Today, the American people are entering a courtship, a marriage if you will, with a new president who inches towards the Oval Office with an inspiring yet cautionary tone, and a policy palette sure to be historic, for reasons many of us do not yet know.  While it is an accomplishment for the American people, to have elected Barack Obama and handed him the reins of government for the next four years, the true tests and measures for our country, of course, lie ahead.  As the nation circles around the Capitol and TV sets and Internet feeds to watch the inauguration, the excitement of Wedding Day is hard to ignore.  The Obama Presidency, as we know, promised Hope, Change and a 'Can Do' attitude in the White House, along the campaign trail, picking up the lost souls and disgruntled masses and frustrated demographics that have been in a self-imposed state of wretchedness for over eight years.  There is catharsis pervading the land, a giant exhalation that can only foreshadow an honest hope, in many hearts, of a change for this nation.  As with any marriage, life does change the morning after, our cares are no longer, or should no longer, be focused solely on ourselves.  Our futures, tied to each other, our feelings and whims influenced and often shaped by forces outside of us.  But as with any successful marriage, the true tests lie in the hours, days and years following the triumphant wedding, when life casually recedes back to its normal ebb and flow, and challenges we faced alone, we now face together;  decisions we once made in silos or with little afterthought, must now be made with pointed deliberation.

I share with our new president a cautionary optimism.  I believe things can get done in politics, as in life, when all the information we can possibly muster is on the table, and when the decision making is focused for the benefit of the couple, or in this case, the nation, rather than one spouse or the other, one demographic or special interest...or the other.  Our new president rode into office with a powerful, energetic wave of promise:  SOMETHING DIFFERENT.  While not an especially deep or revealing platform, Obama's brand of change was nonetheless effective, because of the public's distrust or distaste for complexities and nuance in politics, simply disassembling the figurehead and installing a new one seemed sufficient, or in other words, ANYTHING DIFFERENT would do.

But now the hard part begins.  There is a tremendous deficit of economic energy in the United States today.  Where previous generations were challenged by the economic demands of war, post-war booms, a race to space and a communication and entertainment shift away from three networks and a cloud of dust, today America finds it has dug itself into a deep rut in terms of manufacturing, science, research and innovation.  The entrepreneurial mindset, that sparked imagination and launched hallmark products and brands in the past, is no longer monopolized by America.  In fact, America has considerably receded from coming up with big ideas and big leaps in human progress to merely providing a voracious appetite for the new and the new-fangled.

America also finds itself in a frightening tailspin with respect to education.  What passes for a high school or college education today is vastly different than standards imposed upon previous generations.  While anecdotal as that may sound, there is considerable evidence in our economy that shows how college education became more and more personal, and less and less contributive to the public good.  That is a byproduct of our celebrated Age of Choice, where the marketplace for education and personal interests has grown exponentially, while yielding questionable results and negligible benefits for the country as a whole.

The country also finds itself in what can only be described as a self-fulfilling death spiral of mistrust.  Politicians have a much shorter leash in the eyes of the voting public, and are far more exposed in this new Age of Choice than they were in decades and generations past.  Financial markets now officially serve the interests of pooled wealth and commercial entities.  The practice of individual wealth management does not attract the best and brightest, and the past decade of corporate excess fueled by regulatory and accounting appeasement has succeeded in uncoupling the average American from the equities markets.  Rather than seeking to acquire and grow wealth, Americans now find an imperative in consolidating and preserving what cash and capital that remain.  Without individual investment, America's economic engine will be forced to pursue debt financing, which tends to carry more risk and less reward.  Eventually, investment alternatives do crop up;  today it's wine, art and other investment vehicles.  But these are not diversified, and in the long run carry a tremendous amount of risk for investors.  What has accompanied the vaporization of the marketplace of ideas is a vaporization of the marketplace for sound investments.

So, today the economy can't find its way, investors have nowhere to turn and America as a whole is quickly dividing into camps of low-wage earners and their high-wage employers, due in great part to the availability, affordability and choices in education.  These are not problems that lend themselves to quick fixes, regardless of the trillions of dollars thrown into the furnace to get the engine going again.  These are structural deficits.  And our new president knows this.  What will be interesting to see, is if and how the new president addresses these structural deficits, as they are numerous, complex and costly.  What Mr. Obama needs to change is HOW America is governed.  What he also needs to change is HOW America views itself.  Of late, none of his cabinet appointments, policy communications or messages to the public indicate WHAT change is in the offing.  Much attention has been paid to the youth, race and associations of the new president.  Virtually NO attention has been paid to why we are here, economically speaking, and what has, can and should be done to improve our situation.

Whatever mandate Obama and his supporters believe they've won with this election will be short-lived without continuing the momentum with concrete initiatives that work toward fixing our structural deficits and without a few short-term victories that extract the country out of its psychological malaise.  We are a people who look to our leaders, too often, to extricate ourselves from predicaments of our own doing.  We, as a people, haven't demanded enough of ourselves, and our elected representatives, to change the way America is and will be.  We haven't changed our fiscal behavior, we haven't changed the weight and importance placed on applicable education, we haven't changed our own political intellect and involvement, and we surely haven't changed our habits of outsourcing the difficult work we must do as individuals, when we are most vulnerable to political influence and promise-peddling.

In short, my HOPE is that Americans CHANGE.  Because what works in our capitol and in the halls of government around the country isn't going to change with Mr. Obama's presidency.  He will be no different from an execution and compromising standpoint than any of his predecessors UNLESS the American public, in relatively short order, CHANGE the way they view themselves and their country.  One man is not going to reverse the tide, and so this morning I am wary of the pressures and adulation placed on our new president.  His presidency will not represent a deluge of new ideas, because the mechanism by which he was elected and chooses to govern is substantially founded in established ideology, that government is charged with administrating the lives of people, and it cannot do so without significant abdication of the people's freedom.  I would challenge all Americans, regardless of political persuasion, to examine their own hopes and to examine the changes they can make in their own lives, and what those changes mean in the context of the rest of the country.  Without knowing some of the intricacies of the machine, we relinquish much of the way that machine works to our elected officials, moving ourselves from a representative democracy to an administrative autocracy.  While we may find some comfort in letting others clean our homes or wash our cars, the slow and dangerous migration of the American public away from political discourse and involvement will ultimately yield to technocratic leadership that only has its own interests in mind.  We cannot outsource our political will, regardless of how attractive, optimistic and sexy that service provider may appear at the time.  In order for Hope and Change to materialize into Better and Now, Americans, not the government, have to do the heavy lifting.  For the country's marriage with Obama to be a successful one, each of us has to get off the couch, but down the remote and get to working on that relationship;  it simply cannot function to our benefit on auto-pilot.  So as the honeymoon comes to an end, and America returns its focus to the pressing matters of the day, the meaning and influence of each American's political and economic will can't be understated.  While it may seem expedient and popular to cast our sorrows and hopes upon a new president and hope for the best, the fact that successful marriages require hard work, communication and honesty can't be ignored.  It's time for Americans to prepare and to act upon governing themselves, before the nature and blessings of our democracy change forever.

Recent coverage of Mr. Obama's frustration with around the clock press pool scrutiny has put a new light on the life of a president in the era of new media.  Having to curtail visits to his favorite barber, or expressing frustration at a retinue of reporters chasing him during his daily jog or an unscripted run for shaved ice or a tuna melt has put a damper on an active and outgoing personality that used accessibility to secure the Democratic nomination and eventually the presidency.  Now that accessibility is proving to be somewhat of a liability, as Obama evolves from media darling to man behind The Desk.

President Bush publicly claimed he halted emails to his daughter for fear of media scrutiny of private conversations between father and child.  Press pool coverage emphasized the president's personal gaffes and an unrelenting barrage of negative and debilitating coverage that oftentimes overtly or implicitly sought to degrade and denigrate the president personally, converged to undermine, to some extent, the administration's ability to form and execute policy.  An examination of the Bush presidency shows his greatest successes came when he and his staff pointedly ignored the media fallout and sought to develop consensus and formulate action and response within an environment that was, for all intents and purposes, indifferent to media coverage.  The surge campaign in Iraq was but one of these successes, developed against the backdrop of Democratic abandonment and retreat on the war effort, media magnification and/or distortion of almost every military action or inaction in the theater, and a change of guard in the Department of Defense.  The administration had not shown such disregard for public and congressional opinion since early in the first term of the Bush presidency.  But the decision-making structure and environment were conducive to powerful and calculated action, essentially unfettered by concerns for how it would play in the media.

History shows that the recent practice of embedding reporters within the president's inner circle has contributed to a paralyzing effect within the presidency.  The boundaries of private life have disintegrated for the greater glory of more invasive media coverage of the president's every move.  How much this has contributed to the public's understanding of the presidency is questionable.  How much it has damaged the respect and command of the office isn't.  By riding shotgun in a de facto reality show based on the president's life, the media has effectively contributed to the compromising of the executive office.  The time devoted to media relations and management, to preparation, agenda formulation and distribution, scripted and staged appearances and other administrative duties related to the White House press pool has only grown over time.  The payback is not clear.  Though we have now a very engaging, personable and until recently accessible president-elect, the ever-tightening ring around his private life is already proving taxing on Mr. Obama.  His media darling status will slowly adjust once he assumes office, and even more so once policies are put in place and results become evident.  The question we must ask ourselves is, are we getting the best out of the man in office by attaching an entourage of eyes and ears who vacillate between cataloging his actions and dictating them?  Are we developing an environment conducive to sound decision-making, when we enable the media, or disregard their zealous crusade, to record and broadcast every minute of presidential life for public consumption.  While President Clinton brought much scrutiny within the Beltway and the media for his infidelity within the Oval Office, the fact that the press pool structure was in place made such scrutiny possible, along with the crippling effect on the latter part of his presidency.  Was this a public good served by the media?  That is debatable.  The lame duck status of Clinton's presidency in 2000, along with the very destructive effects of the impeachment process in 1999 capped the near decade of constant media coverage of Everything Clinton and basically paralyzed the effectiveness of that presidency in addressing serious intelligence and military deficiencies that caught up with the country in the very next year.

Over the last fifty years, the respect and deference normally reserved for the president has undoubtedly waned.  This is due in some part to the escalating coverage of everything the president says and does, twenty four hours a day.  While the goal was perhaps to be a 'window on the Oval Office', what has transpired is the crafting of a fishbowl within which no president can live, let alone govern, effectively.  While a majority of America saw Mr. Obama as a qualified candidate capable of grappling with unprecedented instability and turmoil on both domestic and foreign fronts, it is hard to imagine that the most qualified individuals would seek the office of president, knowing the intense scrutiny and invasion of privacy that accompanies the office.  Rather, it is easy to believe that perhaps egotistical, ambitious, attention-craving personalities are best suited for the pursuit, if not the actual occupation of the office.  Mr. Obama succeeded in portraying himself as accessible, technologically adept, media savvy and comfortable with the coverage, to serve the purpose of victory, whether in the primaries or in the general election.  But now the page turns to the execution of the office, which essentially began on November 5th, and the amplification of media coverage and critique.  While the facts should be important to professional journalists, and the assessment of the facts and policies are part and parcel the arena of editorial journalism, the recent shift in White House media relations has allowed all manner of media personnel to jump upstream, invading the personal life of the president and his family, and moving from merely covering the details of presidential activity, to materially affecting presidential agendas and personal routines.  That can not be healthy from a psychological perspective, and cannot be constructive to the business of being president on a regular basis.  While there is a segment of the population that finds the minutiae of presidential life interesting and provocative, the unintended effect is to water down the station of the presidency, and put stress on the command and respect that office deserves.

The U.S. is at a critical juncture in its history and evolution.  Once a century, we have found ourselves at a crossroads, which has in the past propelled our nation forward to its next iteration and reinvention, as in 1776, 1860 and 1932.  The domestic and foreign landscape is more volatile and vastly more unpredictable than in these previous, painful tests of our mettle.  The elected president must have every opportunity and every resource to execute his office without the cumbersome and tethering obligation to the media that has evolved over recent decades and administrations.  The stakes are too high, the playing field is ever-shifting and our abilities to respond and progress are being challenged and attacked from known and unknown sources.  The Oval Office has rarely, if ever, faced such a prospect.

While I assume the Obama transition team is following Rahm Emanuel's lead in sifting, sorting, analyzing and discerning what information is 'safe for public consumption', I can only hope the protocol of measured and sanitized communications coming out of the next Oval Office is pursued to the extent that an executive order is issued, for the White House press pool to cease and desist from its invasive practices.  The 24/7 attachment only serves to isolate and accost the president as a person, and does little to develop and maintain a healthy environment for decision-making and execution that the current situation demands.  The public deserves the right to know, but it deserves a productive and effective presidency even more.  The growing torment Mr. Obama faces from the media should be quickly addressed using the privileges associated with his hard won election.  The executive order should be utilized as the tool that frees Obama from the chains of the ever-present reporter pool, allowing him to focus on the unprecedented demands of the office come the 20th of January.

Mr. Blankley is correct in casting  conservativism in the USA at the precipice of deterioration into a closed loop society of debate and philosophical rhetoric that has no entrenched place in national politics.

If conservatism is an ideal and allegiance that did not resonate with the American people this year, then the communication of principle, values and traditions was not effective, nor consistent or nor very convincing.

We find ourselves here in part due to the standard bearer chosen by Republicans, who since the 1994 'revolution' have failed conservatism miserably.  We find ourselves here because of a misguided yet unwavering policy set driven forth by the Bush/Cheney administration with no regard to sustaining conservatism in the forefront of the American mind.  For what the last eight years has wrought in terms of conservatism's appeal to younger generations and newer immigrants is a regression into an isolated state from which only a dynamic and truly new direction must be forged if conservatism is to once again imbed itself into the national psyche.

Mr. Obama, like Mr. Clinton before him, has and will continue to move the nation's political and social tendencies further to the left.  The drum corps for this movement is led by Ms. Pelosi, who embodies the disregard of history, the abandonment of purpose and heritage, the divisive tactics and agenda that are now the hallmark of the (extreme) Democrat.  History, purpose, heritage, unity, what it means to be American, has all been cast aside in a rush to appease and appeal to extra-national pressures and interests that are secular and radical at the same time.

I believe Mr. Obama will have a rude awakening come Inauguration Day.  I bear him no ill, as he will be our president and Americans have to stand behind their president, regardless of who he is, in this world where every nation, it seems, harbors some anti-American sentiment, some angerous enough to act on that sentiment.  I hope the rude awakening moves Obama's administration to the center.  That is a grand hope.  A grander hope is that the unmitigated disaster of our current Congress and the abysmal leadership it displays is expediently and forcefully excommunicated in 2010, replaced by Americans who actually love their nation, flaws and all, who are willing to run for office to represent their neighbors and friends, not the lobbyist with the fattest check.  

Change, as Mr. Obama's blocking fullback is now known, must come in the form of fundraising and donation legislation that puts everyone on the same playing field without easy loopholes to exploit; a respect for disagreement without a vitriolic cry for partisan invective and hate mongering; a foreign policy theme that puts America, not the world or allies or enemies, first;  a domestic policy theme that rewards hard work and penalizes apathy, sloth and greed; an unprecedented investment in American business and American workers, beginning with a mandated overhaul of the tax code within Obama's first (and likely last) term; and finally, a CHANGE in the way Americans view themselves, not as red vs. blue, caucasian vs. minority, rich vs. poor (an admittedly difficult difference to overcome) but as members of a holistic society that finds more in common with one another than in contrast and finds a definition of Americanism (and American conservatism) that is appealing, uniting and meaningful.  

The next great 'leader' of American conservatism has to reach EVERYONE in some meaningful, inspirational and lasting way, not only as a catalyst for change but as a proselytizer of conservative values who ties those values clearly and permanently to a productive and purposeful way of living life.  What Americans should realize through an understanding and adoption of conservatism is that the nation's well being and strength and future all benefit when the individual is empowered with a living construct that supports and guides a positive and giving life.  The whole of society gains when individuals within the society are better equipped with such a construct of values and morals, and therefore less reliant on the government or the society at large.

Mr. Blankely speaks of the dangers conservatism may face if it is not more clearly defined and communicated to the voting public.  There are grave consequences for the secular and state-dependent themes that will mark the Obama presidency.  Those consequences may lead to another violent swing right that could net Americans a president with drastic and similarly flawed policies seen in the George W. Bush presidency.  Americans can't afford to fluctuate so extremely with respect to the ideologies and philosophical make-up of their presidential candidates.  Conservatism must lead all Americans to a central, common ground, one based on our history and values, our beliefs and faith, our view of the world and our role in that world.  America is the Great Experiment, and it is seeing another episode of temporary failure that must be addressed and resolved in short order.  That solution can be found in true conservatism.  The path our nation follows must be one that is compelling and blazed by a core set of values that most Americans find familiar and worthy.  That sense of purpose, instilled in each American, will unite us in a way and direction that harkens back to our storied beginnings, where humble men worked their land, loved their families, and loved their country.  There is not much more to that formula for conservatism's next champion:  Take America Back To Its Roots and make our beginnings new again.

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.

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.

As Election Night turned into the Wednesday Hangover, America braced itself for an expected but nonetheless dramatic power shift in Washington.  I, for one, spent the Election Day haggling with the Los Angeles voting administrators over absentee ballot delivery and was unable to get it sorted out in time; consoled by a sunlit race through the vineyards of Sonoma for an afternoon with the best wines on earth.  Nonetheless, many of California's important decisions seemed to be gravitating towards sensibility, namely the misbegotten oil tax proposition and the strengthening of sex offender registration laws.

However, I failed to find any jubilation in the early morning capitulation of Republican candidates in the senatorial races of Montana and Virginia.  Though political campaigning in America has scarcely evolved from the no-holds-barred affairs of the early 1800's, a full reversion to the baseless attacks and paper-thin allegations of those days is fully underway.  Case in point-  man as political animal can find no better a poster-child than one Nancy Pelosi, Speaker-Elect of the House of Representatives.  There can be few others in the annals of public service to our nation, who have found such joy and satisfaction in privately belittling and undermining political opponents and publicly understating and often blatantly ignoring the true economic and social problems of the center than Ms. Pelosi.  But piling on the new Speaker-Elect makes for such drab blogivision that I am forced to leave that low hanging fruit to die on the vine, as will the rest of the public's short-lived faith in anything 'progressive' coming out of the 'progressive' Democratic leadership.  They are the same stuffed suits who have long-championed the slow but methodical erosion of American traditions and values, and have fought, in their minds, for the 'little man', whilst ignoring the vast majority of Americans and their political, social and economic needs almost wholesale.

Rather, I would like to explore the fast-approaching landscape of the 2008 Presidential Election, and the maturing field of contenders that will present themselves, well, more aptly, expose themselves, for the media vultures and their anesthetized minions to pick, scratch and claw over, until the choice of least resistance is achieved, and the most ambivalent, yet supremely unqualified, candidate finds a four-year sabbatical from campaign life in the warm confines of 1600 Penn.

The GOP was, admittedly, late in separating itself from the power-drunk escapades of the Bush Administration, and that tactical flaw translated into a narrow loss of both chambers of Congress.  That mistake CANNOT be repeated if there is any hope of securing the White House for the trudging elephants two years hence.  Men like Romney, McCain and ostensibly Sir Rudy, must quickly and succinctly paint themselves into a corner as FAR away from the Bush-brand of conservatism as possible.  THEN, that corner must be reconfigured and reconstituted into something resolutely and diametrically opposed to the likely center-left position on most issues that Lady Hillary will assume going into the fall of 2007, when her long marathon to her husband's former office commences. 

There will have to be a difference in candidates, from their appearance and body language (attributes which serve no purpose in the trenches of domestic and foreign policy execution) to their elaborated positions and platforms on issues of the day (namely Iraq, abortion, energy and personal income).  Characteristically, Hillary has hoisted the healthcare banner once more.  Above the blood-soaked battlefields of American politics, she begins to hang her hat on a precarious precipice already.  Except this time, the best the pro-business (read: Republican) set can counter with is highly-efficient and cost-effective employer sponsored plans....that simply require you to fly to Myanmar for a mole removal.  Yes, this is an extreme scenario of positions and their potential effects on the working or retired American.  HOWEVER, I would caution any GOP candidate to bear these battle lines in mind.  The Democratic Party will push hard and fast for a universal healthcare program as a cornerstone of its domestic agenda come 2007.  The tug-of-war between outright socialism and no-holds-barred capitalism will begin when the new Congress opens in January and unless a reasonable and viable alternative to Lady Hillary's "Canada South" plan is formulated by the RNC leadership and minority congressional leaders, the public will only hear one side of the debate, in a consistent, loud and media-endorsed cacophony.  The full cost of socialist healthcare or socialist retirement funding or socialist employment is rarely if ever debated in American political discourse.  The holes in the economic argument for socialist programs need to be identified and harped on by the GOP in order to frame the discussion in a succinct, and more truthful, manner.  The fact is that the great amount of employment, benefits and healthcare that this nation's workers enjoy come from the toil and personal risk taken on by small and medium-sized private business owners.  Infringing on their ability to build and accumulate wealth has a negative multiplier effect on the very constituencies the Democratic Party is trying to retain and expand by promising government-imposed solutions that will be funded only until businesses say 'no more' or silently evaporate (along with the jobs they provide).  Sending your employees' spouses to Mexico for mammograms is no solution either, but this is where creativity, and (GASP!) ingenuity must be exercised by the GOP in order to address the nation's most painful shortcomings(affordable healthcare, reasonable retirement incomes, homeownership prospects, sustained employment) in a manner that does not pit the government as caretaker for an even GREATER subset of the population.

Our nation is, at the risk of sounding repetitive and conventional, at an historical crossroads.  We are challenged by stateless terrorists, their state sponsors, old and new enemies and even our own allies, on every front imaginable.  The American Way is being tested and stressed, and our response to that resistance must be handled in a way that is orders of magnitude better and more comprehensive than the simpleton responses fabricated by the current administration.  Bush Republicanism is dead.  That is a confirmed kill.  But, the momentum for the New Republican movement (anti-terror, anti-illegal immigration, pro-life, pro-security, pro-economic growth, pro-globalization) has yet to take hold.  The Tancredo-led resistance to open borders must be followed up with a grassroots effort at the local level, to spell out, in no uncertain terms, the perils of porous borders, and the economic impact on current and future taxpayers of the current administration's (and Democratic Party's) open-borders stance.  More voters in exchange for citizenship is an unbalanced deal akin to the one taken by the Lenape Indians, who swapped the island of Manhattan for 24 bucks worth of Dutch contraband.  To prevent America from getting "Lenaped", we must be resolute and unwavering in keeping our borders open to those who embrace our culture, religion, work ethics and general societal principles.  Those that don't, regardless of how destitute and oppressed (by nations who fail to assume ANY responsibility for the economic and social welfare of their own), should not be allowed free reign within our borders.  The net effect of illegal immigration since Reagan's Amnesty of 1986 is negative to the tune of almost a trillion dollars.  This nation can hardly afford a multiple of that sort of economic bleed, given the competitive pressures all businesses and workers face in a globalized market.

My suggestion for the GOP set seeking the nomination in 2008 is to identify yourself, your campaign and your vision with what the average TAXPAYER is experiencing..  The vision must be comprehensive, yet succinct.  Tell us how energy prices will be stable for the next 5-10 years and how you intend to accomplish that with some reasonable expectation of success.  Tell us, before you're elected, how the best and brightest ideas in the far corners of research and industry will make it to the forefront of your policymaking, and nationalized (such as biodiesel, adult stem-cell research, fetus-preserving stem-cell research, solar and geothermal science for the home). 

The nation has, today, at its fingertips, more information and access to fact or fiction behind presidential statements than at any point in American history.  The working taxpayer knows what sounds legitimate and what they've already heard before.  The duping of America that may have been commonplace in years past will not be so easy to pull off in the next presidential campaign.  We are all cognizant of the dangers in the Mid-East and Pacific Rim, of the threats at our borders, of the financial headstand each of us has to make to even keep up with the prosperity previous generations enjoyed.  We know where our pain points are, and could be; what we don't know is who is competent and astute enough to pull the solutions off.  There is a great danger of Americans, going to the polls, and now, for the third time in a row, voting in a candidate whose best qualification and attribute is 'he sucked less than the other guy'.  That's not a clear and universal mandate.  And that is what this nation is seeking, today and more importantly, in the new century:  leadership that we are confident in, comfortable in supporting and excited about.  The elixir of such leadership has propelled economies to great heights and has achieved miraculous feats on social and foreign affairs issues in the past (the New Deal, Voter/Civil Rights Acts, Fall of Communism).  We should soon tire of the mediocre, of the uncharismatic, of the ill-equipped, the unprepared, the rudderless and the error-prone.  It's time we demand the cream of the crop for public service, not just another retread of the pilferers, pranks and pitfalls of the past.


RAFFY J. OHANNESIAN
LOS ANGELES, CA


Our country's honor calls upon us for a vigorous and manly exertion; and if we now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world.
~ George Washington

Having spent years as an observer of the 'blogosphere', going way back to the late 90's in the infancy of this medium, I am happy to, in earnest, begin my participation as a contributor to what is likely the most effective and open forum and medium of political discourse and debate that we can avail ourselves of today.

I will try, in my posts, responses or direct emails to any potential readers, to be as forthright, fair, honest and informed as one can possibly be, while providing my own personal insight and knowledge about topics I cover on my weblog.  The impetus of this undertaking is to really support the tagline of this website:  MAKING OPINIONS COUNT.  This, I believe, is achieved not only by forming opinions that are as airtight as possible, but by also placing force and effectiveness behind those opinions, so they are leveraged for the greatest possible effect in the decision-making processes and arenas that matter most to our society.

This effectiveness of opinion-making and proliferation of same is not easily achieved.  However, it is very easily identified.  We are fools not to agree that the opinions of media moguls or talk show hosts or legislators and administrators in our government have a greater and more direct effect on policy and legislation, not to mention voter sentiment, than any individual or sometimes even collective voter opinion.  The 'masses' are deemed silent by policy makers and executors, and the media that cover them.  This was alluded to by President Nixon in his run-up to election in 1968, and it is absolutely the fact today.  Examples of this silence can be seen by comparing the will of the majority, as it relates to issues such as abortion, stem cell research, terrorism, border enforcement and taxation against the portrayal of this public will in the mainstream media.  If a truly representative and comprehensive poll of American voters could be conducted on these issues, (a gargantuan task if it is to be done legitimately and verifiably) I would be supremely confident in asserting that the media coverage would be in stark contrast to the true and verified majority opinion. 

The effect of this disparity is two fold:

1) the incessant and ubiquitous messages on these issues, coming out of traditional and online media that is corporate-owned, begins to have a saturation effect on voter psychology.  That is, the more we are exposed to the media paradigm on such issues, the more that paradigm shapes our own opinion on them, whether we realize it or not.  The working class, the poor, the small business owner, the various subclasses that comprise the backbone of the voting public and the economy, have scant time to devote to the formation of lucid, informed and personally evolved opinions on these issues.  The default reliance on media sources and the resulting 'conventional wisdom' is too convenient and facilitating to ignore.  As the campaign season hits fever pitch, the advertising, interviewing and news coverage that become the interlocking components of this media paradigm are ingrained into our psyche to the point that refuting the premises of this paradigm becomes a larger and more time-consuming task than simply adopting the media-authored opinion du jour. 

Terms like 'groupthink' or 'psychological warfare' may sound martial and confrontational, but I believe they can be reasonably applied to the strategy and tactics pursued by mainstream media in shaping and directing public opinion on these sensitive, campaign-defining issues.  The resistance or inoculation against the adoption of media-authored opinion is no stroll in the park.  It takes an active, interested and involved political mentality and likely a scientific method applied to opinion-forming that most voters may not have the stomach or time for.  But the alternative is severe and damaging to the social fabric in the long run. 

At the risk of belaboring this point, I'd urge every voting citizen to diligently make time for some cursory research into incumbent and challenging candidates for Congress and local judiciary, and in states like California, to read the fine print on proposition sponsors and funding, to understand at a very elementary level, how a candidate or a proposition is aligned with one's personal beliefs, and to test those beliefs consistently.  We should not be afraid to change our minds, but that change should come from a thorough and comprehensive effort in pursuit of truth, and with the intention of choosing the best available recourse on the issues being decided on Election Day.

2) Besides the subversive 'hoodwinking' attempted by the media on the voting public, our own legislators and administrators are also vulnerable, because of simplicity and access, to substituting poll results and media coverage for an honest and thorough pulse-check on voter sentiment.  Polling has resulted in enough predictive failure over the course of recent American campaigns to be questioned or even outright abandoned as a tool for assessing voter sentiment on a national or regional basis.  Gaffes, from the Dewey election headlines in '48 to exit polls favoring Kerry in Ohio in '04, are indicative of the fatal flaws in polling that skew the facts behind public opinion and will in an overtly fallacious and almost theatrical manner.  The media's urge to claim inside knowledge and subject matter expertise on voter sentiment is an unabashed attempt to control outcome, not report it.  I have yet to understand the purpose of 'calling' elections prior to the closing of polls, as I believe the public is more interested in a true, if somewhat delayed, election result, more than they are interested in projected outcomes based on falsified exit polls or faulty predictive instruments.  The election results that matter are derived from the election mechanisms in place at the state and local levels, anyone else claiming to know or predict the result in advance does no service to the American public, but more than likely does severe damage to the faith and trust Americans have in their electoral system.  If there are legitimate, verified and widespread indications of election fraud, those should be objectively examined for the benefit of the voter.  Any other attempt to prematurely announce the will of the people is both unnecessary and politically disingenuous.

Polling is just one example of how the media attempts to be a 'player' in campaigns and elections, when their role and import should be questioned and scrutinized both by the voter and the campaigner at every opportunity.  Responsible, professional journalism should be relegated to observing and reporting, or face governmental or independent oversight at the behest of the public for unfairly affecting or tainting the will and mandate of the electorate.  Broadcast rights are granted by the people, and if the broadcasts do not serve the interests of the entire voting populace, but rather the whim and fancy of a select few, those rights should also be reviewed and rescinded as appropriate.  The bias, toward either end of the political spectrum, should not bleed its way into the realm of political journalism.  There needs to be a fair, objective and arbitrating role assumed by the media in covering campaigns and elections, and issues that are most prevalent or material to a given election year.  This role has been abandoned by all but a few of the media outlets serving our nation.  And for that reason, the public and the elected government are forced to play in a sandbox that benefits neither.  The public is not served by 10 second sound or video clips supporting the media's view of an issue or candidate, and the candidate is not served by an altered view of the public will as nuanced and distributed by the same self-serving media.  In the end, the nation loses attachment to its soul, as dramatic as that sounds.  The truth muddled, the public jaded, the government duped, the soft control of state policy and legislation is deftly manned by an increasingly powerful and enriched media estate.  This isn't how the nation was born, and it isn't how the nation has strived for over two centuries to be founded on truth and principle.  But we, as voters and ultimate political determinants, cannot relinquish our responsibility to be well-informed, politically responsible and active and above all, sufficiently intelligent about the issues that directly affect us, and how those issues are constantly being morphed and reconstituted against our own interests, and for the benefit of a select and well-heeled set of political manipulators.

I hope to contribute more of my opinion and 'thinking out loud' in future posts, and welcome reader comments and opinions as well.


Raffy J. Ohannesian
Los Angeles, California