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."

·         Neither Obama nor his party seems to understand how incentives motivate human behavior — not force, not coercion, not mockery, not nursery-school regulation, but real possibilities of good fruits up ahead for free and responsible actions. They do not understand the wellsprings of a virtuous, free, and prosperous society. They are still entangled in the fantasies of the European Left of 150 years ago.

Thus, Obama is now the creature and the prisoner of the American far Left, which has learned nothing from the failures of socialist and statist and anti-capitalist ideas during the past hundred years. Many leftists learn nothing, know nothing, and propel themselves not with practical wisdom, but with outrage and contempt and a desire to punish those who do not agree with them.

My friend himself thought, he finally revealed, that the West has come to an epochal axial point in history. From now on, economic and political progress would grow far less quickly than ever before, and a long-lasting, precipitous decline is about to begin. Overseas, and also at home.

There is more to Senator Obama than merely a man: without McGovern’s military and political record, without Dukakis’s executive experience as governor, without Kerry’s record of years of service in the Senate, and without Jimmy Carter’s religious integrity as he spoke about it in 1976.  In addition to all these short comings, Barack Obama is a man with a far more radical vision than anything these pedestrian politicians have ever considered.  Each voter needs to fully understand the scope of that radical agenda.

Senator McCain, on May 12, 2008, said there is no doubt about global warming or climate change, the facts are clear, and the debate is over.  (Emphasis added.)

It would be interesting to hear Senator McCain respond to the signers of the “Oregon Petition” (Are 32,000 Scientists Enough to Question Global Warming 'Consensus?') who take the position:    

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.  

Or, perhaps Senator McCain should let George Will know.  In a Newsweek column, Questions For McCain, Mr. Will asked this question about the Senator’s dogmatic, proof positive, case closed position on climate.

• You say that even if global warming turns out to be no crisis (the World Meteorological Organization says global temperatures have not risen in a decade), even unnecessary measures taken to combat it will be beneficial because "then all we've done is give our kids a cleaner world." But what of the trillions of dollars those measures will cost in direct expenditures and diminished economic growth—hence diminished medical research, cultural investment, etc.? Given that Earth is always warming or cooling, what is its proper temperature, and how do you know?

Senator McCain’s statements on drilling and climate change strike a sanctimonious note for those who might question his point of view or want more agreement among the scientific community.  Not drilling off our coasts, in the Gulf of Mexico, and in Alaska, where the residents all support drilling, while billions go overseas to countries that fund terrorism only compounds the insanity for many. If his mind is closed once he reaches a decision, what does that suggest if a President McCain is ever in error?

Where is the straight talk?  What is Senator McCain’s plan?  The exorbitant costs to subsidize energy alternatives for gas and oil stagger the mind.  In Wind (23.37) v. Gas (25 cents), a Wall Street Journal editorial, the Journal reported that: “the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like.” Solar and windmills are a quixotic quest as a solution to our current energy problems.  

Reported costs for energy sources were listed by The Journal:

An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59. [Emphasis added.]

As gasoline sprints towards $200 a barrel and Congress bickers over energy policy, many fear a declining standard of living that will deny them the American dream.  Rising gas and food costs for those on fixed incomes makes it increasingly difficult for families to make ends meet.  It must seem to them like another example of Michelle Obama’s complaint of someone raising the bar. What about drilling, nuclear power, flex-fuel vehicles, and more refineries? 

Instead of talking about global climate change, why not present a comprehensive plan now to break OPEC’s pricing power and get our energy house in order during a McCain first term? A leader would seize the opportunity to chart a vision, present it to voters without antagonizing them, and persuade us. 

Stanley Kurtz has written a detailed piece, Jeremiah Wright's Trumpet in the Weekly Standard that raises many questions about Senator Obama and sheds light on his lack of readiness to serve.  Kurtz’s in-depth look provides a confirmation that Senator Obama lacks essential qualities of a leader.  He is not being forthright, transparent, or truthful about his knowledge of liberation theology, Trinity United Church, or the views of Jeremiah Wright.  

Some have argued that Wright is a distraction and that Obama surely doesn’t believe Wright’s nonsense.  I still maintain, however, that since we know so little about Barack Obama that the Wright case helps shed light on Obama’s fitness for office.  Reverend Wright is very relevant for what he tells us about Obama as a future leader.   

·        Is he decisive in a crisis?

·        Is he truthful and forthright about the issues facing him? 

·        Is he transparent about his motivation in reaching a decision? 

·        Will he confront a problem quickly or endure a period of paralysis that delays a decision until the event reaches criticality. 

·        Is he credible? 

·        Does he take charge or is he controlled by events? 

·        Does he quickly make difficult decisions or does he miss the mean between acting too early or too late? 

·        Does he respect the voters or condescend to garner their votes by trying to talk through an issue and provide insincere and invalid arguments? 

·        Does he have a hidden agenda for his policy actions?   

Of course, the answer to these questions is obvious to all except the Obama "True Believer."  Senator Obama's performance during the media interest in Reverend Wright left much to be desired and does not support the arguments that he is ready to lead us during challenging times. 

  A, May 11, 2008, New York Times Editorial, "Rethinking Ethanol," captures the quagmire Congress has created with its failed corn ethanol policies and examines the fairly easy remedial steps that should be taken to fix the problem. Rather than endless debates about an abbreviated summer holiday from the Federal gas tax, here is a way for Congress to begin to right the market place by recognizing its mistake and taking a step back from the precipice.

In a time of worldwide increasing food shortages due to a displacement of food production for ethanol, many may starve around the world before they ever have to fear loss of life from apocalyptic environmental conditions. Additionally, the plan to increase corn ethanol production could actually accelerate global warming.

The Times recommends:

A. end tax breaks for corn ethanol;   

B. end a 51-cents-a-gallon subsidy to ethanol blenders; and

 C. end the five-fold increase in ethanol production.

For once, even I agree with the New York Times. It is time for Congress and the Administration to take action.

Senator Obama recently explained why he took off his American flag lapel pin.  The Senator’s explanation is that the pin has become a substitute for patriotism and he would henceforth demonstrate his patriotism by his words.

Perhaps we can take the Senator at his word or perhaps his rationale is more a disingenuous explanation as the Senator moves further left in an effort to satisfy his far left supporters who: (a.) deny there is a war going on, (b.) think whatever problems we face from terrorists are all Bush’s fault, or (c.) hate the jingoism of the Fox News hosts who wear their lapel pins.

Whatever his motivating reason, today the Chicago Sun Times clearly spanked the Senator for his comments by remarking that: “Obama’s latest spouting off makes us question his judgment” and “his polarizing comments make him sound like a hardened leftist.” 

Ouch! “Questionable judgment” and “hardened leftist” are not exactly descriptions of a new generation of politician who will reach out and find consensus. 

Today Senator Reid spoke out against the anticipated nomination of Ted Olson as Attorney General.  Reid vowed to block Olson because he is a partisan.

The grounds were pure nonsense even for Senator Reid who during his Senate tenure has been almost as stalwart for his quotable nonsense as the profound Miss Pelosi in the House. 

Ted Olson a former top appellate lawyer for the government isn’t disqualified in the Senator’s mind because he is unqualified.  He is disqualified because he is Republican, lost a wife on 9/11, and would presumably direct the department in a manner consistent with the desires of the President and his administration.

Could it be that in the Senator’s mind no one is capable of this job but the Senator himself? After all, isn’t Senator Reid the epitome of the non-partisan man?  Why not Harry Reid for AG? 

Yesterday Hugh Hewitt interviewed Secretary Chertoff about the pending Immigration Bill (transcript and comments). The interview with the Secretary was quite disappointing. If the Secretary gave up time to appear on the show because he cared about the audience and wanted to persuade President Bush’s supporters that the Immigration Bill is a good one, he did more harm than good. To call his answers evasive or less than persuasive is being too kind.

I recall someone saying that if Homeland Security had been headed by Bernie Kerik there would not have been a Katrina story. He suggested that the New Orleans issues would have been resolved quickly by Kerik who focuses more on solving a problem than working out every detail before starting action. Unfortunately, Judge Chertoff reportedly negotiated for days with the inexperienced Louisiana Governor over terms for Federal action in New Orleans. The speaker said Kerik would have gone in immediately, removed the people from the Super Dome stadium and then worked out the details with the governor. While listening to Chertoff yesterday I was reminded how unfortunate it is that the Department doesn’t have a man of action now.

I have to think the same analysis is true regarding the construction of the fence. I just returned from Dubai this week and construction cranes are everywhere as multiple projects are brought on line with 24/7 split shifts working round the clock. Of course this sort of “can do” action requires someone who has a sense of urgency and importance with regard to building the fence. The Secretary obviously believes there is no rush. Neither the President nor the Country is being well served by this construction process.