For good or bad, there does not seem to be much writing and opining on “the experience factor” as it applies to Senators John McCain and Joe Biden. Instead, nearly all the “experience” discussion and punditry is focused on the resumes of Senator Barak Obama and Governor Sarah Palin.

 As George Will recently wrote, Senator Obama is indisputably the least experienced candidate for the office of president in over 75 years.

Candor requires one to acknowledge that neither the Democratic nominee for the Presidency nor the GOP nominee for the Vice-Presidency has the same degree or breadth of governing and leadership experience as their respective running mate. On the one hand one may question the wisdom and judgment of the Democrat Party for its selection of Senator Obama and on the other hand Senator McCain’s decision may be criticized.

While this writer is persuaded that the office of a small town mayor generates more relevant executive experience than that of a “community organizer” (still not clearly defined) in a big city; and that two years as governor of the state of Alaska is more demanding and educational than two years in the U.S. Senate (where one demonstrated the ability to genuflect without reflection at every proposed liberal bill), nevertheless, one supposes there should be a way to test the relative skill and mettle of the two candidates.

This is especially so as many citizens are pondering the experience question in the following manner:

What if Senator Obama is elected; and what if President McCain dies in office?

It seems one way to address the above question would be to conduct a series of debates on a range of issues between Senator Obama and Governor Palin. Given the formidable speaking abilities of each, which may obscure an intellectual shallowness below the surface, joint discussions between these two candidates might produce more insights for thinking voters than the usually sterile and uninformative “debates” between the presidential candidates.

Since the junior Senator from Illinois has avoided serious debate forums proposed by his GOP rival, perhaps the real debate, the necessary debate is yet to be proposed.

It is the debate I’d like to see.

With John McCain’s selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate Democrats must be experiencing “buyer’s remorse.”

Wikipedia provides the following definition:   Buyer's remorse is an emotional condition whereby a person feels remorse or regret after a purchase. It is frequently associated with the purchase of higher value items which could be considered "bad" although it may also stem from a sense of not wishing to be "wrong". In an extreme situation, an individual who struggles with or cannot accept the possibility that they may have made a mistake, may be suffering from a more serious and severe condition that has truly little to do with "buyer's remorse". (Emphasis added.)

First, when one compares Governor Palin with Senator Biden, Democrats have to be asking why not Hillary? With Senator Clinton on the team Obama would have added experience, a woman and millions of sure votes.

Second, Democrats have to be asking why Barak Obama? Palin has more executive experience than Obama. As a city mayor she accomplished more than Obama did as a “community organizer.”    In addition, Palin has a record of confronting and going after corruption, while the Senator from Illinois cuddles up to the likes of convicted felon Tony Rezko to help the Senator buy a house.   Governor Palin owns and knows how to fire a gun; she is the commander of the Alaska National Guard which is always on active duty.  On the other hand Senator Obama knowshe’s smarter than General Petraeus and that the Surge still, today, did not work (after it has succeeded beyond all original high hopes.) 

For Democrats one must think they are saying, Why not Hillary? Buyer’s remorse, or something more serious?

“In the first place, let us see what influence he is exerting on public sentiment. In this and like communities, public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. Consequently he who moulds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed.”

Carl Sandburg writes, “Shade trees were few in the Ottawa public square and most of the twelve thousand listeners were in a broiling summer sun on August 21^st when the first of the debates took place.  For three hours they listened. Seventeen cars full of them had come from Chicago.  By train, canal boat, wagon, buggy and afoot they arrived, waved flags, formed processions and escorted their heroes.”

Lord Charnwood in his biography of Lincoln (among, if not the best), observes that Lincoln’s House Divided speech (June 16, 1858) accepting the Republican Party nomination for the Senate, “had made a stir, but the rest of his speeches in these long debates could not be noticed at a distance”, that is, on the East Coast.  But Harry Jaffa points to Charnwood’s “opinion that Lincoln, in the debates, had ‘performed what, apart from results, was a work of intellectual merit beyond the compass of any American statesman since Hamilton.’”

In fact, in a key question posed to Stephen Douglas at the second debate at Freeport on August 27, 1858, Lincoln sealed the defeat of the Democrat Party in 1860.   Further, the published edition of the collected debates was the campaign literature in 1860. 

Remember and appreciate the greatness of Mr. Lincoln as we look forward to the debates of this coming presidential canvas.  Perhaps take the time to re-read the first debate would be an appropriate way to do this.   Although I know many of you have this book on your shelf, for those who do not, you may find it at the following link.   http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/debate1.htm  Then order a copy from your favourite book seller and read all the debates. 

Article II Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states that the President “may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them…..”

This is precisely what Harry Truman did in July of 1948.     Indeed, U.S. Presidents have done this 27 times.

 Perhaps Congress will do something sensible, or at least we’ll know which party and which legislators are content with the trend of sending more and more, weaker and weaker dollars to friendly places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela.

 The content of the legislation should match the reality of problem we face.  It should: 

·          Open up off shore drilling and stream line approval process and environmental road blocks

·          Same for ANWR.

·          Open up and provide incentives to develop oil from shale reserves.

·          Stream line nuclear power plant approval process and environment road blocks and provide tax incentives.

·          Simply declare Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the storage site for nuclear waste.

·          Provide tax incentives for the conversion of automobiles from gasoline to LPG and require service stations of a certain volume to provide sale of LPG.

·          Add in the silly stuff of solar and wind power for the future development. 

"They can do this job in 15 days if they want to do it," President Truman said in 1948, and this is exactly what President Bush should say.

 The President should promise to veto any bill that did not contain the core items above.  With the major elements above, capital will flow to the best and most attractive opportunities.

 Let every vote against such a law in September or October be noted by all who are now paying $4 dollars a gallon for gasoline and by all who will be paying 30% to 50% more this winter to heat their homes (hello New England, is anybody home? )

 How would Senators McCain and Obama vote?

 Would this be called a political stunt?  Too bad we can’t ask Give ‘em Hell Harry what he would say.  But, it is not too hard to imagine he would certainly have something appropriate.

I just finished reading Michael Yon’s Moment of Truth in Iraq:  How a New 'Greatest Generation' of American Soldiers is Turning Defeat and Disaster into Victory and Hope. If you are interested in the future and not the past, especially regarding the US policy in Middle East, then this is worth the 4 or so hours it takes to read.

Yon is a former Green Beret turned photo and print journalist.  He has probably spent more time in Iraq than any other reporter.  And, of this time, Yon spent his time with combat units and not in the relative safety of the “Green Zone” in Baghdad.  He was an on the ground eye witness of events.

Yon is not an administration apologist.  The book begins with stinging, and on the mark, criticisms of how the war was mishandled.  He does not waste time on debating the merits or wisdom of the war, he goes straight to the conduct and execution.  Among the first direct hits that Yon triggers is the fatal blunder of the appointment of Paul Bremmer and his decision to literally dissolve the old Iraqi bureaucracy.   Yon also goes after the Administration and pundit friends who failed to see and admit to an insurgency (catalyzed by the Bremmer blunder) which turned into a civil war and then failed to admit to the civil war that nearly ended in catastrophe.

Moment of Truth in Iraq proceeds to explain how and why things have changed in the last 18 to 24 months.  The factors include the depravity and evil of al Qaeda and its contribution to the Sunni Awakening, the brilliance of a new leader – General David Petraeus, and the great moral power and resourcefulness of the U.S. soldier.   Yon repeatedly drives these three fundamental points home with concrete example after example.  More than once this writer caught himself holding his breath.  

American military leadership, with its tradition and emphasis integrity, have ultimately played a larger role in the amazing change than firepower.  Yon cites how Iraqi infantry seeing American officers in combat “leading from the front” soon insisted upon the same qualities in their officers.  There is story after story of how Iraqis have come together because of their trust in the American military.  The horrible calumny of Abu Grhaib is in the past – there is the very recent incident of an Iraqi father bringing his sons into US military custody rather than to the local police, he did not know if his sons were guilty of terrorism but he knew the American would treat them with justice.  Indeed, one of General Petraeus’s first acts on taking command was a letter of instruction demanding from his soldiers-- morality in war.  Yon compares this letter with a similar instruction from General George Washington.

Yon does not argue that the war is over or won.  He does strongly take the position that defeat was near and that now victory is possible.  This is the underlying concern of the book.  Victory is possible and by this he means the solidification of a reasonably decent and unified Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors.    Victory is possible because of the great learning that the US military underwent and has now proved itself to be “world class” in counterinsurgency warfare.  (If you read Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife, you’d see that the US military has been an A++ student.)

For Yon, the key to victory is political and moral courage on the home front. (Courage is not lacking in the US military, although there is the frequently heard remark about the military going to Iraq and America going to the mall.) Now that the right tactics and strategies are being conducted on the ground, it is time to continue them and reinforce them.  Exiting prematurely from Iraq in Yon’s view would be a disaster several magnitudes worse than the ignominy of surrender and defeat in Vietnam.

On this final point may hinge much of the future for the Middle East and for American influence and American interests.   Regardless of one’s position on this matter, Yon’s book is a document that one should honestly confront.  However, it is a report from a soldier turned journalist; there are a few descriptions and expressions that are disturbing.  Sometimes truth is disturbing.

Finally, near the end of the book, Yon relates how he recently said to an Iraqi soldier, “You know, some day Americans and Iraqis will be the best of friends.”  The Iraqi officer responded in disbelief:  “We already are good friends.”

As Amanda Carter notes:

If President Ronald Reagan can speak kind words to the worst President of the 20th Century, then I hope all Republicans can quickly and intelligently now support Senator John McCain as the Party's nominee.

Remarks at the Dedication Ceremony for the Carter Presidential Center in Atlanta, Georgia

October 1, 1986 

President Reagan:   President and Mrs. Carter, reverend clergy, Governor, Mr. Mayor, the distinguished guests here, ladies and gentlemen, I want you to know that I often get invited to library dedications. There aren't that many people still around who knew Andrew Carnegie personally. [Laughter] But President Carter and Mrs. Carter, it is indeed an honor for Nancy and me to be here. None of us today need feel any urge, in the name of good will, to downplay our differences. On the contrary, in a certain sense we can be proud of our differences, because they arise from good will itself -- from love of country; for concern for the challenges of our time; from respect for, and yes, even outright enjoyment of, the democratic processes of disagreement and debate. Indeed, from the time of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, frank debate has been a part of the tradition of this Republic. Today our very differences attest to the greatness of our nation. For I can think of no other country on Earth where two political leaders could disagree so widely yet come together in mutual respect. To paraphrase Mr. Jefferson: We are all Democrats, we are all Republicans, because we are all Americans.

To this all of us who have serious concerns about the Democrat Party alternatives, we now need to agree that "we are all Republicans."

CNN and other news organizations are reporting that Mitt Romney has won Minnesota’s 38 (41) delegates to the Republican Convention.
 

Sorry.  It isn’t so.  (A single phone call the Minnesota Republican Party clarifies the matter.)

Last night Minnesota had a non-binding Straw poll.  Indeed, no delegates were selected to attend the national nominating convention. 
 

The Minnesota Caucus’s merely began the process of a series of Minnesota Republican Party gatherings which will ultimately select delegates to attend the national nominating convention.

I was among those selected as a delegate to go to the next round of Party gatherings, and I did not commit to support the former Governor from Massachusetts.

Main Stream Media fails again!

What happened on the Today show this morning? Senator Obama called former President Bill Clinton a liar!  Think of it!

"This has become a habit and one of the things that we’re going to have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he’s making statements that are not factually accurate," said Mr Obama, who has made counter-allegations of hard-ball politics by the Clinton campaign in Nevada. "I think it’s important that we try to maintain some level of honesty and candour during the course of the campaign."   From TimesOnline.

What shall we say when a major Democratic Presidential candidate calls Bill a prevaricator? What shall we call it?

Progress.

Here is an idea. The Senator from Illinois might consider challenging the Senator from New York’s husband to a debate. Why waste time debating with the fill-in for the man seeking a 3^rd term?

When considering the history of political leaders, one naturally thinks of greatness. Examples include George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and more recently Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It is arguable that each of these possessed, at least in part, a character that Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, termed Great-Souled.

Among the defining characteristics of the Great-Souled individual are:

"Honor rendered by common people and on trivial grounds he will utterly despise….."

He will "feel anger on the right grounds and against the right persons, and also in the right manner and at the right moment for the right length of time."

"…. Great-souled men art thought to be haughty."

"But it is also true that (his) conduct is often guided by the interests of his friends and of his country, and that he will if necessary lay down his life in their behalf. For he will surrender wealth and power and all the goods that men struggle to win, if he can secure nobility for himself; since he would prefer an hour of rapture to a long period of mild enjoyment, a year of noble life to many years of ordinary existence, on great and glorious exploit to many small successes."

Necessarily, while the Great-Souled man must give due consideration to wealth, and other material matters, he would go into politics and not be a professional man of business.

One is encouraged to ponder, among the current candidates which individual most approaches the Aristotelian model?   And, do Americans seek or merit a leader with a Great-Soul?

President Ronald Reagan used to remind fellow Republicans of the 11th Commandment:  "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican."

It is lamentable to hear so many "conservative" radio "journalists" and commentators breaking this commandment with such passion and glee.  Hugh Hewitt's calling Senator McCain the "anti-conservative" is among the most flagrant violations.  Indeed, Hugh seems to be on a McCarthyite hunt to find every fault of every Republican opponent to his icon of conservatism. 

It is always the case that if one cannot be persuasive with reasoned argument then one necessarily resorts to name calling, hyperbole, and half-truths.

One can only conclude that Hugh Hewitt belongs to the "Richard Nixon branch" of the Republican Party and not the mainstream of Grand Old Party of the Gipper.