Abraham Lincoln once warned his fellow Americans that, “as a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” It is an axiom that still holds true. So it is on the eve of a great election that will have profound consequences for our national character that we implore our fellow citizens to remember the brave men and women who have gone before you, who have built this country from a frontier nation of 13 colonies to the great republic you see before you. We implore you to remember the vision of our founding fathers, to build a new society of strictly limited government but nearly unlimited freedom; a nation that prized natural and individual liberty over artificial, collective equality; a nation whose mission has been to foster life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

To our fellow conservatives, we entreat you in these final hours to fight as hard as you have ever fought, to mobilize and focus all your efforts toward victory, while ignoring those who would cause you to lose faith. We remind you of the stirring words of President Reagan, who believed that the success of our America – an America of limited government, personal freedom and responsibility, and one rooted firmly in the fertile soil of our God-fearing, visionary forefathers was inextricably linked to the future of all humanity: “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.” Remember the charge of our greatest leader, the father of our nation, George Washington: “It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn.”

To John McCain, a man of inestimable integrity and uncommon valor, we thank you for tireless service to this nation. You are unquestionably the better man, the greater patriot and the right leader for America at this trying moment. With you we cast our highest hopes and offer you this parting interpretation on words that have often brought encourgement to our nation :

 Sail on, Oh man of State!

Sail on, Oh warrior strong and great.

America with all Her fears

With all the hope of future years

Is hanging breathless on thy fate.

Finally, we offer our prayers to the Almighty, that He will guide our nation in this moment of historic significance. As a nation we have not always lived up to our highest ideals, but we remain a good and free people, and from our shores the light of liberty still beams out across a weary and dangerous world. May God continue to bless America and light our path forward.

Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee in a year that every political scientist agrees is as favorable to Democrats as any in living memory. George W. Bush, the incumbent Republican has approval ratings consistently below 30%. The economy is sliding into recession and just weathered the most serious financial crisis since the 1930s. Obama has the unconditional support of every mainstream news outlet in the country with one or two notable exceptions. His campaign is being actively aided by his former organization ACORN and others, which are engaged in what may be the largest voter fraud scheme ever. He has raised more money than any candidate in U.S. history – more than $600,000,000.00. By all accounts he is an unstoppable political force.

But he’s losing.

Oh, we’ve seen the polls, more than 150 of them that say that Obama is winning this contest or that, but the reality is, as Election Day draws near, more and more people are moving toward John McCain. You can see it in those same worthless polls, you can hear it in Obama’s impassioned pleas to supporters to keep up the pressure, to skip work to vote, to give even more money, in his overzealous advertising blitz, in the media’s dire warnings about the violence that will follow in the wake of an Obama loss, etc., etc.. With every possible advantage at his back, Obama is still unable to keep his head above 50% in key national polls, and driven by well-founded fears about his lack of experience, his radical associations, and his economy-killing redistributive economic policies, undecided voters are increasingly casting their lot with the battle tested McCain. Viewed in perspective, Obama’s failure to be in a commanding lead is utterly astounding.

Ironically, it is Obama’s own supporters that he has to thank. The fervor of the Left and the constant media pronouncements about Obama’s inevitability as well as the most openly biased press coverage in history has outraged and galvanized America’s conservatives. Coupled with the presence of Sarah Palin on the ticket, the Obama machine has stimulated GOP voter turnout by creating the perception of a competitive disadvantage that has in turn motivated conservatives to work harder and harder to make up a perceived deficit.  In a twist of poetic justice, Obama has demonstrated the superiority of the competitive spirit that drives the individualistic free market system that he and his socialist cohorts wish to alter.  Competition once again proves its worth.

Republicans will need every last vote, but if the current trends hold, the result will be higher than expected Republican turnout and a critical number of moderate undecided voters that will cast its lot with McCain knowing that America will get the new leadership she craves with the stability of common sense approaches to economic and military policy that he provides. 

Thanks to Obama’s media-driven inevitability, November 4^th may bring us the most stunning political upset in modern American history. This of course is our fervent hope.

In a surprise announcement designed to have maximum media effect mere days before the election, former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, endorsed Senator Barack Obama. While early reports have hailed the announcement as a coup for Obama, the endorsement is likely to shock many longtime anti-war, anti-Bush Democrats who will feel betrayed and uncomfortable with the notion of Obama receiving support from one of the leading figures of the Iraq War strategy.  Indeed, given Obama’s strategy of opposing all things Bush, the Democrat is likely to find the support of George W. Bush’s former secretary of state a dubious blessing.

While the media will receive the news of Powell’s endorsement with appropriate fanfare, in an election in which Obama’s judgment on the war has been a central justification for his presidency, Powell’s support makes for an awkward pairing. In the eyes of most Democrats and the international media, Powell left the Bush Administration a much-diminished figure, and his salesmanship of the Iraq War before the United Nations has been routinely cited as Exhibit A in the theory that the Bush Administration lied in its justification for the war. Though Powell has long contended that he was convinced by the evidence that he saw prior to making his presentation to the United Nations and supporting the invasion, today’s endorsement places Obama in a difficult position. If Obama and his supporters accept Powell’s endorsement, and embrace his contention that his assessment of pre-war intelligence was an honest mistake, they must also accept the same explanation from Bush, thus eviscerating the core of their anti-war message: “Bush Lied.”  Alternatively, to cling to the “Bush lied” theory necessarily mans that Powell’s failure to get it right on Iraq can only be explained by an acknowledgment that Powell himself either lied for, or was duped by the Bush Administration – alternatives not likely to engender esteem for Powell’s judgment. 

Add to this equation Obama’s steadfast opposition to General Petraeus’ Surge Strategy, which is diametrically opposed to Powell’s contention that it was not only the correct strategy, but that it came “3 years too late,” and the logic of Powell’s endorsement of Obama is as twisted as a pretzel. Moreover, Powell’s support opens up a sweet avenue of attack for rival John McCain, who can now fashion the catch phrase, “Bush-Obama foreign policy”, hanging the albatross of Powell’s support around his opponent’s neck, while trumpeting his own extensive military experience as well as depth of support in the military and diplomatic arenas.  In an early response to the Powell endorsement, Senator John McCain coolly noted, “I’m also very pleased to have the endorsement of four former secretaries of state — Secretaries Kissinger, Baker, Eagleburger, and Haig — and I’m proud to have the endorsement of well over 200 retired Army generals and admirals.”

In the end, Powell’s support of Obama, despite the best attempts of the media is not likely to be viewed by most Americans as anything other than America’s first black secretary of state wanting to support a man who may become America’s first black president.  While the endorsement may make Obama and his supporters feel good, they must accept Powell’s support in spite of their views on policy, not because of them. For Powell, the endorsement of a junior senator and far left former community organizer over the vastly more experienced John McCain who valiantly served his country in the best traditions of the Armed Forces that Powell once commanded, is the final diminishment of a once lofty reputation.  The appearance that Powell has placed racial solidarity over experience, friendship, personal heroism, party affiliation and agreement on military/government policy is an unfortunate apparent recognition of the failure of Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision that in America, a man should be judged by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin.

It was June 1940. An undefeated and many thought unstoppable Adolf Hitler rolled across the European continent. From the air, the Luftwaffe dominated the skies of Europe, and would soon lay waste the venerable and ancient English capitol. Fear gripped a British citizenry low on food, ammunition, fighting men, and spirit.  The full fury of the Bilitz was only months away, and Britain was all alone in its struggle against NAZI tyranny. In this climate of seemingly overwhelming odds, the dogged and pugnacious British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, rose before the House of Commons to deliver one of his most stirring speeches. Knowing full well the awful price of defeat, and deploying all his considerable rhetorical skill, Churchill challenged and inspired his fellow countrymen and women to fight on to the bitter end:

“We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender…”

Churchill’s speech rallied the British people who fought on alone. But Churchill’s words inspired many hearts. Less than two years later and thousands of miles from the British capitol, men like Admiral John McCain were answering Churchill’s eloquent call in defense of freedom.  Rarely since those days has liberty faced such peril, but Churchill’s words have inspired many, no matter the contest or field of endeavor, to fight on. More than simply an echo of trying times, Churchill’s speech reminds us that when an important battle must be fought, it is incumbent upon each of us, individually and in unison, to go above and beyond the call of duty in pursuit of victory.

And so it is, that we find ourselves on the eve of a historic election for America. No elections are without profound consequences, but not since 1980 has America been faced with such a stark political and ideological dichotomy. John McCain is not the perfect conservative, but whatever his faults, John McCain is now all that stands between Reagan’s America and a disastrous turn toward socialism.  With Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in charge of our Congress, and a President Obama ensconced in the Oval Office, leftist redistributionist policy will flow like water. Taxes hikes, profligate spending, and government expansion will unfold like storm clouds. The unionization of our private sector will begin in earnest and the end of the hitherto sacred secret ballot will come to pass. Our most cherished rights will be assaulted: from our freedom to express our religion, to our right to have and bear arms, to the very heart of the American spirit, the freedom of speech – which will wither under government imposed “fairness” guidelines. Our troops who have fought valiantly to secure a new future and a lasting peace in the Middle East will be undermined from home. The fight against Islamic extremism will end. The next justices on the Supreme Court will consider judicial activism their calling and judge-made law their right. Internationalism, foreign law, and sovereignty-undermining treaties will be the order of the day. Extreme environmentalism will trump all economic and business needs, and the promise of energy independence in the form of nuclear power, increased domestic oil production and natural gas will shrivel under draconian green legislation and government mandates. Like Gulliver amidst his captors, the great American juggernaut, already reeling from an economic blow of largely Democratic making, will succumb; death by 1,000 cuts. Not since the days of Carter will America have known such a malaise. The death of liberty by the hand of equality.

 But it is not a future that has to be. Hope remains.

John McCain is first to acknowledge that he is the underdog in this present contest, and many have proclaimed a McCain victory nearly impossible. Yet, with a strong final debate performance, a new sense that the American people are at last considering the true consequences of their choice in leader, and climbing poll numbers, a McCain victory remains possible. The odds are still unfavorable, and the task considerable, but in these final days, now is the time that every man and woman who cares about the hard won conservative gains of the Reagan Revolution must stand and fight. It will take more than merely voting, more than a yard sign or a bumper sticker, or a casual comment to a neighbor. It will take a sure and determined effort to mobilize every last Republican and independent vote.

In the end, it is not the media who decides our future, it is We, the People. So let us decide. Let us take our future into our own hands. In the spirit of Churchill, let us call forth every last remaining fighter. Family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues, parishioners, teammates, fellow students, and more. Even complete strangers and sometimes adversaries must be called upon and mobilized in this effort.  Ask yourself not merely what you will do come Election Day, but what you can and must do between now and then. The Left is mobilized and organized. They will be bringing to the polls thousands of voters who have never cast a ballot before.  On their side stands all the media with its long and duplicitous tentacles gripping the fountainheads of public opinion. Indeed, all the World whose interests lie in a weakened and demoralized America are willing your defeat.

So up with the rally cry! Dig in, mobilize and fight. We can win this election, and save America from a dreadful future, but only if we commit ourselves to delivering, with one resounding voice, the timeless battle cry of the victors: never surrender!

Tonight will be a first attempt at a live blogging of the debate …  Add your thoughts to the comments. Check out C-Span’s Debate Hub for transcripts and clips.

(more…)

So, who won this second of three Presidential debates?

By the way, Sen. Obama stated that the computer was created by government scientists so that the military could more easily communicate. This shows his lack of knowledge in the technology area. The computer has a long history starting in 1936.  TCP/IP was developed by ARPANET, a division of the DoD so that military communication lines would not be disrupted during a war

Despite all the drama, the first Presidential Debate started tonight with a bang. Did you watch the debate? Who do you think won?

Add your thoughts about the debate in the Comments

Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson accepts his winnings

As everyone knows the Wall Street crash of 1929 ushered in a period of profound and unprecedented hardship for the American people. Then President of the United States, Hoover was castigated as a do-nothing president, a failed leader, a man who allowed his nation to wither for the sake of laissez-faire purity and a lack of compassion. Unemployment soared, commerce ground to a halt, and thousands of Americans found themselves waiting in soup lines and living in shantytowns known as “Hoovervilles.”

Thus, the remedy was Franklin D. Roosevelt, who ushered into being a new era of massive government spending that forever and fundamentally altered the nature of American government. Roosevelt found work for people through public spending on public works projects and a host of financial reforms that gave rise to the modern welfare state. Roosevelt is beloved by many for being the man who saved the day, but some have argued that the true engine of prosperity that pushed America out of economic hardship was World War II, and that for all his good intentions, Roosevelt may have actually prolonged the Depression. In any event, he left us with a nanny state mindset accompanied by an unwieldy and monstrous federal apparatus that has grown like a hydra and threatens in time to devour America’s prosperity. As it turns out Hoover wasn’t all bad, and Roosevelt wasn’t all good.

For nearly the last century, the bedrock of American conservatism has been the notion of containing the size and scope of the federal government, and fostering a society of individual responsibility – rolling back the worst provisions and precepts of the New Deal. Now, on the eve of a federal intervention into the American economy of massive scale, there is a deafening silence from the Right, and a sinking feeling that we have reached another New Deal moment that will have profound consequences for America’s future.

To be certain, the issues involved in this current intervention are very complex, and their complexity leaves many (perhaps most) Americans without a clear understanding of what is happening, and what is at stake. At the root of the problem of course are the so-called subprime lenders. Essentially lending institutions that gives loans to individuals who are adjudged a higher risk. In other words, these are people with bad credit, questionable incomes, etc.  The name “subprime” has nothing to do with interest rates, but rather the quality of the loan/borrower – like with meat, there’s prime rib…and not. These are risky loans given to high-risk borrowers, with a higher default expectation rate, and as such they come with higher interest rates. So, why would anyone lend to these people? The simple truth is greed…greed made easy by government meddling.  A soaring housing market, low interest rates, and mortgages backed by Fannie & Freddie all contributed to a go-go lending atmosphere in which everyone was making money, and no one was asking questions. And why would they? Lenders simply made loans to risky borrowers then packaged and sold that debt to other institutions including, most notably, government-chartered mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which gobbled-up these mortgage-backed securities and fed a false perception of government guarantees and low risk. Eventually, the party ended.  As the housing supply exceed the demand, interest rates began to rise and payments on variable interest rate mortgages began to dramatically increase, these risky borrowers began to default and the declining value of their real estate made it impossible to refinance.  Lenders were left holding the bag – billions of dollars in illiquid securities that created a credit crunch and practically frozen capital markets. 

So, who’s to blame? In short: borrowers, mortgage underwriters and lending institutions, ratings companies, and of course, Congress.  Continuing the trend of government interference into the marketplace and the ever-popular attempt by those on the Left to socially engineer a better world, Congress chartered the establishment of mortgage guarantors Fannie & Freddie – the so-called GSEs or Government Sponsored Enterprises. Their aim of course was to encourage lending and make the dream of home ownership possible for more people, but in reality, these GSEs were encouraged by Congress to lend to high-risk individuals who couldn’t find a lender under normal creditworthiness guidelines. In short, Congress attempted to elevate whole classes of people into homeownership who couldn’t afford it.

The problems with this were apparent however to anyone who cared to look. As early as 2005, then Fed Chief Alan Greenspan warned the Senate Housing, Banking and Urban Affairs Committee, “Without restrictions on the size of GSE balance sheets, we put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States, a key ingredient of support for homeownership.” Greenspan went on to explain, “Without changes in legislation, Fannie and Freddie will, at some point, again feel free to multiply profitability through the issuance of subsidized debt…The strong belief of investors in the implicit government backing of the GSEs does not by itself create safety and soundness problems for the GSEs, but it does create systemic risks for the U.S. financial system as the GSEs become very large.”  In May of 2006, U.S. Senator John McCain warned about the crisis from the well of the Senate and urged Congress to act, “For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.”

Neither Greenspan nor McCain’s warnings were heeded, and GOP-backed legislation that would have helped regulate these out of control mortgage giants were blocked by Democratic lawmakers including Senators Chris Dodd and Representative Barney Frank who foresaw no problems and encouraged the lending practices to continue unabated. Indeed Frank now famouly denied that there were any signs of problems with Fannie and Freddie. This of course brings us back to the proposed current remedy for this crisis, a remedy being engineered in part by Messrs. Dodd and Frank. (Dodd meanwhile has been under close scrutiny for receiving a sweetheart mortgage deal from Countrywide Financial – one of the lending institutions who sold the most securities to Fannie & Freddie.)

The options presented to us by the Olympians on the Hill, at Teasury and the Fed is essentially this: give us seven hundred billion or else the economy will collapse.

That’s right. Having encouraged lenders to make lousy loans to high-risk borrowers in an misguided attempt at social justice, Congress wants to appropriate more money from taxpayers to give to companies so they can offload the mortgage-backed securities that are causing their implosion. They’ve used the power of the federal government to encourage poor lending practices, allowing Wall Street to reap huge profits while the market was booming, only to have to admit that their scheme failed when the market went bust and forcing U.S. taxpayers to bail everybody out. It is worse than merely privatizing gains and socializing losses – it is a degree of incompetent central economic planning not seen since the Hammer and Sickle flew over the Kremlin.

Congress of course promises that these securities are not valueless, that they are backed by valuable real estate assets, and that in the fullness of time, taxpayers will recoup their investment, perhaps even turn a profit. Forgive us if we seem skeptical. We’re certain if there was money to be made, a private-sector solution would be found.  Yet, there is no discussion of forcing (since we’re into that now) a private sector solution, at least in part. Congress could do more than simply write a check. SEC accounting rules could be changed immediately to help revalue some of these assets. Congress could temporarily mandate the cancellation of dividends to help improve the financial soundness of these institutions without generating the fear that normal dividend cancellations would engender, it could order these institutions to issue new preferred stock which would immediately increase their capitalization, etc. But for obvious reasons (greed) no one in these institutions wants to dilute their existing shares, to take dividend decreases, or to lose managerial control by partnering with a deposit bank that could provide the capitalization and liquidity they need (as Merrill Lynch did). It’s easier to dump the illiquid assets on the taxpayer and let the party continue.

So, it’s to be a multibillion-dollar bailout that will be something on the order of double the cost of the Iraq war – a war long held by Democrats to be ruinous in cost. Keep in mind that there’s been no discussion of the constitutionality of any of these actions; the Constitution now viewed by so many as merely quaint and irrelevant. In a month where the Federal Government of the United States has become the major player in the insurance business, and become the world’s largest mortgage lender, what’s to stop it from bailing out the investment banks? And that’s the whole point isn’t it? Where does this merry-go-round stop? What happens when the airlines fail? What happens when GM or Ford go belly-up? What happens if the credit card companies – now saddled with America’s largest ever debt ratio fail? Is the federal government going to enter these industries as well? Are we to bail out every failing industry, lender or borrower, socializing every loss, and paying it all with printed paper money backed by nothing but illusory guarantees with liquidity provided to us by foreign lenders like China?  Of course, if one looks at the government’s own balance sheets the figure of seven hundred billion pales in comparison to the massive debt load that looms over the nation. A national debt of almost $10 trillion and rising fast thanks to what will necessarily be a debt ceiling increase included in this bailout, and then the really big money – massive unfunded mandates such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid totaling an utterly unfathomable $53 trillion.  All the product of further government attempts to create a better world…all stemming from the ruinous expansion of the federal government under the New Deal, and gross mismanagement and dereliction of duty on the part of the U.S. Congress who refuses to regulate, to dramatically cut spending, or to be honest with the American people about the true magnitude of this house of cards.

It’s New New Deal Time! Money all around! To add to the insanity of course, America can’t seem to make up its mind between two candidates – one who wants to cut spending and lower taxes (McCain), and one who promises higher taxes and MORE spending (Obama). Of course, Obama doesn’t promise that, he claims he can deliver a tax cut to 95% of Americans…even though 40% of Americans don’t pay taxes at all.  But, who cares where the money comes from as long as it’s flowing, right?  Free money!

That this election should even be close in light of the current crisis defies belief.

Of course now that we have an economic gun to our head, loaded with bullets provided by Congress, we seem to have little choice but to open our collective wallets and hope for the best.  The unpopular Bush doesn’t wish to add the title of the “Second Herbert Hoover” to his resume, those running for the presidency don’t want to be seen as lacking in leadership, Congress has been bitten by its usual “do something” bug, and those voices on the Right who harbor genuine concern about where this is heading remain silent, lest they be adjudged responsible for the crash that would follow.

The truth of the matter is, this bailout sets a terrible precedent, and rather than exposing the ghastly arithmetic that undergirds our economy, it will likely prove to be a mere band-aid that will fail to address the underlying fundamental (and necessarily painful) reform that is urgently needed as well as the natural market correction that should be allowed to happen. Instead we will allow the problem to fester, likely giving rise to additional unintended consequences, pushing an ever greater burden and an ever more calamitous collapse upon the heads of Americans yet to be born.

The bold choice of Governor Sarah Palin to be John McCain’s Vice Presidential running mate is one that caught many observers, including some contributors to this blog off guard. It was and remains a risky choice, and Governor Palin is not without negatives, but to Senator McCain’s credit, his choice of running mate has ignited a degree of enthusiasm and support across the political spectrum that has propelled him into the lead for the first time in this presidential contest.  Whether Governor Palin was a wise choice will ultimately be determined on Election Day, and that will partly be determined by whether she can maintain the enthusiasm she has generated despite increasing withering attacks from the Left and sympathetic operatives in the mainstream media. 

There is no doubt that Governor Palin has a narrow and treacherous path ahead, and one that will require extreme discipline, a thick skin and inherent political skill to successfully navigate. Luckily however, Sarah Palin seems to possess these traits, and her RNC address coupled with her subsequent media performances seems to have calmed the nerves of some GOP skeptics, and won her the furious support of many rank and file conservatives – some of who only half-heartedly supported McCain. Whatever Sarah Palin’s faults, at present, the combination seems to be working, politically…and the Democrats know it.

Thus, the Obama campaign and the mainstream media, is busy attempting to define Palin before she becomes any more popular, and have settled on a series of attacks relating to what they contend is her general inexperience in governance, her lack of foreign policy credentials, and a whole cadre of ad hominem attacks ranging from her family pedigree to her fitness as a mother.  The attacks have been ugly, mean spirited, and unfortunately predictable – this after all is the biggest game in politics.

This week’s interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson provided fodder for the Democratic narrative that Palin is unqualified. Her hesitating answer regarding the Bush Doctrine was proof enough for Democrats that Palin isn’t ready to be president (a job she isn’t running for). Never mind that Gibson himself incorrectly defined the Bush Doctrine, or that Palin’s redefinition of the question as “his (Bush’s) world view,” was far more accurate, perception is everything.

But if the interview proved anything, it is not the Palin is the dangerously unqualified candidate, but that Barack Obama is. By every reasonable measure Sarah Palin, the nation’s most popular chief executive, is equally or more qualified for the federal executive than Barack Obama.  The argument cannot me credibly made that Palin is unqualified for the number two slot, but that the junior senator from Illinois is qualified for the top job. Indeed it’s laughable, particularly on foreign policy grounds. It is precisely Obama’s utter lack of foreign policy experience that forced him to put the electoral equivalent of a dead battery on his ticket – Joe Biden.

To boil it down, Obama’s supporters must essentially contend that Obama is qualified for the most powerful position in the world because he is a one-term junior senator from Illinois who, after careful consideration, was dead wrong on the central foreign policy question of recent years – the U.S. troop surge in Iraq, yet Sarah Palin is unqualified for the constitutionally weak vice presidency because despite being a popular, successful, reform-minded governor from the nation’s largest state, she hesitated though correctly framed an answer to one question about Bush’s foreign policy in a TV interview with Charlie Gibson.

Compelling argument.

Sorry, if Governor Palin is unqualified to be vice president based on the fact that she is a mere governor, then so was Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, or Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter, or for that matter New York Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt – all Democrats who ascended to the presidency, not the vice presidency, based largely on the qualification of having served as governor of their respective states. Of course it’s an unfair comparison, as Governor Palin has had to contend with two realities that none of the above, and no other state’s governor must – Alaska shares borders with no other U.S. state, but rather with two foreign nations, Canada…and Russia. Based on this fact alone, there is arguably perhaps no other governorship in the country that comes with equivalent foreign policy considerations.

If her past performance as mayor and governor are any measure, Palin will pick up all she needs to know on her way to the vice presidency, and be perfectly capable of serving when the time comes.  Palin is new to the national scene and hasn’t been studying and criticizing Bush foreign policy for 19 months like Obama – she’s been governing Alaska. If given 19 months to prepare and hone her message, and a free ride by the adoring press, Palin would be equally or more qualified to be president than Obama.  Again, however she is running for vice president, not president, and perhaps the most important thing for a vice president is to be ready if and when the president is unable to perform his duties. If after 15 days on the campaign trail, Palin is performing as well as she is, then she has ample time to be ready for the famously undemanding job of vice president, come 2009.

Still, despite the tough questioning, and unfair criticisms, only by being unafraid to answer them and performing in a self-assured, knowledgeable way can Palin win the confidence of the electorate. It is not a task she should shy away from, nor is it a line of criticism that Republicans should be wary of, for the more they question Palin’s readiness, the more obvious it becomes that Obama is truly the most unqualified single candidate on either ticket. This must be the GOP response, and after all, what a welcome debate to have: who is more qualified, the GOP vice presidential candidate or the Democratic presidential candidate.

In the end, vice presidents are allowed a bit of a learning curve, but presidents normally are not, and no one can doubt the readiness of John McCain.

Don’t kid yourself…John McCain just put all his chips on the table and rolled the dice.

Over the past many months, McCain’s team had skillfully underscored the natural impressions of Americans – that Barak Obama was the lightweight in the race; the candidate of risk.  Now, with a single stroke McCain has undercut his most effective argument. He has weakened his case for wisdom and experience, and elevated a one-term governor of a small-population state based on her gender.

McCain had plenty of safe choices. Choices that would have bolstered Americans’ inherent understanding of McCain’s competency and ability; choices that would have underscored the longstanding notion that whatever gimmick the Democrats try, the Republican Party remains the serious one.

With the electorate evenly split, McCain’s first job was to pick a competent running mate that would not undermine his standing, and would reassure voters that should something happen to the oldest man ever to be nominated for president, a competent, experienced leader, ready to serve as commander-in-chief in a time of war, was waiting in the wings.

The former Miss Congeniality, and hockey mom from “the last frontier” is a bizarre choice.

McCain’s pick today has all the hallmarks of a political gimmick and a hail-Mary pass. While it is likely to excite some conservatives, his choice will refocus the entire campaign away from Obama’s status as a political neophyte and will reshuffle the risk calculus in the favor of the increasingly familiar, and always-eloquent Obama. With Biden on the ticket, Obama has lessened the sense that he poses a serious danger to the electorate. McCain’s selection by contrast is likely to shake voters and cast uncertainty on the wisdom and safety of a McCain presidency.

With competent and proven individuals waiting in the wings (such as Governor Mitt Romney), the selection of Sarah Palin is a most unfortunate choice. 

John McCain may have just lost the 2008 election…cue the hurricane.