On..."Earned Success"

A few articles to share. It's been a while.

First Michael Barone ties together a number of ideas to formulate an idea that is overall pretty basic but is often ignored.
Barone writes

• They want public policies that enable them to earn success, and they resent policies that channel money to the politically well positioned or to those who have not made decisions and taken actions necessary for earned success. They want to be empowered, not patronized.

• (Walter Russell) Mead makes an even stronger point when he writes that "for large numbers of voters, the professional classes who staff the bureaucracies, foundations and policy institutes in and around government are themselves a special interest." One, he adds, that acts "only to protect their turf and fatten their purses."

Americans Want the Honor of "Earned Success"

The Tea Party's rise and success has been linked to both of these points, but especially the second one. Government has become a massive special interest and for those on the outside-looking-in resentment has been growing for some time. Continually throughout US history the people have rebelled from what they deemed an unnatural growth (and abuse) of power consolidated in one group's hands i.e. slave holders, Gilded Age capitalists, urban political machines. In all three cases, the federal government was strengthened to destroy (slave holders) or reduce (capitalists, political bosses) these power grabs. Now, the very monster they created to protect the republic is now seen by a growing minority to be the threat to the republic.

If there is one person who needs to be read it's Walter Russell Mead. His last few blog posts have been awesome, especially

The Writing on the Wall

It perhaps is the best long essay I've read all year.

His latest American Tinderbox is also very interesting.

On...Mitch

I know he doesn't fire up a crowd with lofty rhetoric, but his central message is solid and firm. I don't know if can win, but he has my attention

Mitch Daniels

Daniels Offers Tough Love to Conservative Crowd

Teasing for a Run

From NPR

On...5 Books with Mitch Daniels

Here are 5 recommended books by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels.
Mitch Daniels Books

I hope to post on other GOP potential 2012 candidates in the near future.

On...Eternal Liberty

The Fourth of July is tomorrow and in honor of our 233rd birthday I have written a small piece on Liberty.

Eternal Liberty

Mark A Trexler

Eleven score and thirteen years ago our fathers in liberty shaped on this continent a new world—a republic to enlighten and enrich mankind. Rejecting the tyranny and monarchy of a centralized power they reached deep into antiquity to usher in a new age of reason and humanity. More importantly they hitched our future onto the radical truth that all men are created equal. Not equal in ability or talent but in birth and law. Men and women would live their life free of despotism and pursue their happiness in the way they choose, free from the whims and decrees of kings and dictators. Happiness wasn’t guaranteed, failure sat next to success as equals, but the choice to pursue one’s own fate through freewill was a centerpiece of the republic. Knowing that men were not angels and would never live in an idealized utopia and also knowing that anarchy was a twisted cousin of freedom, they fashioned a government, for the people and by the people, limited in scope, but strong at heart to maintain our precious and fragile natural rights. That government, always run by men and not by angels, has been far from perfect—it too has momentarily succumb to the will and corruption of selfish interests and the mania of war, but has always righted the ship with modernization and hardship. The continual restoration of our traditions, our humanity, and our government is never done. Folly is ensured to those people who embrace the lightly proferred laurel, the easy, ungrudged praise.

Across the decades we as a people have struggled and travailed to live up to the maxim all men are created equal—a task each generation seizes and battles. We have nobly won great advancements, we have cauterized the original sin of slavery, and widened the franchise of suffrage, but we have let slip the other half of the equation, no less in value. And that is the notion of liberty—the freedom to live one’s life without the burden of others dictations, freedom from coercion of the bayonet, and freedom from the manipulation and caprice and impulses of so-called great and powerful men. When individuals and communities, through reason and spirit can govern the republic we will flourish as we have for hundreds of years. When the shackles and lash of oppression are given reign, however slowly, we must be ever vigilant to strike down dangers to the republic, especially those that initially seem like benefits of the greater good.

I ask all Americans and future Americans to remember on this Fourth of July the long-standing faiths of our blessed nation—those natural rights and national values that are more than mere dusty words from bygone eras. Our liberties have long ago given us power, but only if we trust in them and maintain them and use them in our daily lives. Once embraced we can forever dip into that stream of liberty cascading across the ages and refresh our government and ourselves. We must remember that all of this, large and small, is no accident. Through our collective freewill we make choices that herald the future. Let us make those choices wise and fruitful ones. Bear in mind we always have the opportunity for disastrous lapses in judgment as well as bold deeds and exceptional achievements. We must hold tight our convictions and conserve the lifeblood of our revolution—a moment in time when we cast off tyranny and the dictations of faraway kings through suffering and sacrifice and established here, on this soil, a republic cast in justice, nurtured in equality, and conceived in eternal liberty.

,

On...Why Are Politicians so Weird?

Why would you want that job?

Mark Steyn brings up a very interesting aside in his latest op/ed piece. HERE. The gist of it comes from a question someone asked him recently, "Why are politicians so weird?" This referred to the numerous sex scandals within both parties--most recently Gov. Mark Sanford (or anyone who 'hangs' with Joe Biden or Barney Frank I assume--WEIRD).

And if you know local politicians they are normally just as loony. Modern politics breeds a certain species of human.

His theory is you have to be odd or serious warped to do all the things you have to do to get elected and stay elected. If you think about it I can certainly understand. Sure elected office has some appeal to me, but only some. It is most the world of fantasy. What a pain in the ass public office has to be? The hours, the fund-raising, the media, the scrutiny, the PUBLIC. Maybe Steyn is right and we will get more and more wack-jobs. The second part of his theory is this is all akin to the rise of big government. We'll see. I hope not. But think about all the monarchs and their ilk and all the power they possessed AND the weirdness that ensued.

Limited government. Boring government. Non-coercive government. That's the ticket.

In a similar vein, Victor Davis Hanson remarks on our Victorian nature HERE.

I'll leave you with another classic quote from HL Mencken.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

It's like he's speaking to ooooohhhh GLOBAL WARMING!

PS: And why are so many politicians ugly? Have you seen Henry Waxman? Get this guy a paperbag.

On...Republican Reform

The New Right

Brand-names are very useful. The GOP is far from ruined as many wishful thinking wags would like to suggest. Diminished under Bush/Cheney? No doubt. In hibernation? Yes. In need of new blood and new vision? Definitely.

Included here are 3 essays all dealing with this theme.

• Ross Douthat, now at the New York Times, adds his 2 cents.
  
• Joe Scarborough sounds off over at Newsweek
  
• James Forsyth looks at the Tory model in The Washington Post.
  

Hopefully the GOP can be molded along these lines.

And more importantly, Dick Cheney can shut up and go back to Wyoming. When did he get so talkative? Even when he's right about something it seems dirty and cold.

Time to revist my old doctrine of convervative virtues. On...Principles. Always good for a refresher.

ON...Stuff in General

What a world

I've been a bit busy lately preparing my students for the big AP US History test tomorrow so I haven't had much time to post. Here are a bunch of articles that I thought interesting the last day or so.

The first is a follow up of my BLOG on Jon Stewart. It's nice to see that he commented later on his mistake. See HERE

The second is from Slate in regards to The Case for Colorblindness

The third is a trio about the foolishness of the UAW/GOV take over of dying Chrysler from The Economist, George Will, and Michael Barone. All sound minds.

The Economist: Mismanaging the Collapse
Sunbeams from Cucumbers by G Will
White House puts UAW before Property Rights by M Barone

The fourth is by Newsweek's David Ignatius on The Baby Boomers, The Whining Will get Louder (My Title) Good Stuff.

The Fifth is by Victor Davis Hanson on our modern obsession with Having it Both Ways.

RIP: Jack Kemp

RIP Jack Kemp

I still have my Dole/Kemp Poster somewhere in the basement. Ah, the naivety of youth.

OBITUARY
From Richard Brookhiser
Kemp's VP Acceptance Speech

On...Nukes, Exageration, and TARP

For your daily consumption

Anne Applebaum from Slate.com on "Obama's Odd Obsession with Universal Nuclear Disarmament."

John Dickerson also from Slate.com on "The Careful Exaggerator."

And

Investor's Business Daily on more of why Obama and Geithner won't accept TARP money back.

And is it me or does every other day Obama have a new challenge or topic on how to save the world? Who is this guy? Does hubris mean anything to him? He has to know he can't accomplish half this stuff. He was elected President of the USA not President/Celebrity of the Planet Earth with magical powers.

On...Little Surprises

Topsy-Turvy

I have to say the world is turning upside down when I have read over the past week back-to-back articles by Maureen Dowd of the NYTimes AND I found them not just tolerable, but actually good. May I say very good? Somebody pinch me. I give her some kudos for not being so partisan you lose self-reflection.

Here is the latest STAGE OF FOOLS

the other one was last week DARK DARK DARK
Her critique of Eric Holder was spot on.

Also Evan Bayh (D-IN)had a responsible article in the WSJ regarding the budget today too. He's voting it down by the way. Maybe there is actually some hope.

On...Rebate Checks

Give Politicians and Bureaucrats 5 plans and watch them pick the worst one.

Continuing on the thought of the Stimulus Boondoggle just think of the lunacy of the rebate checks (Both Bush's and Obama's). This is the worst possible way to get money back into the hands of the American people yet this is the delivery system they pick. First they send a letter telling you you're going to be receiving a rebate check. (Taxpayer $ spent) Then they take months to send all those checks out (Think about time, cost, and bureaucracy needed for such nonsense). Then studies show that the majority of the people simply saved it or paid off existing debt, they didn't buy anything new. So the whole point of a big push to the economy didn't happen. AND THEY WANT TO DO IT AGAIN! And roughly the same size! Why aren't more people outraged?! The overused word of the Obamanation already is Smart: Smart Committee this and Smart energy that and Smart Biden over there. Is this Smart anything? No, this is good old fashion American idiocy.

Just cut everyone's payroll tax (or something like it) for one paycheck. You can switch a few digits in a few computers and everyone's next paycheck will be bigger. (Or so it would seem, granted probably a little more complicated, but still) People will be more apt to spend more money in a paycheck than a separate check they can just plug into their savings. They'll go to the movies or out to dinner or buy a new shirt or anything else. It will be more like found money or a Christmas bonus.

Or as someone (can't remember) suggested give everyone a time-expiring VISA-esque card that they must spend or it goes back to the government bureaucracy. Though the logistics and bugs of this project are probably going to be quite messy the first time around and the cost will be higher, it is waaay better than stupid rebate checks of $500 bucks.

On...SNL takes a few shots at NY Gov. Paterson

SNL has stirred some controversy (translate as some people with no sense of humor have a problem with their disfunctioning humor gland) over their Weekend Update sketch which takes a few hard shots at current accidental-governor of New York David Paterson. Just in case you didn't know, he is legally blind.

Check it out for yourself below.

On...Hugo Chavez

President as Socialist Talk Show Host

I encourage everyone to take some time to watch PBS's new episode of Frontline on Venezuela's "Presidente" Hugo Chavez. The official title is "The Hugo Chavez Show." It is utterly fascinating and unbelievable. It touches upon so many issues just not on an international scale but on a human scale. Just watch it.

If you can't DVR it (I'm sure it will be replayed often) you can watch it in chapter clips on You Tube. I look forward to any discussion (in person or online).

PART ONE OF THE HUGO CHAVEZ STORY

The first part is mostly overview and background on his rise to power. The middle is the most interesting, once he's in power.

Hitchen's Take On...Reality

From Slate.com.

Christopher Hitchens's take on The (Non) Honeymoon of President Elect Obama and a little historical insight on his election.

Barack to Reality

Obama's victory didn't magically eliminate America's problems and enemies.

By Christopher HitchensPosted Monday, Nov. 10, 2008, at 11:30 AM ET

From...Political Cartoons

Instead of sharing candy I thought I'd share a few political cartoons with you all.

I really like the first one.

On...Can Obama Deliver?

Can Obama Deliver?

I mean this in a couple of ways.

1) Can he close? Can he not be like other Democrats gunning for the big show and actually win down the stretch? We'll see.

2) Can he live up to expectations once elected? There are pockets of Americans who are ready to explode in a joyous orgasm at his victory. They do understand this is only one guy right? They understand we are not electing a King with absolute powers, right? Yeah, he's got Hope and he's got Reform, but it is so vague even the pundits don't know exactly where he stands. Is he a unity centrist or a dividing leftist or will he try to be a uniting leftist? Who knows? He has done little and says less. He's not Bush and that seems to be enough. He still (miraculously) has that new car smell. I can't believe it has lasted this long but it can't last forever. Can it last until Tuesday?

Obama can still be anything to everyone, that's his cool genius. He is still the enigma. However you can't govern as an enigma. You can't vote present in the White House. Obama needs to be someone finally and when he finally comes out of his cocoon the people expecting him to be a butterfly will be shocked he's a moth (or vise-versa). He can't be all things to all people. There is going to be disillusionment from somewhere. It is inevitable. Does he go to war to defend Israel from Iran? Does he widen the war in Afganistan into Pakistan? Does he demand a renegotiation of NAFTA even though our partners don't want it? Does he raise taxes? Will he actually cut middle class taxes? Can he deliver Health Care? Will he be pushed around by Pelosi and Congress? Will the economic crisis hobble him? Voters may want fantasy and superman but they are going to get a big dose of reality.

Maybe we are ready for intellectual aloofness but I feel the public will tire of him if doesn't descend from Olympus (then again if he does come down others will dislike him for not being a god.)

The Presidency

Why anyone would want this job is beyond me. The American Presidency and Democracy in general grinds you up and spits you out. Look at Clinton and Bush after 8 years. In my historical estimate only 3 presidents in the last 100 years have left the office alive with their reputation intact or enhanced and only barely. 2 were Eisenhower and Reagan and they bore major wounds. The last was Coolidge and he only escaped because he didn't seek reelection so he avoided most of the blame for the Great Depression. We'll give him a 1/2

Let's take a look shall we?

1901--McKinley beloved but shot. Reputation pretty intact, but dead.
1909--Teddy Roosevelt leaves the White House in good shape, but sullies it with a Party splitting run in 1912 that allows Wilson and the Democrats to take over.
1913--Taft is denied reelection with a sorry 3rd place finish.
1921--Wilson, stroke and all, has no political pull left after the Treaty of Versailles defeat and his strong-arm tactics during the war (nationalization of the Railroads, the Creel Committee, & the Espionage Acts among many others). His party is creamed in the 1920 election by Warren "Normalcy" Harding.
1923--Harding dead. Reputation ruined by all the corruption scandals that came to light after his death.
1929--Coolidge escapes the Great Depression by retiring back to Vermont. Smart move.
1933--Hoover, Great Depression, nuff said.
1945--FDR, beloved but dead.
1953--Truman, would have been crushed by Ike, retires with Bush-like approval ratings after the Korean War turns stalemate.
1961--Ike survived the slings and arrows but his VP Nixon is defeated in a close election. Probably would have won a third term if that had been possible.
1963--JFK, dead.
1969--LBJ doesn't seek reelection, trapped in the White House as Vietnam and the Great Society leave a real bitter taste.
1973--Tricky Dick, Watergate, Smoking Gun, Resigns
1977--Ford, Pardons Nixon, S Vietnam falls, defeated by unknown southern governor.
1981--Carter, Iran Hostage, Stagflation, Energy crisis, Panama Canal giveaway, denied reelection in landslide.
1989--Reagan, Iran-Contra Aside and a massive debt would have been reelected had that been possible and he was younger. VP wins.
1993--Bush, Cold War ends, Gulf War victory, but Recession, Tax-hikes, and Perot deny him reelection.
2001--Clinton--Impeached--a black mark if there ever was one, though I hate to say it may have been reelected for a third term.
2009--GW Bush--you get the idea.

This is what Obama has to look forward to. Hey, 2 1/2 out of 19 ain't bad!

On...Random Thoughts

Random Thoughts

Simply put, Republicans (for various reasons) typically buy into the system. They tend to believe the system works and they can be successful and happy and safe within the system. They feel a part of the system. They understand that the system is not perfect and it can always be tweaked, but fundamentally it is sound. A Republic of Liberty supported by Free Markets and protected by individual duty and an overwhelming military is about as good as its going to get. Yes, there have been problems in the past and nothing is perfect but we should always be moving forward, in small, thoughtful ways. But for the most part if it's not broken leave it alone. They get mad or frustrated when they see the system being tampered with or unfairly criticized or pushed to its limits or reconfigured. Government should be under the people, not above it. The citizens are the adults and not the children of the government. The government should not "take care" of the people.

Democrats (again for various reasons) tend to believe in the system to a point, but believe it is broken and needs to be fixed or that it has been corrupted by larger than life forces (be it Big Oil or Wal-Mart or Karl Rove or Dick Cheney). Or they believe they are not part of the system. They feel like underdogs or outsiders. They are invited to the party but not really accepted. This is either real or imagined. Some are part of the system, but don't like the fact that others are not apart of it. They feel guilty about a whole collection of injustices, again some real and some exaggerated and some purely imagined. That's why they seem to want to change everything all the time. There is also the sense that we as a nation missed a turn a few decades ago and if could just get back on the highway things would be better. They have a sense of uneasiness about the system--that it could be better, much better, only if people would just work together and help out the little guy we could create the ideal system, one where no one was a loser or poor or had their feelings hurt. If we just embraced hope and change we could still be that city upon a hill. Everyone would be liked and the dirty, cruel aspects of being human could be eliminated or at least lessened. Democracy is fine but it could be better. Free markets are okay if we could only remove the hardship of failure. Equality of opportunity is fine, but equality of outcome is better. If only people had more civic virtue and were willing to sacrifice more for the common good. If only people listened to them since they have all the answers.

Of course both parties have cranks or followers who are just in the party because they are.

Theorizers

The problem lies in human nature. Humans are selfish creatures. When that selfishness can be harnessed it can create a better world. When the selfishness is caged, people will seek an outlet. There are never enough good, wise people to oversee every aspect of an amazingly dynamic nation/economy/government. Some people however think that people are or should be selfless martyrs--they should be alturistic.

A problem with the theorizers of a better system, according to Adam Smith was that

the man of system...is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamored with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it.... He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board.

From Theory of Moral Sentiments

As the state grows it is infected with this notion--that we can make things so much better. Obviously this doesn't mean you stop trying new things, but dictating every move is impossible. The greater control you weld over more people, the greater the problems will manifest themselves. Spontaneous order is often more effective. Give people the rule of law and allow them the opportunity to live their life as they see fit, not as someone else believes they should live. If they are self-destructive, teach them. Do not use the rod of coercion to instill your plans. They will hate you for it. Some people (especially Americans) are stubborn and do not like being told what to do.

On...A Glimpse into the Future?

The Fourth Coming of the Nanny-State?

Last week I had a post about the next Presidency if Barack Obama is victorious along with a Democratic Super-Majority. Anything can happen in politics so of course this may not be the path.

The Wall Street Journal has written an article that clearly articulates what could possibly happen in the next year when New Deal 2.0 or The New New Deal or The New Great Society Deal comes to be.

When people talk of change and vote for change I really hope they know exactly what they they are voting for. My guess is that most Americans who will vote for Obama in November have little idea what is really coming down the pike. This is the overall issue that McCain should be hammering away at.

A LIBERAL SUPERMAJORITY

Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933. (And I would also include the Progressive free-for-all of 1913 under Wilson)

POST-SCRIPT add 10/18/08: Finally McCain shows some gumption--McCain suggests Obama tax policies are socialist (FINALLY!)

On...Politics and the Economy

What's the Deal?

This is when I wished I was a real expert on the Great Depression. Is this what the average person felt in those lonely days of October (October eh?)? Did they not see the real pain coming? As of right now I know the market is tanking and everyone at the top is either running around foaming at the mouth or sprinting with their heads lobbed off while their head babbles on the ground. But, and I hate to use this term, Main Street has not yet felt the pains. Gas is tumbling, which is good. I bought $2.99 gas yesterday and it felt fantastic. Ford stock is below $2 a share and that seems like a real good deal. I assume many others in 1929 and 1930 might have felt the same way then looking at RCA stock. Ford can't go away can it? Not Ford. Buy low when everyone else is selling like Warren Buffett always states. Hmm. Should I? Or should everyone panic?

Panic would be really bad. Everyone must keep their head and believe in the system. Because if not, what is the alternative? It's not like the USA is the only one on the chopping block. We're all in this together. Even the Communists will get whacked to some degree. What I fear most is war, especially as oil prices drop. Sweet irony, eh? Iran, Russia, and Venezuela only stay above water because of oil money, but if that dries up will that make they more or less aggressive? They could take it out on their neighbors to prop up their failing regimes.

I hope the parallel goes no further. I can't wait to see my next 403b report, ouch! The last 5 years gone. I can't help but feel a little bad for the boomers who put most of their retirement eggs in the stock market. Let's see what comes next.

Post note: Both candidates should only talk about this situation. With all their advisers you can't tell me they can't lay out first the problem and second the possible solutions in a clear and succinct manner? And do it without fear or sophomoric hope? Whoever shows their resolve and calm on this issue will win the election.

Related Articles

*A Short Banking History of the United States: John Steele Gordon

When Fortune Frowned: The Economist

The End of American Capitalism: Washington Post

We Have the Tools to Manage the Crisis: Paul Volker, WSJ

Moment of Truth: Paul Krugman, NYT

Crisis Marks Out a New Geopolitical Order, Financial Times

On...The Next Administration-Democrat Style

President Obama?

Hugh Hewitt's piece on what an Obama presidency would look like got me thinking a bit. Most of it is a little too emotional (and right-wing wishful-thinking) for my taste but there was a core idea that I wanted to explore a little more.

Hewitt wrote:

The Left is planning for a huge sweep, and a big party, and...

Then what? Obama-Pelosi-Reid will not be able to resist the massive tax hikes that have lurked behind their every scheme for the past 28 years since Reagan wrested the government from the last group of statists. The unions have wanted protectionism since Bill Clinton signed on to NAFTA. The environmentalists want the sort of global warming regime that will not merely curb but positively punish economic growth, and the anti-nuclear reflex within the Democratic Party is so deep that while Obama can make a few noises about the need for new nuke plants, none would begin under his tenure. Obama said last night that we need new oil exploration off-shore. Does anyone really believe that will happen? Energy shortages would go from a predicament to a policy overnight.

High taxes, falling trade, declining energy use: These are the macro issues.

Now I find this very interesting on some levels, of course all this assumes a big win for Obama and solid growth in Congress for the Democrats. Chuck Schumer needs 9 big wins out of 12 for the Senate to be filibuster proof. If all that happens they have something. And the nation potentially has big problems. If Obama-Pelosi-Reid can work together. Luckily I don't think they can. [Excuse my emotionalism but Reid is a tool. I have no idea how he became Majority Leader]

The big question will be what type of president will Obama be. Is he the uniter? Bush ran on a very similar idea. Is he the centrist with the new ideas? If so please comment with some links as evidence, anyone. Or is he what the right-pundits like Hewitt fear, a statist with a good tailor and a smooth voice?

Let's go down Hewitt's list and then I want to add one of my own.

1) Taxes. I actually trust that we will see some sort of tax cut for the middle class. Obama has said this so much he has to at least try and the Dems in Congress will go for something. But at the same time they will make major changes elsewhere in the tax structure, i.e. raising them on the rich in numerous ways. I'm far from rich but the graduated income tax is and has been a gross inequality for almost a hundred years. That aside, can they raise taxes on investors and corporations (which simply passes them on to consumers via higher prices) without bursting our already unsound economic bubble? But without higher taxes Obama won't even begin to have the resources to fund any of the many plans he hopes to enlarge the powers and reach of the state i.e. universal health care.That will be a cherry on top. Can you imagine? Whew!


2) Protectionism. Now Obama has said quite a few things from each side of the issue. Who knows what he really thinks or how he will really act? My gut is he is not really a protectionist and only says these things to blindfold the Unions. Unions lust for tariffs. So he must lie to them and give them lip service, just like a politician (no change there). Tariffs are ridiculous and would be deadly to the economy. I hope Obama knows this. If Obama raises taxes and raises tariffs across the board I don't know how he gets re-elected.

3) Global Warming. I basically could repeat the last paragraph and replace Unions with environmentalists and tariffs with the numerous Green bills that could come and cripple our commercial and industrial capacity. If there is man-made global warming then it needs to be solved by private citizens and private corporations, not knee-jerk coercive reactions by big government that have dubious consequences in other areas (i.e. ethanol). I don't follow this issue enough so I really don't know what Obama-Pelosi-Reid would do. Probably a lot of pandering. Anyone?

4) Nuclear Power. The bottom line is this is the future. This has been the future for thirty years +, but we have sat on our collective hands on this one. Democrats and Republicans need to both get all over this and move now. Many in the GOP are getting on board. The Dems are too loosy-goosey on this one. Obama could make a difference if he believes in it. Drilling too. We'll see.

5) Foreign Policy. I'm adding this one because it is huge and since the war in Iraq has been doing well and the stock market not so much, most Americans have tuned it out even more so. There is too much to risk politically and militarily to pull out of Iraq. That's not going to happen. The moonbats will scream bloody murder, but Democrats have a way of being half-way responsible once in power. Destabilizing Iraq now at the brink of victory after so much struggle would simply be a crime. Also Obama would lose all credibility in the eyes of the military, especially the Petraeus and Odierno wing. Iraq probably will not be the glowing representation of democracy the idealistic Bush wanted but it can be a viable ally in the Middle East--along with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan a firm buffer against the desires and expansion of Iran.

As I'm writing this there is so much more: the Afgan-Paki War, North Korea, China, the old big Bear Russia. The next president will have his hands very full. Regardless what Obama's ads say, the next president (whoever it is) is serving Bush's third term, if they like it or not.

I certainly don't fear President Obama, history has taught me too much to be paranoid, but President McCain would make me sleep a little easier. We as a political people have elected two untried and untested presidents in a row. Both have turned out to be mediocre at best and divisive hacks at worse. We don't need to go for a third.

Postnote: Tying Obama to Ayers and all that is a dead-end. McCain is wasting his time with this type of attack.