As the story goes:

One night, Nasrudin was on his hands and knees searching for his key in a well-lit area in the centre of the street. Some of his neighbors came to see why Nasrudin was on his hands and knees.

“What are you looking for, Nasrudin?” enquired one of his neighbors.

“My door key,” Nasrudin replied.

The helpful neighbors dropped to their hands and knees and joined Nasrudin in his search for the lost key.

After a long unsuccessful search, one of the neighbors asked: “We’ve looked everywhere. Are you sure you dropped it here?”

Nasrudin answers: “Of course I didn’t drop it here, I dropped it outside my door.”

“Then, why are you looking for it here!”

“Because there is more light here!” responded Nasrudin.

For all those shining their torchlight of commentary on Governor Palin’s accent, her familiar conversational style, her colloquial use of “you betcha,” “doggone it,” and “soccer Mom,” they need to move, just like Nasrudin, to where the work is harder – they should focus on Senator Biden’s debate performance - the content of his  answers. 

Senator Obama selected the Delaware Senator to add weight and balance to his ticket. Joe Biden is his foreign policy expert. The 36 year Senator, a member of the Judiciary Committee and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee allows Barack Obama – a candidate with zero foreign policy experience – to claim he offers a balanced ticket. Unfortunately, Senator Biden gave a performance unworthy of a freshman high school civics student, raising numerous questions about his carefulness, thoughtfulness, and judgment. 

The Fox News Special Report commentator Charles Krauthammer noted seven errors on foreign policy in 60 seconds.  And National Review’s Jim Geraghty at his blog: “the Campaign Spot,” continues updating his list of Biden errors from the debate: “The Biden Error/Lie/Hallucination List (UPDATED to 22).”  His list of errors includes such topics as the role of the Vice President under the Constitution; the range of Pakistani missiles; Barak Obama’s role in West Bank Elections; and the relevance of a McCain vote against “Violence Against Women” legislation when the Supreme Court later ruled the legislation unconstitutional.

The number of errors is troubling; the confident assertiveness while giving so many incorrect answers gives pause for concern – this man could have taught P.T. Barnum a thing or two about audacity. When I review the comments about his answers, I ask myself - What has he been doing in Washington, D.C. for 36 years? Has he learned anything? If this is his best after 36 years, wouldn’t I be better off with a proven governor, a fast study, an outsider at the beginning of a learning curve with significant potential for rapid improvement, an over-achiever like the moose-hunting, point guard in the number two spot?

For me, the Senator’s crowning achievement – talk about a confidence booster that he understands my situation - was his rebuttal to the Wasilla mother of five showing he also knows how Middle America feels. His evidence – he talks to the folks at Katy’s restaurant in Wilmington. Unfortunately, the Senator must reside in a parallel universe (could Geraghty be on to something about hallucinations?) or, more troubling, he hasn’t spoken to an average “Joe Six-Pack” or anyone outside his close circle since 1990 when Katy’s Restaurant closed its doors and went out of business.

Not only is Senator Biden in the dark, but so too are many in the media; unwilling, like the Sufi, to move out from under the light and search through Senator Biden’s answers to expose him for what he is – a caricature of a serious public servant, winging it as he goes along, enjoying the ride in the Senate as much as his subsidized Amtrak commute, all the while proving the Peter Principle is alive and well.

Foreshadowing this breakdown in financial discipline, this gross abandonment of duty, this gorging at the public trough, was the Continuing Resolution passed last week for over $600 billion with over 2,200 earmarks attached and totaling over $6 billion. 

If the financial bailout is critical, if we are facing a financial event comparable to the Great Depression,  if we are on the precipice of financial ruin looking into the abyss, then, is this the best the world’s most deliberative body can do – pile on more spending, congratulating themselves for their action ahead of the House, pushing through their pet provisions, preempting the House Republican alternative, involving less debt for the taxpayer?

At this point, how anyone can believe our political class is fit to lead is beyond me. President Bush, as his term of office comes to a close, says, we are facing critical times – it isn’t the bailout that is critical, however, it is the refusal of elected officials to perform their duties in a responsible manner, their unwillingness to curb their appetite for more money at taxpayer expense, their unwillingness to accept a reality that requires fiscal discipline and setting priorities, their belief they are entitled to an unlimited right to draw upon the public’s funds to push any fantasy ideology they can imagine to create heaven on earth based on government largesse. 

Our next President will begin his term with a very different set of givens than most could have imagined just a year ago. If Senator McCain is serious about changing Washington, if he is serious about being a reformer, if he is serious about eliminating earmarks, the Republican Presidential nominee from Arizona needs to start making earmark piggy’s – especially those who have moved beyond earmarks as a gateway drug to an addiction – famous. Now.

Foreshadowing this breakdown in financial discipline, this gross abandonment of duty, this gorging at the public trough, was the Continuing Resolution passed last week for over $600 billion with over 2,200 earmarks attached and totaling over $6 billion. 

If the financial bailout is critical, if we are facing a financial event comparable to the Great Depression,  if we are on the precipice of financial ruin looking into the abyss, then, is this the best the world’s most deliberative body can do – pile on more spending, congratulating themselves for their action ahead of the House, pushing through their pet provisions, preempting the House Republican alternative, involving less debt for the taxpayer?

At this point, how anyone can believe our political class is fit to lead is beyond me. President Bush, as his term of office comes to a close, says, we are facing critical times – it isn’t the bailout that is critical, however, it is the refusal of elected officials to perform their duties in a responsible manner, their unwillingness to curb their appetite for more money at taxpayer expense, their unwillingness to accept a reality that requires fiscal discipline and setting priorities, their belief they are entitled to an unlimited right to draw upon the public’s funds to push any fantasy ideology they can imagine to create heaven on earth based on government largesse. 

Our next President will begin his term with a very different set of givens than most could have imagined just a year ago. If Senator McCain is serious about changing Washington, if he is serious about being a reformer, if he is serious about eliminating earmarks, the Republican Presidential nominee from Arizona needs to start making earmark piggy’s – especially those who have moved beyond earmarks as a gateway drug to an addiction – famous. Now.

Using the states as a laboratory, applying a competitive index to examine 16 variables for ranking the states, Graham and Solon concluded - growth in jobs, income and population were critical elements if a state were to prosper. They learned that the top three states were Texas, Florida and Arizona; noting, remarkably, “a third of all new jobs created in the last ten years were in these three states.” On the other hand, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio were the three least successful states, demonstrating that governance, taxes, and regulatory policy matter. Their conclusion is evident; the title of the article is “If You Like Michigan’s Economy, You’ll Love Obama’s.”

Repeated calls for tax cuts for the middle class are unmasked as unreal and imaginary in “Tax Cuts, Real and Imaginary, Obama's spending programs in disguise.” Gingrich and Ferrara  noting the Obama tax cut for 95% of American’s is a false promise, a deceptive ploy to transfer income from those who pay taxes to the 40% who no longer pay any share of the income tax; the top 10 percent paying 71 percent of the federal income tax though earning just 39 percent of the nation's pretax income; the bottom 60 percent of income earners together, on net, paying less than 1 percent of all federal income taxes while these workers earn 26 percent of national income.

In a third article, “Seeing through Obamanomics,” Jeff Jacoby argues that the declining number of Americans who have confidence that Barack Obama can do a better job handling the economy suggest that more Americans are beginning to understand the confiscatory, compulsory, and corroding effects of an Obama income re-distribution scheme. 

I, reluctantly, recorded the ABC interviews with Governor Sarah Palin from Day 2, despite dissatisfaction with the Charles Gibson Day 1 interview, dissatisfaction due to his demeanor and questionable preparation [my thoughts about the first interview here]. Later I ventured to watch the three programs, ABC News, “20/20,” and Nightline, watching the early news broadcast first, and then watching a portion of “20/20,” identifying issues with two segments that ended my viewing, allowing me to reach a final verdict about ABC News for this political season.

Mr. Gibson’s performance, however, was another matter. His questions about her prayer request in accord with “God’s Plan” for our troops, (described as the “Least Honest Slice of Gibson’s Plain Interview”), and the Bush Doctrine, coupled with his demeanor, were a snapshot of much that was wrong with the first installment of the interview. His questions raised many questions, demonstrating possible journalistic laziness, by failing to prepare; possible intentional deceit, ensuring the Governor of an “exact quote” when in fact it was truncated and misleading; a possible abandonment of journalistic integrity, perhaps intentionally misrepresenting the Governor’s prayer request, and a misreading of “the Bush Doctrine” [There is no Single Clear Meaning…”] [The Gibson version of “the Bush Doctrine” is really “the Daniel Webster Doctrine….”]

When the dust-up concluded, when the dust settled, reflecting back on the interview, the interview told more about Gibson. If auditioning to succeed Keith Olbermann, the recently demoted MSNBC anchor, as Obama’s newest anchor-in-chief, Gibson succeeded. We can fill the vacancy; Gibson is ready, ready to lead the minions, ready to lead “Team Obama,” ready as scold-in-chief.

How long before our current overseas oil expenditure of $700 to $800 billion a year seems like a bargain alongside a future expense of $2 or $3 trillion. Congressional demands for more spending seem limitless. Demagogues’ rail against business thereby suppressing growth and a galaxy of future decisions accumulate. No one seems willing to tackle the highest priorities such as social security and Medicare reform.

If gas is $10 a gallon, what happens to all those boomers ready to enjoy their retirement years? They never expected to spend their declining years living in a Third World country. Oh, won’t it be fun riding the down escalator!

Senator Obama praised the Germans for their courage during the Berlin airlift, but apparently failed to appreciate the perseverance of President Truman in the face of constant criticism. In a recent column, Jeff Jacoby looks at the domestic challenge Truman faced.

For President Truman, retreat was unthinkable. "We stay in Berlin, period," he decreed. Overriding the doubts of senior advisers, including Secretary of State George C. Marshall and General Omar Bradley, the Army Chief of Staff, Truman ordered the Armed Forces to begin supplying Berlin by air.

….

Yet the pressure to abandon Berlin persisted. The CIA argued that the airlift had worsened matters by "making Berlin a major test of US-Soviet strength" and affirming "direct US responsibility" for West Berlin. The airlift was bound to fail, the intelligence analysts warned. Truman didn't waver. "We'll stay in Berlin - come what may," he wrote in his diary on July 19. "I don't pass the buck, nor do I alibi out of any decision I make."

  President Truman pushed forward in the face of severe criticism, second-guessing, and attacks on his judgment by members of his administration. He answered the challenge of his day. What level of criticism would a President Obama endure? How far would he go during a period of adversity to protect America? Is there any reason to think he would he have stood firm against the type of criticism Truman encountered to save Berlin?  Yes, Senator Obama visited Germany and the images were good, but a lesson from the Berlin airlift and history – leadership is about more than images.

Lincoln stood firm during the Civil War against all the criticism while he searched for a winning military team of battle commanders.  Lincoln appeared to have little chance for re-election before he found Generals Grant and Sherman. He persevered despite the criticism.

During the troop surge in Iraq, President Bush stood firm against all the criticism. President Bush also went through a number of military commanders before he found Generals Petraeus and Odierno. He forced a reluctant Congress to support the surge and win the war. 

Senator Obama, on the other hand, opposed the President’s position on the surge. During his Iraq visit, Senator Obama when asked about the success of the surge, breathtakingly refused to admit the surge was the reason for the success in Iraq or that he would change his vote even if he knew then what he knows today.

Senator Obama praised the Germans for their courage during the Berlin airlift, but apparently failed to appreciate the perseverance of President Truman. In a recent column, Jeff Jacoby looks at the domestic challenge Truman faced.

For President Truman, retreat was unthinkable. "We stay in Berlin, period," he decreed. Overriding the doubts of senior advisers, including Secretary of State George C. Marshall and General Omar Bradley, the Army Chief of Staff, Truman ordered the Armed Forces to begin supplying Berlin by air.

….

Yet the pressure to abandon Berlin persisted. The CIA argued that the airlift had worsened matters by "making Berlin a major test of US-Soviet strength" and affirming "direct US responsibility" for West Berlin. The airlift was bound to fail, the intelligence analysts warned. Truman didn't waver. "We'll stay in Berlin - come what may," he wrote in his diary on July 19. "I don't pass the buck, nor do I alibi out of any decision I make."

Democrats constantly talk about their desire to help the “little guy,” the disadvantaged and the hard worker trying to make ends meet. Democrats used to target these core voters found in: union homes, lower and middle-income families, recipients of the earned income tax credit, immigrants just beginning in the U.S. workforce, and Federal Taxpayers with Annual Gross Incomes less than $50,000 who pay no federal taxes.

Of course, the impact of the Democrats’ “no drill, no nuke” position hurts all these voters in a myriad of ways, for example:

·         Food costs;

·         Transportation expenses (including summer holiday trips),

·         Home renovation projects (including to name just two - the rocketing costs of all petroleum- based products such as vinyl, high-energy windows and PVC irrigation piping);

·         Small farmers stretched thin who must sacrifice something else just to afford diesel fuel for their tractors so they can plant their crops;

·         Commuters who bought a home beyond the suburbs, where they could afford one, and find it too expensive to commute now; and  

·         Retirees and others who need their IRA, 401K, or other investments to sustain them. 

Has the Democratic Party grown so prosperous from contributions by lobbyists, Hollywood types, and fat cats that they do not care about “the little guy” anymore? Perhaps, they have grown cocky reading about the plight of their opponents and have concluded they can get away with anything now?

What should we conclude about this apparent indifference by Democrats to the difficulties caused so many over energy cost? Why do “no drill, no nuke” democrats continue to trot out various arguments that are laughable, weak, or nonsensical.  

The Democrat “can’t doers” in Congress are appearing arrogant and callous to many voters who are reminded multiple times a day of how this stubbornness and delay are reducing their standard of living. If we were living in ancient times, we might even see this Democrat hubris foreshadow a long period of exile from political leadership.  If oil prices keep rising, we can only hope history repeats and Democrats get the boot or they quickly see the error of their ways and take action to lower prices.

Thank you for your service to our country.

There has been a great deal of news about oil prices since January 2007 when both houses of Congress came under the control of one party. I think gas was around $2.33 a gallon at the time and today it is over $4.00.

 I have just one question about oil prices.

Please tell me it isn’t true that China is drilling on behalf of Cuba and the Castro government just sixty (60) miles from our coastline? 

If China is drilling for Cuba 60 miles off our shore, why can’t we pass legislation immediately to expedite drilling and exploration off our coasts and the Gulf of Mexico beyond 60 miles?

I look forward to an explanation.

Sincerely,

·         Here, then are some of the political passages from the fuller version of “The Audacity to Hope” text reprinted in What Makes You So Strong?:

In order for a people to have taken a negative and turned it into a positive, surely somebody had to have had the audacity to hope. In order for a race held in bondage to slavery to have taken a proclamation not worth the paper it was written on and to have turned it into a proposition that produced a race full of giants, somebody had to have had the audacity to hope. Abraham Lincoln is remembered as the “Great Emancipator” of the slaves, but in reality, he did not see black Africans as equal with whites. (The issue of slavery was paramount for him because it threatened the unity of the country. The primary reason that the Civil War was fought was not to free the slaves, but to save the United States.... [p. 104]) 

2.      “Left in Church, Deep inside the Wright Trumpet” by Stanley Kurtz.  

·         Having now left Trinity United Church of Christ, can Barack Obama escape responsibility for his decades-long ties to Michael Pfleger and Jeremiah Wright? No, he cannot. Obama’s connections to the radical-left politics espoused by Pfleger and Wright are broad and deep. The real reason Obama bound himself to Wright and Pfleger in the first place is that he largely approved of their political-theological outlooks.

·         The reticence, combined with Obama's radical ties, begs the question: Is he hiding an un-American agenda?

We know his longtime mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, detests America and its capitalist system, viewing it as unjust, oppressive and enslaving to minorities. He and his fellow travelers think they have in Obama the perfect candidate to remake America into a self-loathing dispenser of apologetic largesse to victim groups at home and Marxist regimes abroad.

Key among these is reverend-turned-professor James Cone, who believes merging Marxism with the Gospel will liberate African-Americans from the supposed economic slavery of "white" capitalism. "Together," he says, "black religion and Marxist philosophy may show us the way to build a completely new society." (Emphasis added.)

Cone is the mentor of Obama's mentor, Wright. Wright adopted Cone's "black liberation theology" as his church's core doctrine. According to Cone, the reverend "is really the one who took it from my books and brought it to the church."