Armstrong Williams

Political Payback

2008-11-12T15:11:00.001-05:00

When Speaker Pelosi announced Democrats' intentions of bailing out the auto industry, this signaled a significant direction for the Obama era. They have every intention of bailing out an automobile industry that has been less fuel-efficient, lower quality, less inspiring and more expensive than the automobiles of foreign-owned competitors.

During the primary campaign, Mitt Romney said that if he became president, these lost automobile jobs would return to Michigan within six months. McCain said that these jobs are not coming back to Michigan and displaced employees need to retrain and retool. Without giving specifics, Obama gave these unemployed workers HOPE that the jobs were going to return when he became president.

History will show that McCain was right. The textile mills did not return to New England and the steel mills did not return to Western Pennsylvania.

Unfortunately, presidential candidates do not win elections by being candid. The voters of Michigan and the UAW supported Obama overwhelmingly. Now the new administration must pay its due bill. While there is no rational reason to believe that automobile jobs will ever permanently return to Michigan, the new administration will squander taxpayer money on subsidies to the Big Three to give unemployed automobile workers hope in the impossible dream.

A Desperate Vote in Desperate Times

2008-11-12T15:10:00.001-05:00

In the end, the 2008 presidential election was never really about race or age or gender. And never — despite both campaigns’ efforts to prove otherwise — was it about experience.

This election was about one thing: change. Our country needed a desperate change of direction — so the crux of the campaign, the key to this election, was who would bring about the most radical change and who would benefit the most from that change. Clearly, most Americans felt that Barack Obama provided the potential for the change they desperately sought.

After eight turbulent years under President Bush, citizens everywhere are yearning for new leadership. Our citizens watched their portfolios get ripped to shreds and retirements dwindle away and endured the sight of our brave soldiers fighting and dying for strangers in a foreign land. They witnessed firsthand oil becoming an idol and jobs becoming a rarity. They watched helplessly as their healthcare disappeared and our children's schools disengaged.

The achievements and successes of yesterday have long been forgotten because, well, there are just too many obstacles, problems and dilemmas in front of us today. Everyday Americans refused to sit idly by and accept and support the status quo. And that's why Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) fell short and Obama thrived. Neither Obama's race nor McCain's age nor Sarah Palin's gender had an ounce of effect on the final verdict.

Sarah Palin — The Republican Scapegoat?

2008-11-12T15:09:00.000-05:00

How pathetic it is for the McCain camp to lay the blame for its slaughter on Tuesday at the feet of Gov. Palin.

The Republican brand has been suffering over the last few years, and the consistent scandals within its own ranks have only made matters worse. Gov. Palin did not lobby the McCain campaign to be his running mate. The party went to Alaska and sought her out in desperation of a running mate at the last hour.

It was all well and good when this fresh face and high-spirited voice spoke at the Republican National Convention and brought the supporters and the party's base to their feet. Before the economic tsunami hit, many thought that the party had a decent chance of winning the White House. Now that McCain has conceded the presidency to Barack Obama, the blame herein lies with Sarah Palin.

Oh, but does it? There are strong rumors that this absurdity is coming from Mitt Romney supporters, who are threatened by the credibility and name value that the governor has established over the past several months.

If this party were smart, it would further expand and build the base with the Palin momentum, not destroy it. This is a time for the party to unite within itself and solidly behind the president-elect of the United States to show the American people that it cares more about the progress of the country than its own hidden agenda. It would be wise to give Mr. Obama the honeymoon he deserves and be prepared to seize the moment when his proposals and ideas flatly fail and cause more turmoil in our domestic and global economy.

In 2006, the Democrats took control of both the House and the Senate, and since that time the party has continued to spin out of control with no consistent message that everyday Americans could embrace and support. Too many good and honorable Republicans in the House and Senate have suffered unnecessary defeat because of the party's woes.

The selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate became the star attraction of the Republican ticket when she drew far larger crowds than McCain. Many of her gaffes made during broadcast interviews raised serious questions about her competence and readiness. But make no mistake: This governor is a Republican star on the move, and we definitely have not seen or heard the last of Sarah Palin.

The Country is Ready for an American Black President

2008-11-12T15:08:00.002-05:00

I was thinking the other day of what this election means to me from a personal perspective, all ideology aside.

From the day Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) announced his candidacy, I’ve always felt the sense of history and what a seminal moment his candidacy represented.

You certainly heard it echoed in the stories that were written, and you see it today in the record turnouts of voters. But even though this election says so much about the past eight years, what went right and what went wrong, and who is better prepared to lead us into the next decade, what is even more pronounced is that this country is ready for an American black to become president.

Think about that for a second. Think about what that means, and the rebuke it sends to every hate-filled organization that tried to foment and stir the bowels of fear and anger.

They have failed. And that is a success for this country. No, it doesn’t mean that racism is dead. But what it does signal is that our institutions of government and service are more sensitive to race, and the stain that hate left on our fabric of society for so long is gradually being wiped away.

We are turning a corner, America. And we as a nation should be proud of that. Republican or Democrat, it doesn’t matter. Those parties’ majorities will ebb and flow for generations. But this moment — here and now — is a testament before God and man of how far we have come on the issue of race — to the point where an American black man can stand as our nation’s leader and not have his skin color the first issue on the minds of the voters.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton couldn’t do it, for all their flaws and mistakes. On top of that, the country wasn’t ready. But it is today, win or lose. It is today.

President Obama

2008-11-12T15:08:00.001-05:00

The fact that America can have a black president with a Muslim-sounding name makes us proud that this can happen in our country. One of the reasons Barack Obama is so successful is that he's transcended the race issue. His upbringing left him unencumbered by many of the issues in this country that many American blacks feel handicapped by. When he first started his campaign, the Civil Rights establishment wasn't with him and was thus backing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). Many black politicians in the beginning saw that Sen. Obama was biologically an African-American, but culturally he had little or nothing in common with the black experience. This is why, initially, the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, along with many elected black figures, were not head-over-heels enamored with his candidacy. During that time he was challenged and taken to task on many issues that have just somehow disappeared over the last several months.

Have we as a country gone soft on Obama once more? Look, I’m all for achievement and history, but this guy is wrong, wrong, wrong on the issues. He’s inexperienced, and there will be crises and situations from which his media protectors can’t insulate him — Iran, to name one. I'm convinced that he could be the wrong man at the wrong time — and I take no racial pride in that. Many across the board feel that Sen. Obama is bringing full-circle the black experience in America, from slavery to the Civil Rights movement. In this process they feel that he represents the hope of America's promise, that we are all created equal under the law and that we've finally healed our wounds from the stain of slavery.

A deeper and more meaningful question remains for us all. Do we really mean to compare the struggles of Southern-born and many American blacks with the experience of the son of a Kenyan bigamist who was raised outside the continental United States?

An Emotional Vote Ahead

2008-11-12T15:07:00.002-05:00

There are four short days before the historic presidential election, but it may be in the shadow of a crippled economy and skeptical voters — aka consumers — who are still trying to digest how they are benefiting from the recent $700 billion bailout.

There is no question that the rescue plan received a lackluster response from Main Street and had a rather muted effect on the economy. It should be no surprise that consumer confidence is at one of the lowest levels in recent history and that the American people are tapped out and exhausted by the financial beating they have endured.

Who is to say how the presidential race would have been different had the sentiment of the American people been more upbeat? As it stands, however, when voters cast their ballots on Tuesday, their votes will reflect the discouragement of recent months and fear of what lies ahead in the years to come.

It is never good to make such important decisions with this kind of mindset, especially when there are so many more issues at stake than the economy. And change for the sake of change isn’t good, either.

Regardless, the president-elect will be inheriting a slowing global economy and a skeptical, exhausted and fearful public. But one thing is for sure: Whoever is in office will certainly benefit from all the legislation that is now in place, because it is hard not to go up from rock bottom.

Awakening a Sleepy Giant: We the People

2008-11-12T15:07:00.001-05:00

Conventional economic wisdom holds that real economic growth occurs when workers become more efficient and therefore generate more value. But the truth is that much of the capital value created by major corporations in the past few years has come, not from efficiency gains on the part of the American workforce, but as a result of tax shelters, offshoring and outsourcing.

These quick-fix schemes have made corporate balance sheets glitter like a desert mirage, but the glare has masked a much bigger problem: America is living beyond its means, importing too much and producing too little to continue to be an economic powerhouse. A quick comparison to China reveals a nation with a real growth rate, in terms of actual volume of goods produced and sold, that dwarfs that of the U.S. in recent years.

We as Americans need to stop deluding ourselves, stop hiding behind our degrees and beleaguered assumptions, and wake up to the fact that this country is on the precipice of a major financial disaster. If we don’t voluntarily tighten our belts, hunker down and make provisions for the future, we might find ourselves lost in the storm on the horizon. And make no mistake, all the signs point to an imminent breakdown of the financial system in the near future.

The rules for tough times ahead call for common sense. No one needs to go see the Wizard of Oz to be blessed with the brains, heart and courage to succeed. Success comes from adherence to God-given virtues of faith, hard work, compassion and humility. These qualities, if upheld on a consistent daily basis, will lift us from this economic crisis of confidence that we now face.

Americans need to admit quickly that they're living beyond their means and place themselves on a financial diet that can begin the process of weathering this capital market crunch. There is nothing new under the sun. We are no different than past generations that found the courage to survive, made the sacrifices and returned a beleaguered nation to economic and military might.

Déjà Vu at the Federal Reserve

2008-11-12T15:06:00.000-05:00

The Fed is meeting today and will determine whether or not it will lower the federal funds rate.

Many expect that the cut could be 50 basis points, taking the federal funds rate back down 1 percent. Ironically, it was just last week that Greenspan was in the hot seat, testifying before the House Oversight Committee regarding his monetary policy earlier this decade — including lowering and holding rates at 1 percent.

Even though the economic environment is radically different today, let’s hope that policymakers, presidential candidates, members of Congress and other officials have a much better understanding of the ramifications of such a move. Having rates so low will not give any administration much wiggle room should the economy still need to be jump-started in the months to come.

But the more terrifying reality is that the same people who created policies and regulations (or the lack thereof) that led to the current financial meltdown are still at the helm, crafting new policies, creating bailout packages and forging rescue plans. While Greenspan took the heat he deserved, he is the first person to come forward and take responsibility for his actions and take ownership for contributing to the asset bubble we are now de-leveraging.

Where is everyone else? Certainly no one believes that one man was/is solely responsible and put in motion the policies that created the global financial debacle we are suffering through today. It is rather frightening to think that the myriads of other unnamed souls in Congress and the administration who helped to create this mess have hidden in the shadows or pointed fingers and are now responsible for cleaning up the very mess they created.

Time to Start Doing the Right Thing

2008-11-12T15:05:00.001-05:00

Isn't it time to start doing the right thing?

The scales of justice have tipped against Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) in his trial. He was found guilty on all counts. In the old days (whenever those days were), the right, honorable thing for the sitting politician to do was step down. But today the old bear has come out swinging, indicating that he will seek reelection.

If ever there were a time for the leadership in the Republican Party to put principle before politics, it’s now. Now is the time for every officer to call for Stevens’s resignation.

The senator should have done that the moment a jury of his peers found him guilty. I personally felt he should have stepped down sooner, when he was indicted, but that time has long since come and gone.

Why? We’re beyond the bounds of judicial proceedings and all the trappings of what constitutes a fair trial. There’s no question that Sen. Stevens received a fair trial, but that’s beside the point.

Stevens is a public figure and an icon in the party. Yet that party is in a state of total disarray and chaos now, partly because members like him flout the law, break it seemingly without shame, and then defy the consequences for as long as they think they can. That’s not consistent with serving the public good; it’s petty, selfish and personifies stupidity.

Alaskans are known for their independence. And they love to defy what conventional wisdom teaches. But Sen. Stevens knows better, and the Republican Party knows better.

Tolstoy once wrote, “Everyone thinks of changing the world but no one thinks of changing himself.” The change the GOP needs must begin from within. Set the example today! The first steps toward a Republican Renaissance begin with what the party and its supporters do with scofflaws like Ted Stevens. If they don’t, it will breed even more cynicism and doubt regarding the party’s ability to lead this nation through any moral test.

The Manufacturing and Selling of Obama

2008-11-12T14:58:00.000-05:00

So what makes Obama sell?

Is it that his style is fresh? Does the fact that he is not another white man running for president excite much of the electorate? His look is definitely original. His image portrays the essence of youth and exuberance. His rhetoric sculpts a catchy headline for the Fourth Estate and the world.

Although McCain attempted to sell his “maverick-ability,” he carries himself like an old politician. Despite the fact that he looks like your average elected official, he attempts to market his policies as refreshed and against the traditional grain. Frankly, though, policies don’t motivate the average American to pick up a magazine off the stand. People want a pretty face, a man who appears powerful. Wow — this sounds like an American beauty pageant!

As a result, many voters are blinded by the pretty pictures and shiny objects, thereby losing sight of what's important — the issues. Although this perception may seem to be a reality, it does not necessarily translate into an actuality. Simply because someone appears on the cover as presidential and powerful does not mean he would make an effective commander in chief. Only when we turn the page past the cover, past the publicity to find the heart of his policies and the motivation behind his philosophies can we truly determine the candidate’s suitability for our nation’s highest office.

The fact that the media makes him appear as a leader and ready to navigate us through these rough waters is meaningless until he’s tested by real-life situations and then thrust into making critical decisions. Again, are we voting in a beauty contest, or are we electing the next commander in chief in next week's presidential election?

The Worst is Still Yet to Come

2008-10-24T15:49:00.001-04:00

The bad news about our nation's economic crisis is that we haven't begun even to smell, let alone see, the true impact of this nightmare. Even in its roller-coaster shifting, we still can't imagine where this financial tsunami will take us. People haven't begun to realize the losses they will suffer when this is finally over.

Today will be another bloodbath on the capital markets, and all signs indicate it will be another tough day for investors. Basically, the market hasn't come to the realization that the losses in the Collaterized Debt Obligation (CDO) market are in some cases two and three times larger than the principal invested.

Increasing debt limits to cover the principal is nowhere near solving this calamity; in fact, we're probably exacerbating it. The fundamentals of the credit market are currently being changed by government intervention. This epiphany may lead to another panic and huge sell-off in the equities market as well as the forced liquidation of commodity holdings.

They will need this immediate liquidation in order to receive more U.S. dollars necessary to pay for losses in the CDO market. This will lead to lower commodity prices, which would lead consumers into believing that the current inflation of our money supply is no longer a problem.

Once this trade begins to fully unwind, then history's greatest inflation of the money supply will have an even greater impact on Main Street. This will take at least months and probably years to come to fruition. But believe this: The die has been cast and the bloodletting has begun.

The Markets Have Already Spoken About the Next President

2008-10-24T15:40:00.000-04:00

The wild swings on Wall Street every day are almost to be expected, but they still are hard to stomach by even the most seasoned investors.

The extreme volatility in the markets, however, is very telling about the attitude of businesses, consumers and the larger investment community. In other words, no one seems to be optimistic about Nov. 4 and what is in store for the country in the months and years to come — whether the leadership is Republican or Democrat.

Why? Think Finance 101. The “efficient market theory” is one of the fundamental tenets of finance that suggests prices for assets like stocks and bonds reflect all known information. If that hypothesis holds true, the markets have already given their vote of confidence — or lack thereof — on both candidates.

It seems that the daily capitulation and multiyear lows in the capital markets are a reflection that investors have little confidence about the state of our economy in the coming months — regardless who is elected as commander in chief on Nov. 4. This does not bode well for consumers, businesses or the new administration.

Do any of you reading this blog truly believe that Obama or McCain will have an immediate positive impact on the market if elected? Considering Sen. Obama's inexperience in understanding how global economies work and what he's now proposing economically for the country, this could spell further doom and disaster for the world economy. On the other hand, McCain may have the experience, but does he have the temperament and discipline to leave well enough alone until the market corrects itself?

I would welcome feedback from you sophisticates with strong opinions on who is best to guide us through this economic tsunami. Please don't spew the party lines in responding, just give us hard facts and figures that makes sense as we move dangerously ahead.

Biden vs. Palin

2008-10-22T12:07:00.001-04:00

Why is Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) getting a huge pass from the elite media and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) being ridiculed as the world watches?

While one has to acknowledge that the biased media has used her selection to weaken McCain's chances of capturing the White House, they certainly haven't succeeded in diminishing her qualifications, experience and good nature with everyday Americans.

The latest from Mr. Biden, suggesting that Barack Obama would face a "generated crisis" early on if he is elected, is only the beginning of his gaffes. Imagine how the media would have pounced on Palin for saying something so outrageous. What's even more pathetic is supposedly credible media giant NBC News refuses to air Biden's remarks.

Why are we continuously allowing the outrageously prejudiced and unashamedly biased media and Obama PR machine to manipulate us into believing that Biden, not Palin, is the best choice for vice president in this upcoming election?

If one closely examines Biden’s record and past predictions, the outcome would be downright frightening. The Democratic VP nominee’s solution for Iraq was to divide the country into four provinces so that each of the factions could have their own jurisdiction, rather than the united country that they have now. The reason he's known as the gaffe machine is because he puts his mouth in gear before putting his brain in gear. Is this really the kind of individual we want sitting in the Oval Office?

While Biden gets no scrutiny from the press, Palin is being lynched and hammered on the hour. Regardless of how you feel about the Alaska governor, can you honestly say that this is fair and balanced?

Even though Sarah Palin doesn't come from the elite (Harvard, Yale, Stanford) class, her background and values are those of middle-class and everyday Americans. Interestingly enough, that is a concept that is fairly new to us and it's difficult for the elite and non-elite class to digest. It's difficult for the elite class because they’ve always had control and difficult for non-elites because they've always accepted being ruled by an elite class that is clearly out of touch.

As I think about this more, it has been the elites who have and continue to destroy the world and its system of values and virtues. Unfortunately, people just don't adjust to change as well — as demonstrated by the fact that Obama, who is supposedly the change candidate, surrounds himself with the liberal elite establishment from the East and West coasts, whereas when McCain selected someone outside of that group, she is pilloried. Pilloried for not being the kind of person that the elite and the so-called intellectuals of this country feel she should be.

Go back and think about all the things that Biden has said that have been false and laughable and are being ignored in this campaign. Many people, including this pundit, are beginning to wonder out loud that maybe having Palin as vice president is not such a bad idea compared to what the country would be in store for with Biden.

Mayday! Mayday! Do your own examination of these candidates and draw your own conclusions. Just don't allow yourself to be horse-whipped by the media into believing who and what these candidates really are.

This Election is Far from Over

2008-10-22T12:06:00.001-04:00

It is not a foregone conclusion that this election is over, despite the media and intellectual elites’ effort to make us believe so.

People are still unsure about who Sen. Barack Obama is. I find it amazing that, no matter how charismatic, charming or intellectually superior Barack is, there still remain serious questions about his experience and unapologetic, off-the-charts liberal record.

I still don't see how anyone in their right mind could argue that the senator from Illinois is more experienced and prepared to lead this country than John McCain is. McCain may have many issues that plague him, but leadership, wisdom and having been in the line of fire are not among them. (Sarah Palin is another story, and is definitely hurting his chances of becoming president.)

While Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) is arguably the better of the two candidates on security and foreign policy, this war has had significant domestic economic effects. For one, because of the ongoing conflict, we have been unable to fully exploit the oil resources of Iraq. Moreover, some of Iraq’s neighbors and friends in the U.N., such as Venezuela, have fought us economically, by restricting the oil production from their own reserves. To make matters worse, China’s growing economy has placed increased demands on the world’s already tight energy supply. While not a direct consequence of the Iraq war, this factor has certainly affected the supply and price of oil.

The fact of the matter is that the American electorate has come to view the war on economic, rather than merely political, terms. The threat of terrorism is seen as secondary to America’s economic security.

This is where Obama obtains his major advantage. McCain has admitted that he is not as strong on economic issues. Moreover, his chief economic adviser, former Sen. Phil Gramm, put his foot in his mouth when he demonstrated a complete lack of empathy with the plight of the American worker, calling this a “mental recession” that had no basis in economic reality. The facts on the ground in recent months have certainly indicated otherwise, and further expose McCain to the accusation that he just doesn't get it on domestic economic issues.

If Sen. Obama isn't leading comfortably by six points or more the weekend leading into the election, this could spell a serious upset in the making by Sen. McCain. Word to the wise: Don't count your eggs before they're hatched; just go out and vote for the candidate of your choice.

The Powell Effect

2008-10-22T12:05:00.000-04:00

The ink is barely dry on this morning’s paper and the Obama camp is already hinting that Gen. Colin Powell could play a pivotal role in an Obama administration.

The cynic would say that was exactly what was intended with yesterday’s endorsement. Gen. Powell saw the writing on the wall, and figured he better get while the gettin’ was still good.

I disagree. Colin Powell is an admired friend; one whom I know rises above the political winds and the spoils of victory. If what the cynics say were true, we’d be addressing him as President Powell in the wake of the successful Gulf War.

But as much as I admire and respect him, Powell made the wrong choice yesterday. Unless he’s changed his party affiliation, Gen. Powell is still a Republican, and Sen. Obama is as liberal as they come. Just ask yourself this: If there were a white liberal Democrat running for president against McCain, would Gen. Powell’s decision been any different? Would his announcement on "Meet the Press" been any less prominent? The point is it’s easy to get caught up in the potential significance of this election, and I think that’s what happened with Gen. Powell.

I can’t say I didn’t have similar feelings myself. Sure, when Obama first came on the scene, I felt that sense of history being made. I still do. But there’s so much more that makes a man (or woman) right for the highest office in the land, and frankly, it’s those doubts that should have caused Gen. Powell to give further pause to his decision.

As “electrifying” as President Obama would be, how quickly would that luster wear off should the winter months bring a greater Afghanistan threat? Or the Russians wade deeper into the former Soviet republics? You have to imagine the world’s tyrants will test Obama from day one.

The Illinois state Senate is not the Oval Office. And Gen. Powell would have done well to remember that you don’t put your greenest soldiers on the front lines in the heat of battle.

Debating the D.C. Scholarship Program

2008-10-22T12:04:00.000-04:00

I was in attendance at the last presidential debate at Hofstra University in New York and was most intrigued about the exchange between the two candidates on the D.C. Scholarship program. The attention given to the role of vouchers and school choice in education reform in the last presidential debate notwithstanding, the magnitude of the worldwide financial crisis was a powerful confirmation of the essential importance of choice to the future strength of the United States.

What was most interesting about the debate was Barack Obama's position that we should not find out whether vouchers should play a central role in education reform and state the facts about how vouchers have single-handedly empowered families and drastically improved the educational experience of many young people.

When John McCain raised the D.C. Scholarship program as an example of a successful project to give parents the same choice over schooling that both Sens. McCain and Obama and their wives had themselves enjoyed, Obama's response was that the data do not show that vouchers work — implying that charter schools were the only choice alternative.

But such data as do exist contain strong suggestions of success, and one of the principal purposes of the D.C. program is to provide enough data over a five-year period for the experts to make some definitive judgments in the context of a federally funded and -administered program.

There are privately funded and state-funded programs in several cities. Milwaukee was the pioneer city, where the results have been very positive, and there is a privately funded program in D.C., where studies are also positive but not definitive about the impact on children. The D.C. Scholarship program is designed in part to yield a statistically sound evaluation. The parents in Washington have registered their evaluation, and in their estimation, the program is overwhelmingly successful and has drastically improved their children's educational opportunities.

Time for Accountability on the Hill

2008-10-22T12:03:00.000-04:00

Americans are voting with their wallets like never before.

A record number of Americans are pulling their money — or what’s left of it — out of the stock market. It is not surprising, given that yesterday was the worst day in the stock market since the crash of 1987 and last week was the worst on Wall Street since 1933.

Americans are sitting on more than $1.0 trillion in credit card debt, which is growing by the day, and it seems certain that the recession will be deep, long and painful. Unfortunately, it seems that all of the elixirs that the administration has injected into the economy and financial system cannot restore the confidence needed to stabilize the markets.

But this should not be surprising. Why? Because politicians are asking us to trust that they are capable of fixing the problems and protecting the American consumer, but it was the politicians who created a highly flawed system — starting with housing finance policy and regulation a decade ago — that is crippling the health of the global economy. Ironically, they now want to play watchdog over a solution when they allowed their “solution” from a decade ago to operate essentially without regulation or oversight. In the process, their legal umbrella enabled and facilitated corruption and protected those who enriched themselves, passed risk on to the American public, brought the global financial system to a halt and washed their hands of the matter.

Again, it is not surprising that the American public, corporations and the global financial community are unwilling to commit the much-needed capital to bring the market and economy out of the doldrums when Congress has breached their trust and seems to be above reproach. We cannot expect confidence to be restored until those on the Hill who created this mess step up, take ownership and assume accountability for creating a “solution” that has had less oversight than even the gaming industry. Before Congress goes on its witch hunt on Wall Street, perhaps they should look in the hallowed halls of the Capitol.

What We Can Learn from Paulson’s Leadership

2008-10-22T12:02:00.002-04:00

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has stepped up at the right time not only to inject much-needed liquidity into the financial system, but also to restore confidence throughout global markets.

Paulson has been instrumental in leading a global effort to avert a complete implosion of the global financial system. The unprecedented move in the stock markets yesterday — including the Dow Jones — are a testament that the extraordinary measures by the Treasury, Federal Reserve and FDIC, among other agencies, over the last month have been working to restore confidence in the system.

While many Americans object to Paulson’s efforts as a way to protect friends on Wall Street, it was on Wall Street that he gained an invaluable understanding of the markets, their mechanics, and the dynamics within. We should have greater confidence in his leadership because it is his real-world experience that has enabled him to bring meaningful solutions to the system and provide leadership within the global community.

In fact, it is his mastery of the markets that is in stark contrast to many members of Congress who have testified on the economic matters but clearly do not understand the speeches on this subject that have been prepared for them. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) recent comments have made it clear that she is more interested in her political positioning than understanding what she is saying about the financial market collapse.

Sen. Obama's Myth that Reduction in Defense Spending Can Pay for Social Programs

2008-10-22T12:02:00.001-04:00

The Obama campaign is quick in reminding us that if it were not for the Bush wars overseas in Iraq, we probably could lessen the financial crisis that we're now facing.

Anyone with a grasp of Economics 101 knows that their rhetoric doesn't match the reality of the dire situation that Americans face. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) would have us believe that it's military spending, and not the excessive social programs that he's advocating in his campaign, that will further damage and tank the U.S. economy.

Where is the money going to come from to pay for expensive new social programs that Mr. Obama seems determined to enact if elected? The military budget is an easy target, but even if we cut military spending to its post-war low, that is only .7 percent of GDP.

The United States spends 3.7 percent of its GDP on its military, less than China's 11 percent, more than France's 2.6 percent and less than Saudi Arabia's 10 percent. This is historically low for the United States since it peaked in 1944 at 37.8 percent of GDP (it reached the lowest point of 3 percent in 1999-2001). Even during the peak of the Vietnam War, in 1968, the percentage reached a high of 9.4 percent.

If the military budget is cut and we raise the white flag in Iraq and Afghanistan, it will contribute less than 1 percent of GDP to other programs.

The truth is, the U.S. spends a significantly smaller percentage of its national income on the military, even with the war, than it does on entitlements. Even if the U.S. completely eliminated military spending, our entitlement programs are not able to properly fund in the current form.

Benefits must be adjusted for the times. What we don't need are tax-and-spend politicians, but leadership that is willing to make tough and necessary decisions that will put policies and programs in place to ensure that what we're facing today can't and will not ever happen again.

Bailout Trumped Common Sense

2008-10-10T14:39:00.002-04:00

With the financial markets sinking, Armstrong Williams compares the situation on Wall Street to that of his own family's experiences working a farm. Williams points out that not everyone gets a bailout, so why Wall Street?

Government-Created Jobs Will Put America Back to Work

2008-10-10T14:39:00.001-04:00

When politicians tell voters that the government will create jobs through infrastructure programs, they do not realize that these programs may crowd out jobs in the private sector. The money for these infrastructure projects has to come from somewhere to pay for those government jobs.

When the government raises taxes to pay for “new” government-sponsored jobs, it takes that money from private businesses or consumers, thus reducing jobs in the private sector. Thus, usually, government spending does not result in a net increase in total jobs in the economy. Maintaining and upgrading our decaying infrastructure is important as an investment in our economy. It should not be a jobs-creation program but an investment program.

As most of us know, the government is not noted for its efficient use of taxpayer money. Compare the U.S. Post Office to Federal Express and UPS. Look at the $500 toilet seats purchased by the Pentagon and the infamous Alaskan Bridge to nNowhere. Construction projects usually cost more than in the private sector because of pork barrel requirements such as living wage requirements, union requirements, complex bidding procedures and the latest lobbyists’ pet requirement.

Under the best of circumstances, the government does not spend money as efficiently as the private sector or consumers. Consequently, it is generally more efficient to let consumers and private businesses spend their hard-earned money where they see fit rather than have the government spend it for them.

Americans Let Pundits Sway their Votes

2008-10-10T14:38:00.001-04:00

Armstrong Williams says that Americans are allowing the pundits and the news media to influence and sway their opinions of the presidential candidates.

There Was No Bailout; It is a Rescue Plan

2008-10-10T14:37:00.000-04:00

Many people (including Yours Truly) were concerned that the $700 billion rescue plan was a coordinated effort to bail out the Wall Street executives whose firms contributed to the crisis that has consumed the global economy.

The more recent emergency measures by the Federal Reserve and central banks around the world since then should be evidence that the bailout was, in fact, a desperate but much-needed measure to keep the financial system intact and the infrastructure afloat. Furthermore, the abysmal performance of securities exchanges around the world serves as a good litmus test that this crisis goes well beyond the concern of executive compensation and golden parachutes.

No doubt, naysayers will pounce on the myriad examples — such as AIG’s $400K boondoggle after the government stepped in to save it — in an attempt to prove that the package is flawed and it is propping up the perpetrators of our economy’s financial crimes.

Of course it is. But the absence of even the most “flawed” plan would have been cataclysmic. There will be time enough to go back and point fingers, place blame and prosecute those who have been reckless with our money. Until then, Paulson, Bernanke, et al are taking the drastic measures to keep historians from rewriting textbooks about the Great Depression as the worst economic disaster in our history.

The Debate that Really Won’t Matter

2008-10-10T14:36:00.000-04:00

Unless Barack Obama really chokes, tonight’s debate really won’t move the needle of public opinion in John McCain’s favor. Oh, plenty of Americans will be watching, but I would wager that a dwindling few of them remain truly “undecided.” This month’s financial mess has served to crystallize in voters’ minds what they were sensing in their guts for far longer — that the Republican Party just isn’t up to the task of addressing the serious issues facing our nation right now.

To be clear, that’s not to say that the GOP can’t return to its once-dominant role as the party of prosperity. But for now, Americans aren’t buying what Republicans, at any level, are selling.

The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced this goes beyond just having a bad year of Abramoff-type scandals, bathroom-stall encounters and federal indictments. Those don’t help, but the larger problem is one of losing their own identity.

The party I knew fought against wasteful spending at all costs; they didn’t take the path of least resistance when faced with tough choices, as congressional Republicans often did with Bush in the White House. I’m not piling on here, but we all know the first step toward recovery …

So why does this matter to John McCain, you ask? After all, he’s the un-Bush, the one who takes on establishment Republicans. Well, yes and no. Yes, he is an independent-minded thinker, but he’s still brushed with the same coat of paint that has stained the entire party this election cycle. And no, in these final four weeks, McCain will not need to go on the offensive, and that means trotting out some tired lines about the tax-and-spend liberal tendencies of Obama. That sort of hackneyed message just doesn’t appeal to the glassy-eyed hopes of young voters.

Irrespective of his policies and their impact on the electorate, Sen. Obama has elevated above those arguments. Tonight’s debate once more will allow him to look presidential. And that’s why you won’t see too much movement in the polls later this week.

Taxing the Rich is a Free Ride for Middle-Class Taxpayers

2008-10-10T14:35:00.000-04:00

Voters are told by politicians that the government can raise more money by increasing taxes on the rich. However, they must follow the logical progression of the effect of higher taxes on the rich to see the true impact.

For example, increasing taxes reduces the number of jobs in the private sector. Higher taxes mean the rich have less money to spend for goods provided by the private sector and less money to invest. Less money spent in private-sector consumption means few private-sector jobs. (Housekeepers, gardeners, artists, jewelers and high-end restaurant personnel need to begin looking for new jobs!) Less money to invest means less money in the bank that can be loaned to consumers for homes. It also means less money is available for businesses to expand and hire more people.

Taxing the rich does not hurt those who are already wealthy as much as it does those hardworking young people with the drive and intelligence who add the most value to our society and who are trying to become wealthy. It is the entrepreneurs and small-business people in the U.S. who provide the bulk of the jobs and most of the country’s growth. If the entrepreneurs and small businesses have less money from their enterprises, they will have less money to invest in their business and therefore will hire fewer employees. If taxes are high enough, they may even decide the risk of being an entrepreneur and small-business person is not worth the risks.

Historically, the Laffer Curve shows us that when marginal tax rates are increased, the government generally takes in less revenue as taxes because people modify behavior to reduce taxable income in order to pay less taxes, and there is less economic activity creating income. Americans are not generally aware that the wealthy pay more taxes when rates are low than when rates are high. In 2006, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid 60 percent of all income taxes while earning 37 percent of the income. The bottom 50 percent of taxpayer paid 3 percent of income taxes. The wealthy paid a much lower percentage of income taxes in the 1960s and 1970s when marginal tax rates where much higher.

Regulation and the Law of Unintended Consequences

2008-10-10T14:34:00.001-04:00

The current financial crisis is a result of the law of unintended consequences of two political policies promoted by both Republicans and Democrats since the Great Depression: 1) encouraging homeownership for all Americans regardless of whether they can afford the costs and 2) over-regulation of the financial community. Both policies have turned into a deceptively sweet bubble of air in the veins of the economy.

First, the government artificially inflated residential real estate sales through several laudable — but sloppily executed — policies such as: 1) tax breaks on interest and property taxes for homeowners; 2) implicit government guarantees of the debt of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase conforming home mortgage loans; 3) relaxed credit standards on home mortgage loans permitted by the banking regulators; and 4) encouragement of the collateralization and sale of mortgages to investors.

In the short term, these policies had the beneficial effect of subsidizing housing costs and injecting extra liquidity into the housing market. Over the long term, these policies weakened the economy by inflating housing prices and by encouraging the financial community to make risky loans to homeowners who would not otherwise get a loan in the unregulated mortgage market. The results, as we now see, are disastrous.

Specifically, American consumers were encouraged to buy homes whether they could afford them or not. Homeowners were also lulled into believing that homeownership was an investment and not a housing expense. The annual costs of homeownership with mortgage payment, property taxes, insurance, utilities and maintenance can be over 10 percent of the value of a home. That means a home has to appreciate more than 10 percent annually in order for it to be a good investment. These housing policies significantly contributed to driving up the prices of residential real estate over the past 20 years. They also contributed to over-leveraged homeowners and more risky mortgage loans held by banks and investors.

Don't think for a moment that the passage of today's federal government's far-reaching and historic plan to bail out the nation's financial system, which President Bush signed into law, will resolve these woes and return our economy to stability. Yes, the House voted 263-171 to make this possible and it's well-known in Washington elite circles that this will only give a temporary reprieve to Wall Street and lobbyists. It will, however, do nothing for everyday Americans who will continue to lose their homes and life savings because of unbelievable greed and highly calculated risks that went South.

Stay tuned: Much more to come.

Obama Stretching His Lead

2008-10-02T13:41:00.000-04:00

I like to make predictions. It’s in my blood. I predicted the Redskins would defeat the Dallas Cowboys Sunday in Dallas. Oh, I didn’t tell anyone because I love my ’Boys, but I (sadly) got that one right, too.

And so I’m making another prediction today — Barack Obama will continue to dominate the campaign high ground for the next few weeks, perhaps stretching his lead to as much as double digits.

I know this for two primary reasons. First, the narrative of this financial crisis facing America plays to Sen. Obama’s strengths — he’s measured and thoughtful in his responses and in the principles he lays out. Some would argue that he’s been too vague, but that’s what presidents do — set priorities and let the bean-counters sort through the numbing details.

Second, the Republican brand continues to haunt John McCain and his campaign. Countless times over this week you heard the phrases “Bush administration” and “Republican-led Congress” of the past eight years presiding over this ticking time bomb. As my momma likes to say, “the chickens have come home to roost” on this one, and, whether the blame is well-placed or not, the Republicans are bearing the brunt of this bailout criticism.

The Obama machine will roll again today with the Biden-Palin debates. Sen. Biden is an institution in this town, and he knows how to rabbit-punch verbally. And while Sarah Palin is the journey-woman who puts the human touch in John McCain, she’ll get her lunch handed to her tonight if she performs as poorly as she has lately with the national press corps. Say what you will about the networks, but they only ask the questions. It’s up to the candidates to pivot and parlay meaningful responses that strike at the heart of why they deserve elected office. I know Sarah Palin has that fire in her belly; I just fear I won’t see it in tonight's debate.

Oh by the way, why aren’t the Republicans and fair-minded individuals demanding the removal of Gwen Ifill from moderating this debate? If Obama-Biden win in November, she will hit a financial jackpot with her soon-to-be-released (Random House) high-praise book about Sen. Obama.

Wow, only in America. Random House is laughing all the way to the bank. Clink … Clink … Clink.

The Other ‘M’ Word

2008-10-02T13:40:00.002-04:00

America has heard a lot of talk this month about “meltdowns” and the financial calamities that await us if the Congress doesn’t act soon and with a singular voice that our credit markets are going to be all right.

But have you all been paying attention to what’s taking place off the stock exchange? First it was Bank of America’s announcement that it was buying Merrill Lynch. Then Washington Mutual collapsed and will no doubt get folded into another entity. Then Citigroup bought banking giant Wachovia.

Detecting a pattern here? All the major customer banks in this country are consolidating into so-called superbanks, or the other ‘M’ word — monopolies.

The Consumer Federation of America is not so sure this is a good idea. Much like the airline industry, banks compete for customers’ attention and their dollars. They offer neat perks such as free checking or no fees on withdrawals from ATMs. Didn’t like the rate your bank’s credit card offered you? No problem, just threaten to take your business elsewhere. See, that’s the beauty of so many mom-and-pop banks to go along with the mega ones — we could price-shop and get a better deal. The Federation fears we’ll lose that ability, to some extent or another, and I’m inclined to think they’re correct.

The jury is still out for me on whether I like this move or not. I do know one thing, however — a functioning bank sure beats no bank; or long lines of angry customers on bank runs to retrieve their savings, like the Indy Bank episode earlier this year. That’s bad news, and something we can ill afford. In fact, we’ve been seeing secret bank runs now, as individuals try to get their deposits under the FDIC-insured $100,000 level in order to have some guaranteed protections. Raising that deposit rate, as both candidates have endorsed, is a good idea.

But one final political point: For decades, I’ve heard Democrats rail against the power of “Big Oil” and “Big Business” and “Big HMOs.” It now appears that “Big Banks” will be added to their litany, and Democrats will only have themselves to blame. But they hope you will forget that minor sticking point as they demagogue the issue in future tirades and accusations of bank greed. They won’t remember this move was a matter of sheer survival, so it’s up to us to remind them …

Not Enough Known About Obama

2008-10-02T13:40:00.001-04:00

Looking at the presidential candidates, Armstrong Williams says that Americans just don't know enough about Sen. Barack Obama's record, campaign, and what he is really saying on the campaign trail.

The Cost of Business as Usual on the Hill

2008-10-02T13:39:00.001-04:00

Congress once again could not get out of its own way as it failed to pass the critical $700 billion rescue plan.

It seems no one on the Hill is willing to acknowledge the gravity of the financial crisis, because there seems to be no urgency to take the much-needed action to keep our entire financial system afloat. If Congress really understood how crippling this crisis is, they would know that inaction has a price as well.

As the broader stock markets tumbled, more than $1.2 trillion of value was lost — well beyond the cost of the proposed package. Instead, both sides of the aisle are more worried about pushing their agenda and pointing the finger at the other party in an effort to find blame or shirk responsibility.

Now is not the time for business as usual on the Hill; there will be time enough to show that the nature of our political system — both Republican and Democrat — is to blame.

In the meantime, what is striking is that many members of Congress expressed concern about giving too much “power” to the Department of Treasury for fear that Secretary Henry Paulson would abuse the position. It seems instead that Congress has abused its power to jockey for position while letting the markets, confidence and hope for Americans fall further.

If I were a member of Congress, I would quickly acknowledge or even concede (gasp!) that the financial and market experts don’t reside in the hallowed halls on the Hill, but rather with the Treasury, the Fed, and the leadership in those offices. Now let them do their jobs.

What’s Left to Decide? An October Surprise, Maybe?

2008-09-29T13:54:00.002-04:00

After watching the first presidential debate, it's becoming crystal-clear that no matter what, the majority of Republicans will always hail McCain the victor and Democrats who support Sen. Obama are emphatic that he has more intelligence and a grasp of the issues and that he won the debate quite handily.

It's becoming increasingly clear that none of us has any idea what the outcome will be on Election Day. You can listen to the pundits, so-called experts, and the camps of the candidates themselves and still, I believe, this is a razor’s-edge close race.

Advocates of Obama have no intention of voting for anyone but the senator from Illinois; McCain's supporters are equally steadfast. There has been a lot of hype over this election, with Obama potentially becoming the first American black president and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin potentially becoming the first female vice president. However, there's no doubt that the Palin fervor has worn off, and in this allegedly progressive country, many are finding it amusing that Palin is being attacked as being underqualified on the basis of her gender. What's even more shocking are the accusations that she's not a woman because she doesn't believe in abortion. Apparently, we are so progressive in this country that we presume to tell people how they should think based upon their outward appearance.

We must admit, though, that Palin's interviews of late have been less compelling and in some instances less than flattering. If she doesn't step up her substantive game in the upcoming vice presidential debate, it may completely blow up in their faces. As compelling as the first presidential debate was, the McCain camp has to be on the edge about what to expect from Palin in Tuesday's debate.

Due to the staunchness of the supporters, all of this additional campaigning is to sway undecided voters. Who in the world are these undecided voters? What on earth is left to decide? Do you actually think between now and November that these candidates are going to say something new and revolutionary?

What are you undecided voters waiting for? Are you trying to convince us that you haven't seen enough in the campaign, debates and other forums? I think most have decided and are unwilling publicly to admit it. If you're one of the so-called undecided voters, write and tell me: What are you hoping to see that is going to close this voting deal for you?

Please, anyone, what in God's name is left for any of these candidates to do that will swing you to their camp? Ooh, wow, there could be another October presidential election bombshell — we are always treated to one in the highly anticipated month of October — but will it be enough to affect the race and reveal a clear winner?

Debate Dos and Don’ts

2008-09-29T13:54:00.001-04:00

There’s still no word on whether tonight’s presidential debate will proceed as planned.

Personally, I feel that if Sen. McCain doesn't show, it will prove disastrous for his campaign. His calls to put “country first” and return to Washington to help broker a deal earlier this week was the proper, presidential thing to do. But yesterday’s antics have caused a new wrinkle in this vignette, and the appearance has shifted almost 180 degrees to where both his and Obama’s insertions are having an almost deleterious effect.

I could write an entirely separate column on the optics of yesterday’s meltdown at the White House, but for now, I want to highlight a brief playbook on what each candidate must do tonight:

McCain:

Elaborate on Afghanistan — There’s no cleaner or clearer link with the war on terror and in Iraq right now than Afghanistan. And frankly, the Democrats have scored a lot of political points bashing the Bush administration and Republicans on the “real war in Afghanistan.”

While very small and myopic, they do have a point. And we all know where McCain stands on Iraq, so what he should do tonight is contrast and compare that vision with what he hopes to do in Afghanistan. This also lets him return to the one thing Americans want most out of the Middle East — Osama bin Laden’s head on a platter. Every person I know thinks OBL is hiding in some cave in Afghanistan, just there for the taking. McCain should address that fact and lay out the significance of Afghanistan as part of his larger plan in that part of the world.

Lay out the beginnings of a McCain Doctrine — McCain doesn’t need to coin some catchy foreign policy phrase tonight, such as “containment,” but he does need to discuss how his vision will restore America’s place in the world — both in a humanitarian sense as well as reasserting its economic hegemony through trade and a stronger dollar. Yes, our economic situation has roiled markets across the globe, and touching (albeit briefly) on the economy tonight allows the senator to get a free plug in for his economic vision — an area where he is decidedly weaker.

Keep his cool — Put simply, when McCain gets mad, he looks bad. He looks old, even. So he must not clench his jaw when Obama says some outlandish things. But at the same time, he can’t smile that Reagan “there you go again” smile either, because that looks condescending.

Sen. Obama:

Be broad, yet specific — If there was one criticism of his grand speech in Germany earlier this year, it was the fact that Sen. Obama spoke largely in glowing terms (mostly about every country but his own), yet offered very few specifics on how America was going to play a prominent role in foreign policy. He needs to borrow a page from Sen. McCain’s playbook and assert that America can and should lead in the most dangerous parts of the world.

As for being broad, Obama needs to show he has a fundamental understanding of countries around the world. So mention Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and then weave them together in a larger vision for the world in an Obama administration. Right now, when it comes to foreign policy, the majority of Americans just know Obama wants to bring the troops home. That’s not leadership, and it falls short of having true foreign policy bona fides.

Don ’t ramble — This is one area where Obama sounds and acts more like Joe Biden than any other. His lofty, rambling rhetoric may work on the stump or in a steamy church on Sunday morning, but it won’t work during the debates. Obama needs to answer the question, and then allow viewers to see some of the thought process that went into his decision. But these are debates, not speeches, and there’s little time to massage answers like we all did with our college term papers.

Sound less like a Democrat — I’ve noticed lately that Sen. Obama is sounding more and more like your run-of-the-mill Democrat. They’re not exactly known to be foreign policy experts when you look back through the years. No, what makes him unique and different is his supposedly “fresh” vision for the world, so he needs to exhibit more of that this evening.

No Time for ‘Politics as Usual’

2008-09-25T13:51:00.002-04:00

The U.S. economy is teetering on the edge of a cliff — with a hungry bear nipping at its heels. Yet, we cannot turn around and return from where we came — that would be as disastrous as stepping off the cliff.

We have but two choices — turn right or turn left. However, we have no time to contemplate what might await us at either turn. There is no time to debate what the optimal solution might be because stepping off the cliff or awaiting the bear to come upon us are not viable options.

Bush, Paulson and Bernanke have put forward a monumental and historic plan that many seem eager to debate or find flaw with. It might not be hard to do — but what politician can’t find flaw in the other party’s plan? The problem is the crisis facing the U.S. economy and the American public is so dire that such rhetoric will surely push the economy over the cliff or render us helpless to the fast approaching bear.

Business as usual on Capitol Hill is not an option. Any inaction or delay will have the same unimaginable end result for the economy. The leadership behind the plan is showing that they are doing what is needed — at least in the short term — to prevent imminent economic disaster. We can debate how we got here and who is to blame at a later date — we do not have time for that now.

The principal element of the proposed government solution is that the government is investing in — not simply bailing out — defaulting loans, including mortgages. This is critical to restoring confidence in the capital markets and unfreezing the credit markets, which are the foundation for keeping businesses viable.

While it may seem that Wall Street and its executives are being bailed out as well, that too is open for debate at a later date. In the short term, we cannot afford not to take action. We cannot afford to succumb to politics as usual. Keep in mind that the architects of this plan were very savvy to structure this as an investment because it creates considerable upside or potential profit over the long term.

There is so much that we and our political leaders can argue about regarding a $700 billion economic plan. It is not surprising given the crisis we are facing. But there is a time and place for everything. Now is the time to do what needs to be done because by not doing anything our fate is that we're quickly approaching another Great Depression.

Looking Presidential

2008-09-25T13:51:00.001-04:00

The McCain camp has just announced that it is suspending the campaign and getting down to the business of the country and this debilitating financial crisis we’re facing.

Now we’re talking! That’s the most presidential move I’ve seen since the Russian invasion of Georgia. I’d be willing to wager that McCain made this call on his own.

That’s the type of guy he is. Damn the consequences, there are some things more important than rushing around the country merely talking about this issue and spewing a lot of populist rhetoric.

The timing couldn’t be more perfect. After endless hours on Capitol Hill, a weak Bush administration is having trouble selling this plan even to members of its own party, let alone Democrats — who never miss an opportunity to pummel the POTUS on behalf of the little guy.

I like this play by McCain. But I honestly don’t think it’s calculated. We’re in a mess, and the best way to steer us out of this nosedive is to sit in a chair with the country’s leaders and get up to speed on options.

Isn’t that what we would expect from either one of the candidates when they’re president? So why would Obama not follow McCain’s lead now? If he doesn’t, he’s traded another day of politicking for God-knows-what in the financial markets.

It’s time to start looking presidential on this issue, even if some on the campaign trail aren’t acting that way …

America Must Admit Recession

2008-09-24T15:00:00.003-04:00

Armstrong Williams says America needs to recognize it is in an economic recession and Americans should exercise personal accountability.

The Great American Bailout of Wall Street

2008-09-24T14:58:00.000-04:00

It seems that we all can take a collective sigh of relief now that the U.S. government is stepping in to bail out Wall Street from its corrupt schemes over the past decade.

But be sure that the government does not want to play this game. This stunning move by the leaders of our country was the response to executives on Wall Street warning of a complete financial collapse that could have made the events in the 1920s seem tame.

I see that the wizards of Wall Street are held to the same standards as weathermen — they can be wrong, very wrong, but still get paid for a job poorly done. The difference is weathermen can do nothing about Mother Nature and are prisoners of her whims. By contrast, Wall Street executives are rewarded to orchestrate ways to make millions — and even billions — of dollars for themselves, put our financial system at risk, and then leave carnage behind.

Just think about it: They will get to keep their billions of dollars in bonuses and there is absolutely nothing regulators, or anyone, for that matter, can do in demanding it back. Sadly, it was not too long ago that headlines in the news touted that Wall Street bonuses would be down from tens of millions to millions. Woe unto Wall Street. Thank you, American taxpayer. When did we ever have any say in owing these corrupt financial institutions?

But this story is not uncommon. I remember as a child at school that chaos would ensue in the classroom when the teacher left. It seems that Wall Street is no better behaved when they don’t follow the rules or lament about being overly regulated. Food fight, anyone?

It’s Time for Some Specifics

2008-09-18T14:56:00.000-04:00

With the announcement recently of the federal bailout of insurance titan AIG, this country’s financial house continues to shake on shifting sands.

That decision marks the fifth major company where the Feds have had to step in and exercise damage control. I have to be candid when I say I’m disappointed in the anemic responses from our two presidential contenders. I know these are heady issues with a lot of complex, moving parts and econometric repercussions, but that’s what leadership is all about — stepping in and calling some shots. It’s the same scenario and expectation of our candidates when they spoke up regarding Russia’s invasion of Georgia. They each made a specific, compelling case for their respective sides, and let the public decide which plan made the most sense.

On this domestic crisis, I’m really only hearing more political pabulum. I think Sen. Obama said “Wall Street greed” for the 79th time in three days yesterday. And you can bet he said more than that in the tony Beverly Hills homes of the mega-wealthy last night while Lehman employees packed it in.

It’s high time we heard some specific policy proposals from Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain. Just how would they “end corporate greed” that got us in this mess? If it took the better part of 16 months to figure out where, exactly, this all began, do they honestly think putting a stop to corporate golden parachutes and allowing more transparency in the system are the magical cures?

C’mon. To his credit, Sen. McCain was calling for some massive reforms to Fannie and Freddie as early as 2005. That counts for something in my book, because it shows he’s paying attention.

But let’s check all the populist happy-talk at the door now and start issuing some well-conceived plans on cleaning up this financial mess. After all, both of these guys say they’re ready to lead on day one. Well, it looks like you have your shot, about 63 days early …

Simplify Laws

2008-09-17T16:04:00.001-04:00

Surely, good laws and regulations are essential in ensuring orderly societal direction and providing for the public good. A just, sound legal system can, in many ways, foster entrepreneurship and international trade. And by protecting the rights of minorities, they exemplify the best that Western civilization has to offer.

One idea for simplification would be to abolish progressive taxation and institute a single flat tax on all personal and business income. The Bible teaches us to tithe 10 percent of our income. It does not ask one person to tithe more of his income if he is rich and less of his income if he is poor. By tithing 10 percent, each pays to the common trust an equal proportion of his means. This practice alone would virtually eliminate the need for the army of accountants, tax lawyers and government agencies dedicated to enforcing the laws of this country.

The second approach would be to simplify the legal process. A common citizen should not need to hire a lawyer simply to enforce a contract or vindicate some other legal right. He should be able to enter a court of law with the full confidence that his argument will be heard.

Dismissive tort judgments against corporations should also be eliminated. Of course, corporations should have to pay compensation for wrongs committed in the course of doing business, but the consequences should be foreseeable, fair and closely tailored to redressing the harm committed. As it stand now, class-action lawsuits and excessive jury awards end up making lawyers rich at the expense of justice itself. They create bitter, intractable legal battles that tie up court resources and increase the complexity of the system.

Less Government is the Answer

2008-09-17T15:59:00.001-04:00

Promising every person in America a college education will not necessarily solve our talent dilemma.

As it stands now, we are forced to either export many of our technical industries abroad or rely on a broken immigration bureaucracy to import talent to America. Meanwhile, the rest of the developed world and much of the developing world has far surpassed America in developing the math and science talent needed to keep us competitive.

Assuring that everyone, irrespective of talent or dedication, can have access to a college education does not solve this problem. Rather, imposing rigorous standards in early education assures that students’ talents and abilities are nurtured and honed before they reach the college level.

As it stands, there are more than enough private and public resources to ensure that those who are qualified have a decent opportunity to go to college. The problem with our education really exists on the primary and secondary levels, where social promotion and under-resourced teachers have left our children behind the curve.

Finally, in assessing our government, we must think to the principles we expect of ourselves as individuals. We must stop to consider whether the love of leisure, worldly acclaim and personal fortune are more attractive to us than love of country, personal accountability and respect for our spirit. We should not look to our future in the pop icons of today, which will very soon be utterly forgotten, but in the timeless, disembodied principles that our creator has instilled within us to help guide us in times of turbulence and peril.

We are in uncharted financial crisis waters.

2008-09-15T13:54:00.000-04:00

We are in uncharted financial crisis waters.

In my 20 years in the financial communities, I've never seen so many major financial institutions going belly-up in such a short and record amount of time.

Let's call the roll: Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae, Merrill Lynch and (rumor now has it) WAMU and AIG.

This is like the worst hangover you've ever had from binge drinking at a college party. The cause of this, in my judgment, started with an overinflated real estate market. Then the balloon burst and the collateral damage included homeowners with burdensome mortgages and the financial institutions that participated, both directly and indirectly, in real estate financing.

The culprits in the real estate boom included the U.S government, which gave its implicit guarantees to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, thereby causing them to make poor credit decisions and become overleveraged; the banking regulators who forced financial institutions to write down mortgages that were below collateral value but still performing and thereby impaired the capital of the financial institutions; the Wall Street financial institutions, which encouraged improvident lending standards and underwrote and sold the resulting debt to trusting investors who believed their securities had better underlying collateral and credit than they did; and, lastly, the American homeowners, who took the bait of easy money and acquired more real estate than they could afford.

In other words, you can pass this blame and shame to our entire governing society that permitted and watched as this nightmare unfolded. This didn't occur overnight; it occurred over a period of 10 to 20 years. Which basically means it will take time for the market to correct the problems generated by this crisis. How much time? If I knew the answer, I would be the wealthiest man on the planet.

Mayday! Mayday! Abandon ship! Our financial institutions and markets are sinking, with your investments and savings along with them. Abandon ship.

L.A. Killing Fields

2008-09-15T13:51:00.000-04:00

Is justice an anomaly in the illegal immigration debate?

If you live in a sanctuary city it certainly is. In regard to the police, a sanctuary city is premised on a “don’t ask, don’t tell” philosophy.

How does this play out in practice? If an illegal immigrant is arrested, no one will know because immigration status will never come up in the conversation, resulting in the release of dangerous illegal immigrants on the American public. The Shaw family of Los Angeles knows this scenario all too well.

Jamiel Shaw, a 17-year-old all-around standout athlete and model citizen, was recklessly gunned down by 19-year-old Pedro Espinoza in Los Angeles. Espinoza, an illegal immigrant and member of the 18th Street gang, gunned Shaw down without reason. Most troubling is the fact that he had been released from county jail after serving time for assault with a deadly weapon.

Pedro Espinoza’s motive for killing Jamiel Shaw is clear. BK — an acronym for Black Killer— was tattooed on his neck with the B crossed out.

The crossed-out B is his claim of having killed black people. For these natural-born assassins, part of the initiation is to go out and randomly kill someone who is black for no reason at all.

This incident and many similar to this should never happen in this country. Espinoza, who was also raised in the American juvenile system, should have been deported early on due to his run-ins with the law.

Sanctuary cities are visibly a threat to our national security. Deadly and criminally intent illegal immigrants should not have a right to stay in America. Antonio Villaraigosa, the mayor of Los Angeles, has no answer for the Jamiel Shaw family. He is clearly playing to his base. After all, Los Angeles has the second-highest population of Mexicans behind Mexico City.

The City of Angels often hears chants from this community that Los Angeles was stolen from them and they're determined to take it back by any means necessary.

Sad to say, the Shaw family and many other families are facing an uphill battle in California. Regardless, their stories needs to be known, so that others who live in cities on the verge of turning sanctuary will fight back.

It’s the States that Matter Most

2008-09-12T12:44:00.001-04:00

There’s no question the post-convention bounce Republicans enjoyed exceeded insider expectations, even mine. And as the days out on the hustings drag on, and Sarah Palin heads back to Alaska, several in Washington are wondering: Just how long is the shelf life on the McCain-Palin lead?

Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll today shows the race again in a dead heat, tied at 48, including leaners. But even if the other nationwide polls are accurate, and John McCain has a 2-to-3-point lead, it doesn’t really matter unless those national numbers start translating into McCain pulling ahead of Obama in key battleground states.

Sen. Obama was right yesterday when he said that, on a state-by-state analysis, he’s looking pretty good on the path to the presidency; consider that in order for McCain to win, he needs to hold all of the states that went red for George Bush. That means states like Iowa need to vote Republican this year, but that’s not likely, given McCain’s deep and vocal opposition to ethanol, the lifeblood of Iowa farmers.

And then there’s talk that Sen. McCain could actually win the state that resurrected his primary campaign — New Hampshire. Think again … a CNN-Time poll has Obama leading McCain by six points (51-45 percent). In New Mexico, another key swing state won by Bush in 2004, McCain finally has a lead, but only recently did he pull ahead, and it’s within the margin of error (49-47 percent).

The point here is the nationwide bounce the McCain campaign is enjoying of late will amount to nothing if that same enthusiasm doesn’t trickle down to the states that tip the scales in the Electoral College. Sen. McCain’s team knows that; but if they’re fighting for ground that should have been theirs from day one (Virginia, North Carolina, etc.) then their job remains that much more difficult as the clock ticks toward Election Day.

The Palin Factor

2008-09-11T12:22:00.000-04:00

Gov. Palin’s strengths:

1) Palin connects with working-class white women, the same group that delivered nine of 14 primaries to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in the primary stretch run.

2) Palin, with multiple young children at home, connotes motherhood and family; this provides armor, which the Democrats will find tough to pierce. We all have mothers, most of whom we adore, and would never openly criticize.

3) Palin closes the “history” gap; her success is barrier-breaking; this deflates the significance of a Barack Obama presidency.

4) The Democrats are foreclosed from attacking Palin on experience, as Sen. Obama’s (D-Ill.) paucity of statewide experience and absence of executive experience insulate her.

5) The natural arrogance of many Democratic partisans is put on display. They face the potentially fatal quandary of needing the support of working-class white women, but being disconnected from them stylistically, linguistically and culturally.

6) Palin “doubles down” on change: creating a “change ticket” in a change election. It also says that with their first presidential-level decisions, Obama opted for the status quo, while McCain made a bold, change-oriented move.

Furthermore, there are only three major hurdles left for Palin to confront: 1) the debates (which could doom or elevate Palin); 2) an “October surprise”; and 3) the ground game (about which I’m concerned, as Obama obviously has a more entrenched and disciplined grassroots organization). However, McCain just got the “enthusiasm injection” to help build his own grassroots effort.

An Interesting Twist

2008-09-11T12:10:00.000-04:00

Who says President Bush is irrelevant and only a burden to anyone who dares invoke his name? I’ve just finished watching our commander in chief brief the country on the amazing progress our American military continues to make in Iraq. In fact, the progress is so pronounced that another 8,000 soldiers are headed home in the coming weeks. That’s policy with results, and while it certainly helps make John McCain look more prophetic by the day, it poses an interesting dilemma for the Obama camp.

News flash to Sen. Obama — the surge worked! You’re no less a man if you admit it now, and it may even bolster your efforts, to borrow a phrase from JFK, whom the Democrats often like to quote. Yes, folks, the truth is not determined by how many times a phrase is repeated. So Sen. Obama should just face facts and quit this nonsense of denying the surge was responsible for any good deed we’re now witnessing in Iraq.

I suspect he’ll try and change the subject today and in the coming days, but the imagery of troops disembarking from transport planes on American soil in the coming weeks will force Obama’s hand to come to grips with a foreign policy initiative he never fully understood in the first place.

The Strategic Inconsequence of The Race Vote

2008-09-11T12:07:00.001-04:00

I am often on “The Russ Parr Morning Show” discussing Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) fortunes and misfortunes during this presidential campaign. What is intriguing about Parr's audience is that voting for the Democratic Party is seen uniformly as helpful to blacks as a race.

Because American blacks spend much of their time in their own communities, they somehow convince themselves that they constitute a huge voting bloc in America. What's more fascinating is that I do not know of any other community in America, Jewish, Latino, Asian or white, that would, overwhelmingly, to the tune of 90 percent-plus, vote for someone just because they assume others with the same skin color or history of discrimination share their economic, cultural and social interests.

When you really get down to brass tacks and the outcome of the presidential election, the black vote drama and their support of the first American black who has a chance of becoming president is largely overrated.

Everyone knows that blacks would overwhelmingly support the Democratic candidate irrespective of his or her race. And why should the McCain campaign waste valuable resources, especially considering Obama's huge popularity among that voting bloc? The Republicans knew going into this election that they needed another strategy to win. You would think by now that blacks would have figured out why former Presidents Reagan, Bush I and Bush II won despite losing their vote.

It is actually quite simple. Republicans predict success based on their ability to appeal to other minority voting blocs, including women and Latinos, not based on their race or gender, but by appealing to their other interests; whether those are economic, cultural or other.

Given the serious possibility that the Republican Party will be successful in picking off members of the so-called Democratic base, it would behoove the black community to stop putting all their eggs into one basket.

Because if they do now what they've done in the past, and Sen. Obama loses, they will find themselves left out in the cold once again.

Gratitude, Humility and Confidence: McCain Makes His Case

2008-09-08T10:14:00.000-04:00

Sen. John McCain’s (Ariz.) address before the Republican convention last night was both tough and touching.

His appeal appeared quite distinct from the fancy speechifying that we saw at the Democratic convention. In many respects it was a lament. He lamented the mistakes his own party had made when it came to power and betrayed the public’s trust.

It was an apology. He apologized for his own character defects, and showed through his own example how the struggles he faced in life taught him to overcome them. Along the way, he learned to become grateful for the challenges; he gained the wisdom to view setbacks as opportunities to learn and grow.

We learned from Sen. McCain that the way of the warrior has more to do with the choice of attitude than the choice of weapon. We learned that what characterizes a soldier’s bravery is not his willingness to die, but his choice of a cause worth dying for.

This choice, this fundamental choice we face when we are born into this world of struggle, comes from a deeper place. That struggle, we learned, comes from compassion; it comes from the nurturing and direction we receive as children from our parents. It is a choice that we make, not out of need, but out of love.

With a humility born of struggle, McCain was able to effectively communicate his love for this country. Only when a person has truly changed his heart will God change his circumstances. The same is true of our nation. We derive the confidence we need to fight for our ideals, to live up to our promises, and to reach our aspirations, from a heart that has been strengthened by compassion.

This lesson, given last night in front of the nation, was one we should heed, irrespective of whom we might ultimately vote for in November.

Palin’s Going to Be Tough for the Democrats

2008-09-08T10:03:00.000-04:00

MINNEAPOLIS — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s debut as John McCain’s vice presidential candidate showcased a formidable challenger who is going to be tough for the Democrats to counter. Not only did she look the crowd in the eye and speak with unabashed authority, she really seemed to connect with the audience in a way only special politicians, a la Bill Clinton, can do. She is unquestionably energetic, smart, witty and appealing as a candidate. Democrats who underestimate her do so to their extreme detriment.

Palin, while new to the issues facing America, nonetheless presented a compelling case for why her background is as good, if not better, than that of Barack Obama. It was impressive in the way she was able to convince delegates that her experiences as a mother, mayor and governor of an out-of-the-way state made her actually more qualified than a senator and “community organizer.”

This was not easy to accomplish rhetorically, but she seemed to do so in an almost folksy, unscripted manner. Whether undecided voters buy her argument or not remains to be seen, but certainly Gov. Palin has helped energize the Republican base. She has lit the dry tinder, and it remains to be seen whether, between now and Election Day, the fire catches on around the country.

By all accounts, Palin’s speech was a triumph for the Republicans, and may have just saved the ticket. Of course, a long race has yet to be run, but Palin’s presence draws some of the media eyes off of Obama and his historic achievement to an equally compelling story on the Republican side. At this point, it’s anyone’s race to win.

In Attempting to Straddle Diverging Aisles, Lieberman Risks Tearing His Britches

2008-09-03T10:49:00.001-04:00

ST. PAUL — Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-Conn.) speech last night at the Republican convention obviously has the Obama campaign and the Democratic hierarchy reeling and seething about his direct assault and indictment of the Democratic Party and its presidential nominee.

If that wasn't enough, he made it clear that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) has the credentials and experience necessary as John McCain's vice presidential choice and made no mention of his colleague Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.). Give Lieberman credit, for there's no doubt that it took guts and deep resentment of his party to deliver his cutting remarks last night.

Sen. Lieberman’s speech must have been very difficult for him. After all, in return for crossing the aisle and being ostracized by the Democrats, having lost the Democratic primary in his own state and having to run as an Independent, he surely expected to be awarded the vice presidency. But instead, facing strong opposition from the Republican base to having a liberal (read: Jewish liberal) leading the party, Sen. McCain, despite his obvious fondness for Lieberman, felt compelled to go in another direction.

During his long and storied Senate career, Sen. Lieberman stood up for liberal social causes, while carving a niche as a hawk on national security issues. Lieberman was so endeared of liberal Democrats, after all, that they selected him to undergird Al Gore’s presidential bid in 2000.

Lieberman’s problem at this point is that domestic issues and national security concerns are now seen by the electorate as being so at odds with each other that Americans are faced with choosing one to the detriment of the other. It may not be possible any longer to make such a strong stand on national security while caucusing as a member of the party whose stated mission going forward is to turn swords into plowshares.

Similarly, despite having the personal integrity and dogged strength to reconcile these competing aims, Lieberman may not be able to find a home in the Republican Party once his usefulness as a thorn in the Democrats’ side has expired. Indeed, whether he knows it or not — his somber, almost funereal demeanor at the Republican convention suggests he is not naïve — Lieberman may have reached the end of his line as far as his political career is concerned.

New Orleans: The New Atlantis

2008-09-03T10:48:00.000-04:00

Stop Trying to Rebuild a City That is Being Reclaimed by the Sea

ST. PAUL — While many people have dismissed Al Gore and his ilk as tree-hugging liberals bent on curbing our way of life, there is one thing he is dead right about. Something strange is happening to the earth’s climate. Hurricanes Katrina and Gustav, and the tsunamis in the Asian Pacific may be just the tip of the iceberg in terms of imminent climatic threats to the world, and should give us pause to consider whether or not rebuilding New Orleans is really such a good idea.

While Gustav’s bark proved to be much worse than its bite, the fact that the collective consciousness viewed it as a serious enough threat to halt a political convention over a thousand miles away speaks volumes. People are genuinely concerned about whether New Orleans can survive as a city. With each successive season, and despite Herculean feats of engineering, the sea takes a little more of the city back into its bosom.

Many have mused about the significance of these storms as encroachments on New Orleans. Some moralists have even gone as far as to say that the hurricanes are God’s punishment to the people of New Orleans for their decadent ways. Others have claimed that the spate of bad storms in the Atlantic are a result of global warming caused by the overuse of carbon-based fuels. Nature, they argue, is correcting the imbalance. Still others, the armchair philosophers among us, reason that everything is change, that land turns to sea, water to air, and so on. Climatic changes barely get a rise out of these stoics.

But whatever one’s perspective, whether moral, philosophical or scientific, it is obvious that change is afoot. Anyone who is humble enough to observe the signs and obey the message they portend can see that New Orleans will eventually be snatched back into the sea. This begs the question: Why go back? Why try to rebuild a city that is doomed? As human beings and as a country it seems we all have a hard time letting go. We think that our wealth and blessings are proof of our control over nature, when in actuality we are as subject to the whims of nature as any civilization that came before us.

Every onlooker is either a coward or a traitor
— Franz Fanon, Wretched of the Earth

Under Cover of Gustav

2008-09-03T10:46:00.001-04:00

ST. PAUL, Minn. — Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) decision to suspend Republican convention activities and turn attention to helping people along the Gulf Coast deal with the potentially destructive effects of Hurricane Gustav is the right thing to do. In doing so, he not only avoids the incongruous image of fat cats partying it up while others suffer, but he shows that he puts his country ahead of his party. He has seized this crisis as an opportunity to demonstrate, rather than just talk about, his leadership abilities.

Hurricane Gustav also gives President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney a perfect excuse for avoiding the convention, where their presence might be less than welcome. Both the president and the vice president have suffered in the polls of late, and could only harm the Republicans’ chances of swaying voters who are disappointed in their leadership if they were to show up to the convention.

Furthermore, the Bush administration took a serious blow to its credibility in the aftermath of the government’s mishandling of relief efforts leading up to and after Hurricane Katrina. Many blamed the situation on a lack of competence in the leadership at FEMA, whose administrator was not a professional disaster relief expert, but a political appointee. Whether the media’s characterization was correct or not, the impression that the administration cared more about politics than the well-being of American citizens has been hard to erase.

Sen. McCain is asking Americans to elect him to the office because he will put the country first. In turning attention to the people suffering from Hurricane Gustav, McCain puts his money where his mouth is. It doesn’t hurt that avoiding an appearance by the current administration at the convention helps him deflect Democrats’ assertions that he is merely offering more of the same.

Palin in Comparison

2008-09-03T10:45:00.000-04:00

Republicans play the wildest of their trump cards

The choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) as his running mate shows that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will not be placed in a box by Democrats in this election. In choosing a little-known, young female governor from a state with only three electoral votes, Sen. McCain caught everyone off guard: the Democrats, the media and especially the Republican Party. The shocked and awed faces of pundits on today’s news programs, the stammering hosts and the inability to really calculate the implications of McCain’s veep choice suggested that it was a no-look pass that fooled not only the opposing team, but the intended recipients as well.

But once the shock wears off, and once the hoopla dies down, the risks of representational politics will become apparent. If the Republicans think that they will sway female Clinton supporters with a strongly pro-life woman, they could be in store for a long winter.

Let’s be clear: The Alaska governor pales in comparison with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) record of service and achievement. On the other hand, if Republicans are able to effectively draw attention to Palin’s executive experience in cutting cronyism, reducing government spending and shepherding alternative energy initiatives in Alaska, a major energy-producing state, they may have just the ticket to counter the Obama juggernaut. Furthermore, the choice of Palin may help to neutralize Sen. Obama’s argument that change needs to come to Washington, rather than from it.

Choosing Gov. Palin is without question a risky move that may pay off big or fail miserably. Her executive experience, although slim, stands out among a slate of candidates who have spent all of their political lives in legislative chambers. However, with the executive powers greatly expanded under President Bush, many would argue that the chief executive might benefit from a consensus-building mindset that former legislators would bring to the office; on the other hand, as vice president, Gov. Palin probably won’t have to worry about taking the call at 3 a.m.

Got the Bull by Its Horns

2008-09-03T10:44:00.000-04:00

By Corralling the Clintons’ Ego and Ambition, Obama Has Gained Invaluable Allies

DENVER — There is a reason why President Bill Clinton is still considered the best politician of his generation, and he showed it last night, delivering both the strongest endorsement of Sen. Obama and the most stinging rebuke of Bush and McCain heard thus far at the Democratic convention. President Clinton was at the top of his game — even to the point of one-upping his wife’s speech of the night before. The words that come to mind when considering his remarks are; smart, effective, convincing and winning.

What seemed at first to be a spineless capitulation to the Clintons’ outrageous demands by allowing them two nights at the convention now appears to have been a brilliantly executed strategy to turn the Clintons’ anger, frustration and naked ambition into energy Sen. Obama can use to propel himself to the presidency. No matter what the Clintons do from here on out, whether they snipe and hedge, or obstruct and bother, the fact remains that they not only threw their support unreservedly behind Obama, they, as a team, clearly spelled out what the former president feels makes Obama the most qualified candidate to lead this country.

President Clinton effectively accomplished this by comparing criticisms of his own candidacy (we all knew he would talk about himself) in 1992, when he was roundly dismissed as too young and inexperienced to lead the country. In doing this, President Clinton’s strategy was to instantly turn youth and inexperience into an asset rather than an impediment to leadership.

If nothing else, the events of yesterday provided the catharsis Sen. Clinton wanted. It was evident from the tears, cheers and jeers of the delegates that the Democratic Party has finally come together; the divisions, at least for the moment, have been healed. By capitalizing on the Clintons’ ambitions, letting them shine, Obama conquered his enemies by turning them into allies. And in the process Sen. Obama proved that while he might be on the ropes, he is certainly no dope.

Hillary’s Tepid Endorsement

2008-09-03T10:39:00.000-04:00

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s speech last night before the delegates at the Democratic National Convention was about as good as it gets when it comes to convention speeches. She managed to combine the rhetorical flourish of campaign oratory with the hard-nosed commanding presence of a general leading her troops into battle. She exhorted the crowd to help America get down to business; pass healthcare reform to cover the uninsured; build a world-class education system that is accessible to more Americans; and return America to the economic prosperity it enjoyed under the leadership of President Bill Clinton.

Furthermore, Sen. Clinton (D-N.Y.) made it clear that electing John McCain would constitute a setback. Electing Barack Obama, she acknowledged, was the right thing to do, if only because leaving the country in the hands of Republicans for four more years would make us worse off. And, well, that was about it.

Curiously absent from Sen. Clinton’s speech was any mention of Barack Obama’s fitness or ability to lead this country going forward. Hillary failed to specifically spell out what she believed to be the facets of Sen. Obama’s character and experience that makes him capable of delivering the future the Democrats envision for this country. Compare Hillary’s speech with President Clinton’s remarks earlier that day, and the Clintons’ diabolical intentions begin to emerge.

Bill Clinton posed a hypothetical question: When faced with the choice between two candidates, one whose policies you agree with completely but whom you don’t believe can deliver, or another, whose policies may be only half-agreeable but who can actually deliver, whom would you choose? In other words, Bill Clinton seemed to suggest that electing Sen. Obama would lead to a complete loss, while electing McCain would at least provide a modest gain.

Bill and Hillary’s coordinated attack on Sen. Obama was so skillful and calculating that one cannot help but admire the depths of their betrayal to their own party’s success in this election. But a betrayal it certainly is.

Democratic Convention Update

2008-09-03T10:34:00.000-04:00

Day One: A Missed Opportunity

DENVER — With the exception of Sen. Edward Kennedy’s (D-Mass.) moving appearance and a well-played video and speech by Michelle Obama, last night was forgettable. For the most part, Democrats were able to succeed with their primary mission on Night No. 1 — humanizing the man they want as president. In that regard, they scored Olympic gold. Obama’s appearance on screen just before his wife’s remarks was a nice production that would have made Hollywood jealous.

But the rest of Monday’s program was lackluster at best. It started before Howard Dean even kicked off the proceedings. Republicans have done a nice job out here causing the Democrats fits. If you scored success simply on the number of GOP surrogates appearing on cable dayside shows, the Dems lost miserably. If I were Jim Axelrod, I’d demote my communications director for letting a McCain spokesman come on air and discuss the Arizona senator’s veep pick — while Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was speaking! Perhaps that says more about the quality of her remarks …

And why were Democrats leaving their stars in the locker rooms while untrained “regular Joes” were on screen? That may be smart for a local mayoral race, but when primetime networks drop millions for production and send their own anchors and stars to Denver, they’re thinking one thing — talent! As much as they eschew the “infomercial” quality of these grand events, they do want someone who has stage presence to share the latest talkers.

First days are usually disappointments at most conventions, but I’m betting the Republicans in St. Paul, Minn., are watching closely and learning from the mistakes made yesterday here in Denver. The show must go on, however! And somehow I sense the buildup to Thursday’s speech will be momentous. Now if they could just get those pesky Clintons out of the picture …

Is It Enough?

2008-09-03T10:33:00.000-04:00

Sen. Edward Kennedy’s (D-Mass.) appearance last night as I watched it from the convention was nothing short of miraculous. He appeared strong and spoke with clarity and conviction, an amazing feat for someone who had just two months ago undergone radical brain surgery. It is a testament to both his belief in Sen. Obama and his commitment to a vision for this country that he rose from his deathbed and traveled over a thousand miles to speak at the opening night of the Democratic convention.

Michelle Obama did exactly what was expected of her and beyond. Her words demonstrated the strongest of commitments to family and faith. It was clear in the speech that the Michelle Obama of 15 years ago has evolved into someone who loves America, and is as patriotic to our ideals and principles as anyone on the political stage. In fact, without Michelle Obama and Ted Kennedy, the Democrats would have wasted the evening. There was little else of substance and little in the way of defining issues, and, surprisingly, little or no mention of John McCain and the Republicans.

With that said, there are some cold facts that Barack Obama and the Democrats need to face. The candidates are in a statistical dead heat, locked at about 47 percent in the most recent polls. The selection of Joe Biden as a running mate did not give Obama the bounce he was expecting. Nor does anyone expect Biden to bring any state (other than his small home state of Delaware) to Obama’s winning column.

While Michelle Obama’s speech seemed to connect with the delegates in attendance, who would have cheered for her no matter what she said, it is unclear whether or not her message resonated with the farmers, workers and those outside the convention hall who will be responsible for electing the next president of the United States.

Are you now convinced more than ever that Sen. Barack Obama is your choice for president in November? Let us know the impact.

Wise VP Choice

2008-09-03T10:32:00.000-04:00

DENVER — Kudos to Barack Obama for making the best of his vice presidential selection; in choosing Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), Obama has chosen a running mate whose strengths complement Obama's weaknesses.

Obviously, Sen. Biden is an experienced politician, and is known for being a bareknuckle fighter on the issues. Obama has been criticized of late for being somewhat reluctant to fight back against blistering attacks from the McCain camp. Sen. Biden, if his past is any indication, will have no such reservations. This makes sense, because it allows Obama to go on looking presidential and staying above the fray, while having an attack dog at his side to go after the other side with a vengeance.

The other way in which Biden helps Obama is by deflecting criticism that Obama is an elitist and out of touch with the country. This will be especially helpful in the swing states, where Obama has had a tough time building support among working-class Americans.

Biden, although a Washington insider, nonetheless returned to his district in Delaware every day; unlike other senators, he did not use his position to enrich himself personally — he is said to be one of the five poorest senators. Biden is a true populist.

Sen. Biden also deflects the accusation that Obama lacks experience. Sen. Biden’s guidance and judgment may play well to undecided voters who find Obama’s age and inexperience somewhat unsettling.

Finally, and importantly, Obama did not cave in to pressure to pick Hilary Clinton; something that shows his toughness and independence. Given the cards he has been given, this was a hand well played.

Blogging from the Conventions

2008-09-03T10:31:00.001-04:00

I'm checking in from Houston en route to Denver for the Democratic convention starting Monday, where I will be broadcasting live and direct on our national radio show, which plays locally in Washington on CBS affiliate Heaven 1580 a.m. (www.heaven1580am.com) live from 4-6 p.m. EST daily, and is replayed on XM Radio Power 169 from 9-10 p.m. EST (and is rebroadcast at 5 a.m. EST).

While on the road, I'll have a few of my favorite people with me, notably the raging libertarian and Baltimore entrepreneur David Modell. He'll be co-hosting with me and offering every defense possible of his libertarian ideology. Whatever happens, next week promises to be lots and lots of fun!

From there we take the show to Minneapolis, the week of September 1-5, where we will attend the Republican convention. It's always so much fun to catch up with old friends, and there will be friends aplenty in attendance. Hopefully we can snag a couple of notables for off-the-cuff interviews. It will be interesting to contrast the tone of the Republican convention with the rock concert that they're promising in Denver.

But to our faithful Pundits Bloggers, we want to extend an invitation to respond to my blog with issues that arise during the convention that you'd like me to cover or investigate further. Since I'll be right there, it would be my honor to be your eyes and ears at both conventions.

Also, let me know what you think about the candidates' performance and your impressions of the direction the country is going. And if there is someone you would like interviewed for the blog, just let us know.

We will blog several times daily from both conventions keeping you posted on all the critical issues facing both candidates as they march towards the White House. I feel we're capable of interviewing all the so-called players at both conventions, including the presidential candidates themselves.

Moral Leadership

2008-08-22T09:48:00.000-04:00

Last weekend Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) again displayed his inability to be decisive and clear in his viewpoints on where he stands with regard to moral issues.

The question on abortion seemed to stump Sen. Obama when being interviewed by the Rev. Rick Warren. With his indecisive and arrogant statement that the question of when life begins is above his paygrade, Sen. Obama displayed his ineptitude at making clear decisions and sticking by them.

As a candidate for President of the United States, Sen. Obama really needs to develop a consistent system of morals that he can publicly espouse without shame. Sen. Obama also mentioned that although there is a moral element to the issue of abortion, he himself is pro-choice. He further stated that he is not pro-abortion even though he believes that mothers should be allowed to have abortions.

This is worse than being indecisive, this is downright hypocrisy. It seems as though Sen. Obama is trying to take the middle ground on an issue where there is no middle ground. He needs to take a principled position and stop trying to leave room for flip-flopping.

It is time for this candidate for the most powerful office in the world to establish a clear system of beliefs. He needs to be courageous in his willingness to defend and hold to his beliefs without changing the subject or trying to discuss already agreed-upon issues. The president of the U.S. needs to have the courage to firmly stand up for his or her beliefs. This is what is called leadership.

Rethinking Taxes

2008-08-20T09:25:00.000-04:00

During the past 20 years a number of economic studies have been released showing that lower income tax rates actually result in more revenue for the government. Thus, the only reason for raising taxes only on the rich is to redistribute income from the rich to the poor. This reflects the failed socialist and communist ideology of Karl Marx and others who tried to manipulate earnings, incomes and taxes to create some strange version of economic equality.

The reason we have such high corporate tax rates is easily explainable. Politicians can push and vote for corporate tax rate increases because most individual taxpayers and voters do not understand or appreciate that they are hurt by high corporate tax rates in several ways.

First, corporations must protect their profits by passing on the tax income to consumers through higher prices. Second, if corporations get a better after-tax return in a foreign country with a lower corporate tax rate, they tend to send profits from their businesses to jurisdictions with lower tax rates. This is done by transfer pricing and by sending manufacturing and service jobs abroad.

Third, if corporations are getting a lower after-tax return from their U.S. investments than their foreign investment, they will make their marginal investments in low-tax jurisdictions and not in the U.S. That will result in lower productivity and fewer jobs in the U.S.

So, inadvertently, voters are hurting themselves, their families and the economy as a whole when they allow these corporate tax rates to increase and the legislators who support them to stay in office.

Biden to Get the Nod

2008-08-20T09:21:00.000-04:00

Newsrooms are buzzing today over the expected announcement tomorrow by Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) campaign on who his running mate will be. The back-channel pundits are theorizing the list has been winnowed down to three finalists — Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.), Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine and Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.) — and now it’s up to Obama on when he wants to make the call.

Through my own tea-leaf reading, I believe Sen. Biden will get the nod. On substance, he has few equals. If he doesn’t know the answer to a question, you can bet he’ll find it, post-haste. But his strength is also Biden’s primary weakness — he doesn’t know when enough is enough. We’ve all seen the parodies of him droning on in speech after speech. It can be quite numbing. Yet the senator’s gray hair and chiseled wrinkles of past battles stand in stark contrast to Oil-of-Olay Obama.

I think that’s part of the reason you haven’t seen Biden out on the trail recently. He’s laying low. You don’t need to see much of Joe Biden because you know what he’s capable of, and that’s many things, but primarily he’s a juggernaut on foreign policy matters. The fact that he’s a known quantity affords him the opportunity to be somewhat of a surprise to the Democratic faithful next week — to the extent that ever really matters.

Contrast Biden with the gentleman from Indiana. Sure, Evan Bayh looks great on paper, but that’s about it. A former governor, he has the executive branch experience. Yet it’s not his time. He’s still a bit green. Watch his speeches from last month, along with his vanilla appearances on the Sunday circuit, and you’ll see what I’m saying.

The same is true for Tim Kaine. I think the governor has a glass jaw when it comes to raw politics. Sure, he mixed it up with Republican Jerry Kilgore to win the governorship, but Virginia politics is not near as smash-mouth as national politics, and I think Kaine would wilt under the intense pressure and light of a presidential campaign. Obama knows that.

So you heard it here first, folks! Sen. Biden is the best shot for Obama to smooth out his rough edges on foreign policy and international affairs. The only unanswered question that remains is how will Hillary take the news and what price will she seek to exact from Obama’s camp during the convention as payment??

Obama's Betrayal of Thomas

2008-08-18T11:08:00.001-04:00

When the question was put to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) by presidential candidate forum moderator Rev. Rick Warren, asking him which of the Supreme Court justices he would not have appointed, Sen. Obama, almost without hesitation, blurted out Clarence Thomas's name. Moreover, it was not the fact that Obama disagreed with his views that stood out, but his reasons for doing so. Obama stated that he felt Thomas lacked the qualifications for the job. Many conservatives who happen to be black know firsthand the pain and frustration of having their views dismissed without consideration because of the unstated premise that their skin color makes them incompetent.

This sad underbelly to liberalism, namely liberal racism, had gone largely unchallenged by the black political elite until they themselves felt the sting recently as the liberal icons the Clintons played on racial stereotypes to try and destroy Obama in the Democratic primaries.

This is why Sen. Obama's remarks are so unfortunate and counterproductive. On the one hand, by casting off Justice Thomas, who is widely revered in conservative circles for his principled and courageous stand in the face of popular opposition, Obama risks alienating what may be one of his most surprising allies — black conservatives. Many of these individuals have resisted going after Obama because they felt he represented a new paradigm in politics; he resisted victimization and racial polarization as a campaign strategy, and instead focused on competence and unity behind a message of change for all Americans. Many black conservatives will feel ultimately betrayed by Obama's remarks, and see them as pandering to a white liberal elitism and racism.

On the other hand, Obama has revealed a tendency in his character to bully those he views as weak or isolated. When he spoke of Justices Scalia and Roberts, he was careful to acknowledge their intellectual superiority, and distinguished himself from them merely on the basis of their philosophy. Obama showed, in doing this, a deference to those he thinks possess the power in this country (namely whites), and a total disrespect for the path that was paved by the likes of Thomas and other black conservatives in championing character, independence of thought, and merit over race as a prerequisite for leadership. This character flaw is going to make it virtually impossible for me to continue to hold out hope for Obama's presidential aspirations.

When it really boils down to it, what is the real difference between Sen. Obama and Justice Thomas? They share similar academic pedigrees. They have both championed race-neutral strategies for social and economic development. And, they are both essentially conservative on social issues: fatherhood, family values and same-sex marriage. So what is the difference? Perhaps it comes down to the fact that a puppet Master is pulling Obama's strings.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson Era is Over

2008-08-18T11:07:00.001-04:00

Several Democratic activists today are lamenting the removal of the Rev. Jesse Jackson from a speaking role at the party’s convention later this month. Not only are they lamenting it, they’re downright mad about it, as reported by Bob Cusack in The Hill. I’m not sure why, though. Should anyone be surprised by this move?

Just last month, Jackson managed to shoot himself in the foot while it was in his mouth when he verbally castrated the putative nominee. He only has himself to blame. And what’s with the party these days? Do they think they can help their candidate get elected by constantly disparaging him? And then these mavericks want all the pomp and glory that comes with the big party during the convention?!

But loyalty notwithstanding, Jackson has been sowing these seeds of discord long before the decision was made to 86 him from the program. This sense of entitlement the reverend has apparently come to expect from the campaign is getting old. And if you don’t make an effort to finally, and completely, end it, then he and his radical positions will continue to haunt the party. Isn’t that what Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) wants — a move away from the divisive nature of racial politics that the Rev. Jackson has come to embody? That’s what’s so refreshing about Obama’s campaign — new thinking about a party that had grown stale in how it appealed to minorities.

Further, the Obama campaign deserves credit for placing Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (D) on the program — an ardent supporter of the unborn. That sort of inclusiveness is just the sort of new direction Obama is espousing. Let’s hope his administration does more than just pay lip service to the issue if he’s elected.

This is not 1984 anymore. The Rev. Jackson honorably served his party through the talks he gave in conventions past. But lately, his kind of talk has served to undermine the new vision that Obama claims to share. And that can only mean one thing for Jackson — the end of an era.

Georgia on Their Minds

2008-08-14T10:19:00.002-04:00

The ongoing Russian military pounding of the former Soviet bloc nation of Georgia offers an interesting insight into the minds of the two presidential candidates. This is serious business, and incidents like these are excellent trial runs of what our next president would do when that phone rings at 3 in the morning.

By most metrics, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has handled this issue better. From his bold statements in quickly (and specifically) denouncing the Russian onslaught to his repeated criticisms of where the current Medvedev/Putin regime is headed as a superpower, the ex-Navy aviator and Senate Armed Services Committee member proved his mettle, in my estimation. He even went so far as to say he would support Georgia’s ascendancy to NATO. Like it or not, that sort of statement shows McCain is peering around the corner — something America must do if it wants to resume its rightful place in the world.

Put simply, he did not equivocate. And while some analysts want to call that “cowboy talk,” it’s the only thing the Russians seem to respond to. McCain even scored high marks on his choice of venue and delivery — normally two weaknesses for the campaign as it has struggled in the past to strike the right tone for the message of the day.

Contrast that presentation with Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.). I’m sorry, but discussing foreign policy in a Hawaiian shirt while on vacation with sub-par sound systems and palm trees waving in the background exudes something less than presidential. Beyond the optics, Sen. Obama’s statements reveal the same mealy talk that has haunted dovish Democrats for four decades. Some could come to understand his lukewarm rebuke of the Russians. After all, harsh talk coming on the heels of a détente tour of Europe would seem to negate Obama’s “one world” theme. Still, it doesn’t mean his position is right. And sooner or later, he’ll need to sharpen his rhetoric (or his judgment) on how to deal diplomatically with a nation that understands the stick more than the carrot.

It’s Time for a Merger: NAACP and Mainstream America Protecting the Civil Rights of All Americans

2008-08-14T10:19:00.001-04:00

When Berwyn Heights, Md. Mayor Cheye Calvo found himself sitting on the floor of his home, handcuffed to his distraught mother-in-law during a brazen no-knock raid by Prince George’s County sheriff's deputies last week, he must have thought he was channeling the ghost of a runaway slave.

And he must have experienced a state beyond shock as the police proceeded to shoot his beloved Labrador retrievers to death, when, according to him, they never posed a threat to anyone. The dogs were shot, in his words, merely “for sport.” After all, the young, married mayor had no idea what the police were looking for, and why their business in his home required such a hasty, overbearing and potentially fatal confrontation.

As it turns out, the police had the wrong guy, and hadn't bothered to fully check their facts before raiding his home; an understandable mistake in the course of busy police work. What's unacceptable, however, is that the police executed a warrantless no-knock raid that resulted in the deaths of the mayors’ dogs. And, to add insult to injury, the police cleared Calvo of any wrongdoing, but flatly refused to apologize to him and his family for the emotional distress they caused. No-knock warrants, as they are called, are a procedure that became widely controversial after the death of a 94-year-old African-American grandmother in Atlanta, who, fearing that her home was being robbed, shot once at the plainclothes policemen charging through her door, and died tragically in a hail of return gunfire.

Interestingly, the local chapter of the NAACP rushed to the mayor’s aid, decrying the raid as an unconstitutional violation of his civil rights. Not surprising, you might say. After all, the NAACP has a long and storied history of defending civil rights — for black people. In this case, the victim was white.

The fact that the victim was a white, middle-class male, living in a white, middle-class neighborhood illustrates the fact that civil rights are not just a racial issue — but a matter of liberty and freedom for all Americans. For an organization that has declined in significance in recent decades, with no major policy or grassroots agenda worthy of note, this new role, protector of the rights of all Americans, could give it new relevance.

Bonnie & Clyde: The Clintons Are America’s Political Outlaw Couple

2008-08-13T09:37:00.002-04:00

If it was not already clear, there is now no mistaking the fact that Bill and Hillary Clinton have become America’s most notorious political outlaw couple. Despite what may have happened in the past to divide them, whether it was Bill’s infidelity or Hillary’s cold-blooded power grabs, they are now as thick as thieves as they go about their illicit attempt to undermine Obama’s run for the White House.

It is hard to believe that a Democratic ex-president would hesitate to give the most glowing endorsement possible of the party’s presumptive nominee, but that is just what Bill Clinton did last weekend in an ABC News television interview. Not only did Clinton hedge on whether Obama was qualified to be president, he openly lamented his wife’s primary loss. This comes as no surprise to Republicans, who witnessed firsthand the carnage they left behind; from the highly questionable suicide of Vince Foster to the unexplained plane crash of late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, they have left a trail literally littered with bodies.

The Clintons have proven that they will stop at nothing to gain more power. Neither party loyalty, nor the nomination rules and procedures, nor voter sentiment will stand in their way. They are willing to take what they want, consequences be damned. Obama has hoped in the past to appease them, but that will no longer work. The closer we get to the election, the more desperate the Clintons will become. If Obama does not come out with the guns blazing leading up to the convention, he’ll end up being just another one of their hapless victims.

More Illegal Immigration Garbage

2008-08-13T09:37:00.001-04:00

Ten states in our great country allow illegal aliens not only to attend college in their state, but to do so at in-state tuition rates. This means that aliens can break all sorts of federal laws, come into our country illegally, and then go to these states and pay cheaper tuition than citizen students from out of state. Are you kidding me?

This college tuition issue came to light recently when about three dozen students in California filed a lawsuit against the University of California, charging that it had violated federal law by allowing illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates at its campuses while maintaining higher rates for out-of-state students.

How can we be throwing money at illegal immigrants when most Americans are struggling to get by? California citizens are mortgaged to the hilt, foreclosing left and right, and hoping they can afford their next meal and pay their next bill. Why would we dish out money to aliens instead of giving it to citizen teenagers who need help paying for college, teachers who deserve better salaries or school districts that need more materials, better equipment and newer schools?

We need to spend more money on education — that is a given — and California definitely should make its students and schools a priority, but this policy is so far off base it’s a joke.

A Few Decent Members

2008-08-07T10:18:00.001-04:00

I was recently in Alaska, where I witnessed firsthand the love most Alaskans have for their embattled elder statesman, Sen. Ted Stevens (R).

Since 1968, Stevens has committed just about all his time and energy to helping the great state get everything it deserves, and then some. And the citizens up there recognize that and are willing to give the recently indicted Republican the benefit of the doubt on this one. But Stevens’s behavior throughout the years is symptomatic of a larger problem that I fear is permeating American politics today, and certainly the Republican Party.

It appears the United States Congress and its members have lost all semblance of shame. They appear as though they are impregnable at times, absent humility; and when the wheels of justice turn against them, they sprinkle around the magical pixie dust of crying “political witch hunt!” and hope they get off.

In a politically puzzling time like this, undecided and independent voters are looking at both sides to find an individual for whom to cast their ballots. If members of Congress — Republican or Democrat — want to get or stay elected, they need to pay more attention to not only what they do, but the appearance of their actions and what sort of message that sends to voters who put their trust in our system of government. Remember, the people have the power, and with each passing scandal, they are more likely to use that power at the election booth.

The Half-Black/Half-White Insanity

2008-08-06T15:38:00.001-04:00

I am sick and tired of the talk of Barack Obama possibly becoming the first black president of the United States. If you check your history, there have been other mixed-race presidents of this country. They may have been a little lighter and brighter than Sen. Obama, but they were still mixed. We are all from the same gene pool, and if science is to be believed we are all descended from the same woman in East Africa. This euphoria over Obama and his race merely confirms the indelible stain that racism has imprinted upon the American psyche.

The one-drop rule was a legal framework stemming from the Jim Crow era that specified that a person was black if he or she contained merely one drop of African blood. In practical terms, this rule was all but impossible to enforce, and many individuals of mixed heritage passed for white over the years; their progeny have fully integrated within the white race. Conversely, people whose racial heritage may be mixed but who have dark skin are all considered to be black, no matter what their personal identification or upbringing might have been. Thus, someone like Barack Obama, whose mother is white, and who was raised within a white family, with no contact with the black side of his family as a child, is considered by most people to be black. The insanity of color prejudice in this country forces people of mixed race to choose sides. They almost have to negate one part of themselves to acknowledge the other.

The more I ponder the absurdity of racism in this country, the more perplexed I have become. But what is clear to me is that come November, I will not be voting for or against anyone because of the color of their skin. As attractive as it might seem to try and change the legacy of racism by choosing the first viable black presidential candidate who comes along, there is too much at stake in this country to vote on such a frivolous basis. The person who gets my vote will be the candidate who presents the best vision for the direction of our country and who exhibits the better personal character.

Rational Exuberance

2008-08-06T15:37:00.002-04:00

Driven by high fuel costs, many of us are moving from the suburbs back to urban centers, sparking a period of urban renewal that billions of dollars in public funding and decades of urban planning failed to accomplish. In essence, many of us are driving less and living more. Telecommuting and shorter workweeks are also evolving trends. Recently, some local municipal governments have started giving employees the option of working a four-day week to help them reduce fuel costs. Suffolk County, N.Y., approved a measure recently to allow workers to adopt a flextime four-day workweek or take furloughs to cut down on commuting.

Finding ways to do more with less not only makes economic sense, it could help ease our dependence on foreign oil, and reduce the harmful environmental consequences of hydrocarbon pollution. Because we feel we need their oil, we lack the real leverage to encourage countries like Saudi Arabia from spreading radical Islam, a direct sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East. With oil prices sky high, at least some of the windfall profits these nations are making go directly to funding terrorists. Moreover, most of us, whether or not we call ourselves conservationists, agree that global warming is a real thing. Any measures that we can take to reduce our consumption and waste will make our planet a more livable place, and may prevent catastrophic changes in the environment.

During times of struggle, whether individually or collectively, we would do well to look within and prepare ourselves for the road ahead. We should not get so consumed by our hardships that we fail to see the good that can come of them, or rather what we can become by learning from them. This is not the time to curb our enthusiasm, but rather to unfetter it. This is a call for rational exuberance — the optimism that stems from knowing that tough times make us stronger.

Advice to McCain: Try a Little Tenderness

2008-08-06T15:37:00.001-04:00

Among John McCain's heralded achievements in this campaign is his endorsement of the troop surge in Iraq, which, from all indications, has been successful in helping to quell both al Qaeda and domestic sectarian violence in Iraq. However, with a recent Washington Post poll showing ambivalence about Republicans' prescriptions for the economy among working-class and poor Americans, he needs a surge of empathy to demonstrate he is concerned with the plight of everyday Americans.

The Post's poll also revealed, surprisingly, that Obama enjoys a 10-point advantage among poor working-class whites, a fact that underscores the pressing economic issues faced by many Americans. While many have expressed skepticism about Obama's elitism and distance from the pulse of the heartland, as well as his stance on energy exploration, they nonetheless feel that he is the more empathetic candidate when it comes to the everyday economic problems we all face.

Thus far, McCain has offered expanding domestic production of oil as a salve to soothe the wounds created by escalating energy prices. But the supply-side improvements may seem to some to offer only indirect solutions to the problem. People want something that they feel is directed at them, and not a trickle-down solution that might end up lining Big Oil's already overflowing coffers.

In other words, McCain has got to start demonstrating that he cares about people and not just profits. The question comes down to one of perspective. What's more important: the amount of money people have to spend on their wants and needs, or setting the preconditions for spending by investing in profit-making enterprises? Certainly, as entrepreneurs and investors, one sees the immense potential that investing in business can have in the future. But the fact of the matter is that most of America has pressing, immediate needs and may not be able to see that far down the road.

While McCain may have a road map for ultimate success in improving domestic economic conditions, he should be aware that the map is not the territory. The situation on the ground is pressing — some might even say depressing. So despite the fact that there might be rough seas on the horizon, McCain would do well to offer sympathetic words and symbols to show that he is in the same boat, that he feels the pain as well. A people weary with war and economic displacement need at least a bit of sentiment from their leaders. It is time to try a little tenderness.

Protesting Your Way to the White House

2008-08-06T15:36:00.001-04:00

The standard advice from career counselors is that complaining about one’s salary is the wrong way for an employee to go about getting a promotion or a raise. While in the short run, management might seem to give in, hoping to quiet a squeaky wheel, in the long run the strategy usually backfires. The bosses merely wait for some opportune moment down the line to can the rabble-rouser. Candidates for president of the United States should heed this advice as well.

Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) supporters in the media have reacted pretty loudly to widespread criticism that he is acting arrogantly. Some have complained that the criticism stems from a racially motivated desire to put him in his place.

This is preposterous. Despite — some say because of — his race, Obama has a serious chance of winning the White House this fall. The last thing anyone with any degree of intelligence cares about at this point is race. The central question is: Which candidate can convince Americans that he will govern more responsibly?

Candidate Obama has already passed the personality test. Now he needs to pass the sobriety test. Furthermore, his supporters would do well to remind Sen. Obama that winning the presidency is a privilege, not a right, and that protesting the vetting process will not get him there.

If Mr. Obama is sincere about leading this country to a better future, and not just trying to put another notch in his belt, he needs to seriously tone down the triumphant atmosphere a bit and listen to the people whose votes are necessary for him to succeed.

The New Racists?

2008-08-06T15:35:00.002-04:00

Theorists who conjecture about racial relations in America posit that racism, an institutional practice, differs from prejudice, a personal flaw, in that racism requires power. It has therefore been argued that while both whites and blacks exhibit prejudice, only white people can be racists.

This conclusion is predicated upon the assumption that an elite class of white people have always possessed more institutional power than has any black person. In the past, this has been largely true — privileged whites controlled the electoral system before the Voting Rights Act was passed; they controlled hiring and promotions in the workplace before anti-discrimination laws were passed; and they controlled law enforcement in many places, using their authority to unfairly target and punish blacks.

But one wonders whether blacks, as they have gained more access to institutional power in recent times (they can now be found in greater ranks in government, business and the media), can also be practitioners of racism. Certainly, many whites have felt discrimination in the form of being passed over in favor of less-qualified minority candidates who were promoted to fill government-mandated quotas. And whites often feel victimized by the fact that they cannot voice perspectives that are critical of certain issues without being called "racist."

In fact, unfairly calling someone a racist may itself be viewed as a form of racism — because it uses prejudice (judging the person without knowing his or her intentions) and implies a threat of power, in this case the threat of social shaming, economic boycott or legal retaliation. Moreover, one wonders whether black elites exhibit the same degree of responsibility for avoiding racism as society requires of white elites. Some would say there’s a double standard at work here: that black elites can get away with being openly prejudiced, while whites cannot.

Obama's Tightrope

2008-08-06T15:35:00.001-04:00

While Robert Novak's column last week questioning Sen. Barack Obama's failure to close the deal among white Americans, despite his overwhelming personal and organizational advantages, may have struck some as a bluntly crafted attack, it nonetheless reflects a fundamental problem with his campaign at this point.

For some reason, even whites who might be open to voting for Democrats in this election are apparently reluctant to vote for a black candidate. That's why Obama's (D-Ill.) strategy to try and mobilize the black vote in swing states is especially problematic.

Traditionally, Democrats have used fear of racism to whip a largely apathetic black electorate into a frenzy. This cynical equation will not, however, work for Obama. Not only has he campaigned on a message of change and hope, a message that would lose potency were he to resort to the old scare tactics, but he would risk a backlash among the voters he needs to alienate the least. Not only would Obama lose any chance of winning the white working-class vote — he might actually end up mobilizing them to come out in large numbers against him.

Given the relative difference in numbers between the white working class and black voters in general, this would be a deathly blow to the Obama campaign. So it remains to be seen how Obama will be able to get his core constituency to come out in large numbers, while remaining open and inclusive of all Americans. One thing’s for sure; if he’s successful, it will have been the tightrope walk of the century.

The Obama Debriefing

2008-08-06T15:34:00.000-04:00

He drew crowds of hundreds of thousands. He made the newspaper’s top fold almost daily. World leaders flocked to his side for photo shoots. If you read the front page last week, you would think both America and the world elected Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as their 43rd president. But if you stop and read the speeches and statements he made, you’d recognize that his foreign policy positions are quite inconsistent, something that should concern American voters. After all, it’s not the Germans he’s trying to court, but red-blooded Yanks. My debriefing would read something like this:

July 19
The Democratic nominee began his tour in Afghanistan, visiting troops and speaking with leaders. Great photo-op. But why would any potential commander in chief state his position on Afghanistan (or any country, for that matter) and then travel there to somehow affirm his preconceived beliefs? I know he’s good, but is he now invoking the gift of prophecy? Let’s not forget this is the same sitting legislator who presides over a committee in the Congress charged with the affairs of Afghanistan, yet he held not one hearing on the matter, deferring instead to the “full committee.” Not exactly what I’d call a profile in leadership. The moral of that trip? Nice place to visit, but only if your opponent dares you to …

July 21
The next stop on his trip landed him in Iraq, where he met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (more feel-good footage), who concurred with the senator that America should withdraw her troops by 2010. Although the catalyst for withdrawal was due largely to President Bush’s troop surge, Sen. Obama repeatedly refused to acquiesce that minor detail. How does he possibly square that circle? Even the nation’s leading newspapers (Obamacons, all) acknowledge that it is the surge that lets the senator’s 16-month redeployment look even remotely plausible.

July 23
From Iraq, the now experienced world traveler moved into Israel. In order to appease Israeli leadership, he reverted from his previous statements that he would meet with antagonistic leaders in his first year as president. In my estimation, Sen. Obama’s back-and-forth on Jerusalem and this “final status” issue was his single largest misstep of this trip. He doesn’t think there’s a problem with his waffling, but there is, and it will continue to haunt him with the Jewish vote here in the States.

For Obama’s campaign, a lot of things went right on this trip optically. But for American diplomacy, there were some significant stumbles and gaffes. When voters are debriefed, they deserve the whole story — balanced and unvarnished.

Time to Get Serious

2008-08-06T15:33:00.000-04:00

The Germans are already calling him “President Obama,” while the king of Jordan is driving him around in his Mercedes. Even the senator’s own staff is swallowing the Kool-Aid as fast as they can stir it by invoking “White House protocol” on what are clearly campaign stops.

I realize it’s difficult not to savor the limelight on the other side of the Atlantic, particularly when the current Oval Office occupant is so despised by the Middle East and Europe. At some point, however, Obama needs to honor the office he seeks to hold by respecting the man who currently serves as America’s chief diplomat, and the policies this administration has established. David Gergen — adviser to four presidents, mind you — said it best when he stated, “I cannot remember a campaign in which a rival seeking the presidency has been in a position negotiating a war that’s under way with another party outside the country.” That’s dangerous, on so many levels.

Yet Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) continues to enjoy this sense of empowerment; and he feeds off the media more than any candidate I’ve seen in the past decade. The American people see this for what it is. A Rasmussen poll out today found that 49 percent of Americans think the media is totally biased toward Sen. Obama. Just 14 percent feel that way toward Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and the coverage he’s garnering.

We’ve moved beyond the measured, balanced stories of the Fourth Estate that examine both candidates equally, to a no-holds-barred cage match where the press is chasing stories that are not fit to print, but rather fit to sell. It’s time to get serious in this campaign season and re-calibrate all of our attentions — the attention of the media, the public and the candidates themselves.

Spotlight: House Committee on Homeland Security

2008-07-23T10:43:00.000-04:00

Every now and then, I like to shine a spotlight on the shenanigans of our beloved U.S. Congress and its members. After all, there’s so much “news” being generated in this town that it’s nearly impossible to catch it all. So with this feature, I’ll try and call attention to items that should really make Americans’ blood boil. Rest assured, this column will be an equal-opportunity critic — challenging both Democrats and Republicans.

This week’s spotlight looks at a story that barely registered a blip on Washington’s audacity-meter last week. I’m referring to a story in Congress Daily reporting on turmoil within the House Homeland Security panel.

Apparently, Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) likes the work of a staffer named Lanier Avant. In fact, he likes the 30-year-old aide so much that he made him not only the chief of staff for his congressional office, but also for the entire committee. What chafes me and most readers is Avant’s admission to Congress Daily that he does “the bulk of [Thompson’s] political work.” Whoa! Time-out … Since when did a pedigree on campaigning prepare a staff director to draft national security legislation?

I’m not the only one bothered by this. The Congress Daily piece goes on to quote unnamed sources who (legitimately) have a problem with Avant’s lack of a security clearance. C’mon, folks. Chairman Thompson wouldn’t go to a surgeon without a medical degree, no matter how much the referring physician liked him; so why does he jeopardize the integrity of his committee with such a move?

I’m sorry, but “fitting the qualifications of the chairman” does not constitute competency, as Thompson argues. Further, because he doesn’t even have a security clearance, Avant is seemingly unfit to create policy decisions that require classified details. I recognize the media and Internet offer Americans a sense that they know every threat detail to America, but legislating requires information beyond pedestrian reaches. Avant’s lack of access fundamentally risks the decisions executed regarding homeland security.

Since Avant has taken over the committee, Rep. Thompson’s pet issue — the treatment of small, disadvantaged businesses — has apparently become the committee’s chief issue, causing many to question the use of committee resources. Of course, equal opportunity for small businesses is important, but making that the focus of policy ignores a host of specters that threaten the homeland.

Even Avant has admitted his knowledge of the military, intel and the Department of Homeland security is absent, but he still believes all that can be ignored because he “know[s] Washington.” Well, I disagree. If you are a staff director to the Homeland Security Committee, you ought to know a little bit about the subject — or at least have access to all the information (like maybe having a security clearance). But I guess these days, policymaking and America’s security aren’t defined by what you know about the issue, it’s what you know about politics.

From Iraq with Love

2008-07-23T10:38:00.001-04:00

I can’t get over the media circus surrounding Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) trip to Afghanistan and Iraq. Never mind that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) didn’t even whiff the rarified air of the network anchors on his multiple trips overseas. We’ll just chalk that up to another instance of media bias. But something deeper is being established here.

Apparently, Obama’s handlers have deluded themselves into believing their guy can transform into some über-diplomat simply by visiting the country for a few hours. Need to burnish some foreign policy credentials for your presidential campaign? No problem, just hit the road to the remotest regions of the world and voilà — instant international policy expert.

I’m not saying that Sen. McCain is completely innocent of such tactics. Many in Washington were scratching their heads while he was traipsing through the jungles of Colombia last month — burning precious time reserved for the campaign trail. But then came the freeing of hostages held by the FARC Colombian rebels, and McCain looked, well, presidential.

Perhaps these moves are more sophisticated than they first appear. Maybe Americans appreciate the fact that their candidates are traveling beyond the confines of America and seeing the world firsthand. Perhaps … but do not be deceived, these are trips staged to the finest detail, with little left to chance and happenstance. Sen. Obama knows this, and has treated it as such — an extension of his political campaign. Why do you think the network anchors are along for the ride? It’s surely not because of the news quotient that the “surge” is working.

And while I’m on the subject, would the senator from Illinois please stop trying to ride both sides of the troop withdrawal issue? For as long as I can remember, Democrats have chided, goaded and even threatened the government of Iraq into a timetable in order to get them to “take more responsibility” for their security situation. For months, these individuals were practically insulting Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his ability to lead, implying they knew what the prime minister needed to turn the ship of state around. And now, when Maliki hints a timetable is in his country’s best interests, Sen. Obama is all too eager to sit down and praise the Iraqi leader’s prescience and wisdom on the matter. Somebody cue the commercial …

Never mind that all of Maliki’s statements have added the corollary that when the conditions are right, and the entire country is stabilized from a security perspective, then a timeline is appropriate and in order.

The old saw that politics stops at the nation’s shores no longer seems to apply in today’s campaigns. Only the voters can decide if that’s a good thing or not. I just wish the candidates weren’t so politically opportunistic about it.

Is Obama a Trojan Horse?

2008-07-23T10:32:00.000-04:00

Armstrong Williams says that Sen. Barack Obama has changed his positions so much that he may not be as liberal as he appears to be.

Relevance of the NAACP

2008-07-23T10:30:00.000-04:00

Armstrong Williams says the NAACP is loosing its relevance in today's society, and he wonders why presidential candidates are compelled to speak at their annual convention.

Greed Gone Wild

2008-07-23T10:29:00.001-04:00

As Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac flounder around on the verge of collapse, who do they turn to as the lender of last resort?

Why, the American taxpayer, of course.

At the beginning of his administration, President Bush made it clear that the government would not provide guarantees against the risk associated with these companies’ activities. The firms’ leaders balked as this because, after all, they had the sweetest of sweetheart deals going. They would share in millions of dollars in executive options and bonuses if things went well, while shouldering none of the risk if things went badly. After all, the government would never let the nation’s largest mortgage lenders fail.

To these guys, making money at Fannie and Freddie seemed almost as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. Only now is the picture becoming clear. The massive risks that these corporations shouldered, including accounting irregularities used to overstate profits (and thus increase executive compensation), are now coming back to haunt these institutions and compound the crisis facing the U.S. mortgage industry.

Corporations that traditionally acted much more conservatively than private institutions, Fannie and Freddie were once the bulwark’s of the mortgage lending system. Now they stand as stark examples of greed run amok.

A Gramm of Truth

2008-07-16T15:21:00.002-04:00

Could it be that Americans have brought this economy to the brink of recession simply by thinking it? Could it be that our nation’s leaders have failed to repudiate the assumption of economic failure even though they knew it to be false? Could it be that Phil Gramm is right — have we become a nation of whiners?

Last week, Gramm was denounced for commenting that our country is not suffering an economic recession, but a mental one. The fact of the matter is, he’s on the mark. Did his candor lack compassion? Perhaps. But any basic Econ 101 student could tell you America is not in a recession. By definition, a recession is when an economy shrinks two quarters in a row. In reality, the United States grew 0.6 percent each of the past two quarters, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Now, 0.6 percent is nothing to write home about, but it’s growth; and that means the “recession” definition need not apply.

Sadly, members of Congress have done nothing to convince us we aren’t actually in a recession either. After all, it doesn’t fit their MO going into Election Day. If they can blame someone or something else and sidestep the tough choices (and tough words) to avoid blame, then you can bet they’ll do it. If everyone’s the victim, then no one’s the perpetrator, and that includes the policymakers. So they step carefully, often avoiding the decisions that would make a difference, and walk the path of least resistance.

Beyond pointing out that we are only in a mental recession, Sen. Gramm called America a nation of whiners. Well, are we? Let’s see, we whine because we don’t go to work. And when we do have a job, we whine because it won’t pay enough. We whine that some people have too much money. We whine that we don’t have enough. We whine because some guy says we whine! I’m just saying — maybe he has a point.

There is no denying our economy is not growing at the pace of a China or India. But simply because we aren’t growing quickly enough does not mean we’re receding. We have scared ourselves into thinking the economy is headed toward depression; and Congress is doing nothing to change our minds or the policies. They have simply accepted our whining and helped us pass the buck to the president, to immigrants, to outsourcing, to anyone but themselves.

If we want to talk about the loss of American competitiveness, let’s blame our own ineptitude that is keeping us from researching, analyzing and thinking for ourselves. Our parents and grandparents didn’t just sit back and let others tell us what to do or think. Perhaps we should follow their example and ignore what Washington thinks is best.

A Citizen’s Dream Deferred

2008-07-16T15:21:00.001-04:00

Many D.C. residents are breathing a sigh of relief now that the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the city’s longstanding handgun ban. Finally, we are free to protect ourselves from the tyranny of crime!!!

Some of us can’t wait to begin the process of taking our homes back from the thugs and murderers who terrorized the city for years without repudiation. However, D.C.’s proposed regulations, while allowing residents to keep registered handguns in their homes, nonetheless contain restrictions that will keep them from using them for their intended purpose.

Incredibly, the regulations stipulate that the guns have to be kept disassembled and unloaded when not being used. What is the point of having a gun for self-protection when you’ll already be dead and gone by the time you get a chance to use it in self-defense?

Not only does D.C.’s proposed law run afoul of the Supreme Court’s decision, it runs afoul of common sense. It’s akin to legalizing cars but outlawing fuel.

It is preposterous to believe that the majority of residents who will keep handguns in their homes will store them disassembled and unloaded. The D.C. government has to know that a court challenge will likely result in the repeal of this provision. But that could take months, and in the meantime D.C.’s political posturing would be putting residents at increased risk.

The law will unfairly burden legitimate gun owners with potential criminal liability in the event of an accident. Not to mention the fact that it will continue to give criminals all the time they need time to draw, aim and fire.

Fractional Reserve Disaster

2008-07-14T13:57:00.000-04:00

There is no question that the financial markets are facing a liquidity crisis of unimaginable proportions. But the federal government seems to be sending a clear message: It will only save some of these institutions on the condition that stringent new regulatory oversight rules are passed.

Normally, laissez-faire business types decry such government intervention, claiming that it interferes with a free market. But sadly, none of them seems to have a problem accepting a handout from the government when they find they can't back the risky plays they called.

Yet it seems almost hypocritical for the government to go around pointing fingers, when its own chartered institutions, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, also teeter on the verge of collapse as a result of risky lending practices. Astoundingly, although only a small percentage of Fannie- and Freddie-backed loans are in distress, the institutions are so over-leveraged that they can't cover the bill.

Furthermore, the failures of large regional banks, including last week's FDIC takeover of Indy Bank, point to a much deeper problem: the failure of fractional reserve banking as a whole. Despite a concerted last-ditch effort to save the bank, and despite having over $20 billion in deposits, less than $1 billion of which was uninsured by the FDIC, there was still a run on the bank that caused it to be closed Friday by the Office of Thrift Supervision. The question is whether there were really so many panicked depositors seeking to withdraw funds, or whether the cash reserve ratios of large banks are too low to justify the risks they are taking with their investments.

Sad McCain

2008-07-14T13:56:00.000-04:00

Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) rather embarrassing conversation onboard a bus recently, in which he was left speechless when asked whether insurance companies’ coverage of Viagra and not of birth control constituted gender discrimination, revealed a surprisingly timid and indecisive side of the prospective president.

McCain’s inability to stand up for his belief is a disturbing flaw that is hard to reconcile with real leadership. The simple answer to the question should have been “absolutely not.” Insurance companies should be in the business of protecting people’s health, not enabling people’s lifestyle choices.

While widely misused, Viagra is designed to cure a diagnosed condition affecting millions of people: erectile dysfunction. Birth control does not cover any pre-existing condition, and merely protects against the consequences of bad decisions about sexual conduct. While Viagra has a marginal medical purpose, it is probably over-prescribed.

Both of these drugs end up being harmful to society because they facilitate, if not promote, the focus on animalistic, base desires in people. In the case of Viagra, it has become a runaway success even among people without diagnosed erectile dysfunction, a kind of recreational drug that, when used outside of its intended purpose, can have dire effects.

Birth control has become synonymous with unprotected sex between unwed partners — sex without responsibility. Both should be highly curtailed in insurance coverage. While there are definitely issues about which politicians can refrain from deciding under the media’s glare, McCain’s painful waffling suggests a deep insecurity about his own past voting record. That is what’s inexcusable here.

Jackson’s Graceless Exit

2008-07-10T14:27:00.001-04:00

Jesse Jackson’s remarks suggesting he wanted to castrate Obama not only demonstrate his self-loathing and envy over Obama’s ascendancy to the national stage, they are a stark reminder of the vast difference between the two. Jesse Jackson, who is supposedly a man of the cloth, should never have made such remarks privately — although, as far back as his “Hymietown” remarks about New York Jews, he has been known to issue nasty personal attacks.

Obama, who had to lighten the sandbags on his sagging presidential hopes by casting the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his church overboard, nonetheless continues to enjoy overwhelming popularity in all communities across the American spectrum. Moreover, his recent play to faith-based initiatives could further endear him to the Christians.

All this must be highly disturbing to Jackson, a former Clinton backer, who suddenly finds himself without a card to play (i.e., delivering the black masses to a white politician). His vitriolic statements are rooted in his disappointment over becoming irrelevant on the political stage.

Let’s face it: Jackson represents a strategy for political empowerment that long ago lost its effectiveness. But instead of embracing the new generation, what does he do? He decides to turn on them instead. Jackson’s offhand remarks stating that Obama is merely the latest leg in a 54-year relay echo remarks by some black leaders about conservatives such as Justice Clarence Thomas. Why can’t these once-dominant power players and policy shapers realize that the time has now come for the changing of the guard?

Is There an R in the House?

2008-07-10T14:26:00.002-04:00

Is there a Republican in the House? After this November’s elections, that question might be more apt than amusing. The party continues to suffer debilitating setbacks, if for no other reason than its poor brand, based on a poor track record. Yes, America still has a political hangover from the decade-long Republican rule, and unless they get some elixir fast, they’ll take it out on the party again this fall.

Last week, President Bush was named by National Journal’s political insiders as Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) largest vulnerability. This week, his candidacy is further bogged down by the congressional races. The Cook Political Report — the political bible of electoral races in this town — “downgraded” 27 solid Republican congressional districts, moving them a stage closer to an uncertain Republican outcome. As if Sen. McCain’s charisma didn’t pose enough of a threat to the campaign, his own party’s congressional nominees are putting yet another crimp in the Arizona senator’s express. In fact, I believe this is the first cycle in as long as I can remember where the candidates down-ticket will actually drag down the prime heavyweight contender.

There’s always the potential that each lost vote on the congressional level translates left on the presidential as well. Not only were 27 districts moved left, but many were in key battleground states like Florida (27 electoral votes) and Ohio (20 electoral votes). Although you never really know what will spoil a Florida election, losing the state could spoil a run for the presidency.

Even if voting Democrat in a congressional race doesn’t mean switching a presidential vote, the shift leftward will have an indirect but significant impact on McCain’s race — fundraising. Congressional contenders will be more agile than ever, trying to grab each donor to win their own election, leaving little cash for their financially deprived presidential candidate.

Like A-Rod’s marriage, Sen. McCain’s campaign is breaking up because of a bad emotional connection — the negative feelings and baggage carried by the right-leaning party. It’s truly unfortunate that issues carry less weight in this election than a party name or a candidate’s fundraising tactics, but these third-party forces are nonetheless distracting voters from the candidates’ agendas. And although the ramifications of the leftward shift in congressional voting are not yet known, it will have an effect come November —directly by party-line voters or indirectly through fundraising. Either way, candidates this year will find that it’s getting hard to be a Republican.

Will the Worst Presidential Candidate Lose?

2008-07-10T14:26:00.001-04:00

Today’s presidential nominees are not comparable to tennis star Venus Williams or golf’s Tiger Woods. Rather than an outcome where the best player wins, this election is shaping up where the worst candidate will lose. Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) inexperience and overall image is only slightly countered by his adroit campaign skills; whereas Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) clumsy campaign efforts are only somewhat improved by his experience and character. Frankly, this race is shaping up to be not about who is the best individual to lead our country, but rather a test to see who will make the fewest mistakes.

If campaign management were the major and final determinant of this presidential race, McCain wouldn’t even make it on the field. He would be blown away, as evidenced even this early in the cycle (yes, America, this is early …) with Obama’s fundraising and mobilization prowess. McCain’s recent staff shake-up shows voters that even he recognizes the danger his campaign strategies pose in winning this election. Initially, McCain’s disjunctive arrangement of 11 regional managers proved to create an incoherent, malfunctioning strategy. I believe he’ll have trouble even with able-bodied Steve Schmidt now at the helm.

However, simply because McCain’s campaign tactics are in a losing battle doesn’t mean the election is a foregone conclusion for the Republican Party. Sen. Obama’s issue stances and inexperience create a significant problem despite his advanced campaign tactics. Let’s think back to 2000, when President Bush commanded a much better campaign than his opponent, former Vice President Al Gore. Despite his superior plan and execution, Bush still lost the popular vote.

Unfortunately for America, neither party has selected a superstar candidate. Instead, the Democrats have chosen a candidate with little experience and unproven policies; and Republicans selected a nominee with little charisma and failing campaign abilities. Rather than choosing the best leader for our country, voters may see this race as a contest to select the lesser of the two evils — voting against a candidate instead of for the other simply allows the worst candidate to lose.

Addressing the Inexperience Gap

2008-07-07T13:39:00.000-04:00

Everyone knows Sen. McCain’s attempt at the presidency is covered with obstacles left behind by President Bush. Everyone knows Sen. McCain’s worst issue is the economy — I mean, he told us as much! Yes, Sen. McCain has acknowledged his weaknesses and addressed how he will strengthen them.

Sen. Obama has neglected to do the same, instead attempting to camouflage his largest vulnerability as “change." The Illinois senator’s inexperience ranks among Democrats and Republicans alike as the most significant liability, according to a poll of Washington political insiders released by the National Journal this week.

Although Gen. Wesley Clark believes experience — in the military or otherwise — is virtually worthless, others may disagree. The recent poll revealed over 60 percent of well-connected (and well-heeled) Democrats believe their candidate’s inexperience is a serious problem — the top concern, mind you. The polling revealed another 30 percent of Democrats view his perceived elitism as a significant weakness. Characteristics such as inexperience with a perceived superiority complex historically produce candidates who don't know what they are doing and refuse to ask questions — a dangerous combination.

Now, Sen. McCain is plagued with President Bush’s unpopularity — something he has little control over. And although he tries to distance himself and point out their differences, the general populace associate the two because of the (R) behind their names. Still, other than the economy, the National Journal Insiders poll discovered that none of the issues Bush is perceived to have failed on are strict indictments against McCain. The Illinois senator faces different problems as his inexperience directly correlates with him and his potential leadership.

I know I’ve said this before, but inexperience gives no indication of what to expect. It gives no indication of how he may act in a management position. It gives no indication of how he will actually handle the economy or even if he will be able to. This comes as no surprise, but politicians continually talk the talk and Sen. Obama is giving little indication of whether he will walk the walk.

Sen. Obama continues to ignore that voters — and now the elite in his own party — recognize his inexperience as a vulnerability — possibly revealing his arrogance as well. As he continues to try to spin a lack of experience as change, he perpetuates the weight of the weakness. Sen. McCain has faced his liabilities head on, addressed them, and is letting the country decide. Sen. Obama is simply ignoring it, hoping the weakness goes unnoticed which is, frankly, another sign of inexperience.

Vigilante Justice

2008-07-07T12:34:00.000-04:00

Many people have come out in anger against the death in police custody of cop-killer Ronnie White, citing a violation of his civil liberties.

But few have spoken up for the family of Cpl. Richard Findley, who died in the line of duty while trying to protect the public against a murderous car thief. I am sick and tired of people coddling criminals who have no regard for the lives of law-abiding citizens.

The truth of the matter is that White committed a horrible crime that incited the justifiable rage of the slain officer's grief-stricken comrades. I am an uncompromising advocate of law enforcement officers adhering to the rule of law and under no circumstances should they become the judge, jury and executioner of these gun-toting thugs. However, one can certainly understand the frustration and rage of officers who put their lives on the line to protect the public.

The accused in this country are offered unparalleled access to due process, legal representation and the presumption of innocence, and vigilante justice is rarely, if ever, justified. However, some communities are becoming so rife with crime and wanton disregard for human life that there may come a time when vigilante justice is necessary.

A Town By Any Other Name

2008-07-02T13:55:00.000-04:00

What’s in a name? An age-old question with what’s become a rhetorical answer — character, beliefs and emotions cannot be masked by a name. However, as Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) continues along the campaign trail, it appears as if he doesn’t understand the concept of the metaphorical question, choosing locations for no other reason than to legitimize his speeches and hoping his locations’ names create the images his actions dispel.

When Sens. Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) declared their truce, they chose Unity, N.H., wishing the town’s name would camouflage the sour look on Sen. Clinton’s face. But declaring armistice in Unity did not transform Clintonites into Obama supporters, nor did it hide the trenches dug between the candidates during the primaries.

So now the senator moves his tour through Independence, Mo., as a way to somehow confirm his patriotism. Throughout this election cycle, critics have argued against Sen. Obama’s love for his country. His pastor condemned America. His lapel only bore a flag pin after criticism for its absence. Simply making a speech in Independence does not and should not prove patriotism. Would his message be different if he said the same words in Egypt? Texas? It shouldn’t be. Do the same criteria qualify other cities? Is he only serious about the economy if he speaks in Commerce, Ga.? Or alternative fuels in Energy, Ill.?

As he admitted in a recent speech, he’s made some verbal mistakes that have put his patriotism into question. However, showing up in a town with a unique name should not qualify as the action that clarifies his patriotism. Would a town by any other name be so patriotic? So Independence — or any American community — would; were it not called Independence.

Primetime Politics

2008-07-02T09:29:00.001-04:00

Have you noticed that the 2008 presidential race has gone primetime?

Thus far, it is evident by the dramatic increase in primary voter turnout that more people are participating and enthusiastic. In many states, this year’s primary elections ushered in more voters than 2000’s general election. Wow!

Further, these candidates are attracting larger audiences than even President Bush himself. Sen. Obama regularly speaks to excited crowds of 20,000-plus while President Bush often speaks with only a few hundred quiet individuals.

But does record-breaking participation mean a more knowledgeable voting demographic? Not necessarily. Sure, more people can identify the candidates' names by looking at their pictures, but many Americans are getting caught up in the glamor without delving into the issues.

This year’s news was filled with many more stories than just the hard-core political facts. For example, Vanity Fair recently featured a scathing, unflattering column about former President Clinton’s personal life, and at the worst time in the campaign.

Americans are still more informed about the social side than the policy side. A recent Pew Research Center poll found 84 percent of respondents knew talk show host Oprah Winfrey supported Sen. Obama while only half could identify what country Hugo Chavez was president of — illustrating international politics and the core of issues still haven’t hit the American mainstream.

The millions of dollars, thousands of screaming fans and hundreds celebrity endorsements have changed politics. Candidates are more than just political figures — they are superstars proving one thing: Politics is as much about entertainment these days than just standard governing. Is this progress, or is it troublesome for the American electorate?

Revisiting Sen. Obama

2008-06-30T08:36:00.000-04:00

While an Illinois state senator for eight years, Sen. Obama voted “present” 130 times instead of taking a definitive stand on the issue at hand. Sen. Clinton said this earlier in the campaign about his propensity to duck certain issues: “You cannot achieve the kind of changes we want by voting 'present' on controversial issues.” Worse than his “present” votes, however, was his vote in 2001 against a measure that would have expanded the penalties for some gang activity to include the death penalty.

Although he comes off as a clean lawmaker with little lobbyist influence, we still have yet to see the lingering fallout from his ties to Tony Rezko, including a shady housing purchase by Obama and Rezko on adjacent properties. But let’s get back to the votes, where we can clearly see where the senator stands on the issues.

In 2007 he voted against banning partial birth abortions, for expanding research on stem cell lines, against declaring English as the official language of the U.S. government, for the minimum wage hike, against raising the estate tax exemption to $5 million, and for the redeployment of troops out of Iraq by March of 2008. If these aren’t liberal votes, I don’t know what are.

Sen. Barack Obama is a decent and honorable man and has the potential of being a tremendous leader someday. But before you get caught up in his charisma and optimism, make sure you clearly understand where he plans to take the world’s lone superpower.

Experience especially in the area of foreign policy is increasingly important with the instability around the globe. Many rogue nations and world leaders would test the senator early on in his administration, making a determination about his leadership, wisdom and judgment. A comprehensive examination of his quotes, votes, and experience, tells me that this man needs to be more vetted by the media and seriously challenged by Sen. McCain on the issues that matter most to us as countrymen home and abroad.

Illegal Immigration Nonexistent in Presidential Election

2008-06-30T08:31:00.000-04:00

During this stage of the presidential race, you don't hear Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) or Barack Obama (D-Ill.) giving much attention to the illegal immigration crisis that continues to plague our nation.

There is no more important domestic issue facing America than illegal immigration, and yet we continue to avoid resolving the problem. The dilemma is that millions of people are streaming across American borders in the hope of improving their lot in life, but only a few of them are going through the proper channels to become legal citizens or documented aliens. Thus, our country is full of people who for all intents and purposes do not exist — they don’t have voting rights, they don’t have proper identification, they don’t serve on juries, and they don’t pay taxes.

So as our schools crumble, our freeways become worn out and our hospital waits become longer, illegal immigrants exacerbate the problem by using these services without adding to them. Those illegals who do work are admittedly helping the economy, but they are also hurting our overall society by sapping our resources without giving back. And finally, what is scary to think about is that in this age of terrorism, an open border (or a weak border) is an invitation for terrorists to enter and plan, support or cause chaos.

With all these convergent ideas on immigration reform and only five months before we vote for a new Congress and president, there is absolutely no way anything substantial will get done until 2009. Blame who you wish — and trust me, there is plenty to go around — but remember that the real loser is not some politician, but the everyday taxpayer who is paying for millions of illegal immigrants to freely attend our schools, drive on our freeways and use our hospitals.

As a man of faith, I strongly believe that every human being deserves the right to pursue happiness, but as a taxpaying citizen, I also believe strongly that every human should do his or her part to make the government work. And until the American immigration policy is reformed, and we stop catering to illegal immigrants, we will continue to let millions of people reap the rewards of our system without paying their due.

Pfledger’s Return to the Pulpit

2008-06-25T09:47:00.000-04:00

After a short suspension from his duties of pastoral work, the Rev. Michael Pfledger is returning to Saint Sabina Church in Chicago. Pfledger is infamously known for mocking Sen. Clinton in a sermon, suggesting that she was crying over the fact that a “black man was stealing her show.”

How is it possible for cognizant individuals to feel comfortable following the teachings of such a so-called reverend? His sermons epitomize racism, are inexcusably judgmental, and are mentally masochistic in nature. Both he and his sermons have absolutely no place in or near the pulpit. During his sermons, he appears to be on or past the brink of insanity as he degrades his own heritage. Not only should he not return to his position, but he should also be required to give a public apology for his actions. His offensive misconducts, as with the misconducts of Jeremiah Wright, are completely misguided, unjustifiable, ignorant, and demeaning to the inflicted and the congregation.

Church is supposed to be about love, spirituality and reverence for God, not about divisiveness, secularity and slander. Sure, we all have our opinions about what’s going on politically, but our religious leaders are not supposed to persuade us in the directions that we choose. If that were the case, we wouldn’t have a choice in whether or not we accept Christianity, which would render church a place to go in order to be indoctrinated. Our religious values are supposed to be strong enough to help us make the most valid judgments in all measures of life — socially and politically. Instead of our pastors instilling their opinions on us, they should work at instilling God’s word in us, which will, in turn, give us the right moral navigation system.

Armstrong's Vote

2008-06-25T09:42:00.000-04:00

Armstrong Williams wards off claims that he will not vote Republican in this year's Presidential election and instead vote for the Democratic presumptive nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Allow Me to Elaborate

2008-06-23T10:23:00.000-04:00

Many people watching and listening to my national TV and radio appearances this past week seem to have gotten the impression that any support for Obama from me — or any other black conservative, for that matter — is due solely to race. Unfortunately, they have misinterpreted my opinions if they somehow think there is a concrete Obama vote coming from me or that I believe the black community should all rally behind and vote for Obama because he is black. Let me take a few moments to elaborate on what my comments really mean — or rather, what they don’t:

I do not condone Harvard Professor Cornel West, who turns blackness into a political ideology. The Illinois senator used to be accused by people like West of “not being black enough.” But apparently he’s now black enough and can identify with black America — which means what? Can he not identify with or represent white America?

I do not support those who blindly follow anyone only because they have more pigment than a white person. If Sen. Obama creates bad policy, you can bet I will be first in line to critique — standing up for my fellow conservatives who feel they cannot speak for fear of being pegged as a racist.

I do not believe the color of my skin translates into a choice of the color of my support — red or blue. Acknowledging the historic nature of this election does not render an unconditional brotherhood of support where all other issues aside from race are ignored. Instead, it recognizes movement — even two years ago, no one expected a black freshman senator from Illinois to win against a well-known white female politician.

Simply put, I am a conservative American who happens to be black. The color of my skin does not translate into a political agenda — a black, blue or any other colored agenda. I recognize the historical context under which this election is operating. But this does not mean I will restrict myself from commenting on policies that I believe are unhealthy for America — and not just black America, because above any gender, any ideology, any race … I am American.

Friends of Ignorance

2008-06-19T09:26:00.000-04:00

There’s no denying many of us are all-too-often “friends of ignorance” — only announcing the relationship when necessary. Although occasionally we reside in the blissful realm unintentionally, many times ignorance is simply a scapegoat, and a lame one at that. Recently, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) pleaded ignorance when he received a sweetheart deal from Countrywide Financial’s chairman and chief executive, Angelo Mozilo, leaving one of two possibilities: Either the Finance Committee member is oblivious to finances or his ignorance is a fake.

When the North Dakota senator decided to buy his $1.2 million beach home in Delaware, a friend (who also happens to be Fannie Mae’s CEO) recommended him to Angelo. Apparently unbeknownst to Sen. Conrad, he received an exceptional loan as a part of the “Friends of Angelo” program. Still, I just can’t believe the senator was oblivious to the fiscal benefits he was receiving — I mean, he sits on the Finance Committee!

Even though the senator knew nothing of a special deal, he still felt the need to deny association with Mr. Mozilo, saying last Friday: “I never met Angelo Mozilo.” Later he had to amend his statement a bit — after all, he did give Mr. Mozilo a personal phone call about the loan. Apparently the question was confusing for him and left him perhaps thinking: “Well, I guess that depends on the meaning of the word met. Did I talk to him? Yes. Did I meet him face-to-face? No.” What a Clintonian approach to governance.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Banking Committee, was also called out — and has confessed — to having knowingly benefited from sweetheart loans along with a handful of other senators who are yet to be publicly named as “Friends of Angelo.” The bigger issue, however, is that, like most relationships, this may be a two-way arrangement as the Democrats’ solution to the mortgage crisis is regarded as a bailout for lenders … lenders like Countrywide.

Unfortunately, being a friend to ignorance rarely pays off like being a friend of Angelo. And Sen. Conrad’s decision to deny knowledge of the situation gives the public two options for judgment. The most unlikely is that Sen. Conrad really has no idea about finances and still serves on the Senate Finance Committee actively making financial policies. Or he simply lied about his ignorance because he was afraid of the consequences. Either way, he or any of the other sweetheart loan legislators did not properly do their jobs; instead, they put their interests in front of America’s.

Black Conservatives and Obama as President

2008-06-18T09:59:00.001-04:00

I have received thousands of e-mails and letters in response to the recent AP story about black conservatives voting for Sen. Barack Obama for president this November. You are correct that I was and continue to be a strong advocate of judging one by the content of his character and not the color of his skin. Yes, I understand very well the severe areas of disagreement with Sen. Obama and our strong and consistent conservative value system.

What’s really dangerous is that he hasn’t yet been forced to explain some of his more, from a conservative view, unsavory positions: that he 1) supports partial-birth abortions; 2) will let the Bush tax cuts expire; 3) is committed to a retreat in Iraq; 4) is anti-trade and protectionist; and 5) favors billions of dollars of public investment in faddish liberal trends, e.g. “green” technologies (if they’re so beneficial, let the market invest in them — misdirected capital investment is what brought you the Asian financial crisis of ’97, the Latin American debt meltdowns, and bubbles like the Internet and now mortgage too numerous to mention). Vote for Obama and that’s what you voted for.

However, my comments about being undecided and having no idea who I would pull the lever for in November remain true and firm. Yes, I know the truth about him and still can't ignore how the hand of God works.

How can you not be moved by the progress of America in this experiment of democracy by reminding this world that we have moved beyond race and labels, and are more than willing to support the best candidate for the White House, whether a woman or American black?

The American people in this election has shown the promise of America and the tremendous progress we've made since the days of slavery, segregation and the civil rights movement. Our country is showing what many of us have advocated for years, that racial hustlers use this issue to divide and conquer us. We must also admit that the Obama campaign represents much hope for this country and truly shows the world that we're still the example and standard-bearer.

It's definitely not certain that I could ever vote for him, but I'm thankful for the maturity in my life that I can at least consider him and the hope (whether misguided or not) that he has inspired around the globe.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has been condemned by conservatives to the point where they've advocated voting for Sen. Clinton as president and not their party's nominee. Sen. McCain, despite my disagreement with some of his policies, is the most qualified candidate with an impressive and outstanding résumé of experience and leadership.

I am at peace with the fact that it's not a foregone conclusion that McCain will automatically have my vote for the simple reason he is the Republican nominee. All candidates for president should earn our vote based on what their past records show and the policies they would embrace and enact as president. There's no doubt, this November I will vote for the candidate that best represents the values and promise I so dearly hold for our America.

Armstrong Williams can be heard daily from 9-10 p.m. EST on XM Satellite Power 169.

Looking for a Few Good Fathers

2008-06-16T10:53:00.000-04:00

Life 50 years ago moved at a slower, but nonetheless progressive, pace. The use of drugs was heavily looked down upon. Young ladies during that era would have been banned and shamed for dressing and acting promiscuously. It was demanded of young men to have respect for themselves and those around them. Family values played a major part in shaping the lives of the next generation, and our parents were our early models for God. Their unconditional love taught their offspring about the cruel and challenging world they would eventually face. Equally important, parents were the first line of support for their emotional needs, basic values and various norms. From such interactions, a child’s personality and character were formed.

Let’s fast-forward 50 years later. The family institution has been shattered and no one seems to understand why. We as a nation in all of our efforts can’t put the genie back in the bottle. When watching television, it is shocking to see the scantily clad outfits that our young women wear, leaving absolutely nothing to the imagination. Young men are wearing oversized clothes and speaking a language that only they understand, called profanity. Neither gender understands what it is to be a lady or a gentleman anymore. Drug use, sex and profane communication are glorified in their music and household. Family values are replaced with the attitudes of rudeness, selfishness and immorality. So what happened over time that caused such a severe disparity in the past and the present?

On Sunday, as Father’s Day celebrations begin, the family needs a critical re-examination. A father’s absence in the household is unequivocally devastating and criminal. His being there for his family is necessary in instilling values, work ethic, discipline and common decency. It is not a stretch to say that our penal system mirrors absentee fathers in the household. In a home environment where families are fractured and unconditional love is rare, hope twists inward and horrible violence erupts. In conclusion, men play an integral role in raising their sons and daughters to understand what it is to be a man and what is required to be a woman. A father’s presence in the home is the only answer that can solve this pathology that sweeps this nation.

Please tune in to XM Radio Satellite Power 169 Monday through Friday from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. and again at 5 a.m. to listen to Armstrong Williams.

Europeans and the Environment

2008-06-12T10:32:00.000-04:00

From Belgium

Like race, environmentalism is one of the pillars of the EU’s perceived superiority over the U.S.

A leading British politician recently stated that the name of the European Union should be changed to the Environmentalist Union. But in fact, Europe's environment is far from the pristine image they would like for the world to buy into.

For example, urban air pollution causes premature deaths, by their own account, of some 375,000 people yearly, roughly the same number as in China. By contrast, the United States’ number is 50-60,000 and steadily dropping.

Even on climate change, Europe has done no better containing greenhouse gases since the Kyoto Protocol was signed 10 years ago than the U.S, which isn't a Kyoto signature and has grown faster in this period.

When will the global media and environmental experts finally acknowledge Europe’s devastating impact on its environment and their sheer hypocrisy in pointing their arrogant and self-serving fingers at everyone around the globe, with the exception of themselves?