Senator Obama and his campaign staff have done a fine job convincing people that McCain is really Bush, when McCain, politically and personally is far from anything remotely close to Bush.  Bush will go down historically as a political anomaly, not so much Republican as an oligarchical politician who consolidated power by means of cash, intimidation, fear and recklessness with the application of law.

If we take a look at those elements, we know Obama has no problem with cash and using it to forward his way of thinking and his election prospects.  The campaign knew that immense amounts of fundraising were required to even begin to defeat a far more experienced field of Democratic candidates, let alone juxtapose a green Senator from Illinois against a decorated war veteran and POW with three decades of experience in the halls of Congress.  We are now seeing the fruits of the decision to forego public funds in financing the Obama campaign, as his face and message are plastered in every corner of America imaginable.

We know Obama has a history of being associated with groups and individuals who intimidate other groups and individuals into doing or supporting things that enrich himself and his associates (very Bushian).  His community activism was not only altruistic but bordering extortion, in helping to press inner-city banks to issue mortgages to unqualified borrowers with shaky assets and questionable ability to pay.  These tactics found a home in legislation the Democratic Party managed to enact under Clinton, which exposed FNMA and FHLMC to untold mortgages that were issued to questionable borrowers under impossible loan terms.  The business sector carries equal weight in developing exotic derivative securities based on these loans, and playing musical chairs with the pooled mortgages until the music stopped and Fannie and Freddie were on the hook.  Blame can be liberally applied to both parties, but the genesis was activism such as Obama's and others in inner-cities around the world, where the hope of home ownership was sold, but the goods rarely delivered.

Obama proclaims his vision is one of Hope and Change, yet he instills fear in every American in terms of economic prospects, in terms of race, in terms of health, in terms of war, in each instance promising the Obama Government will save you, the American, from poverty, racism, illness/death, death due to war, etc.  He creates and inflates bogeymen then proposes expensive defenses that are paid for by diligent and prosperous Americans who don't and refuse to live in fear.  There is a stark echo of this fear-mongering in what the left claims as the Bush Administration's greatest injustice to America:  using the fear of terrorism and xenophobia to attract and retain greater powers and influence within the Oval Office.  The problem with that argument is that terrorism against America is real, and any effort to downplay its seriousness will result in the kind of complacency America embraced prior to the September 11 attacks.  There is no unplugging or easy out when it comes to terrorism.  It is born of a festering plague of despondency and anger, all questionably and ultimately wrongly directed at the United States.  When reason meets extremism, the options for peaceful solutions diminish.  The reason must be exercised with appropriate measures to guard the safety and prosperity of this country, first and foremost.  The global view of the conflict is only espoused by those with no keen interest in the conflict.  America has skin in the game, and so long as there is a threat of attack, the fear is justified.  Not much of the same can be said for Obama's scare tactics when it comes to the issues of abortion, Iraq, jobs and a host of other perceived threats to Americans with varying concerns.  The truth is an Obama presidency will find its ideals checked at the door when the reality and oppressive weight of that office becomes fully realized.  At that moment, the fear may reside more in the man than in his depressing portrait of America. 

As with Bush, Obama's recklessness with the law is audacious.  Even passing associations with known domestic terrorists, who have not repudiated their actions but merely gentrified their hatred and violence towards America, is unacceptable and reprehensible.  The law, had it been applied appropriately, would have sent Obama's political mentor, Mr. Ayers, to jail for a long, long time.  On the same morning that the World Trade Center fell, one could read an interview with Ayers in the New York Times, stating he had not done enough in terrorizing the United States as a member of the Weather Underground Organization.  People died because of what Ayers supported acted upon.  Obama, in turn, had no problem initiating his political career in Ayers' home;  while the head of the University of Illinois and The Trib may also have had no problem associating with Ayers via the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, that is no excuse for his lack of judgment:  all of these individuals should be ashamed and sincerely apologetic for their legitimization of Ayers, whose activities led to death, destruction of property and terrorized neighborhoods and government offices around the nation.  Obama also had no problem working with and funding ACORN, an organization that repeatedly falsified and forged voter registration information in order to improperly and illegally affect elections, a practice that continues to this day.

No politician is likely guiltless in the eyes of the law, for all have at some point skirted the boundaries of legality.  The issue with Bush and Obama is they both possess a certain dislike and disregard for the law, and the values and morals and foundation that law represents for one great society that has lasted hundreds of years.  This may seem contradictory for a man who taught constitutional law in Chicago.  But it is specifically his knowledge of the law and its history, that have shaped Obama's proficiency at its manipulation for purposes that are counter-productive to the health and well-being of America as a nation going forward.  Bush conversely used surrogates to accomplish his end-around of the law in his execution of two wars.  But to date, not one citizen, to my knowledge, has come forth and won a case where their civil liberties were materially or illegally compromised due to the administration's recklessness with the law.  However, I could be mistaken.  

We do know that Obama's supporters and associates have a distinct disregard for law, be it Ayers or Rezko or Obama himself.  The parallels to Bush from a policy standpoint are hard to draw.  The personality and disposition of the two men when it comes to the core of our nation are very similar.  Both want to use the Office of President of the United States not in service to their fellow Americans, but in service to their own egos and their own specific interests.  Neither could be termed a civil servant or statesman.  Either can be considered ego-maniacally ambitious and self-serving, creating a cult-like environment where the benefit of the few supersedes the interests of the whole.

I believe John McCain has given his life to his country, and is signing up for another eight years in the hottest seat in the history of mankind.  This won't be a cakewalk, like it was for Clinton, whose character issues and whose own disregard for the law actually compromised his ability and judgment in terms of dealing with the nascent terrorist threat abroad and the condition of our military, which under his administration was severely compromised.  Obama promises more of the same.  Character does matter, associations do matter, perspective is critical, judgment is paramount.  The economy will improve, and it won't be because the government did much of anything other than assuage the fearful temporarily.  In the end, we must really look into the heart of the man who wants to be king, if you will, and ask if he can serve ALL his people, or be content serving only himself.

The record on both candidates is rather clear.  Only one has demonstrated any level of sacrifice and duty and diligence that the office of President requires.  The other, has pledged fealty to himself, and few others.  That is perhaps the key distinction between the two, and will be the hallmark of either man's presidency.

What Obama proposes is for MORE Federal aid to be distributed to public schools. So the schools would get more aid, more cash, more resources, in hopes of improving test scores and the quality of education for the students. I would think that schools or districts that are taken over by the government sometimes fair better, for the short term, but I wouldn't say throwing money at a public school problem specifically, is going to make it better.

Teachers need better game plans, better education, not just on teaching but on coaching, on advising, on counseling, not merely throwing information at kids but instilling a passion for learning, for debate, for writing and reading, for solving problems and for creativity. There is a quality issue in this country when it comes to public education, obviously the understatement of the century. In life, you get what you pay for, except when it comes to federal programs.

What I suspect Obama is doing when he promises more Federal funding of public schools is telling those teachers, administrators, parents and students that he will give them more, and it is an implicit exchange for a vote. What I suspect Obama omits is that the Federal aid hasn't done much good until now, and that the better schools are the ones that simply cost more, unfortunately. I have been a homeowner for a few years now, but my family doesn't enjoy the education that is funded in our neighborhoods via property tax. I would propose, as McCain has endorsed, a voucher program that says 'here's the cash available that would normally go to educating your child the way the government sees fit- locally at the closest school, regardless of quality - please feel free to use it to educate your child as YOU see fit'. It's so much more than choice, it is liberation from the ridiculous cycle of ineptitude that is the public education system. Teachers are unionized, they don't care as much about the kids (the unions at least) as they do about getting more money to perform the same or even worse. The public school administrations are more police forces and politicians than educators in the public school environment. The environment, if we must speak the truth, must change. It must be conducive to learning. It must be driven by true educators, with the input of parents. It must be cognizant of what the public demands of students and graduates- a MASTERY of English, a MASTERY of math and science and social studies, a MASTERY of the skills and information needed to survive in the post-public school world. If the best schooling a child can receive is rendered 'off limits' because of a voucher-free policy, the government is not doing the CHILD any justice. The best bet is to give the cash expended on the child's behalf, without the parent's input, to the person most responsible for that child's welfare, THE PARENT. Let the parent(s) decide where their child will best be educated, which is a fast way to get to the number and quality of schools this country deserves.

What the NEA and other teacher organizations, with the sometimes assumed support of teachers and the almost consistent objection of parents, want is a perpetuation of the status quo: less hurdles for teaching credentials, more job guarantees through less performance-based recruiting and retention and raises, more control, less interference. We have the finest schools in the world, it's just that few of them are public. That's the issue. The schools are there, and the only thing between YOUR child and the best education they can possibly get, is Senator Obama's crazy notion that he knows what school's best for your child. That's not only arrogant, it's obstructionist and in the end, a national security issue as was discussed in the debate tonight.

If you 'believe the children are our future', let parents invest in them. The government has done a horrible job thus far, and maybe it's time to 'share the wealth' and let parents have access to federal funds to educate their children in a positive, safe environment and with a level of quality that is currently unavailable to them without vouchers.