Buckeye RINO

The first Obama campaign response to McCain’s VP announcement of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin didn’t highlight that she was a governor.  Instead, it belittled her as a small town mayor.  This morning, I finally remembered what Barack Obama said to his San Francisco peers about small-town-America.  Is he trying to communicate that Sarah Palin is one of those bitter Americans, so bitter that her reason for clinging to guns and religion is self-explanatory?  My goodness, what if she gets elected, and actually brings her guns to Washington with her?  What if she starts each day on the job as VP with prayer?  Can we afford to have a bitter American as VP who will turn Washington on its head like Palin would?

Maybe I’m way off base.  Hugh Hewitt has written a compelling blog entry at Townhall.com that offers an alternative explanation of the Obama camp’s urge to tear Sarah Palin apart, and I recommend that everyone read it.

The left cannot escape the mindset of identity politics, despite Obama’s talk of post-racial, post-gender, post-ideological, and post-generational politics.

When they look at Sarah Palin, the only thought that comes to their mind is that she’s a woman.  To the left, if a woman can’t pass muster with Emily’s List, she can’t be taken seriously.  Thus she’s a token.

I have a challenge for the political left:  Name a governor with higher approval ratings than Sarah Palin.

I’m waiting.

Waiting.

Waiting.

Time’s up.

I submit to you that the reason why Sarah Palin’s approval ratings reach up to 80% is because she is superb at doing her job.  Performance on the job is her qualification.

She’s cleaning up the excesses of her corrupt predecessors.  Do you think that fact would leap to the attention of Senator McCain, who was so stung by “Keating 5” that reform has been his mission ever since?  I think so.

She’s vetoed bill after bill after bill to force the legislature to weed the pork out of the budget.  Do you think that fact would leap to the attention of Senator McCain, who has fought earmarks in Washington?  I think so.

She’s appointed Republicans, Democrats, and independents to positions in her administration and gotten more accomplished in 2 years than her gubernatorial predecessor did in 12 years.  Do you think that fact would leap to the attention of Senator McCain, who has railed against gridlock and reached across party lines to get things done?

Among the things she’s gotten done is a natural gas pipeline project that sat on the drawing board for 30 years is finally getting underway.  She’s shown a commitment to finding more energy solutions in an environmentally responsible manner.  Do you think that fact would leap to the attention of Senator McCain, who has campaigned for America’s energy independence?

Let’s be clear: There is no one more qualified to be on a McCain ticket than Sarah Palin.  McCain sees elements of himself in the impressive resume of Sarah Palin.

Choosing the governor who is doing better at her job than any other in America is not tokenism!

And why wouldn’t the best governor be among those ready to be President at a moment’s notice?

The political left is being entirely dishonest about the charges of tokenism, entirely dishonest about the talk of a new, unifying, brand of politics, and entirely dishonest about changing Washington.

The change ticket I believe in is the one that has ACCOMPLISHED change, not the one that only has talk.

I was watching On The Record with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News Channel when an Alaskan journalist explained that Sarah Palin’s approval ratings as governor were above 80% because she’d accomplished more in less than two years than the previous governor had accomplished in 12 years (spanning 3 full terms).  She’s a “go-getter” who “doesn’t let the dust settle around her.”  Apparently, she has a talent for multi-tasking, which means DOING things, not just talking on a stage with help from a teleprompter.

So for the Obama camp to belittle her accomplishments because she has less than two years experience as governor, with a prior stint as a small town mayor, fails to really capture what she can do for America.  She took on the “good old boys,” but, unlike me, she actually won AND the “good old boys” were within her own party.  She exposed their corruption, and that may partly be why Sen. Ted Stevens is under indictment right now.  Besides policing the corruption, she ramrodded through ethics reforms, got a natural gas pipeline construction project off the ground, and trimmed earmarks out of the state budget through prodigious use of the gubernatorial veto power.  She’s visited Alaska’s National Guard troops while they were deployed in Kuwait and Iraq.  All departments of the state answer to her, and she makes decisions of great consequence many times every day.

Her 2 years equal more than her predecessor’s 12 years.  Let’s not just look at this in a quantitative way.  If we look at it in a qualitative way, you can begin to appreciate why the Republican base is so happy to have her on the ticket, especially the OHIO Republican base, which was demoralized by GOP scandals leading up to the disastrous elections of November 2006.  This woman is not just a McCain gimmick, as the Obama camp so savagely derides her to be.  She represents the solution to a problem that has plagued Ohio and has definitely plagued Washington.  Much has been made of the President’s low approval ratings, but the ratings of Congress are even worse.  Sarah Palin is the dynamic individual that represents the prescription for what ails us.

I don’t know what terrifies the Obama camp more:  the fact that the Republican base is now unifying and getting motivated; or the prospect that if the McCain-Palin ticket is elected, Washington will have its secrets exposed and have to finally clean up their act.  I think there may be a lot of shenanigans Sen. Biden might have some awareness of (since he’s been there for 36 years) that have to be straightened out.

I ran for state representative twice in Ohio’s 56th House District, in 2002 and in 2004.  I had no prior experience holding elective office.  The incumbent I was running against had nearly 30 years of experience in office.  I remember having to debate the issue of experience with the editors of the Elyria Chronicle-Telegram, who place great importance on experience when weighing endorsement experience.  I explained that qualifications for serving in the legislative branch are different than serving in the executive branch.  I said that experience (and a resume) DOES matter for executive (and judicial) branch offices, but positions on issues should be the main deciding factor for choosing legislative candidates.  Our constitution has checks and balances not just between the three branches of government, but also checks and balances between professionals and amateurs, in order to make sure we have government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  Amateurs make the laws in order to make sure that laws are fair for everyone.  It’s ideal to have a cross-section of people representing us in legislatures.  You don’t want legislators to serve in office for too long because you don’t want them to develop an “inside the Beltway” mentality where they become less connected and less sensitive to the will of the people.  But while amateurs make the laws, professionals in the executive branch enforce the laws.  In the judicial branch, their are judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys that are all professionals, but there is still a check and balance by amateurs who form a jury of peers.  Running for state representative has no qualifications other than residing and being registered to vote in the district where you are running. The relative brevity of legislative terms is another demonstration of how legislators were envisioned to be amateurs by the framers of the Constitution.  I told the Chronicle-Telegram editors that I was fully qualified to run for the legislature, and that they were adding unnecessary criteria when making their selection.

I also spoke to the Chronicle-Telegram editors about the poor quality of experience of the incumbent.  With all the quantity of experience, measured in years, that the incumbent had logged, there was a dearth of accomplishments.  I not only talked about the volume (or lack thereof) of legislation produced by the incumbent, I also cited the condition of the 56th District (crime, blight, pollution, poverty, education deficiencies, unemployment, etc.) as evidence that the incumbent had really done very little to advance the cause of the people he represented.  Why not take a chance on a newcomer when there’s a lack of productivity from the incumbent (despite the quantity of experience) and when I’m not running for an executive or a judicial branch office?

The office of U. S. President, however, is an executive branch office.  One needs a resume.  Being that it’s the highest executive branch office in the land, a candidate ought to have experience in a lesser executive role in order to make the case that they are up to the task of tackling the highest office.  John McCain had a command within the U. S. Navy.  Sarah Palin has been a mayor and a governor.  As Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin was at the helm of a state that is larger than many nations, with a GDP greater than that of many nations.  McCain and Palin have both been exemplary.

Senator Obama and Senator Biden have legislative experience.  Legislators are amateurs that represent the people.  Obama and Biden have, in a way, bastardized the legislative capacity in which they serve  by way of becoming professional politicians.   Professional politicians have a place in the executive and judicial branches, but a cross-section of common people, ideally, were to serve for relatively short stints.  Legislators take stands on issues, write legislation accordingly, debate issues, gather support for issues, vote on issues, and serve constituents.  They don’t carry out the law.  They don’t enforce the law.  They don’t administer the law.  Administration requires professional specialized skills.  Legislating requires skills any literate person can perform.  The legislative experience of Obama and Biden, while appearing voluminous, really amount to virtually nothing when measured against the requirements of the executive branch, especially for the highest executive office in the nation–kind of like how cotton candy can occupy a large volume of space, but when you bite into it, there’s really not much of anything there.

So this is a masquerade.  Obama and Biden are masquerading as though they really have the experience necessary to be President.  The reality is that McCain and Palin are the ones who possess the quality of experience capable of suggesting that they are ready to tackle the challenge of the Presidency.

In the end, while Obama and Biden talk a good game of CHANGE, and mock Palin as being more of the same (along with McCain being more of the same), Palin has actually effected CHANGE.  Talking change on the one hand versus accomplishing change on the other . . . I have to conclude that the McCain-Palin ticket is the superior ticket.

The Democrat National Convention wrapped up with a speech by Barack Obama that was more contentious than anticipated.  While many pundits predicted that surrogates and VP nominee Joe Biden would act as the attack dogs and deliver the red meat, the speeches of said surrogates mostly fell flat.  Much of the mood of unity in the audience during the early going appeared to be bolstered by the musical performances of famous singers.  Barack Obama assumed the role of attack dog, not reaching the lofty heights of his famous keynote speech of four years ago.  Overall, I think the climax of the convention occurred on the 3rd night, with the speech of Bill Clinton.

I won’t elaborate a whole lot.

The convention love fest finally began with the conclusion of the delegate roll call vote, with Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York playing the pivotal role.

The theme of the evening was supposed to be national security, but the early speakers seemed to be stuck on last night’s theme until U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland delivered his speech.  Having said that, Cummings’ speech was lackluster.

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton delivered the home run speech.  Really.  His speech included everything Obama could have hoped for, and the delegates, universally, ate it up.  Naturally, I disagree with some of Clinton’s assertions, but the speech, as a device to unify the convention, structure the dialog for the upcoming general election campaign, and bolster morale, Bill Clinton brought the goods, and the resulting elation brought down the house.  For those who deny Bill Clinton has a knack for politics, they just need to see and hear the speech, and they’ll develop an appreciation for just how expert he is.

I’ve never been a fan of the Clintons.  I’m still not.  Even as Bill Clinton was talking about Barack Obama rebuilding our military, a voice in the back of my head was saying “And isn’t Bill Clinton partly responsible for why our military needs to be rebuilt?”

Nevertheless, as I said, Bill Clinton hit it out of the park.  For those who were wondering how Barack Obama could possibly get a double-digit bounce in the polls from his convention, Bill Clinton might have single-handedly garnered that bounce.  Polls in the next few days will reveal how effective Clinton was, but I suspect it was very effective.

The remainder of the speeches of the evening paled by comparison.  That crescendo of emotion that was experienced during the Clinton speech never reached those heights for the remainder of the evening, not even when VP nominee Joe Biden spoke.

There were some tender moments, though, when some former military personnel spoke, and a video montage paid tribute to our veterans.  The thought that passed through my mind is that I hope Code Pink of Berkeley, California, is watching, and that I hope Code Pink will rethink Marine Corps recruitment.  Our nation would not be the greatest nation on earth without our men and women in uniform.

“Tell me with whom you walk, and I’ll tell you who you are.” –U. S. Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-California)

Does that sound like the introduction to a swiftboat commercial tying Obama to Ayers and Rezko? I think Congressman Becerra chose the wrong motto in urging the Democrats to believe in Barack Obama.

The early speeches during the 2nd night of the Democrat National Committee (which I watched mostly on C-Span) lacked the warm fuzzies of the first night. Nearly all the speeches were passionless. Many were delivered with deadpan facial expressions in loud monotones. It’s easy to see why Obama is the nominee based on his ability to give speeches. The rest of the party appears to be nearly devoid of talent in that regard.

The “Bush-McCain” litany against the Republican nominee was the broken record of the evening.

Exceptions to the dreariness noted above plus a few random observations are noted below:

• Barack Obama predicted that the Republicans would run a campaign based on fear. Today’s Democrat convention speakers consistently invoked fear of faltering economy as a reason to reject McCain and choose Obama. There was little optimism other than the video montage intro to New York Senator Hillary Clinton.
• For all the VP buzz she was generating, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius was singularly uninspiring in her speech.
• Dennis the Menace should have been given a primetime speech. Rep. Kucinich was an exception to the rule. While others delivered droning, wooden speeches, Kucinich was a passionate, animated cheerleader that really stirred the crowd (even though I disagreed with a significant portion of what he said. It was wasted though, as the very next speaker didn’t carry through with the momentum Kucinich created. The spirit of the crowd quickly dissipated as the convention descended back into numbing boredom.
• Both Kucinich and Governor Ted Strickland began their speeches with a mention of the late Stephanie Tubbs Jones. Clinton also remembered Stephanie Tubbs Jones during her speech.
• The on-air personalities at MSNBC have already lost that euphoric feeling that airing the Olympics provided. The anchors, reporters, and contributors at MSNBC, for the 2nd straight day, were contentious with each other and resentful toward other networks. Joe Scarborough asserted himself a bit more this morning, breaking through the group-think barrier, but his co-workers were becoming disgruntled with him (though not as disgruntled as they were with Pat Buchanan). I can’t imagine the chemistry within the NBC family being this toxic during the days when Tim Russert was still alive. I think his absence has caused the staff to be less cohesive.
• U.S. Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania pointed out that he is the token pro-life speaker tonight, but that’s all he said on the topic. Perhaps he should have elaborated more, as Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden have gotten an earful from the Catholic Church over their pro-life stances over the past two days.
• Gov. Ted Strickland needs to compare notes with Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. Schweitzer made Montana sound like utopia, with bipartisanship, economic growth, energy sector growth, improved education, tax cuts, and budget surpluses. Montana is one of the 8 states in the USA that I’ve never visited, so I have no firsthand knowledge of the situation on the ground in Montana. (If you’re wondering, the other states I’ve never visited are Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico.)
• Schweitzer and Kucinich were the cheerleaders of the day.
• Strickland, Kucinich, and Governor David Paterson of New York delivered the most “red meat” that elicited any sizable audience response. Otherwise, the litany of grievances offered by other speakers against “Bush-McCain” yielded anemic responses.
• Schweitzer should have been the keynote speaker, not Mark Warner of Virginia. In four more years, if the Democrats nominate a new candidate based on his/her speaking ability as happened this time, the nominee might be Schweitzer.
• Clinton was the focus of the night, kept the audience involved, included the expected message content, but didn’t hit a home run. The video montage was more inspiring than the speech.
• Clinton’s zinger of the night was saying it was appropriate for Bush and McCain to hold a convention in the Twin Cities next week because it’s hard to tell those two Republicans apart. Clever, if false.
• Clinton’s plea for the election of Obama was rooted in partisanship.

I watched the televised speeches of Barack Obama and Joe Biden from the steps of the Old Capitol in Springfield, Illinois, and I’m ready to offer a few remarks about how I viewed the spectacle.

I think this was a “preaching-to-the-choir” moment.  If this is the message that will be echoed again and again until the elections in November, I think it will fail to capture the imaginations and the fervor of those in the middle of the political spectrum.  The opening is still there for McCain to step up to claim the middle with his message.

To be truthful, of all the candidates that had announced for the GOP nomination for president in this election cycle, John McCain was not in my top five.  Furthermore, in four elections (primary and general elections of 2000 and 2004) during which George W. Bush’s name appeared on the ballot, I held my nose and cast a ballot for Bush only once, which was the general election of 2004.  In November 2004, even though there were many minor party candidates on the ballot, Bush was still the least of the evils.  The bottom line is:  I have not been a McCain fan nor have I been a Bush fan.

Though I have been a fan of neither McCain nor Bush, I have never gotten the two confused.  The two are not alike.

The overall message of today’s speeches by Obama and Biden are that McCain and Bush are identical, or at least nearly so.  The attempt to link McCain to Bush has been a trademark of Obama rhetoric from the beginning, and frankly, I don’t think that narrative works.  The polls show Obama and McCain are neck-and-neck while Bush’s approval ratings are low and a generic Democrat ticket is looked upon favorably versus a generic Republican ticket.  I think that’s ample evidence that the electorate does not equate McCain with Bush.

For Obama to stick with the “McCain equals Bush” narrative suggests that either he’s preaching to his own choir and that this rhetoric will fire up his base to drive high turnout or it suggests that he thinks middle-of-the-road voters are really, really stupid and gullible to accept this disingenuous (that’s putting it in the most generous of terms to call it merely disingenuous) narrative (or both).

I think, however, that the disingenuous tenor of the Obama campaign could be its undoing.  Obama says that McCain equals Bush.  Not true.  Obama said he would take public financing.  He didn’t.  Obama said that America wanted a new kind of politics that focused on issues and policies rather than distractions.   Instead, he turned down McCain’s proposal for joint townhall appearances to discuss issues and policies in favor of distractions from substantive matters by embarking on a European photo-op tour.  Obama promised greater transparency and clarity.  Yet, he gave very opaque and/or ambiguous responses at Saddleback Church (and has used the political art of distraction this past week in order to cut short the discussion of his utterances on issues and policies at said forum).  Obama said Hillary Clinton was not only on his short list, but would be on anybody’s short list.  His search committee didn’t even bother with including Clinton in the vetting process.  Obama said all week that his VP announcement would come at any minute, and that the first to know would be those that signed up to receive text messages.  Those who held their breath for the text message that would appear “any moment now” became blue in the face and passed out, and they weren’t the first to know, after all.  Obama says he’s a new kind of politician.  He is not.

Those independent-minded voters who approach the elections with an open mind will not be impressed by a “McCain = Bush” message that’s intended for listeners of the follow-the-herd-mentality.  As events move forward toward election day, it appears that the falsehoods from the Obama camp will only accumulate.  Obama appears to be banking on America’s gullibility.  I’m not that gullible.