This nation is in a challenging time.

Answers are harder to come by.

-Senators and Congressmen are scared and confused.
-The President is a lame duck on his way to retirement.
-The financial infrastructure of this nation has a fluid and often
incapable foundation, particularly in the capital markets.
-The wealth balance has shifted out of the USA, enabling poorly
run and often violence-oriented regimes to gain undue and unanticipated influence in global politics.
-Energy resources have been artificially sequestered or bid up due to a growing, global economy.
-Americans refuse to 'play ball' and turn to the entitlement mindset, like unions, pensions, government assistance and the like, while the rest of the world is catching up in the areas we used to excel in:  hard work, energy, effort, smarts, creativity and imagination.
-We have become too comfortable with debt and its corrupting effects.

In a time when the answers are unclear, the questions are broad, comprehensive, complex and offer few good alternatives as viable solutions, the two things most important in any individual's arsenal is experience and courage.  Experience to rely on when facing similar situations with known outcomes, risks and rewards.  Courage to make difficult decisions with sufficient deliberation but decisive action.

Experience and courage serve individuals well.  Idealism and change for change's sake can help when some things aren't going right.  I think there is a place for both perspectives and strategies, however, the problems we are facing are mounting, they are very, very, very (existentially) serious, and there is little time and little leeway for the right answer to be found and the right course of action to be pursued.

While both gentlemen are intelligent, thoughtful and respectful individuals, who believe in their hearts and minds they have the right answers for a country they love and appreciate, there is more credibility and more trust that naturally flows to the candidate that can express and demonstrate experience and courage.  I think the public would be perfectly comfortable with Barack Obama if the nation was sailing on calm seas (a la the Clinton Years, where the turbulence was just below the surface), but in this situation, at this time and juncture in American history, there is a distinct need for decisiveness, courage, experience, and a willingness and tendency to do what is necessary and right, vs. what is expedient and generally accepted.

While I agree that consensus and compromise are important, they aren't that important at a time like this.  Credit markets must be restored to some level of liquidity and stability.  Homeowners and potential homeowners can NOT be turned off by the prospect of tough loan criteria and slim inventory, homeownership is one of the foundations of a peaceful and successful state.  Depositors (that's most of us) can't be fearful or spontaneous with their cash positions, and that requires strengthening the image and true reliability of the banking system.  Foreign relations must be cultivated that make sense.  Foreign policy requires knowing when your friend's become an enemy and when your enemy can be become a useful ally.  So much is at stake at one single point in time, that America cannot afford a series of minor missteps or one or two major ones.  The execution has to be near flawless, and the country has to be behind the leadership 100%.

While many will view President Bush with scorn and indignation, for a series of major and minor mistakes and sometimes sheer bullheadedness, and many will view Barack Obama as a peaceful, calm and fresh voice and consolidator, the truth is, each of these men have fatal flaws that have or will doom their presidencies.  Bush's was a structural defect in decision-making.  Obama's is a structural defect in decision-making.  One was stubborn, callous, unilateral and unrelenting.  The other is flexible, noncommital, multilateral and excessively compromising.  Neither have or will do the nation more good than harm.  It is my opinion that the United States needs a shake-up from the root to the treetop, a leader who will force each individual to examine just what they feel about their country, about themselves and their neighbors, about the future generations of this country, and what each individual is willing to do to move this country forward. 

This is truly a time when we have to ask ourselves "What Can I Do For My Country".  It's not about tax breaks, not about healthcare, not about what can I get out of this deal...that type of thinking got us into this rut.  This is the moment in time where America, like in the days after December 7, 1941, must grow up, and grow up quickly, to survive the sure calamity that is ahead if our next leader doesn't resolve our energy, financial and foreign/military policy flaws in short order.  This is not the moment where pollyanna visions of a carbon-neutral existence in peaceful symmetry with our secular, hedonistic neighbors in Old Europe take precedence. 

This is a time where America must DISTINGUISH itself, not morph itself into the politically correct America-basher of the week (Canada, France, Germany, Venezuela, etc.).  For that distinction to be clear, we must fortify our financial and military position.  We must cut off all use of petroleum imports within the next 20 years.  We must cut off all ties to nations who are not in line with America's values and traditions of democracy, freedom and core moral insights.  We must not fund regimes that do not stand up for what we do.  We must not aid organizations or nations who do not stand up for America in a time of need and crisis.  We must not fall prey to stretching our resources so thin that we begin to tear at the fabric that makes ours the greatest nation in the history of mankind.  We should not apologize for being American.  It is an honor.  We should not take for granted our wealth, our comforts, our safety, our freedom.  We should rather fight vigorously and to the end, to make sure OUR way of life is not altered or compromised, by internal or external factions.

In short, we must elect a leader who cares more for us, than for himself.  And the short answer to who is the better presidential candidate in this election is JOHN McCAIN.

You assume the Iraq War served only the purpose of sequestering natural resources.  I suggest that the resources have proved to be secondary to the more immediate task, which was to oust a known enemy of the US from his perch, and to introduce the concept of open government and society to an area of the world that espoused violent interpretations of Islam which fomented maniacal behavior towards our country.  The oil and wealth extracted from Iraq is dwarfed by the cost of lives and material expended to secure Iraq.  A nobler cause is afoot, one that undermines every claim of unworthiness and futility that cloaks the American Left's view of current foreign policy.

You assume, perhaps, that all 100,000 deaths are attributed to American military action.  I suggest many, if not most, of those deaths are actually attributed to factional in-fighting and suicide missions against Americans and Iraqis alike.  The historical division begun by Britain and exacerbated by the Hussein regime was dormant under a totalitarian who fed his enemies to wild dogs.  Of course, removing such a dastardly individual who threatened not only the US, but the entire world with the technology able and available to exact harm across a wide range of countries affecting millions of people, was in the best interests of all free nations.  When there is evidence of use, there is expectation of recurrence.  The evidence abounded, and was documented and known throughout the world.  The 'neocon' agenda of regime change was supported by Bill Clinton, until it was no longer politically expedient.  Political expedience shouldn't factor into securing the nation from threats, both real and reasonably perceived.

The anti-American sentiment may have been somewhat louder after the Iraqi invasion, but it was not a new phenomenon, particularly in the Middle East and Western Europe.  Ironically, the closest relationships our nation has forged politically were with these two regions, each of which failed America in stupendous fashion in the years leading up to 9/11 and thereafter.  With fickle and imprudent allies, the US had little choice but to manage its own interests without a stamp of approval from the necessary world bodies, who'd already resolutely condemned Iraq 18 times for its transgressions, but failed to enforce those resolutions at almost any cost.

The collective sacrifice of over 3,000 Americans was offered on the morning of September 11, 2001, paying for decades of ignorance on the part of both parties, in terms of the threat of Islamic Terrorism.  Without ample response, that terrorism would have continued to be exacted on the American public without prejudice.  Perhaps other nations may or must live that way.  Fortunately, for YOU as well as I, Americans don't have to.  There is no shame in defending your nation, not guilt associated with securing our borders or freedom of movement or religion, no regrets for doing what all sovereign nations do, which is to deter enemies with every means possible.  Or did you forget France's, Germany's, Russia's interests in Saddam's Iraq, that precluded the involvement of those nations in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein?  Each nation sought its own benefit, but somehow the world, including many Americans, can only manage to wag a finger at the US.  That's too convenient to be a plausible defense.

The US trade deficit rises because its consumers (including you and I) demand cheaper goods.  Part of this is due to the income gap that has widened since the 1970's forcing many Americans to stretch their dollars.  A greater part is due to the wider array of product sources and selection.  Consumers flock to the greatest value, and in this generation, that value is derived from China.  Another REALITY that cannot be escaped regardless of the RHETORIC.  The world economy is at one's fingertips, and the overriding influential factor is PRICE.

The fact is, the US economy has grown by almost twice the rate under Bush as under Clinton.  Neither man can claim credit solely, but the tax reduction actually increased tax revenues under Bush, and recent information shows the US economy GROWING by 3.3% on an annual basis during the quarter just ended.  There is psychologically imposed fear, and there is fear of reality.  The American public is sorting that out currently.

This nation survived for nearly 150 years without income tax.  There is merit in the reduction of government intervention into the economy.  There is also merit in legislation that ensures an above board and transparent economy.  Bailing out Bear Stearns or Fannie or Freddie only masks the issue of overindulgence in debt, and only prolongs the restructuring of the economy on a new, firmer basis in reality.  Should the government have engaged in those rescues?  At what cost?  Should the government draft legislation safeguarding the public, and the firms themselves, from their own ignorance, greed and lack of discipline?  This places the government firmly in a position of steerage and caretaking.  Again, unconstitutional and uncalled for.

Does providing guarantees via tax revenue and government debt for bad loans and non-performing balances in checking accounts make fiscal sense?  No.  It provides comfort, until it doesn't (like recently).  That comfort has led to excessive indebtedness, inflated asset values, depressed shareholder value and subsequently, greater unemployment and reduced consumer spending.  WHY?  Because government got involved when it felt it needed to, but in a much larger way and for a much longer time than was necessary.  We are, undoubtedly, asking government to 'fix' perceived problems and further stagnate the economy, because we're too stupid to assess risk, and too blind to see catastrophe when it is clear and imminent.  We have grown fat and lazy because government is serving as an overpaid gatekeeper for undereducated and incompetent investors and account holders.  That is the bottom line.  

A final note, on public works projects:  When debt and tax revenue is sucking vital cash and assets out of the economy at a critical juncture in our history, what good does it do to redistribute those funds to the very demographic least likely to spend, invest or otherwise circulate those confiscated or borrowed dollars?  To reduce unemployment?  Your suggestion inches toward a 100% employment figure that was ballooned artificially by a hollow and economically inept Soviet Union for 75 years.  It didn't work for them, it won't work for the USA.

I strongly recommend that you, and all Americans, look deeply into the role the government has played in our lives, and assess where the quality and productivity of those roles resides?  You pay into a social security and government-mandated medical care system that you will never reap benefits from.  You pay into a tax structure that redistributes BILLIONS of dollars to other nations who in turn vote and act against the best interest of their benefactors.  You support artificially deflated unemployment figures for the sole purpose of improving society's psyche without curing the underlying problem.  You suggest a presidential candidate seeking to earkmark $800+ billion of tax revenue over the next 10 years to cure WORLD hunger is fiscally competent.  The evidence suggests otherwise.

This is a global economy.  To survive, the US worker and the US company must remain competitive...on wages, prices, quality and service.  What you suggest is penalizing the successful American in order to subsidize, patronize and immobilize the unsuccessful American.  That's not how our economy works well, and it is DEFINITELY not what grants the American Way of Life its exceptional and cherished character.

The government can do good work, when it is best positioned and uniquely capable of the work needing to be done.  Unfortunately, the REALITY is, the government is inept, shortsighted, unimaginative and irresponsible when it comes to the well being of the American public.  The RHETORIC suggests government is a cure-all, an ultimate equalizer, capable of addressing any of society's ills, and doing so effectively, by all measures.  There are fundamental changes that the next president ought to make, to financial markets legislation, to tax structure, to economic policy, to foreign and military policy, to many areas where America can stand to improve.  The reality is, those changes may or may not occur, and may or may not work, but with every effort exerted by the government, an imposed indifference festers within the public, who'll look to government for assistance, guidance and patronage that the public does not truly require.  This breeds a largely ignorant, dependent public, and causes attrition in our mores and our intellectual capacity.  The government should empower people it serves, not enable them.  I think that is where there is fundamental contrast in our views.  Should all Americans seek their own efforts and skills to address their needs first, the volume and immediacy of governmental assistance would drop dramatically.  Unfortunately, the trend of government intervention, however small, serves to disable the public from thinking and doing for themselves.

...firstly, for reading my blog.  Secondly, for bothering to respond to it so concisely and emphatically.

To your points:

'More of the same' is not a sound byte so much as it is a mantra that, with exasperating failure, attempts to tie an as yet unformed presidency over the next four years, to an admittedly mixed bag of policy and results we've witnessed over the last eight.  We are all in agreement that the presidency concluding this January was full of forced measures, unilateralism, myopia, endless corrective actions and policy abortions, and finally, a MASSIVE, MASSIVE increase in government programs and government spending which is undeniable by sober thinkers of either party. 

If we are to say NO to 'More of the same', then a resounding NO must be announced in response to the even LARGER augmenting and inflating of government proposed (and since slowly and in piecemeal, rescinded) by Senator Obama. 

The US government needs to shrink its footprint in the US economy, if the US citizen is to forge ahead in a new GLOBAL economy.  That is not only my opinion, but a cursory knowledge of economics will suggest that government intervention on any material scale erodes equity, erodes value, erodes currency and erodes market and investor confidence. 

When it is understood that small business, as you well know, represents the largest employing bloc in our economy, any reasonable mind would equate excessive taxation on the employer as DETRIMENTAL to the prospects of employment in said economy.  Yet the government's role, as envisioned by Senator Obama, is expanded to confiscate more from the job creator, in order to assuage the economic malaise, real AND imagined, of the job possessor, which includes me by the way. 

I am not content with an economic plan that increases the tax burden on the economically accomplished, and the economic drivers of our economy, in order to offer token (for it can't be more than that, as the 'stimulus package' of the current presidency proved so pathetically) cash rebates to the ever-increasing demographic within our nation that is undereducated, under motivated, underemployed, and frankly unwilling or unable to make the tough decisions necessary to extricate themselves out of their, again, real AND imagined economic malaise. 

We are not a nation that requires a caretaker government.  We have spent the last 80 years legislating safeguards and consumer protection elements meant to avoid the necessity for New Deal policies.  We also hear of the failed Bush policies, yet no one from the Democratic camp succeeds in mentioning that one of those failed policies was the overt decision to increase government spending and government programs and oversight and essentially government strangleholds over the citizenry to historic degree.  That, in my opinion, is the greatest failing of the Bush administration, and one that the Obama camp is ready to extrapolate to even more dangerous and preposterous new heights.

To be honest with oneself requires an ability to objectively assess what you believe in, and take that belief to all its natural and probable conclusions.  I am not ashamed or afraid of supporting a decades-long presence in the Middle East, not because I encourage or advocate a martial response to each threat the US incurs, but because historical precedent and logic suggest that war is not a life-support system you can merely unplug and watch the body quickly wither away.  For 5 years, this has been the simple-minded, sophomoric, ignorant chant from the Democrat handwringers in the House and Senate, that Iraq is an 'at your leisure' engagement of our military and other resources.  It is absolutely not. 

The troop reductions that Obama proposed several times in the Senate, the division of Iraq into ethnic and religious enclaves submitted by Biden over and over again, and soundly rejected each time by both the Bush and Maliki administrations, the obstruction of funding legislation that forced US military personnel to spend their meager funds on protective body armor, the stonewalling in Congress (and by the Bush administration to some extent) of the surge proposal by General Petraeus are all disgusting reminders of how this nation has simply disconnected itself from what is REALLY required to keep cute pseudo-efficient vehicles on the road and fat-cat college students sufficiently separated from conflict in order to spew empty rhetoric of how 'bad' America is for doing the simple and necessary things required to serve its own interest.  EVERY nation looks to secure its energy resources, its borders, its alliances and its way of life.  NEVER should our nation apologize for our actions when the grand majority of Americans are unwilling to walk, bike or otherwise mobilize themselves in a carbon-neutral way.  So long as you drive, or consume other goods and services that require petroleum products in their manufacture or delivery, the calls for less drilling and less conflict and less oil are empty and empty-minded.  The reality is oil is necessary for national security at this moment in time and for decades to come.  Refuting this simple fact is not only an act of ignorance, but a dangerous omission of salient fact that can easily drive America into a prolonged period of economic and civil strife unseen in our history.  No one can legitimately turn their back on alternative sources, and no one can plausibly claim the Bush administration had policy and execution competency in tow prior to the Iraqi invasion.  But the waving of the troop withdrawal wand, as Democrats and some Republicans so often desire, will not undo five years of conflict, will not make Iraq stable, will not alleviate the energy crisis, and will not serve the best long term interests of the United States.

The false promise you refer with respect to corporate tax cuts is not substantiated in your response.  It is undoubtedly true that US corporations have shipped jobs and plants overseas at an alarming rate over the last 30 years.  It is also true that the average American has not relented in their desire for cheaper goods, cheaper services, and a cheaper personal economy.  Corporations seek to make profit, that is their purpose, one that has served this nation amazingly well over 200 plus years.  Without corporations, the US reverts, rather quickly, to a combination of an agrarian economy coupled with an outlaw undertone where law and order is a TV show, not the basis of a stable government.  The obvious fact no one wishes to discuss is that the CONSUMER demands more value from their dollar, and therefore the corporation is forced, as any business student will tell you, to provide the goods and services the market demands at the price the market makes.  If the US consumer is willing to pay MORE for clothes manufactured in the USA, or cars, or accessories, or electronics, or name your consumer product, then the jobs we see floating across the Pacific would slowly return.  The dirty secret, if you will, is that the same voter who complains about the cost of healthcare (I believe the greater problem in the US is more access to quality care rather than the cost of that care) is the voter whose cupboards and shelves and garages are filled with products stamped Made in China.  The cost/benefit argument was won by China years ago.  The US consumer demanded a lower cost basis for staple and discretionary items, and the corporations answered the market's call.  Again, simple economic theory bears this out.  When the market demands more value, the supplier is forced to provide it or close shop (see Chrysler, Ford, GM as examples of what happens to corporations that can't reduce product cost-due to labor union constraints-in response to consumer demand).

You did not substantiate your other claim, as to the fruitless effort of drilling for more domestic oil, either.  While natural gas is cheap, clean and purportedly abundant, there is minimal infrastructure TODAY to support CNG as vehicle fuel.  It is a pipe dream in the fall of 2008 and not a viable solution for the economy at THIS MOMENT IN TIME.  I am the first to admit that Congress should have enforced the Clinton policy of raising fuel efficiency standards in the early 90's, but I am also the first to denounce Clinton for continuing the offshore drilling ban at a time when the Middle East was quickly becoming a foreign affairs wasteland.  Had Clinton's fuel efficiency standards been adopted, along with a lifting of the offshore drilling ban in 1993 or even 1998, the cost of oil and gas products to the US consumer would be a fraction of what it is today.  The fact is, wind, solar, hydrogen, ethanol, banana peels, these are all immature technologies that cannot contribute to the required supply this nation demands, as fast as offshore and ANWAR drilling can.  The economy is built on oil, as I have reiterated numerous times.  If we believe the abrupt abandoning of oil as our energy standard will HELP the consumer and HELP the environment, we are sorely mistaken.  An orderly and economically feasible transition is necessary, and that is NOT a fruitless effort.  For citizens of New York, Washington, Chicago, San Francisco, it may be a simple matter to say NO to any offshore drilling...I am sure it is fashionable in the closed circuit world of the big city cognoscenti to simply sweep the nation's energy crisis into convenient bins of alternative energy (all of which are years away from commercial viability).  In small towns, sparsely populated states, or car-centric metropoli like Los Angeles, that is not a common sense approach.  Where oil exists, within our own borders or continental shelf, it should be explored and brought to market, where it would help not only US consumers, but also reduce price pressures the world over, aiding countries who are in absolute chaos due to expensive oil.  Natural gas, of which until recently I was a major investor of, is a very abundant and accessible resource for powering homes, cities and industry.  It is not, today, a resource that is viable for the mass production automobiles the US will rely on for the next 15-25 years.  A reasonable path to energy independence includes drilling for domestic oil.  A thinking person would have deduced that given the appropriate facts and figures and a dash of deference to those who've experienced energy crises before.

As to comprehensive healthcare, we are often asked to review the successes of Canada, France, Sweden and other overtaxed and underserved nations where the individual is a simple cog in a massive government funded experiment that, like in Sweden and other Scandinavian countries, is on the verge of economical and cultural collapse.  But again, the dirty words no one chooses to utter:  NUCLEAR WEAPONS.  Were Canada, France, Britain, other NATO nations, Japan or other US allies forced to truly man a legitimate armed force, or provide the necessary supplies, technology, infrastructure and personnel to defend their borders against known agitators like Russia or China (where I can cite numerous examples of energy envy that has even recently led to military conflict), these nations would hardly have a dime to spend on glossy programs like corporate subsidization and universally sub-standard healthcare.  The US, as chief benefactor and sponsor of NATO (not to mention the UN) frees of TRILLIONS of dollars of cash from the military spending of our allies, allowing them to concentrate on social programs meant to keep the population happy (which when scheduled for an MRI at midnight, or forced to wait months for compulsory surgery, is rarely fruitful).  Again, to reiterate, cursory economics will postulate that the subsidization of military expenditures as a result of alliances forged with the USA has given rise to these outwardly appearing fantastic social programs, which, if examined closely, pale in comparison to the quality and availability of healthcare in the USA.  And if we are truly going to remediate the costs and delivery of healthcare in the USA, the ultimate villains in that equation are trial lawyers (a significantly left leaning group) and doctors.  These two professions contribute more to healthcare inflation than any insurance organization or government oversight agency.  This does not even take into account the billions required to create and distribute important medicinal and clinical applications which, if we were to subscribe to the socialized healthcare model, would all disappear as pharmaceutical companies would be forced into a price cap by a government-managed system led by bureaucrats with no knowledge of medicine or incentive to provide the best care possible to subscribers.  The smaller, unspoken fact in this debate is that the healthcare costs are spiraling due to non-paying consumers, who by and large are also the ones without adequate healthcare, namely, illegal immigrants.  Without recognizing underlying cause, one cannot propose reasonable or legitimate solutions, as Obama and Clinton have attempted, unsuccessfully.

I have respect for both candidates, but I also exercise an independent examination of where each candidate's proposals would lead this nation.  Neither has magnanimous solutions that would usher in a sea change of improvement for a nation under financial and cultural duress.  My focus has been, and always will be, on allowing what scabs exist to heal, often on their own, rather than picking them apart to attempt unproven and concocted remedies.

There are a myriad of issues that distinguish these two candidates, and neither has held executive elected office.  So we do not know how either will govern.  We know Bill Clinton entered with extreme notions of universal healthcare and a business-averse tendency in 1993.  Those policy platforms disintegrated in the face of reality.  The previous iterations of Obama's proposals also fell flat on their face under Carter and especially under Johnson, who subsidized a vast population of minorities and unskilled workers into chronic poverty only recently undone by, and kudos to him, Bill Clinton.  This nation is strong, because of men and women who DO, for themselves and their families.  This nation is successful because voters have by and large applied their aptitudes and energies toward a productive and ever-increasingly fruitful life.  This nation has never shied away from hard work, just rewards and common sense.

You have distinct and immediate examples within your family, of how even linguistic and cultural barriers proved immaterial to the achievement and elevated standard of living you've enjoyed because your parents, and their parents before them, did what was necessary to make their lives truly great, and truly American.  Americans don't need babysitting, don't need oversight, don't need excessive rules or guidelines or disintegration of wealth they themselves have created, in order to fulfill absent-minded promises of candidates from either party.  Americans need the government to get out of the way, so that they can find within themselves the fight necessary to succeed and stay successful.

I'll leave you with the old proverb:
"Give a man a fish, and you have fed him for today, teach a man to fish, and you have fed him for a lifetime."

This is what makes our nation exceptional and unparalleled, and tinkering with that uniquely American spine will only net us further weakness, further misery and further failure.  That is something I cannot accept, regardless of who is doing the selling.

As 2000 and 2004 showed, elections are won state by state...neither of these gentlemen has eclipsed 50% of voters in a meaningful way.  There is something to be desired in both men.  I do not believe they are as pathetic a pair as Bush/Gore or Bush/Kerry.  These are intelligent men, but very, very different on their views of our nation, where it really is today and where they'd like to lead it.

There was a time when America was a beacon of hope, a standard of civility, a bastion of opportunity, and a wonderful laboratory melding components from around the world and generally having unparalleled success.  I seriously doubt any nation with the ethnic and political diversity of the United States would last 200+ days, let alone two centuries and counting, without imploding due to internal strife and a persistent unwillingness to empathize and soberly debate differences to arrive at a productive and executable decision.

McCain, Obama and Biden are in an elite 100 member club and generally know how the Washington machine works.  Obama and Biden believe that machine is essential to keep America in good standing across the globe, to keep underprivileged or 'unprivileged' Americans from falling into destitution or worse, and for forwarding an agenda where the government is the largest part of each person's day and life.  McCain is a part of that machinery as well, and is known as a 'maverick' because he doesn't always play well with that machine or its operators.  He knows how it works, and uses it to further his agenda, but also understands, due to decades of service to this country, that the machine more often than not alienates the people it is intended to serve.  Obama preaches Change and Hope.  McCain now preaches Change and Fight.  I think both candidates realize America can no longer 'coast' and must find new outlets and platforms and paths to prosperity.

While government is essential in figuratively keeping the grounds and calling a fair game when it comes to the economy, it is NOT a positive economic value.  It is, and always will be, a negative economic value.  The consumer, on the other hand, and let's just say the consumer IS the voting citizen, well, he or she knows her expenditures or lack thereof, are powerful forces that drive the economy backwards or forwards.  That is an undeniable economic value.  And let's face it, much as some of us want to believe it's not all about money, it is in many respects.

I would, were I one of these candidates, stop the dilution of facts and strategy and just tell the American people why they believe their presidency would propel the nation to a new plateau of achievement and success.  That means spelling out what the $1000 check to each taxpayer would do to the economy and the federal deficit.  That means spelling out exactly what the 100 years in Iraq would look like (let's face it, McCain is simply stating that US presence in the nation will not be completely eliminated for a long, long time....it is no longer a war we are fighting, but a police action in given pockets where psychotically imbalanced individuals view mass murder as a means of attaining purpose and direction in their lives);  the US has been in Japan for 63 years, and Korea for slightly less than 60.  Iraq needs US presence to enable it to recompose itself into a modern state that engages in a modern economy.  That takes security and technical knowledge, both of which the US provides in abundance.

To insist that US presence in Iraq or the Middle East is not in every American's interest is to simply ignore the truth of what this nation is built upon.  To get food and clothes to the home, to get to work, or any other place, to write an email or balance a checkbook or call a friend or loved one, all in some small or great measure requires OIL.  The candidate that can either assure a greater availability of OIL at a lower cost or a feasible and aggressive plan to move the economy off of 'the oil standard' (not a feat that can be accomplished over even two terms in the White House), will find a willing public that is ready for a return to affordable energy.  So far, neither candidate has spoken to the public in detail about what they propose, where it may fail and how it won't.  My guess is, the US economy, fixed firmly in an oil consumption mode, will remain oil dependent for another generation.  During that time, a transition of magnificent proportions must occur.  This requires a brilliant financial and scientific mind who understands public policy and the path from oil to alternatives.  Neither party and neither candidate can tap such a person at the moment.  Rather than slinging arrows at sacrificial cows (the Oil Industry), the candidates should take a sober look at that industry and engage it in the march toward a more diverse (not completely opposite) sourcing of commercial energy, one that is PROFITABLE and satisfies the national call to move to another energy standard or basket of standards.

The past two weeks have shown a fanatical display of partisanship, venom, hollow and often cheesy attacks and enough divisional politics to stamp the 21st century as the beginning of the end for the world-renowned 'American'.  Neither man, alone, can mend the wounds and the diametrically opposed political stances of the voting public.  The middle has left the USA, both economically and politically speaking.  The middle made this country, and without the middle, the nation does not stand a chance of making it through the century without a significant civil schism.

I hope each man further delineates their game plan for the public to assess and comment.  I hope each side realizes the presidency is not a prize to be pursued, an apex to be scaled, a bully pulpit from which to rain down personal opinion and tendencies as POLICY.  The American cannot disappear from this election, and by that I mean, the center.  The left will badger teenage mothers and special needs children and a false claim of '4 more years of the same' (something so far from the truth, it makes the speaker of these words sound politically void of reason or a discerning mind).  The right will claim a vote for the opposing candidate is not based on ability, experience or intelligence, but a comfort zone found with someone who does not echo the last 40+ presidents in terms of race and gender, an emotional vote, a CHANGE vote.

I often express to those who seek political discussion with me, that CHANGE is something you do with your underwear, not the most critical position during the most pivotal time in our history.  This is a time where a steady, knowledgable and capable hand must man the rudder.  This is a time when the youthful, exuberant and sometimes belligerent demographic who is yearning for CHANGE can't afford to fix a gaze on a young senator with an assuring smile and a (let's face it) checkered political past.  They progressive, energetic Young American must forge their own path on their own terms and voice not only support for the candidate closest to their own political views, (but not quite in consonance), but a self-initiated, self-committed act to move that desired change from somewhere beyond election day, to CHANGE here, now, in their own lives and in their own perspectives and engagements with society.

I am not happy with the viciousness, both verbal and physical, that have pockmarked the two conventions we just witnessed.  Adults, especially those charged with writing law or enforcing it for the benefit of an entire nation, should carry themselves with a measure of dignity and confidence, and a healthy dose of humility and deference.  Right now, ideaologies are not paramount, right now energy, focus and determination will be the touchstones of a successful presidency, one that will reassure the public that our nation is in the hands of someone who views his job as the most difficult, oppressive, thankless yet satisfying and essential service that candidate can offer.

Reason, compassion, will, all lead to the most intelligent and sound decision one can make, almost regardless of the question at hand.  I sincerely hope the American voter vets each candidate thoroughly, in order to be informed beyond the news clip and beyond any partisan mouthpieces who are paid to advertise for the party and its candidate.  See what each candidate did in a time of grave danger or crisis.  What is the mettle we are assessing when looking at either man?  What is the best and worst than can happen by selecting one or the other? A thorough examination of the voter's favorite candidate is called for prior to election day. If we are to ride the next president into office on the shoulders of cheering, fanatical crowds while exercising minimal inspection or assessment on relevant skills and experience, then we've reduced the office to a popularity contest, and have shown the world what myopic and thoughtless people we truly are.

America's prestige and power, which resonate throughout the world, begin in the hearts of its citizens, who love their country despite the flaws, and arise each day to improve upon the last.  That ethic, that culture, that mindset of Americans which kept the nation together during even more precarious situations, must congregate, must vocalize, must lead and manage the debate and the direction of the next presidency.  It is not sufficient to use the office of the president as a career capstone or a personal trophy to be attained and paraded at all costs.  There must be a willingness and an urge to give back to the nation what it so willingly and eagerly provided to the our leadership in a time of great crisis.

I know the next two months will find more classless diatribes and exchanges, but I can hold out hope that the real American will step to the forefront and introduce themselves as a mediator and solution-oriented leader among disparate and warring factions.  The next president must be the glue that holds the fractured state together.  Failure to do so will be historically consequential and indelibly disruptive and fatal.  I hope we never see that day, but I know hope is not a strategy, nor a solution.  This year, America simply requires more.