughtfulness. Those qualities emanate through her columns.

I wish Mona Charen much happiness and success always.

eric

 

Quick plug…Tonight I am a guest on www.newsradiomagazine.com at 6:45pm PST.

The republicans had a primary in Michigan. Mitt Romney was the winner. After a deep analysis, this tells us…absolutely nothing. The only thing that can truly be determined by observing Detroit is that the Lions are still terrible. The republican primaries have told us zilch. Mike Huckabee won the activists in Iowa, John McCain won the rebels in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney won his de facto home state where economics is key. Fred Thompson wants to win his fellow Southerners in South Carolina, and Rudy Giuliani very well could win his fellow New Yorkers in Florida. We know nothing, and attempts to dispute that would make us liberals, aka liars.

As for the fun and games involving the Las Vegas democratic smackdown, first, I offer a brief musical interlude.

“I’m gonna give it everything I’ve got…may lord please let the dice stay hot…let me see a seven with every shot…Viva…Las Vegas…Viva…Las Vegas.”

(in Elvis voice) Thank you very much.

That song has so much testosterone it should be used in male enhancement ads.

Speaking of those needing male enhancement, the democrats had a debate in Las Vegas. Before providing the recap, it is important to note that while the location of the debate was Las Vegas, Nevada, and the issues facing America are global, the democrats running for President are permanently entrenched in Selma, Alabama.

Yes, Selma, Alabama. There has been no progress, nothing has changed since 1863, the system is rigged, blah blah blah, wake me up when you can speak without being boring.

Forgive me for being unsympathetic to a culture of victimhood, be it feminists who preach strength and burst into hysterical tears, or racial hustlers who talk about uniting people while benefiting from hostility and divisions to line their own pockets.

While Al Queda is plotting to continue to engage in global terrorism, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are arguing about who is more authentically connected to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I am sure this 1960s version of street cred will save us when our cities are burning and subways are being bombed because our politicians were busy fighting about nonsense.

Bombs have gone off in London, Bali, Madrid, and Glasgow. The terrorists did not care what color, gender, or religion the victims were. They did not discriminate.

Barack Obama may be a lightweight, but he does not seem to be a bad guy. The Clintons are throatslitters, and they are prepared to play the race and gender cards if that will be their ticket to power. I do not think Hillary is a racist. She just has a bloodlust for power, and if that means tearing America apart along racial and gender lines to further her own ambitions, so be it. John Edwards sees two Americas, and I wish he would go to the other one. I see two Americas as well, North and South. Perhaps Edwards can be deported to Brazil. It might make him appreciate the USA more.

As for Hillary, perhaps the walls are finally closing in, and like a cornered animal, she will fight to the death. If this bloodies the democrats, allowing republicans to win, that allows her to try again in 4 years instead of 8 years. I say that the walls are closing in because of the results in Michigan. Yes, she won, and she will spin it as a triumph. The truth, never to be confused with anything emanating form the mouths of the Clintons, is that Hillary ran unopposed. She scored 55% of the vote, with uncommitted approaching 40%. That is a loss everywhere reality exists.

Yet the reason Hillary is a disaster is because she is simply a dour person. She is against everybody in her way, but does not seem to be for anything except getting elected. Barack Obama is likable. The one time he came across as unlikable was when he was condescending towards Hillary, saying she was “likable enough.” He paid the price in New Hampshire. Yet he is much more likable than her overall. He is black, but he has gone out of his way to appeal to voters of all stripes. He is not running as the “black candidate.” Hillary is the female candidate. Her gender is her rationale, and she knows men do not vote for her. Since Obama appeals to many, Hillary needs to peel away by any means necessary. As she gets desperate, she gets racially tinged. She does it through her surrogates, but we are responsible for those we associate with.

So despite the fact that Selma Alabama was four decades ago, and most people agree with civil rights, and want harmony, harmony helps Obama and hatred helps Hillary. If it takes burning a village to get elected, Hillary will do it. When Hillary destroys Obama as a human being and wins the nomination, she will continue to use racism, sexism, and every other ism to defeat republicanism. Obama is wrong on issues. Hillary is poison. For those who want to talk about change by claiming nothing has changed, support Hillary. For democrats who want to get beyond the racial and ethnic divisions that hurt all of us, support a man who happens to be black, but would rather reach us all.

Or better yet, for those more interested in 2023 than 1863, vote republican.

For those who want to go back to 1863, below is the recap of the democratic debate. The positive of this debate was that the lower tier was removed, and the big three remained, the way the debates should be. The bad news is that all three are losers.

Let’s get ready to rumble! The Michael Buffer debate recap is below.

Moderator Brian Williams got the debate off with a bang by diving into the current controversy involving disputes over who was closest to Martin Luther King Jr.

Hillary Clinton immediately announced that neither race nor gender should play a role in the campaign. She praised Barack Obama and John Edwards. She blamed her exuberant uncontrollable supporter for the flap, and then blamed republicans.

Obama agreed with Hillary. He said race has always been an issue, but we cannot solve challenges unless we come together.

Edwards said as a Southerner, it is personal for him. We have made progress, but have more to do.

Tim Russert asked Obama about his staff accusing Hillary pushing the racial angle.

Obama took full responsibility, saying his staff was overzealous on the issue, and that he told them to stop. He also stated that all 3 candidates were committed to racial equality, and that he would be judged by whether he can help All Americans on issues such as home foreclosures and foreign policy. He nailed it.

When asked if their was an attempt to marginalize him as a black candidate, he stated it was not. He said that the American public could see through that. When asked about his loss in New Hampshire, he said race was not the issue, and that Hillary won fair and square. He was taking the high road, and very effectively. He said, “Change will happen because the people determine it.”

Hillary was asked if Robert Johnson would be axed from the campaign based on his comments about Obama, given her prior statements about all her campaign staff being accountable. She did nto directly answer the question. She blathered about the stakes being high, and disavowed the comments herself. All she said about Johnson was that he retracted his comments. She ducked.

Edwards was asked why choosing between the first woman or first black candidate should not be awful, in terms of being forced to choose. Edwards spoke of his own personal beliefs, and how fighting for the issues that matter trumps the rest. He spoke passionately, but ducked the question.

When asked what a white male can do against historic candidacies, he expressed pride in the democratic party for it’s diversity, but smartly pointed out that Obama and Hillary asked not to be judged by race or gender.

Obama was asked about his comment saying Hillary was “likable enough.” Obama stated that he regretted the way it came across. He stated that all 3 candidates were good people, but that he was the one to bring people together, and would be truthful with the American people.

Edwards was asked if he and Obama were ganging up on Hillary. Edwards said if it looked that way, it absolutely was not that way. He then went into his stump speech.

At this point, Osama Bin Laden was laughing himself silly at these questions, thrilled that the focus was off of him and onto nonsense. Also, a heckler started ranting about race based questions, but it was not Bin Laden, just some unwashed liberal.

Hillary was asked about her husband’s comments about Obama, and how he would be trounced by the republicans. She stated the party would be unified in November, and that she was ready to lead from day 1. Perhaps she did not hear the question. She ranted about how “pathetic” it was that President Bush was “begging the Saudies to lower the price of oil.” This was a lie, but again, this is Hillary.

She also said she has “heard voices for 35 years.” I will resist the urge to take it out of context by bringing up Eleanor Roosevelt.

Russert then asked a very pointed question. He acknowledge that Hillary feels she is the most prepared, but he asked her if Obama and Edwards were at all prepared to be President. Shockingly enough, she ducked, stating that was for the voters to decide.

Obama was asked about his comment about one of his weaknesses, that he is not an “operating officer.” He stated the Presidency is not about schedules and paperwork. It is about vision, bringing together the best people, and solving problems. It was a legitimate answer.

Each candidate was asked about their greatest strength and their greatest weakness.

Obama said his greatest strength was to bring people together. His greatest weakness is his being disorganized with paper, and that he should not be given papers until 2 seconds before he needs to use them. He needs good staff to help with his mess of an office.

Edwards said his greatest strength was his fighting for his beliefs, for children. His weakness was his powerful emotional responses to pain around him. He cited one of his many examples he trots out to tug at heartstrings. That is a phony answer because many would not consider that a weakness at all.

Hillary stated that she is passionately committed to what America stands for. She wants to be a change agent, especially for children.

She then admitted that her sincere flaw is her refusal to answer questions honestly, and that she is corrupt. Just kidding. She did finally admit that she gets “impatient and frustrated when people don’t seem to understand that we can do more.” You see, it is everyone else’s fault. She gets “very concerned about pushing further and faster than others are ready to go.”

Will somebody please remove this woman from her sky horse already? The question was about trying to humanize the candidates, and despite her one calculated moment of almost crying, she was back to being Rosie the Robot from the Jetsons. She should just say she is perfect and be done with it.

She then stated that while bringing people together is important, she knows how to run the bureaucracy. She then laced into President Bush, and implied Obama would take the same approach with regards to implementation.

Obama clarified his position, took a jibe at President Bush, but did not hit back at Hillary. He did stumble in continuing his answer, although he did recover and say that the issue was not managing the bureaucracy where Bush went wrong, but in his failure to bring people together.

Obama was asked about false rumors about him on the internet, most involving his Muslim heritage. Obama stated he was a Christian, and answered an undignified idiotic question in a dignified manner.

Osama Bin Laden joined the Brian Williams fan club, and declared NBC News the official station of those that care more about garbage innuendo than worldwide terrorism.

Barbara Walters was then brought in to ask Hillary what kind of tree she would be. No, not really.

Hillary was then asked about Citigroup and Merrill Lynch going to foreign nations for help with the mortgage crisis. Hillary was asked if this was wrong. Way to lob a softball, Brian. Hillary expressed outrage, and then blamed Wall Street for the irresponsible behavior of American citizens. Yep, big, bad rich people are always wrong. She blamed the President for refusing to bail out businesses. If he did, she would blame him for bailing out the rich.

Edwards bashed the rich. This got Osama Bin Laden angry because he is rich. His support for democrats might slip if they can raise his taxes. Perhaps Edwards wants to withdraw troops from Iraq and direct them at Wall Street given his love of class warfare.

Obama correctly pointed out that part of the problem is that we do not have an energy policy. He did get in some Bush bashing, but his was milder, as before. Also, he seemed to be the only one of the three actually discussing policy issues. He stated that the administration does not believe in oversight. Again, Obama is completely wrong in asking for more regulation, but that is a policy difference. He wants more regulation. It is the wrong stand, but at least it is a stand.

Russert asked Edwards about voting in favor of the 2001 bankruptcy bill, and whether he regretted his vote. He immediately stated he was wrong. Edwards can be very slimy. He simply disavows past votes. Yet on the other hand, he is willing to apologize, something Hillary will not do. Even if Edwards is calculating, he stated he was wrong, and that usually ends discussion of an unpleasant vote. He did mention eliminating big banks as the intermediaries between colleges and students trying to get loans.

Hillary was asked if she was wrong to vote for the bankruptcy bill. She did say she was wrong, but then stated that it never became law, and she was glad about that. She started unequivocal, but then quickly did equivocate. Unlike Edwards, she just cannot let herself be wrong. She then bashed Countrywide Financial. She stated these issues fall hardest on minorities. She was practically screaming, but yet loudness is not emotion.

Obama stated that he opposed both the 2001 and the 2005 bankruptcy bills. He is able to agree with Hillary on an issue, say almost the same exact words, yet come across as cool and reasonable. In the past debate, he was seen as aloof, and it hurt him. This time he was just calm and cerebral, and it helped him. He also did tell one hard luck American story in the way John Edwards would, but Obama comes across as less deliberately heart tugging.

Basically, Hillary was grating, Edwards was sugary, and Obama was reasonable.

Obama was asked a fabulous question from an elderly retiree. The retiree was living on dividend income, and was scared that democrats would raise the taxes on dividends by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. This question was brilliant because it blasted the notion that the stock market is for the rich, and old ladies cannot be yelled at. It was a legitimate policy question that every democrat should be forced to answer. Democrats like to portray republicans as wanting to throw old people on the streets, but its is the democrats that want to tax one of their sources of survival, dividends.

Obama said he would exempt middle income folks from taxes on dividends. He then wandered off into unfairness in the tax code anyway. Obama feels that rich people living on dividends should pay more. He does not understand that investing is real work. Again, while Obama is fundamentally wrong, debates are about how candidates discuss issues, and he showed a clear grasp of his own plan, and what he would do.

Hillary was asked about freezing interest rates to prevent foreclosures, and if she understood the long term ramifications of such a measure. Apparently the questioner took Economics 101, which Hillary did not. Hillary tried to sound like an economics professor, insisting she knew better than the Federal Reserve. She then used the term “green collar jobs,” which is either a new term to describe environmental professionals, or a made up term. I cannot say either way.

The candidates were then allowed to question each other. FINALLY!

Brian Williams jokingly stated that he did not know if this was a good or bad idea. Whether the questions themselves were good or bad, it is an excellent idea.

Edwards stated he would not be preachy or holier than thou, which meant he would be. As he laughed, Obama sat stone faced, in this case justifiably so. Edwards wanted to know why Obama and Hillary take money from drug companies.

Obama stated that if a mid level executive sends him money because he likes his hopeful message, that gets recorded as a company donation even if there is no coordination. It is a fair point, although the contributions might not be voluntary. Obama did state that he cosponsored a proposal to have public financing of campaigns, and that he received many donations from small donors.

At this point Brian Williams proved to be completely incompetent by stating that he misspoke, and that the candidates were not allowed to ask two questions, or one of each other opponent, but only one question in total. That meant Edwards questioned Obama, but could not question Hillary.

Again, this was not the fault of the candidates, but it definitely blindsided them. It also hurt Edwards, who most likely would have questioned Hillary and not Obama if given the choice, rather than tell him he could question both of them.

Hillary asked Obama to join her in helping end the War in Iraq. She then bashed President Bush. Apparently she does not even like to question her opponents, preferring to talk about herself. Obama was wrong. Hillary is not likable enough.

Obama quickly agreed to work with her on this. For a hard woman like Hillary, she missed an opportunity, serving her primary opponent a softball. Obama took the softball and ran with it, mentioning that we were on pace to be in Iraq until 2018. He also managed to discuss the issue without the rancor. Obama disagrees with opponents. Hillary despises enemies. I learn this by simply listening to them.

When asked by the moderator if they supported Obama’s vow to bring troops home in 2009, Hillary and Edwards said yes. Russert then reminded all 3 candidates that when asked in a prior debate to pledge to have all troops out of Iraq within their first year in office, they all refused to make that pledge. Russert stated that he “was hearing something much different tonight.” They all tried to protest simultaneously.

Obama tied to straddle the fence, as the others nodded their head. When Obama brought up President Bush, Hillary stated that it was not just President Bush. She blamed all the republican candidates.

Hillary then took a bold gamble by criticizing John McCain on the war, which even republicans running against him are loathe to do. He said we might be in Iraq for another 100 years. Of course, this does not mean we will be at war that long. McCain compared it to still having troops in Germany and Korea, which are not war zones.

Hillary then said the most truthful thing she has ever said. She stated, “The republicans have an entirely different view than we do.”

Yes Hillary. We do. We’re right. Your wrong. Thank you for just giving us the clip that should be used in every single republican campaign commercial from now until November.

Edwards then said it was dishonest to say you will not have troops in Iraq to protect people. Yet he then said there will be no permanent military base and no combat troops. Huh? It must bother Hillary that Bill Clinton and John Edwards can say this stuff but she cannot.

Obama pointed out the discrepancies in Edwards’s position(s). Edwards disagreed, but Obama said Edwards offered a “distinction without a difference.” Obama won the argument, perhaps because he was right.

Hillary was asked about colleges losing Federal funding for banning ROTC and military recruiters form campuses. She was asked if she would vigorously enforce that law.

She said she absolutely would. She then criticized President Bush on support for the military, so I guess she is better on military issues than he is. She is the audacity of hope minus the hope. When asked about Poison Ivy League schools currently breaking this law, she hemmed and hawed.

Obama promised to enforce the law. He then spoke about national service in exchange for college money, similar to Americorps.

Edwards promised to enforce the law. He then shifted to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

These candidates wanted to spend as little time as possible talking about punishing universities that simply break the law by banning military personnel on campus.

Obama brought up Walter Reed, and how this administration has failed our veterans.

Hillary feigned outrage about a new military brain injury.

The candidates were then asked about Yucca Mountain, giving them an opportunity to suck up to Nevada voters. We have to store nuclear waste somewhere, and the Nevada desert is good enough. Asking them to be against Yucca is like asking them to be against ethanol subsidies in Iowa. It begs for gutlessness.

Obama was against Yucca from the very beginning. He seems to have been against everything from the very beginning. I wonder what he thought of Adam and Eve.

The debate was mostly civil, but finally Hillary took the gloves off. She pointed out that Obama was supported by Excelon Corporation, which supports Yucca, and that Edwards voted for it twice.

Obama and Edwards both said they were against Yucca, but they seemed scared to death to take on Hillary.

Edwards did state that while Obama was open to nuclear power, and Hillary, by her own words was “agnostic,” on the subject, he was firmly against building more nuclear plants.

Hillary again pointed out that Edwards ducked the question. Yes, this was ironic, given that all Hillary does is duck questions, but she was nevertheless right. Edwards got defensive and stammered as Hillary smirked.

Obama voted for the 2005 energy bill and Hillary voted no. This bill benefited nuclear power, and Obama was asked about 29 new plants on the verge of being built.

Obama stated that he supported the bill because it also supported clean energy alternatives. If we could figure out a cost effective and safe way to use nuclear power and a safe way to store it, we should do it.

Hillary referred to the bill as the Dick Cheney lobbyist bill. She then rambled on, and said oil companies do not need enormous profits. She mentioned windfall profits taxes. Liberals get angry when Hillary is referred to as a socialist, but this is socialism. It is income redistribution pure and simple. Calling Hillary a socialist is not an insult. If she chooses to see it that way, then that says more about socialism being wrong than anything else.

Edwards was asked what to do in place of nuclear power, since wind and solar would not be sufficient. Edwards then pointed out that Hillary raised the most money from big special interests, including this industry. Edwards calling Hillary a hypocrite is the same as before when it was done to him…ironic, hypocritical itself…and right.

Edwards then crossed the line by saying that America was the “worst polluter on the planet.”

Hillary said she was against coal unless it could be clean, and she wanted “large demonstration projects.” She then stole some Obama’s rhetorical style, minus the appropriate voice inflection of course, and stated that this was like landing a man on the moon, and a President must lead. It was a fair point in terms of elevating the significance of the issue.

Obama eloquently stated that ordinary citizens had to contribute to help make change. It was reminiscent of JFK and his “ask not…” speech. I credit him for having the guts to say that the people have to contribute to solve problems.

When asked about making immigration the official language, Edwards danced around it as long as possible. He said we should “help” people learn English.

Hillary was then served a major softball. She was asked if a Hispanic voter who said that Hispanics would not vote for blacks represented her views?

She then said she was a racist. No, of course not. She disagreed with the comments.

She said that the “agenda for Hispanics and African-AMericans is the agenda for America.”

Obama stated that Hispanics would vote for a black man and made the crowd laugh and clap loudly by saying, “In Illinois they all voted for me.”

Once again, human touch versus programmed robot, with Obama sounding authentic and Hillary sounding like…well…her.

Obama stated that he stood with Ted Kennedy and John McCain on immigration. Perhaps he was trying to destroy McCain by praising him, rather than bash a war hero on the war, Hillary’s approach.

Obama was asked about the high dropout rate among black men from high school. Obama stated that we need more money pumped into early childhood education. This continued a theme with Obama during this debate. He is wrong with regards to the solutions, but at least he answers the d@mn questions. He stated that we have solutions, but not urgency in the White House on education issues.

He also then spoke about the necessity of black fathers to take responsibility, and that as a man who grew up without a father, he understood.

This might have been the one debate moment in any of the debates where Obama answered a question in a way that none of the other candidates would have been allowed to answer. A white candidate, especially a republican, bringing up black fathers, would have gotten protest calls. Obama can discuss it. Life is not fair. It should be discussed.

Hillary kept saying that the debate was a “black-brown” debate. I can only imagine a republican using that rhetoric, such as former President Bush referring to his grandchildren as the “little brown ones.” Hillary then sucked up to the debate organizers and mentioned her 35 years of blah blah blah.

Edwards stated that we needed “second chance schools.” I do not know what that means. There are reform schools.

Russert then brought up the homicides of young black men, which of course became a gun control issue rather than a personal responsibility issue.

Hillary was asked if she would implement a national gun registry for each firearm sale. Hillary said yes, and that she was “against illegal guns.” All good people are against that, but that did not seem to matter. Hillary of course took a swipe at the NRA without mentioning them. SHe also accidentally said something telling. She pointed out that she understood that “the prevailing political winds” did not allow for much more gun control.

Again, this should be a campaign issue. The prevailing political winds should not be what guides people. Convictions should guide people. I would respect Hillary if she would simply take her chances and say she favored gun control. I would disagree with her, but at least it would be an actual stand. We know she favors gun control, but she cannot come out and say it. At least now we know she admits to being a political coward, afraid to offend anyone. She is one day going to perish by “strangulation by triangulation.”

She did promise to reinstate the assault weapons ban, but said she supported the Second Amendment. She did acknowledge that she backed off a national licensing registration plan, which I thought she said she favored a few minutes earlier.

Obama stated that licensing gun owners “cannot get done.” The man about hope was not hopeful on this one. He alluded to the NRA by name. He stated we should crack down on gun abuse.

Edwards said he was always against gun registration. He also said that he would reinstate the assault weapons ban. Brian Williams got confused and announced that the debate was in Los Angeles and not Las Vegas. Hillary cackled.

Hillary was asked about her tough rhetoric about being prepared for a terrorist attack shortly after criticizing Karl Rove and the White House for saying virtually the exact same thing. She shifted the debate to Homeland Security.

Obama was asked if other candidates exploit 9/11. The ball was soft and light as a feather as it approached him. He did state that Clinton was using fear to score political points. He promised to be honest and straightforward with the American people. He actually did mention Osama Bin Laden.

Hillary was asked if she felt that Al Queda would be more likely to attack America if Obama was President as opposed to her. She said no, but then reaffirmed that she would be ready for day one. That fine line was shrinking. She stated that when President Bush does it, it is invoking fear, but when she does it, she is just being calm.

Edwards was asked if it was appropriate to talk on the telephone to Pervez Musharraf on the day Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, which could have given him cover and legitimacy when the people were angry at him for Bhutto’s death. Edwards said it was appropriate, but then stated that he called somebody in Musharraf’s office, but not him. Ummm…yeah…ok. Edwards then explained that he talked tough, which would mean something if he was not merely a private citizen running for President, as opposed to an actual political leader.

The candidates were then asked a useless question that Brian Williams somehow thought was meaningful. The candidates were asked at what moment they decided to run for President.

Hillary stated that she decided over New Years one year ago. No, she really decided it whe she was in the womb.

Edwards stated that he decided in December a year ago. No, he decided in 2003, when he ran the first time.

Obama also stated that in December of 2006 he made the decision. No, he began exploring it shortly after being elected to the Senate in 2004. He elicited laughs when he said his “wife is extraordinary, and his children are above average.”

This debate had the potential to be the best one among the democrats since it eliminated the distractions and contained only the 3 major candidates. It turned out to be the worst because Brian Williams is an imbecile.

Yes, Tim Russert was as good as ever, but Brian Williams needs to be for universal health care so he can have cranial-glutial extraction surgery covered by his plan. His questions were atrocious.

As for the candidates, this was not even close.

Hillary Clinton performed dreadfully. She was back to her wooden, stiff, obfuscating, parsing self. As I said, earlier, strangulation by triangulation.  She was better than Brian Williams, but the worst of the candidates.

John Edwards split the difference. He did not stand out, but was better than Hillary.

I disagree with Barack Obama on almost every issue, but for a man that I often refer to as an empty suit, he brought the substance for this debate. He spoke about issues, and did so in a crisp, clear manner.

In fact, Obama was the adult on stage, which I have not said in past debates.

These candidates are all, to quote Hillary Clinton from earlier, “pathetic.” Yet this was about picking the best of the worst.

Barack Obama clearly won this debate, by a landslide.

eric