THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

Barack Obama is wrong on virtually every issue. John McCain will not list the reasons why.

I have pretty much thrown in the towel on the McCain campaign because I am tired of caring more about his winning the White House than he does.

John McCain is a good man. Yet he simply does not make the case. I will again try to make the case for him. I pray that my advice gets heeded.

Barack Obama will raise taxes. That can be stated over and over, but unless it is properly explained, it is a meaningless phrase. Barack Obama claims he wants to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. He also plans to repeal the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Repealing tax cuts is exactly the same thing as raising taxes. Additionally, it is impossible mathematically to lower taxes on 95% of Americans when only 62% of Americans pay any taxes at all. How do the other 33% have their taxes lowered when they pay nothing? The answer is “refundable tax credits,” which in English means wealth redistribution, aka socialism.

Some will scream that calling Obama a socialist is a slur. No, it is not. What bothers me is not the socialism, but the refusal to admit it.

On health care, Obama wants mandates. How will these mandates be enforced? Will people be fined? Obama says no, but does not answer how he will enforce mandates. Also, Obama claims that 47 million Americans do not have health care. 15 million of those people are illegal aliens. When asked whether he favored covering them during the primaries, he was all over the map. Also, what about young people that refuse to purchase health care for their own selfish reasons? Should they be fined or sanctioned?

On trade, Obama is moving away from the free trade policies of recent democratic and republican Presidents. He blames President Bush for shattering our relationships with our allies. Yet he then says he will veto trade deals with South Korea and Latin American countries, as well as revise NAFTA. Does he understand that rejecting our allies in this manner will push them into the arms of countries that hate America, such as Venezuela? He praises Bill Clinton and the economy of the 1990s. Doesn’t he realize that free trade helped spur this economy?

On Iraq, Obama was against the surge, which worked. Yet this argument is not enough. Obama has stated that he was against the war from the very beginning. Fair enough. This means that if he was in power, he would not have gone into Iraq. This then means that Saddam Hussein under an Obama administration would still be in power.

Is Obama delighted that Saddam Hussein has been removed? No matter how he tries to dance around this, the yes or no question remains whether or not he is glad Saddam is gone. If he finally does say yes, than he needs to be reminded that President George W. Bush made this decision.

When Obama points out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, remind him that the issue is not Iraq and 9/11. The issue is Iraq and terrorism. Saddam was not behind 9/11. He absolutely was connected to terrorism. He gave $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. Saddam Hussein absolutely was a terrorist. Does Obama agree or disagree with this statement?

The Saddam Hussein angle absolutely relates to Israel. Obama claims to be supportive of Israel, despite claiming that “nobody has suffered more than the Palestinians.” My Holocaust surviving father would disagree. How can one who supports Israel have a problem with the forcible removal of one of Israel’s biggest enemies? I would then mention every anti-Israel person Obama has relied on for advice. General Tony McPeak blames Jews in New York and Miami for the current world problems. David Bonior, a rabidly anti-israel former Congressman from Michigan, was part of his circle of advisers. So was Samantha Power.

Obama shoves people under the bus after they get caught making anti-Israel statements, but not before. Or he just disavows that they ever are or were advisers. It depends what the meaning of “advisers” is. As for Jeremiah Wright, his position on Israel is well known and available for all to see.

Regarding Iran, the argument that he wants to dialogue with Iran is not enough. A more convincing train of thought is necessary. Would he support a resolution to bring Iranian President Armageddonijad up on war crimes before the Hague Court? After all, he was one of the hostage takers during the 1979 hostage crisis. The fact that he leads a nation does not alter the fact that he is a 30 year fugitive.

Obama wants to close down Guantanamo Bay. Fair enough. Where does he want to keep the detainees? They have to be kept somewhere. Also, would he be willing to turn them over to other governments if he suspected they would resort to methods to obtain information that we would not? After all, we do not have the right to tell other nations how to handle their criminals, do we?

With regards to the current situation on Wall Street, he blames President Bush for a culture of deregulation. While Ronald Reagan did deregulate many industries, George W. Bush did not create any new notable deregulatory measures. Can Obama name three specific examples of deregulation under the Bush Presidency? Also, does he realize that Sarbanes-Oxley increased regulations, and made things much worse?

If he is willing to go after the “bad guys,” does that mean former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines? Will he investigate Chris Dodd? Will anybody notice that Congressional Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank had an inappropriate sexual relationship with a banker he was supposed to be monitoring?

Notice I did not say “homosexual relationship.” If Barney Frank tries to make this a gay-bashing issue in the tradition of Jim McGreevey, stick to the fact that this is no different from the Jon Corzine sexual scandal, which was heterosexual. Also, this is not about sex. It is about undue influence and corruption. The fact that it is sexual, and homosexual at that, is irrelevant. It is no different than bribery or other financial misdeeds.

Does Obama support forcing lenders to make loans to poor people with bad credit? That contributed to the current mess in the first place. Is he willing to demand that a certain percentage of loans go to minorities, regardless of ability to pay? Should the government simply buy the homes for them?

For those who are still taking notes, or are at least cutting and pasting, observe that none of the above has anything to do with William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Acorn, Louis Farrakhan, Rasheed Khalidi, or others that Barack Obama has shoved under the bus. I personally believe all of these people are fair game if expressed properly. Yet what I am emphasizing is that even if such topics as these make one squeamish, there are plenty of issues above to show that Barack Obama is somebody that simply has a problem with telling the truth.

Nobody of any substance is saying that Barack Obama is a terrorist, a closet Muslim, an Arab, or a hater of America. He is a Christian, a good husband, and a good father. He is also a man that associates with ne’er do wells, and then disavows them once they become hurtful to him. This does not make Obama a criminal. It makes him a conventional Chicago politician.

He does not transcend race. He does not transcend politics. He does not transcend anything. He climbed the ranks of Chicago, which does not happen ethically.

He was a community organizer. So are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. This is not about race. It is about corruption. Community Organizers are agitators. They are rabble rousers. This is how Obama ended up knee deep in ACORN. They are sympatico in their belief that community organizing, regardless of the law, is fair game.

Some will say he has bad judgment. This is not a fair argument because it implies a certain innocence or naivete on Obama’s part. He may be naive on foreign policy, but with regards to his associations, he knew exactly what he was doing. He got elected in Chicago by getting his challengers thrown off of the ballot. This is neither illegal or unusual. However, it reinforced Obama as a typical politician that will bend the rules to win.

Back to foreign policy, Obama wants to pressure Russia through the United Nations Security Council. Is he aware that Russia has a veto on the Council?

On Pakistan, saying that Obama is willing to bomb Pakistan is too simplistic. However, he has stated his own position as, “If they have Bin Laden, and refuse to get him, we will.” How does he plan to do that? How can he “get” Bin Laden in Pakistan without either using air missiles or ground troops? Doesn’t that require in some manner bombing Pakistan?

Is Obama willing to be a global social worker? The Congressional Black Caucus will want him to do everything to help Africa. Helping people is noble. What does “helping” mean? Will he send the military into Darfur? I suspect he will do what Bill Clinton did in Rwanda, absolutely nothing.

On energy, Obama wants to explore alternative energy sources. However, Americans want drilling, including in Alaska. Has he ever been to Alaska, and would he be willing to visit the state and see the terrain before jumping to conclusions? Also, he claims to be for nuclear power. How many plants will he build, and how fast?

Getting back to cultural issues, is he willing to lift the ban on gays in the military? He must be forced to answer the question either way.

Does he believe the death penalty is inherently racist? Would a judge that supports capital punishment be eliminated from consideration as a justice?

The Supreme Court recently ruled against the death penalty for rapists. Does Obama agree with this decision?

Obama claims he supports the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the DC law banning guns was unconstitutional, yet DC continues to flout the law. Saying that he agrees with the Supreme Court is insufficient. Would he be willing to enforce the law, as the President is supposed to do? Would he be willing to remove DC officials that violate the Court?

On education, he once expressed support for merit pay for teachers, as well as school choice. Does he still want to help students, or do the teachers’ unions have him in a stranglehold?

Getting back to economics, the 1990 budget deal that raised taxes ended up compounding a cyclical recession. Also, the “luxury tax” on yachts and jewelry was repealed in 1993 after proving to be a complete failure. Does Obama acknowledge that when rich people are overtaxed, they can simply leave and take their money with them because money is fungible? What will he do to prevent rich people from taking their businesses elsewhere? Shouldn’t we lower corporate taxes to prevent businesses from going overseas? Does he acknowledge that the states with low or no state income taxes are doing better in the United States than high tax states?

There is so much more, but this is more than enough.

John McCain should ask these questions. Sarah Palin should ask these questions. Every republican in America should ask these questions. Every potential voter must know the answers. Enough people can be persuaded to vote for John McCain.

The last question I have is whether or not John McCain is willing to ask them.

I just did the heavy lifting.

Senator McCain, you must get to work on this.

eric

At the 2008 Republican Convention in Minnesota, I had the pleasure of meeting and interviewing former Mississippi Senator and Majority Leader Trent Lott.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Lott

Senator Lott was not only very generous with his time with me, but with many members of the media. He gave expansive and substantive answers, and displayed a sense of humor when appropriate that was very enjoyable.

Since his schedule at the convention was packed, most members of the media would take notes when he gave interviews with other people in case they did not get their turn. So before getting my turn, below are some remarks Senator Lott made on various topics with other members of the media in my presence.

“Big issues are never easy. Getting the little things done is easy. Yet it’s the big things that we have to address.”

“My advice to anybody coming to a convention is don’t go to every party. Take time to come to the floor. Just look around. This is an amazing experience.”

“Also, I commend Minnesota on the weather. You did a great job keeping things sunny for us.”

“Being a leader means getting things done, but you have to listen to the people. Take immigration reform. We tried to do it one way, and I got my head handed to me. I listened.”

“Sarah Palin is a very attractive candidate. Am I allowed to say that? I hope so, I don’t want to be misunderstood. She is an attractive political candidate. She could be to America what Margaret Thatcher was to England and Golda Meir was to Israel. Sarah Palin was a great choice.”

The Senator then turned to me. Below is my interview with him.

1) What are the most important issues of 2008?

TL: “Strength of character, leadership, and integrity.”

2) Who are your 3 favorite political heroes?

“George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Ronald Reagan. In fact, let me bend the rules and add a fourth person. Margaret Thatcher is another one.”

3) Mississippi got belted by Hurricane Katrina, but rebounded quicker than Louisiana. What did Mississippi get right that perhaps Louisiana did not?

“Let me start out by defending Louisiana for a second. We had a hurricane. They had floods. I lost my home. There was water up to the roofs. However, Louisiana looked like a city at war.

As for what we did right, Mississippi was very fortunate. The local leaders were capable and honest. Governor Haley and Senator Thad Cochran were part of a seamless team with one attitude, to help the situation. There was no whining. We went to work.

In Louisiana, they were less unified. The leadership was less sensitive to the need to work together. Again, they had a tougher situation with the floods. Without knocking Louisiana in any way, I am just thankful for all the hard working, God fearing people of Mississippi.”

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

TL: “That he did his best to serve America. That he loved his family and his country.”

5) Now that Eli Manning has his Superbowl ring, can Peyton Manning be forgiven for attending Tennessee instead of Mississippi?

(A member of the Senator’s staff, who shall remain nameless, felt strongly about the subject, although in a joking manner. Normally staffers stay completely silent, but some things are too important to remain quiet about. The staffer emphatically said, “No. Absolutely not.” Senator Lott was more diplomatic.)

TL: “Well, I don’t know. Peyton Manning will always have an asterisk in what is otherwise a very distinguished career. Wherever you go, we take pride in our Mississippi stars. Brett Favre may have moved from the Packers to the Jets, but to us he will always be Kiln, Mississippi. Mississippi is taking over the football world. I think we may see a Manning vs Manning Superbowl this year, and Eli will whip Peyton. They both have had success, but Peyton has that asterisk.”

It was a genuine pleasure t meet and interview Senator Lott. He is a genuinely nice guy. While many people want to fight at all costs, leaders have to get things done. They cannot throw bombs. They have to produce results.

Donna Brazile, the former campaign manager of Al Gore, admitted that she did not think she could ever like Trent Lott. She is a black female liberal, and he is a white male conservative. Yet she got to know him after Hurricane Katrina, and he came through for her ina  way that truly transcends politics. Her family was devastated, and he came through with the ice required, among other emergency supplies. She says about him that, “Trent Lott saved my family.”

Neighbors helping neighbors, whether white or black, red state or blue state, is what separates a politician from a leader.

I wish Trent Lott well always, and thank him for his public service.

eric

On Wednesday night, I began the celebration of the holy day of Yom Kippur. The holiday is about apologizing for our transgressions, and promising to be better people. I have my private conversations with God, and vow sincerely to try and do better.

One thing I am truly thankful for is that there are many Synagogues within walking distance of home. Like other religions, Judaism has various denominations.

I live near UCLA, which has a Hille House. “Hillel” is the center for Jewish life on college campuses. Many colleges have a Hillel. Given that Hillel is specifically a place for students to feel welcome, it is supposed to be non-partisan. If you ask Hillel directors, they will claim that Hillel actually is non-Partisan. Then again, most liberals in the media think that they are fair as well, and perhaps Hillel truly believes its own leftist spin.

My goal here is not to bash Hillel. My goal is to reform it. I deeply believe in what Hillel is intended to do. I am even more deeply troubled by what it has become on many campuses, including UCLA.

I walked into the building to see some friends, and the service was nearing the end. I had already been to services at the local Chabad House, where the closest that the Rabbi came to political speech was to condemn the leader of Iran for wanting to kill all Jews.

Yet the Hillel guest speaker spent several minutes talking about gay and lesbian issues, and how it is important that gays and lesbians be treated better in society.

I was not in the room. I stayed in the back, outside the doors. As the speaker continued talking about gays and lesbians, and the intolerance of some, I just shook my head in disbelief. The more she spoke, the more I shook my head.

I was shaking my head specifically because I do not believe that politics should be a part of a religious service. Politics should especially not be part of a Synagogue service on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. It is simply inappropriate. I would argue it is borderline illegal, and that UCLA Hillel is coming close to violating the rules for a tax exempt organization.

Liberal activists do not understand that to preach the need for tolerance while lashing out at others as intolerant is simply wrong, and hypocritical. UCLA Hillel again showed that ideological bigtory is rampant in the Jewish community, and that diversity and toleranc eonly apply to liberal ideals.

I want to make it crystal that the speaker, at least while I was there, did not bash republicans. She passionately plead for more love and acceptance of gays and lesbians, but did not lash out at conservatives. Had her speech been the only event that occurred, I would have considered the evening ideologically slanted, but not ideological bigotry.

Where the line got crossed was in my first and hopefully last meeting with an Operations Director for UCLA Hillel. I am prepared to name names, since I know I am teling the truth. His name is William Calder.

I had never met Mr. Calder before, and was shocked when he came up to me and said, “You need to leave.”

I was stunned. Several minutes earlier he asked me if I wanted to pull up a chair. I told him I preferred to stay outside the room. My rationale was that pullinjg up a chair would have made noise, and I do not like interrupting speakers.

I asked him very quietly why I had to leave. I was not bothering anybody. I did not even open my mouth. He explained that he “saw me shaking my head.” He firmly stated that “this is a liberal service.”

I told him that I was not shaking my head because of that. I was shaking my head for my own personal reasons based on my private thoughts.I then told him that I was pro-gay rights.”

He then said, “Oh, ok. Well your shaking your head could be misinterpeted.”  He then walked away and left me alone.

For those who do not understand how serious this is, I was asked to leave a Synagogue. I was not asked to leave for saying anything. People who disrupt such speakers should be asked to leave. Freedom of speech does not give one the right to disrupt speeches. That is just rude.

However, I was asked to leave because Mr. Calder THOUGHT that I was THINKING something that he disagreed with.

This is liberalism at its very heart. Actions are irrelevant. Deeds do not matter. Being politically correct is all that matters. This is why we have hate crime legislation, because liberals think that certain crimes should be punished more than others. All crimes are hate crimes. Yet people should be punished for the crime itself, and the level of culpability based on intent. The gender or race or sexual orientation of the victim does not make them any more or less dead.

William Calder made it clear that people who did not support the gay and lesbian agenda were unwelcome at that Synagogue. He thought that I was shaking my head in disagreement with the speaker. Even if he was right, which as a liberal of course he was wrong, shaking my head in quiet disagreement is a patriotic form of dissent. I was not even in the room! I did not even say a word.

After the speech and the service ended, I went up to the speaker. She was a very pleasant woman. I told her that I was pro-gay rights, but that I had a concern. I did not bring up the inappropriateness of her speech. I really did not want a hostile conversation with no room for common ground.

I pointed out that I belonged to a minority gorup that has faced much hostility. I quietly whispered (it disgusts me that I should even have to do that, but such is the abusive nature of liberal Jews towards republcians that we have to stay in the closet out of fear.) that I was politically conservative.

She laughed, and said that her father was a republican. I let her know that one concern I had was that so many gay people were hostile towards republcians that they did not give them the benefit of the doubt. I told her that many Jeiwsh republicans are libertarian on social issues, but it is difficult to dialogue with gay gorups when they see republicans and say, “We hate you.”

This woman was very nice, and clearly understood. I just requested that in her speeches about tolerance, that she include that everybody must be given tolerance, including republicans. She agreed with me that by rejecting people out of hand, it could push them further to the right and away from supporting those issues.

The last thing I said to her was that, “You never know who may be a potential ally. I want to live ina  world where all people are free to live their lives and be treated with decency and respect, including republicans.”

I will again emphasize that she was very warm and pleasant. She did not seem to contain the hypocrisy that infects so many on the left in the Jewish community.

However, she does not run the Hillel. Mr. Calder is in a position of power, and had I not immediately professed my support for gay rights, I would have been subjected to left wing bullying. Worse, it would have been for thoughts, not actions.

Mr. Calder is in a position to influence and moold students, and if his behavior towards me was reflective of his typical disposition, then he is just another example of ideological bigotry in the Jewish community.

Some people have argued to me that in many Christian churches, it is a politically conservative message.

First of all, this does not make it ok. The analogy of two wrongs and a right applies here. Also, I am not a Christian. I do not go to Church, and am totally unqualified to evaluate how Churches behave. I would say that a Catholic Church arguing against abortion is not poltiical. It is in keeping with Church doctrine. However, telling people to vote against a pro-choice candidate may cross the line.

I only know my own community. Left wing bigotry is a cancer in the Jewish community, and I am mortified that the holiest day of the year was allowed to be perverted by such speech. No, I am not calling gay people perverts. I am referring to devaluing a religious holiday with political speech of any stripe.

Some will say that it is unfair to indict liberalism based on one unpleasant person.

Yet it is not one person. This is a problem that runs so deep. Mr. Calder is the norm. Left wing bullies are what much of Judiasm has become, and it has got to stop.

Even if I did not believe in gay rights, the God I believe in is the God of all.

Mr. Calder believed I was intolerant because of my supposed thoughts. I know Mr. Calder is intolerant based on his actions.

UCLA Hillel has a long way to go before it becomes a tolerant place free of ideological bigotry. A good start would be if Synagogues around America took the Calders of the world and forced them to sit quietly, and not judge people they do not know and have never met. Ductape can be very useful in situations like that.

Hineni. Here I am. I am republican, Jewish, proud, and tolerant of others. I wish those on the left that scream and rage about tolerance could understand that republicans deserve tolerance as well.

eric

Brokaw Obama…excuse me, Barack Obama…and John McCain squared off in the second of their three Presidential debates. Tom Brokaw was the moderator, taking the baton from Gwen Ifill in the quest to elect Barack Obama.

Yes, it is 2 against 1, but such is life as a republican.

The candidates were asked what they would do to fix the current economic situation. Specifically, they were asked how retirees and older people could be “bailed out.” It was an interesting choice of words.

The candidates immediately got into it, deflecting blame for the current economic condition.

Obama began by saying that “this is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.” He then added that “the last 8 years have been about stripping away all regulations and letting markets run wild.”

McCain countered by saying that “we need to keep all Americans’ taxes low, we should not raise taxes on anybody. I would let the Treasury Secretary buy up all the bad home loans in America.”

When asked who he would hire as Treasury Secretary, McCain said to Brokaw, “Not you Tom.” McCain mentioned Warren Buffett, and Obama supporter, and former EBAY CEO Meg Whitman.

Obama reaffirmed Buffett before lauching into the standard class warfare. He then continued to repeat the matra of cutting taxes for 95% of the middle class. It used to be 95% of all Americans. Now it is 95% of the middle class.

The next question dealt with the bailout, which McCain insisted on describing as a rescue. McCain mentioned how he suspended his campaign, as if that mattered.  McCain then said that “the catalyst that lit this fire was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” He said it was “because of Obama and his cronies.” He pointed out how the democrats stifled fixing Fannie and Freddie in 2006. “Senator Obama was the second highest recipient of Fannie money in history.” “Some of us stood up against it, while others took a hike.”

Obama blamed deregulation. He claimed that he never promoted Fannie Mae, and that “Senator McCain’s firm lobbied for Fannie Mae.”

When asked if the economy would get worse, Obama backtracked and said, “I am confident about the economy.” He then offered a platitude about a “20th century regulatory system for a 21st century financial system.”

McCain kept emphasizing the need to “stabilize housing markets by buying up the bad loans.”

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/07/mccain-wants-to-spend-300-billion-more-to-buy-up-bad-mortgages/

The candidates were asked why either of them should be trusted to handle the economy. Obama blamed President George W. Bush for the increase in the deficit and national debt. Obama spoke of “investments, which means spending. Obama insisted he had spending cuts, but would not say what any of them were.

McCain mentioned his support of Campaign Finance Reform with Russ Feingold and CLimate Change with Joe Lieberman. He mentioned how he was bipartisan and Obama was not. He mentioned looking at the websites of Citizens of Government Waste and National Taxpayers Union. He referred to the 3 million dollar earmark that Obama secured for an overhead projector for a planetarium in Chicago.

Between health care, energy, and entitlement reform, Brokaw asked which was most important.

McCain said that they could all be worked on simultaneously. He said the words “my friends,” repeatedly, but spoke about the 1983 deal between Reagan and Tip O’Neill that saved Social Security.

Obama said that energy “has to be dealt with today.” He again repeated his goal of being energy indpendent in 10 years, which is fantasy. He tried to justify this fantasy by pointing out that “JFK said we could go the moon in 10 years, and he had no idea how to do it.” Obama wanted to “go through the budget line by line and eliminate programs that don’t work.”  Somebody needs to tell him that the line item veto was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Obama then bashed tax cuts to businesses.

An elderly voter asked what sacrifices Americans should be asked to make.

McCain said that some programs would have to be eliminated. He spoke about some defense spending that is not working. Heaven forbid he mention wasteful social spending. That would take guts. McCain wants a spending freeze for everything except defense and Veterans Affairs.

Obama spoke about 9/11 and how we all came together. He even conceded that President Bush “did some smart things at the outset.” Yet he criticized the President for telling people to “go out and shop” at that moment. This is why Obama is an arrogant gasbag. He is armchair quarterbacking a situation of pure horror like the know it all that insists he would have done better. No, he would not have. Obama then spoke of how Americans “could save energy by weatherizing your home and buying American cars.” He then said he wanted to “double the Peace Corps.”

The candidates were then asked how Washington could break its bad habits with regards to easy credit.

Obama criticized McCain’s tax cuts again. “It is tough to ask a teacher making $35,000 per year to tighten her belt when CEOs are living high on the hog.” He called an across the board freeze on spending “unfair.” He said that “McCain wants to take a hatchet, I want to take a scalpel.”

McCain then lit into Obama. “Nailing down Obama’s tax plan is like nailing jello to the wall. He has 5 or 6 of them, and will soon have anothyer one. Obama will raise taxes on 50% of small businesses, who will have to cut jobs.” Raising taxes and encouraging protectionism is what Herbert Hoover did.” He quoted Obama, who previously said that he would forego tax hikes if the news was bad. He turned to Obama and said, “the news is bad.” He then said, “I am not favoring tax cuts for the welathy. I am in favor of leaving them alone. Let’s not raise anybody’s taxes.”

The candidates were asked if they would demand a 2 year date certain to fix Social Seucrity and Medicare.

Obama danced by saying that he would not guarantee to do it in 2 years, but he would do it in his first term. He then shifted back to taxes, and repeated his 95% tax cut lie. He insisted that most small businesses make less than $250,000 per year, and would have their taxes cut. Obama complained that McCain’s tax cuts were “not fair,” repeating what Joe Biden said in his Vice Presidential debate Vs Sarah Palin.

McCain said, “Social Security is not that tough.” He pointed out that it required working together, and Obama “never took on his own party. He said that “Medicare was tougher.” He wanted a bipartisan commission. McCain then went back to taxes, repeating that “Obama’s rhetoric does not match his record.” Obama “promised a middle class tax xut while running for the Senate, but never proposed it upon getting elected.”

A stupid question was asked about climate change, and what could be done to fix it in 2 years. I wonder how the woman who asked it snuck into the hall. It is not a crisis, and it does not need to be dealt with this minute. The question kept McCain babbling about how loyal a democrat he could be on the issue, and kept him from talking about anything that mattered.

McCain did manage to talk about the need for nuclear power, but when you are behind in the polls, questions that run out the clock are not good in a debate. This question was so pro-Obama that I am shocked Brokaw did not ask it himself.

Obama kept insisting that he favored nuclear power. Nothing has been done on energy for 30 years, and McCain was there for 26 of those years. He voted 23 times against alternative fuels. Obama then said that drilling was “important.” He then said we could not “drill our way out of the problem.” He is rabidly anti-drilling, but clever about staking his position.

Brokaw asked if we needed a Manhattan Project of environmentalism.

McCain pointed out the Bush-Cheney energy bill that was loade dup with pork got a “yes” vote from Obama, while McCain voted against it. McCain then emphasized the importance of drilling to bring the price down. “We have got to0 drill offshore, and we have got to do it now.”

The candidates were then asked if health care should be treated as a commodity.

I resisted the urge to throw my keyboard out the window. Maybe the War on Terror is over, and mentioning Islmaofacism is unnecessary. Let’s talk about trees instead.

Obama naturally said he would “work with employer to lower premiums.” He also said that “nobody will be excluded for preexisting conditions.” Obama disagrees with McCain’s plan.

I disagree with pathetic excuse of a debate. Sarah Palin needed to shoot a moose outside to wake me up. This was a debate about nothing.

McCain pointed out that Obama’s plan is all about what government will do, which includes mandates. McCain is offering a refundable tax credit of $5,000. He dislikes Obama’s plan. Stop the presses. He said “we have got to give people choice in America. We cannot mandate it.”

Brokaw asked if health care was a privilege, a right, or a responsibility.

McCain stated that it was a responsibility, but that under Obama’s plan, people get fined for failing to comply. He also mentioned that the amount of fine was never disclosed by Obama.

Obama said health care was a right, and spoke about his grandmother dying of cancer at age 50. Obama insisted his plan did not have mandates. Again, this is not true. He then in the next sentence said that “you are going to make sure that your child has health care.” That is called a mandate. Obama wants government to “crack down on insurance companies that are cheating their customers.” Obama is so brave. I think it should be illegal to molest puppies, and those who do should be punished. Being crooked in business is already illegal.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/c3182f00-a01d-427b-811f-c8fc2c32cc27

McCain again pointed out that the size of the fine was not disclosed.

The debate then turned to foreign policy, thank God.

The first question was about American’s being peacekeepers.

McCain called Anerica, “the greatest force for good in the history of the world. We are peacemakers and peacekeepers.” He then brought up his experience. He said Obama “was wrong about Iraq and the surge, and was wrong about Russia. He does not understand our national security challenges.”

Obama then said that “he did not undertsand how we invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.” He said McCain was “cheerleading to go into Iraq.”

I was hoping McCain would for once mention that had Obama been in power, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. I ask for way too much. All I know is Rudy Giuliani would take a brickbat to the pathetic arguments of the left. McCain is a gentleman, allowing him to lose honorably as the left thanks him and kicks him simultaneously.

The candidates were then asked about the McCain and Obama Doctrines on using force for places like the Congo or Rwanda, where there are no national security issues at stake.

Obama said there were “moral issues at stake,” and had the gall to bring up the Holocaust. Obama knows nothing abuot the Holocaust. He should talk to my dad, who backs McCain. Obama then said that we cannot go everywhere. The only thing everywhere all over the map was Obama’s position. I still have no idea where he stands on this issue.

McCain pointed out that Obama’s approach on Iraq would have brought the troops home in defeat, rather than victory. He then used the phrase “my friends” a few more times. McCain pointed out that he has a “cool hand at the tiller.” He criticized the mission in Somalia. He pointed out that we “withdrew in humiliation.” McCain emphasized that the key was whether America could “beneficially affect the situations.”

The next question was whether or not we should go into Pakistan to capture Al Queda detainees.

Obama went into his stump speech about how George W. Bush is to blame for Osama Bin Laden not being captured. He then lied and said Al Queda was stronger than at any time since 2001. No, they are not. Their plans have been severely disrupted. Obama then said we “cannot coddle Pakistan, led by a dictator.” Obama has no clue about why we needed to work with Musharraf. Yet he insists he wants to crush Al Queda.

McCain criticized Obama for his belligerence towards Pakistan. Working with a nation means working with them. Bellicose rhetoric towards them only pushes them away. McCain pointed out that “we need the support of the Pakistani people.” This is how counterinsurgencies succeed.

Obama tried to defend himself, saying that McCain is the one that has spoken irresponsibly on Baghdad and Iran. Obama then laced into Musharraf again.

McCain said that unlike Obama, he would not “telegraph his punches. I will act responsibly as I have my entire military career and Senate career.”

Brokaw then quoted a couple generals that said Afghanistan was lost. Can we get one moderator that is not a left wing partisan shill?

Obama repeated that we need to work with the Karzai government. Obama claimed that he talked to tough to Karzai. Again, he has no idea what he is doing. That is the wrong approach.

McCain cited General Petraeus, who actually does know what he is talking about. McCain pointe dout that Obama will “still not admit he was wrong about the surge in Iraq.”

The debate then shifted to Russia, and how to deal with them without having anotehr Cold War.

McCain made clear that we would not have another Cold War. McCain talked bellicose on Vladimir Putin, which is the same mistake Obama makes regarding Musharraf and Karzai. McCain did mention including Georgia and the Ukraine in NATO. However, blasting Putin will not help.

Obama said that we need to do more than provide moral support. We need to provide them with financial support. Obama insisted that he took a clear initial stand on Russia. This is not the case. He stayed silent. He also said American foreign policy was “reactive, and that we should anticipate problems before they happen.”

The candidates were asked if Russia under Vladimir was an evil empire.

Obama said that some of their actions were evil, which did not answer the question.

McCain sounded like an adult when he said “maybe,” and then clarified that comment. “If yes, we are reigniting the Cold War, and if no, we are condoning their behavior.”

The candidates were then asked if they would commit troops to defend Isreael if Iran attacked, or if they would wait for the U.N. Security Council.

This was a gift question to McCain.

“We would not wait for the U.N. Security Council. Russia and China would be obstacles.” This was like the end of McCain’s speech at the Convention. McCain was dull until the very end. On this question McCain looked like he had down a 6 pack of Jolt Cola. He spoke about a dangerous Iran bad for the entire Middle East. “We can never allow a second Holocaust to take place.”

Obama then said that “we cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon.” He keeps saying this is “unacceptable.”

I want every Jew in the world to understand that Obama speaks of Israel in cold, detached terms. He is not anti-Semitic, but there is no warmth. McCain truly and passionately supports Israel.

The question was about Iran attacking Israel, and Obama was babbling cost benefit analyses of energy prices. Obama then said he wants “direct talks with our enemies to talk toughly.” Obama then said “it may not work.”

No, Mr. Obama. It will not work.

Obama blamed President Bush over North Korea, saying failing to dialogue created the problem. Wrong again. It was Bill Clinton accepting dialogue at face value when the entire world outside of liberals understood that people like Kim Jong Il lie. Bill Clinton was naive, and so is Barack Obama.

The last question was “what don’t you know, and how will you learn it?”

It was a stupid question, and Obama said that he would ask his wife Michelle. Obama then said “it is not the challenges that you expect, it is the ones you don’t.” Absolutely brilliant. This guy is a scholar.

McCain said that what he did not know was what we all do not know, that “the challenges are unprecedented.” Thankfully, he will not consult Michelle Obama.

Overall this debate was a complete waste. Tom Brokaw should be waterboarded, or at least be forced to admit once and for all that he is a partisan liberal with no intention of being fair.

Both candidates were boring, listless, and lifeless, for much of the debate. McCain showed tremendous spark during the Israel discussion, but one fabulous moment cannot save an entire performance.

The debate was a draw because neither candidate was that terrific. A draw goes to the guy in the lead, which is Barack Obama. He stands for nothing, but all he needs to do is run and hide and the clock will run out soon enough. There is nothing republcians can do. John McCain will simply not go after him. He would rather be friends with Ted Kennedy and Russell Feingold.

Maybe Obama  can destroy Congressional and Gubernatorial majorities the way Bill Clinton did. I would be ok with that if we were at peace.

We are at war, and America does not care. The slick talker with the easy smile and platitudes is ahead of the sober adult.

It does not matter who is right if they cannot market and communicate themselves. Obama is a talker and McCain is a doer. This does matter. The doer had better start talking passionately, and fast.

Sarah Palin gets it. When an anti-war heckler did his typical leftist thing, Palin shot back (figuratively, not literally) brilliantly by saying that, “My son is over in Iraq fighting for your right to be able to protest.”

McCain needs to get a spark. Get fired up. The way he talked about Israel needs to be how he talks about everything.

Obama and his smug “too cool for school” detached attitude is cocky and condescending, but unless McCain fights back, Joe Cool will slide and glide by. President Bush would never have let John Kerry get away with the eleitist garbage. McCain had better start getting tough.

I have tried my best, and I am throwing up my hands in despair. I cannot make John McCain want to win the election.

eric

The stock market dropped 800 points yesterday, the biggest one day drop ever in terms of points. It did recover to finish down 370 points, but it is down 30% from its high. Ordinary Americans are concerned. Liberals are popping champagne corks in celebration.

I have said on many occasions that for liberals, success requires failures. Bad news for ordinary Americans is splendid news for liberals.

Republicans control the White House, and if it will help get Barack Obama elected over John McCain, liberals would cheer the stock market dropping to 0.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308185654524278

For the sake of full disclosure, I am not worried. I am well diversified, and thankfully young enough at 36 to be able to wait 20 to 30 years. Not everybody has that time horizon, but for those with 15 years or more of earning power, calm down. This is not 1929. No, it is not the Great Depression despite what the Jayson Blair Times says.

Before getting to the politics of this situation, let’s start with some hard core finance. Wake up, I can try and explain this without being boring. This problem was caused because people tried to remove risk from the markets, which always fails, and increases the damage in the long run.

The recently approved bailout package was a terrible piece of legislative garbage, and deserved to go down in flames as the previous package did four days earlier. The entire rationale for the package was that without it, financial markets would collapse. This argument is…(grabbing a megaphone)…

GARBAGE!

Doing nothing was the right thing to do. It is what George Washington and the Founding Fathers wanted. Governments cannot affect supply and demand. They cannot strong-arm financial markets. Markets do what they want, regardless of whether governments need to get reelected. Perhaps Barack Obama can call the situation “unacceptable,” and simply tell the markets to be more polite, as he wants to do with Armageddonijad in Iran. Even John McCain fell victim to the notion that “doing something” meant doing something helpful.

Yet Presidential candidates can be allowed the occasional pander bear moment. Congress aggressively pushed the bailout package, and every member who voted yes should be pushed out of an airplane without a bailout package of their own.

So how did we get in this mess? Was it conservatism and deregulation? Absolutely, if one has no grasp whatsoever of facts.

For those that think that because they “read stuff,” and therefore, “know things,” I do this for a living, and have been in the industry for 15 years. My opinion matters. Yours…well…enough said.

This problem was caused by excessive regulation. Companies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should not even exist in America. They are like every other liberal parasite in America, from PBS to NPR. Nevertheless, leftists despise the private sector, and wanted government in the home lending business.

Businesses have criteria, and they exist to make money. They are not laboratories for social experiments. Yet Fannie and Freddie were ordered to make loans to more minorities, particularly black Americans. For some reason, even though Jews are a true minority in terms of world population percentage, Jews never get “minority” benefits. Perhaps we have not suffered enough, but that is for another time.

Anyway, leftists concluded that not enough black Americans owned homes, and therefore America was a racist nation as long as republicans were running the government. Therefore, to avoid having Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton marching in the streets (this was before Jesse threatened to castrate a black man who wanted to succeed without preaching racism and victimhood), bad loans were made.

President Bush allowed this to happen, and the irony is that he never got the credit when black home ownership was at an all time high. Yet of course he got the blame when the housing bubble burst, even though every bubble bursts by sheer definition alone.

Irresponsible buyers were allowed to buy due to political correctness. While some would argue that helping blacks own more homes would be positive, I ask them to look at what is going on. Once again, the left has helped blacks reach levels of financial misery not seen since before conservatives passed welfare reform in 1996.

1996 was also the year that Phil Gramm, a politically incorrect former Senator and economics professor…one of the few people that actually does know what he is talking about…led the repeal of Glass Steagal. Repealing this law is not why we are hurting. It is what is preventing total financial armageddon. Bank Of America could not have bought Merrill Lynch if this law still existed.

So liberal do gooders figured out that even if black Americans suffered, a bad economy hurts everybody, so at least we are now closer to equality.

Yet there is a more sinister reason why liberals love this shared misery. George W. Bush is President, and the entire Democratic Party platform is hatred of George W. Bush.

This is a man who has freed millions of people and given two nations in the Middle East a chance at humanity and dignity. This is a man who healed the nation after the worst terrorist attack on American soil.

This is a man that is gracious to people who want to destroy him and grind him into dust. His own supporters are frustrated by his refusal to verbally bash their skulls in.

The left hates him. They would rather destroy this economy than risk giving up the chance to destroy this President.

They would rather lose a winnable war than allow George W. Bush to win anything.

They would rather lose an American economy and a war than lose an election.

Am I saying that many on the left do not care about what is best for America?

I do not have to say this. They say it themselves.

Ask conservatives what they want for America. They want to win the War on Terror. The left wants to end it, and the right wants to win it.

Conservatives also want to lower taxes for everybody, regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Whether one is gay, black, or Jewish, tax cuts help them all, especially if they are small business owners.

So what do liberals care about? Mainly abortion.

Without taking sides in the culture wars, ask most feminists in this country if they truly care about anything besides abortion. They will try to think of something else, but that is what they care about. Occasionally they care about animals and trees, provided that those animals and trees do not bring new animals or trees into the world.

So for those who care about more than just trees, bunny rabbits, and zygotes, here is the plain truth.

If the economy collapses, that hurts everybody. That means fewer abortion doctors. If terrorists attack, and kill everybody in a multi-hundred mile radius, they may end up blowing up abortion clinics, animal shelters, and yes, innocent trees (Although I maintain the trees and animals may not be innocent, and had it coming).

Liberals live in a black and white world where everybody on the left is virtuous and everybody on the right is evil.

Kwame Kilpatrick extends the misery of Detroit for decades, and the left blames George W. Bush, when not blaming Ronald Reagan.

Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco fall apart in New Orleans, and the left blames the President.

Black home ownership rises, and President Bush gets no credit. The bubble bursts and he gets all the blame.

Perhaps the left might want to blame Franklin Raines, the former CEO of Fannie Mae and advisor to Barack Obama. Yes, he is an advisor, despite protests to the contrary.

Now we have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid ramming the mother of all disasters down American throats. House republicans tried to stop it, but did not have the votes.

What did the market do? It dropped anyway. Why? Because it wants to drop. Markets care about functioning properly, even if it affect elections.

The left needs to win this election. Optimism is not allowed anywhere. Once Barack Obama is elected, if this does happen, everything will be fine. The markets will recover and he will get the credit, even though he will have contributed nothing. This is the 1992 Bill Clinton economic plan. Be in the right place at the right time, get lucky, and take all the credit.

If Obama were to win, there would also be no homelessness in America. It might exist, but the media would not write about it. According to a chart I read, homeless people disappeared in 1993 and reappeared in January of 2001.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/4b5f9fcb-1adc-42bb-9af0-eb28a08dfa69

If the stock market rises with John McCain as President, it will be because of the bailout package that democrats will claim is theirs and theirs alone. If Obama is elected and the market rises, it will be solely because of him. If the market collapses with John McCain, it is because he is George W. Bush’s twin brother. If the market collapses under Obama, it will be because he inherited a mess. The market hit an all time high under George W. Bush, but that will be discounted.

The left controls the cultural institutions in America, including the schools. They will teach that George W. Bush destroyed America. They will cite Oliver Stone, Michael Moore, and the Jayson Blair Times as evidence. The children will not learn that those that use government to control markets are repeatedly wrong, and those that let free markets reign benefit.

Yet truth is not what motivates the left. They want to win elections. That is the end, not even the means. Even if what they create fails, such as the Great Society, they will just claim success anyway. Even if Ronald Reagan creates an 18 year bull market thanks to lowering tax rates, the left will say he is wrong anyway.

The left will blame Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Dan Quayle, Sarah Palin, and John Ashcroft, who has nothing to do with economic policy.

So as the market drops, liberals can take comfort in knowing that they now have more reasons to convince people about the evils of George W. Bush. After all, who cares about making society better when the left can invest their money in voodoo dolls of republicans?

The left will now hold hearings to determine how to blame President Bush for a crisis that the left perpetuated. The left will rial in front of the cameras about greedy CEOs an crooked lenders, when the truth is that Christopher Dodd should be sitting in jail, and Barney Frank should be investigated thoroughly as well.

I just worry that John McCain may win this election. The rage that has engulfed the left will spread like colon cancer, or as we call it in failed neighborhoods, community organizers. The left will need to prove that McCain is a failed President before he is even sworn in. They will have to destroy Sarah Palin the way they did Dan Quayle.

The left will have to destroy this economy and cripple us militarily because American success cannot be allowed if conservative republican success comes with it.

Conservatives benefit when we all benefit.

Liberals benefit when people remain trapped in a downward spiral of dependency on government.

This is why liberals cannot govern, win a war, or help an economy.

They cannot fix things, because they only know how to destroy. Their existence depends on it.

I would rather crush liberalism than crush America itself.

eric

At the 2008 Republican Convention in Minnesota, I had the pleasure of interviewing former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

http://newt.org/

http://www.winningthefuture.net/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/30/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4490142.shtml

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,426221,00.html

While most of the debate was on the record, a question I asked him off the cuff, while eliciting a hilarious response, was off the record. Ironically, this occurred while Speaker Gingrich was doing an interview with Greta Van Susteren, who hosts “On the record.” It as during a commercial break, and before my formal interview with him. Later on, when I asked him about it, he made his request, and I let him know that I had no interest in knifing him. While Speaker Gingrich is controversial to this day, there is no doubt that many reporters wanted to destroy him simply because he was a conservative that successfully implemented a conservative agenda. Therefore, the off the record question will be partially redacted. The answer will not get the Speaker into any hot water as long as the question itself is partially redacted. I prefer this method since his answer was too funny to ignore.

With that, below is the on the record portion of my interview with Speaker Newt Gingrich.

1) Who are your 3 political heroes?

NG: “George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.”

2) What are the defining issues of the 2008 Presidential campaign?

NG: “Reform, peace, prosperity, and the fight for freedom. We have to improve the way we govern and reform the governing process if we are going to tackle the big issues such as terrorism.”

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

NG: “As a citizen who loved his family and loved his country.”

4) Can you please explain to (names redacted) the importance of Israel?

NG: “No. I have tried for years. Now I only focus on solving what is reasonable and achievable.”

5) The democrats have Barack Obama and John Edwards. Republicans have John McCain, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Giuliani. Are the democrats bigoted against the follically challenged, and can we finally break the glass ceiling and elect a bald President?

NG: “That’s clever. Yes we can, but remember our history. We had Dwight Eisenhower, and he was bald.”

6) Do you have any thoughts to offer regarding Sarah Palin?

“There is zero doubt in my mind…absolutely no doubt…that Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama. John McCain made a great pick in Sarah Palin.”

I would like to thank Speaker Gingrich for his time and geniality. I also should have known better than to try and get the follically challenged question past a historian. Before entering politics, Newt Gingrich was a history professor. He has a deep love of animals, and has often expressed his desire in the past to be a zoo keeper. Actually, given the state of Congress, that was what he did as House Speaker from 1994 through 1998.

I would also like to thank Speaker Gingrich for being what his former press secretary Tony Blankley described him to me as…”the second tranche of the Reagan Revolution.”

Speaker Gingrich is a conservative in the truest sense of the word. Like me, he was not happy with the bailout package. He wants republicans to get back to the principles of Edmund Burke, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan.

I would second that notion, and say that for those who do not know their history that far back, or are too young to remember President Reagan, we should at least go back to 1994. The republican party needs another Contract With America, and needs to implement every plank.

The Congress needs to go back to the conservative principles of Newt Gingrich.

eric