Candidate Questions

Suppose I got the chance to meet each presidential candidate and was told I could ask two questions of each. What would my two questions be?

Let's see.

Barack Obama:

You have made the fundamental messages of your campaign on two simple words: "Hope" and "Change". Can you give me some specifics about the "Hope" part? Whose hope? What hopes? How will you deliver on those hopes?

You clearly state a primary objective of your presidency is a rapid end to the war in Iraq and return of the troops. I think most everyone in America would be happy to see an end to the conflict. But if you deliver on your promise, it is almost certain that Al Quaeda, Iran and their agent Al Sadr, and other factions hoping to gain power in Iraq will combine to cause a major conflagration and instability that will cost Iraqi citizens their lives. So my question is, are you suggesting that the consequences of precipitous withdrawal from the region are not our concern?

Hillary Clinton:

Your healthcare plan requires every citizen to have insurance coverage, and most will be required to purchase such coverage. It sounds similar to the laws in most states that require everyone to have automobile insurance in order to license their vehicles. If someone prefers to pay their medical expenses out of pocket or simply cannot afford the cost of their health insurance policy, what precise penalty would the Federal government impose upon that individual?

You have claimed to have the experience to hit the ground running after you are elected. Can you clarify for me what experience has qualified you to be Commander in Chief?

John McCain:

You have made it clear that you favor free trade policies, which sounds like you support continuing substantially all the trade policies and agreements in place today. In light of the many problems with safety and fairness that have arisen in our trade imbalance with China and other countries, do you think our trade agreements with them should be reviewed and perhaps tightened to address those abuses?

You sponsored the bill that would have given effective amnesty to virtually all illegal immigrants now living in our country. Since then, you have slightly changed your position during the campaign to acknowledge that the borders must be secured before the amnesty issue is addressed again. Why exactly do you think requiring employer enforcement and implementing a reasonable plan that requires illegal immigrants to return to their home country and get in line for legal re-entry is not a compassionate option?

Sure, I know. I'll never get a chance to ask these questions. And even if someone does, the answers will be meaningless double-talk and spin. But I think these questions should be asked so people with an ounce of common sense can analyze the candidates' answers and make better decisions about their voting choices.

The Mud Sticks to Obama

The Obama campaign has hit some rather big potholes of late, and the candidate is finding himself plastered with a bit of mud.

Two problems have surfaced for Obama that have had an immediate negative impact on his polling. The extreme rhetoric of his Pastor and mentor, Jeremiah Wright, has been widely played. Obama's close ties to Tony Rezko have also surfaced to suggest the candidate isn't the scandal and corruption free leader he has tried to portray.

The questions are rightly asked of Obama, does he subscribe to the racial grievances expressed by Reverend Wright? Was he involved with, or knowledgeable about, the illegal and corrupt activities by his friend Rezko?

We all know Hillary's got more than her share of mud left over from her years with Bill in the White House. Many of Hillary's issues would have landed someone else in jail, but somehow she managed to escape scrutiny. Even a casual reading of Hillary's resume would lead to the conclusion that her overwhelming ambition will bulldoze over anything standing in her way. The law for Hillary is nothing but an inconvenience.

John McCain has less skeletons in his closet, and they're all pretty old and moldy. His involvement in the Keating Five, back in the days of the Savings & Loan scandals, is probably his most embarrassing gaffe. But one could reasonably see his involvement with Frank Keating as similar to Obama's more recent associations with Tony Rezko. McCain's also guilty of adultery, which broke up his first marriage, but again it happened a long time ago.

So nobody's squeaky clean. So how about we put that aside for the moment and consider the bigger questions of the upcoming presidential election?

It's a stark choice between two very different paths, neither of which most of us will find palatable.

McCain can be reasonably seen as a guy who will mostly continue Bush's policies. For the rather large segment of Bush haters, that's not very good news. Here's what I think is McCain's bottom line:

• He will finish the job in Iraq. McCain promises to be a stronger and more decisive Commander-in-Chief, and is claiming credit for pushing the president to implement the Surge.
• He will try to keep Bush's tax cuts, but also demand spending restraints from congress - something Bush hasn't done. Can he enforce that restraint on congress when pretty much no president in our era has been able to do so? Doesn't seem likely.
• He's a free trader. Not much of substance would change over Bush's pro-business and free trade policies.
• He favors market-based solutions to healthcare. He'd focus on policies aimed at lowering costs and granting tax credits to people that help them buy the insurance they need. He would permit companies to create nationwide clinics and healthcare chains and push for lower prescription drug costs.
• He's a traditional Republican on most social issues. Pro Life, against gay marriage, for school choice, etc. But he's not pushing hard on those issues because he hopes to attract moderates and independents who might be ambivalent or believe otherwise on those issues. I don't see him being a strong advocate on these issues as President, one way or the other.
• He's bad on illegal immigration. Sure, he claims to have seen the light and promises to do what Bush has steadfastly refused to do; enforce the borders. But I'm skeptical.
• He doesn't seem to have a clue on solving the current economic downturns. We'll just have to wait and see.
• He may be the strongest candidate to address the overall issue of security and terrorism.
  

Whether it's Hillary or Barack on the Dem side, we can be assured of the polar opposite of McCain on most everything:

• Out of Iraq: Both promise to withdraw troops quickly. But Hillary especially seems to hedge her bets by indicating she wouldn't beat a hasty retreat that caused disaster in the region. Since a hasty retreat is certain to do just that, she'll probably keep the troops there and blame Bush. She'll claim that she had no idea what a mess Iraq was, and unfortunately she's going to have to leave troops there awhile longer to clean up Bush's mess.
• Dismantle the military and redirect tax money to social programs: That's what Bill tried to do throughout his presidency, and certain to be Hillary's policy as well. She hates the military, and will do whatever she can to dismantle it. All indications are that Obama would do the same.
  
• Both claim to desire putting the brakes on free trade, at least to some degree. Both would also "punish" big oil by tagging the companies with confiscatory taxes.
• Neither has a clue about how to solve the current economic problem. Unless you consider higher taxes across the board a solution.
• Both are liberals on social issues. They're both pro choice, don't see why anybody has a problem with gay marriage, and have a selective view of free speech for religion that says it's OK for churches to be politically active only when they support Democrats.
• Both claim a top priority to universal healthcare. They simply envision a federal government run and taxpayer funded system that guarantees coverage for everyone. Hillary would criminalize people who refuse to participate in her idealized national healthcare system.
• Of course, both are terrible on illegal immigration. At least McCain's promising to do something about the problem; Clinton and Obama embrace illegals and would open the borders even wider.
• Both will certainly weaken our country's ability to protect its citizens against terrorists.

If you're like me, and not very happy with any of the choices, the only way to go is the lesser of the evils. So I'll go cast an unenthusiastic vote for McCain.

Root Causes

I'm generally amazed at how the entire world seems to miss an obvious point. That the root cause of most of the conflict and instability that boiled over to become 9-11 and the war on terror is the existence of the state of Israel.

Why is it so hard for the press and politicians to be honest about the fact that 9-11 was ultimately an expression of Muslim anger at the ongoing presence and the United States' support for Israel? Al Quaeda is a Muslim organization with a radical mission to eliminate Israel from the planet and frighten the United States into withdrawing its support and friendship with that country. Added to that primary goal of course is their long-term goal of consolidating their particular brand of Islam as the ruler of the entire middle east and removing all western influence from the region, then perhaps using the wealth of the region's oil reserves to launch their conquest of the rest of the planet.

So Israel's muslim neighbors have long despised the jewish state and those in the United Nations who helped establish it. It's somewhat remarkable that Israel has survived the many attempts by their hostile neighbor countries and their surrogates to destroy them. These days there's this bizarre perspective running around the leftist media that if Israel somehow stopped mistreating the Palestinians and allow them to carve out their own country inside Israel's boundaries that all can live in peace.

Ask Bill Clinton how that idea worked. He was able to get Israel to accept Yassir Arafat's demands in principle a few years back, and Arafat walked away. The Palestinians have no intention of making peace with Israel; that's not just my characterization, but the consistently stated position of their representatives. The terror will continue in Israel until the Jews leave or are slaughtered and the country no longer exists.

How can the Israel problem, and by association the terrorism problem for America, be resolved? Think about it for a moment, and the answer should be obvious.

Pacification. Strong, forceful, no-nonsense enforcement of peace. Yeah, I know, the left can't stand any sort of war, and would be viciously opposed (interestingly enough for people who claim to be pacifists) to bringing peace to the middle east by force. But there is simply no other solution.

How do we solve the problem? As if it were even possible, which I know it is not, the following is the only solution.

First, a coalition of like-minded countries, like NATO, creates a united front and tells the Palestinians this:

You may have your own state next to Israel. Perhaps locking in the borders as they currently exist. Take it or leave it. These borders will be enforced heavily. Nobody crosses without authorization from the other government. Palestinians in Israel may choose to stay or move to the new Palestine. If they stay in Israel and are caught participating in terrorist activities, they will be subject to capital punishment.

If, however, the Palestinians want to continue to avail themselves of the jobs and benefits they can enjoy as citizens of Israel, they must lay down their arms and vigorously prosecute any terrorist groups among them.

If the Palestinians do not agree to the terms of either their new state or the offer of freedom to be peaceful and prosperous citizens of Israel, the separate state solution will be forced on them by NATO troops, who will disarm them by any means necessary until the area is pacified.

Very simple, really. Unfortunately, the religious nature of the conflict denies and hope for peaceful negotiation. So force will be required, and the terrorist areas will have to come under strict martial law until pacified.

Too bad it will never happen.

Man without a Candidate

For me, the statement is true for both President and the Senate. The states that have their primaries early settled on the presidential candidates long ago, and when Indiana finally has its primary there won't be much point in casting a primary ballot for that office.

Nobody in the field appeals to me.

I'm closest in agreement in principle with McCain on the war and national security, tax and spending policy, healthcare, and education.

But I'm not at all happy with his aggressive support of amnesty for illegal aliens, campaign finance reform, and other issues where he's been on the wrong side. Many things he's said and issues he's supported suggest strongly that he's one of the first senators we could point to when discussing the out-of-touch beltway mentality that rules DC.

On the subject of the economy he seems weak. He hasn't yet articulated a meaningful policy to address the current problem, and on energy he sounds disheartenly like a Democrat.

Naturally, Clinton and Obama present very little in common with my views. From a policy perspective, both are pretty far left socially. Hillary is a bit more moderate than Obama on national security, but both are a bit frightening in their naievete in that area.

Both are open borders proponents, and the cynic in me believes it is based simply on their desire to consolidate power by naturalizing so many immigrants as to permanently outnumber conservative voters.

It's somewhat tempting to agree with them on trade issues. I'm one that thinks we should be tougher on trading partners like China, which for years has been violating even existing trade agreements and getting away with it. I still believe we should be just as open to goods from other countries as they are to ours.

Finally, I'm very concerned about the social and moral issues, where McCain is the only candidate worthy of consideration. He may not be the strongest candidate on those issues, but he's running against people who don't even believe there is such a thing as morality. Then again, they like to redefine morality in socialist terms.

The socialist agenda that would be implemented by either Democrat can't imagine any solution other than government control to problems of access to healthcare and college education. True, there are many people who can't afford exhorbitant health insurance premiums. And it's terrible that college students are racking up mountains of debt to finish their degrees simply because the higher education institutions continue to raise tuition and fees while lenders happily step in to cover the deficits with loans the students may need a lifetime to repay.

Democrats "solve" these problems by raising taxes on everybody else and redirecting that money to the patients and students who "need" it. Conservatives say no, let's actually solve the problem without socialism by addressing the root causes of the high costs of healthcare and education. Those root causes, of course, coming directly from the biggest constituents of the Democrats - trial lawyers and academia.

Conservatives have their noses out of joint with McCain's wrapup of the nomination because he's not a "pure" conservative. Then again, strictly speaking I'm not a "pure" conservative myself. So I can wish all I want for a candidate who both inspires me and mirrors all of my personal stands on issues of the day. But wishing has never made it true, so as I usually do, I'll dutifully show up on election day in November and vote for the better candidate.

Even though the best candidate isn't on the ballot.