WHO IS THE REAL BARACK OBAMA?

John McCain and Sarah Palin have finally started to draw the necessary contrasts between the McCain/Palin ticket and Barack Obama.

For example, Sarah Palin has begun to attack Obama's associations with the former Weather Underground radical Dr. Bill Ayers and Obama's liberal former pastor Jeremiah Wright.

And in New Mexico, Senator McCain started landing necessary blows against Obama's lies, evasions and minimal record:

In less than a month, the American people will make a choice on where they want this country to go, and who they trust to lead us in a time of war and economic crisis. The time for debating and electioneering is drawing to a close. Soon it will be the time for choosing.

Today we have seen a reminder of the importance of that choice. The action Congress took last week to address our financial crisis was a tourniquet, but not a permanent solution. Today we are seeing the stock market fall, and the credit crisis spread to other parts of the world. Our economy is still hurting -- working families are worried about the price of groceries, the price of gas, keeping their jobs and paying their mortgage -- further action is needed. We need to restore confidence in our economy and in our government.

Washington is still on the wrong track and we still need change. The status quo is not on the ballot. We are going to see change in Washington. The question is: in what direction will we go? Will our country be a better place under the leadership of the next president -- a more secure, prosperous, and just society? Will you be better off, in the jobs you hold now and in the opportunities you hope for? Will your sons and daughters grow up in the kind of country you wish for them, rising in the world and finding in their own lives the best of America? And which candidate's experience -- in government and in life -- makes him a more reliable leader for our country and commander in chief for our troops? Who is ready to lead? In a time of trouble and danger for our country, who will put our country first?

I set out on my own campaign for president many months ago. I promised at the beginning to be straight with the American people, knowing that even those who don't agree with me on everything would expect at least that much. I didn't just show up out of nowhere, after all -- America knows me. You know my strengths and my faults. You know my story and my convictions. And though familiarity in politics can be both helpful to a candidate, or not so helpful, it does at least fill out the picture and answer the essential questions. You need to know who you're putting in the White House -- where the candidate came from and what he or she believes. And you need to know now, before it is time to choose.

In 21 months, during hundreds of speeches, town halls and debates, I have kept my promise to level with you about my plans to reform Washington and get this country moving again. As a senator, I've seen the corrupt ways of Washington in wasteful spending and other abuses of power, and as president I'm going to end them -- whatever it takes. I will propose and sign into law reforms to bring tax relief to the middle class and help to businesses so they can create jobs. I will get the rising cost of food and gas under control. I will help families keep their home, and help students struggling to pay for college. I will make health care more accessible and affordable. I will impose a spending freeze on all but the most vital functions of government. I will review every agency of the federal government, improve those that need to be improved and eliminate those that aren't working for the American people. I will confront th e ten trillion-dollar debt that the federal government has run up, and balance the federal budget by the end of my term in office.

This is the agenda I have set before my fellow citizens. And the same standards of clarity and candor must now be applied to my opponent. Even at this late hour in the campaign, there are essential things we don't know about Senator Obama or the record that he brings to this campaign.

We have all heard what he has said, but it is less clear what he has done or what he will do. What Senator Obama says today and what he has done in the past are often two different things. He has often changed his positions in this campaign, and the best way to determine where he would really take this country is to examine where he has tried to take it in the past.

My opponent has invited serious questioning by announcing a few weeks ago that he would quote -- "take off the gloves." Since then, whenever I have questioned his policies or his record, he has called me a liar.

Rather than answer his critics, Senator Obama will try to distract you from noticing that he never answers the serious and legitimate questions he has been asked. But let me reply in the plainest terms I know. I don't need lessons about telling the truth to American people. And were I ever to need any improvement in that regard, I probably wouldn't seek advice from a Chicago politician.

My opponent's touchiness every time he is questioned about his record should make us only more concerned. For a guy who's already authored two memoirs, he's not exactly an open book. It's as if somehow the usual rules don't apply, and where other candidates have to explain themselves and their records, Senator Obama seems to think he is above all that. Whatever the question, whatever the issue, there's always a back story with Senator Obama. All people want to know is: What has this man ever actually accomplished in government? What does he plan for America? In short: Who is the real Barack Obama? But ask such questions and all you get in response is another barrage of angry insults.

Our current economic crisis is a good case in point. What was his actual record in the years before the great economic crisis of our lifetimes?

This crisis started in our housing market in the form of subprime loans that were pushed on people who could not afford them. Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread. This corruption was encouraged by Democrats in Congress, and abetted by Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has accused me of opposing regulation to avert this crisis. I guess he believes if a lie is big enough and repeated often enough it will be believed. But the truth is I was the one who called at the time for tighter restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that could have helped prevent this crisis from happening in the first place.

Senator Obama was silent on the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and his Democratic allies in Congress opposed every effort to rein them in. As recently as September of last year he said that subprime loans had been, quote, "a good idea." Well, Senator Obama, that "good idea" has now plunged this country into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

To hear him talk now, you'd think he'd always opposed the dangerous practices at these institutions. But there is absolutely nothing in his record to suggest he did. He was surely familiar with the people who were creating this problem. The executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have advised him, and he has taken their money for his campaign.

He has received more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other senator in history, with the exception of the chairman of the committee overseeing them. Did he ever talk to the executives at Fannie and Freddie about these reckless loans? Did he ever discuss with them the stronger oversight I proposed? If Senator Obama is such a champion of financial regulation, why didn't he support these regulations that could have prevented this crisis in the first place? He won't tell you, but you deserve an answer.

Even after he refused to lift a finger to prevent this crisis, when the crisis hit, he was missing in action. He didn't start making calls to round up votes until after the rescue bill failed in the House and the markets crashed. We continue to see the price of delay today as the markets continue to fall. Today the DOW has fallen below 10,000. And yet, members of his own party said they felt no pressure to vote for the bill. Why didn't Senator Obama work to pass this bill from the start? Why did he let it fail and drag out this crisis for a full week before doing a thing to help pass it?

Again on taxes, we see a difference between what Senator Obama says today, what he said yesterday and what he has actually done. Over the course of this campaign, he has had many different plans to raise your taxes. During the Democratic primary, he promised to double taxes on every American with a dividend or an investment. He promised to raise payroll taxes. He promised higher taxes on electricity. Now, Senator Obama claims he will give 95 percent of Americans tax relief. He actually promised the same thing when he was running for Senate in Illinois, but once elected he never introduced legislation to do so. Instead, he voted for the Democratic budget resolution that promised to raise taxes on people making just 42,000 dollars a year. At the time, he even said his vote was intended to get "our nation's priorities back on track." If he's such a defender of the middle class, why did he vote to raise their taxes? Whatever ha ppened to the tax relief he promised them when he was a candidate for the Senate? And why should middle class Americans trust him to keep promises he has already broken?

Senator Obama and I both have differences with how President Bush has handled the economy. But he thinks taxes are too low, and I think spending is too high. The government's out of control spending has resulted in a weaker dollar, raising the cost of groceries and gasoline, and killing jobs.

I will veto pork barrel legislation and cut wasteful government spending. Senator Obama has a different plan. According to third party estimates, he will increase government spending by over 860 billion dollars. He has denied it, but he has refused to tell you how much he does plan to spend. What is the total of his increased spending? Americans deserve to know just how much more of their money Senator Obama intends to spend, and how much more debt he plans to burden them with.

Senator Obama has also criticized earmark spending, those wasteful pork barrel projects stuck in spending bills behind closed doors. And yet, despite his talk on the campaign trail, his actual record is full of requests for earmark projects. In his three short years in the Senate, he has requested nearly a billion dollars in pork projects for his state -- a million dollars for every day he's been in office. Far from fighting earmarks in Congress, Senator Obama has been an eager participant in this corrupt system. In one instance, he sought more than 3 million dollars for a new projector at a planetarium in his hometown. Coincidentally, the chairman of that planetarium pledged to raise more than $200,000 for Senator Obama's campaign. We don't know if they ever discussed the money for the planetarium, and no one has asked Senator Obama. But even the appearance of this kind of insider-dealing disgusts Americans. I'm going to put a stop to that, my friends, if I'm President.

I have made every single donor to my campaign publicly available, while Senator Obama has taken in over 200 million dollars from undisclosed sources. We have already seen the potential for fraud because of his refusal to disclose his donors. His campaign had to return $33,000 in illegal foreign funds from Palestinian donors, and this weekend, we found out about another $28,000 in illegal donations. Why has Senator Obama refused to disclose the people who are funding his campaign? Again, the American people deserve answers.

On health care, Senator Obama has been misleading you about my plan to give you more money for health care, and he has been equally misleading about his own plans. He has said his goal is a single payer system where government is in charge of health care and bureaucrats stand between you and your doctor. Under the plan he has proposed, he will fine families that don't have the kind of health insurance that Senator Obama tells them to purchase. He will fine employers who do not offer the health insurance that he thinks they should offer.

What he doesn't say, and what nobody has asked, is how big his fines will be. What he doesn't want you to know is that with a small fine, his plan will encourage companies to just pay the fine, drop existing health care coverage for their employees and leave them with only one real option: government run health care.

Who is the real Senator Obama? Is he the candidate who promises to cut middle class taxes, or the politician who voted to raise middle class taxes? Is he the candidate who talks about regulation or the politician who took money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and turned a blind eye as they ran our economy into a ditch?

Is he the candidate who promises change, or is he the politician who has bought into everything that is wrong with Washington? We can't change the system with someone who's never fought the system.

Washington is on the wrong track and I'm going to set it right. The American people know my record. They know I am going to change Washington, because I've done it before. They know I'm going to reform our broken institutions in Washington and on Wall Street because I've done it before. They know I'm going to deliver relief to the middle class, because that's what I've done.

You don't have to hope that things will change when you vote for me. You know things will change, because I have been fighting for change in Washington my whole career. I've been fighting for you my whole life. That's what I'm going to do as President of the United States. Fight for you and put the government back on the side of the people.

Hopefully, McCain and Palin will continue to blast "the One's" wimpy record and radical schemes for more big, bureaucratic govenement.

HOW PALIN SHOULD RESPOND TO FOREIGN POLICY’S “20 QUESTIONS” TEST

The blog at Foreign Policy has twenty questions that the left believes will “expose” America’s Hockey Mom, Governor Sarah Palin.

They claim that these friendly little torpedoes establish (or disestablish) the bona fides of a worthy second in command . . .ignoring of course the artifice of a president actually having to make foreign policy decisions in seconds from memory and without a room-full of professional advisors, 535 clamoring "experts" on Capitol Hill, shelves of erudite briefing books, established protocols and precedents.

So how should Palin respond?

She studied Political Science in college, so she’s undoubtedly familiar with soft science dissembling on exams. But here’s how Truth With Speedzzter would tell her to respond.

1. In a broad and long-term sense, would you have responded differently to the attacks of 9/11?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The fact is that we are left with the responses we already have. Monday morning quarterbacking does no good in determining how we ought to go forward.

Certainly we must redouble our efforts to hunt down Osama Bin Ladin and his henchmen. And we’ve got to neutralize Osama’s terror organization. We must remain vigilant in preempting additional terrorist threats from radical extremist. We should continue to improve border and port security. We need to take the fight to the terrorists in places such as Afghanistan. We’ve got to finish the job in Iraq.

2. Is Iraq a democracy?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Iraq has made huge strides in meeting many of the benchmarks on the road to democracy. Is it perfect. Of course not. Is it a fully Western-style democracy? No. However, if we follow the cut and run policy of Mr. Obama, any hope of Iraq becoming democratic would collapse, chaos and innocent bloodshed would escalate, and Iraq would drift into Iran’s radical orbit. We don’t need to stay in Iraq forever, but we must stay until Iraq is fully self-sufficient and self-governing.

3. What's the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: What’s the difference between a Catholic and a Protestant?

The theologians could point to a lot of differences. From our point of view – in practice – the Shia have often been more fundamentalist and the Sunni more amenable to Western ideas. But Sadam Hussein was technically a Sunni – and he was as violent and repressive as any of the Shia radicals in the Islamic world.

Regardless of the theological differences, we must encourage all strains of Islam to give up jihad, violence and terrorism. And we’ve got to support responsible elements in the global war on terror.

4. What is your preferred plan for peace between Israel and Palestine? A two state solution? What about Jerusalem?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Obviously we’d prefer that they not fight. But this conflict has been raging almost from the ancient days of Ishmael and Isaac. The U.S. cannot impose peace on these factions.

Over the past three decades, the U.S. has helped reduce tensions by getting the sides to talk. But the active stakeholders for peace are the nations of the Mid-East.

We cannot waiver in our support for our strategic ally Israel. Any solution which compromises the territorial integrity and defensive capabilities of Israel is no solution at all.

The Palestinians must renounce violence and act as if they accept Israel’s inherent right to exist.

Syria and Jordan have a responsibility to the world community to diffuse tensions and to avoid actions which facilitate the conflict.

Jerusalem is a truly international city. It should not be partitioned or abused as some sort of bargaining chip or hostage to extremist ideologies. It must remain open to Moslems, Jews and Christians.

5. How do you feel about French President Nicolas Sarkozy's recent visit to Syria? Do you believe the United States should negotiate with leaders like President Bashar al-Assad?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Mr. Sarkozy has the responsibility for determining his nation’s foreign policy. I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to comment on where he chooses to visit.

The U.S., of course, should have appropriate diplomatic relations with responsible members of the international community.

I’m not certain what you mean, though, by “negotiate.” If you’re suggesting that we should compromise on basic American principles and national interests or if we should create propaganda opportunities for regimes that are linked to support for terrorism, the only negotiations that are appropriate are warnings and cautions.

6. Nearly 40 percent of the world's population lives in China and India. Who are those countries' leaders?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: This is one of those sound-bite “gotcha questions” that you guys in the media love.

[If Palin really wanted to tweak the media and the left, she’d pull out a note card, her Blackberry or a book]

Anybody can look this kind of stuff up on the Internet or in the World Almanac.

The communist party’s politburo still runs the People’s Republic of China. And you’d think that Mao Zedong was still in power from all the photos of him we saw during the Olympics. But the current head of state is [make ‘em wait for it] Hu Jintao.

The president of India is Pratibha Patil. She’s another one of those who has helped shatter the glass ceiling as I understand it.

7. Do you support the U.S.- India Civil Nuclear Agreement, which would lift restrictions on sales of nuclear technology and fuel to India, a country which hasn't signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: India is, of course, a valued friend of the U.S.

India’s peaceful development of nuclear power would be a great humanitarian benefit to the people of that region. The current non-proliferation regime is riddled with holes and cheaters. The development of Iran’s nuclear capability is an example of this.

As Ronald Reagan said, we’ve got to “trust but verify.” And that’s what we must always do in the trade of sensitive technology. A piece of paper is no substitute for active involvement. We’ve got to work closely with the Indian government to encourage responsible, peaceful nuclear development. And we’ve got to aggressively oppose nuclear proliferation with diplomatic, economic and even military pressure as we uncover it.

8. Other than more drilling, what steps do you suggest the U.S. take in order to move toward energy independence? Do you believe more investment is needed in alternative energy research? If so, how would you recommend this funding be allocated?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: [Let Palin be Palin here. Palin doesn’t need any help on energy issues, but she should refer the viewers to the McCain-Palin website. And she should attack the unrealistic assumptions of Obama’s energy plan – this is stump speech “red meat” time]

9. How would you balance concerns over human rights and freedom in China with the United States' growing economic interdependence with that country?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: While China has made breathtaking economic progress, its human rights record is abysmal. China’s record on oppressing religious freedom and political dissent is simply horrible. The Olympics have shown that the Chinese government is slowly moving toward a more openness and is increasingly responsive to international concerns.

This movement isn’t fast enough. But we’ve got the beginnings of a foundation to build on.

As China develops economically, pressures for reform from within will increase. As the fall of the Soviet Union proved, Communism is a flawed system that cannot sustain itself indefinitely. One of our tasks is to identify the opportunities to reinforce, encourage and support those who are struggling from the inside to bring China’s human rights policies into the Twenty-First Century.

Obviously, we live in a global economy and where we exert pressure on repressive regimes over questions of basic human rights must be measured carefully and realistically. While we cannot realistically “boycott” China over human rights issues, we can use our diplomatic options to strongly encourage China to enact reforms. And we can look at questions such as most favored nation trade status and restrictions on technological transfers, and disincentives to additional investment as potential points of leverage on human rights issues.

10. What's more important: securing Russia's cooperation on nuclear proliferation and Iran, or supporting Georgia's NATO bid? If Vladimir Putin called you on the phone and said, "It's one or the other," what would you tell him?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: That’s a false dichotomy. Both are important. I’m not going to answer a hypothetical question about what Mr. Putin may or may not do. But with all due respect, cannot allow any world leader to blackmail us into something that is against our interests.

11. Critique the foreign policy of the last administration. Name its single greatest success, and its most critical failure.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The answer to both questions is the same – the War on Terror. There have been no attacks on American soil since 9/11. America has stopped plenty of terrorist attempts. That’s not just the Bush Administration, but all levels of government working together. [insert Alaska vignette here].

But we’ve still not captured Osama Bin Ladin. That’s unacceptable. The job is not finished in Iraq or Afghanistan. John McCain fought virtually the entire Washington establishment for the surge in Iraq. John McCain as president will fight hard to bring the War on Terror to a strong and successful conclusion.

12. What do you think will be the most defining foreign-policy issue in the next five years?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Such prognostications are generally unreliable.

There are many international pressures that will define the next five years. The battle against terrorism . . . energy . . . international trade and the economy . . . the continuing emergence of the Far East as an economic powerhouse.

Energy will likely be at the center of America’s national interests over the next five years [insert stump speech energy material here]

13. What role should the United States play in the global effort to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS? Should it support contraception, or abstinence only?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: HIV/AIDS is a difficult problem with a lot of local variations. For example, in some African cultures, AIDS is being spread through barbaric tribal practices and pedophilia. No amount of contraception subsidies will counteract this. Much of the global education effort should be aimed at dissuading populations at risk from engaging in irresponsible practices that are known to increase risk of contracting the disease.

The first responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect our own population from this terrible scourge. Part of that effort is to do our part to stem the epidemic overseas. One-size-fits-all international solutions don’t work. We’ve got to work with local leaders to identify areas where it is in the vital national interest of the U.S. to assist and cooperate. But the front lines of the battle will be comprised of the indigenous and local leadership and their creativity in adapting solutions to fit local problems and realities.

14. You've said that the federal government spends too much money. What, in your view, is the appropriate level of spending as a percentage of GDP?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Percentage of GDP is an “inside baseball” statistic that only has meaning to some economists and policy wonks.

The real answer is that the federal government should recognize that every dollar it spends is a hard-earned dollar that it has taken from someone in taxes, and that spending of these taxpayer dollars should be at the lowest feasible level to fund the essential functions and responsibilities of the federal government. And the federal government shouldn’t tax or spend a dime more than is absolutely necessary.

We’ve got to go through our bloated federal spending line-by-line and cut out waste, luxuries and items that are not really the responsibility of the federal government. I’ve had executive experience in governing under a budget. In Alaska [insert vignettes about how Palin is a “pitbull with lipstick” on wasteful spending.]

On the other hand, Mr. Obama’s tax-and-spend liberal plans will bloat the budget by more than one trillion dollars. He will try to federalize our health care system. He will expand the bureaucracy. He will micromanage our energy development. He will further involve Washington in areas that ought to be decided and addressed locally. He will waste money we don’t have rewarding special interests that supported his campaign, such as the teachers unions. He will raise taxes, but not enough to cover his spending plans, so the national debt and deficit will balloon. That amounts to a tax increase on future generations.

15. You're an advocate of reducing environmental restrictions on drilling. How much oil needs to be found in the United States before the country achieves energy independence?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: In the world oil economy that’s rapidly expanding, every bit helps lower prices and increase supplies. But the question has the wrong focus because oil isn’t the only variable in energy independence. [insert energy stump speech here]

16. What are your picks for the three most enlightening books written on foreign policy in the last five years?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: I don’t do book reviews for a living. There’s too many fish to catch, too many moose to hunt, and too many hockey games to watch.

Seriously, too many of the big selling foreign policy books have been nothing more than rants against President Bush’s war plan or calls for an unconstitutional internationalism. [Palin could insert her list here, but here’s a few suggestions that will enrage the left and enthrall the base

America Alone by Mark Steyn
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) by Robert Spencer
Unstoppable Global Warming , by S. Fred Singer]

17. Who among the world's leaders can be listed as the top three friends of the United States and why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: That’s not a fair question to a number of America’s allies.

Certainly all of the members of the Iraq War coalition have taken courageous stands in the War on Terror. A good example of that is Tony Blair. He’s gone now, but he led the U.K. effectively in the War on Terror. Former Australian prime minister John Howard also was a good friend of the U.S. We’ve recently seen positive developments in France with Mr. Sarkozy and in Germany with Ms. Merkel.

But it’s just not fair to single out three of America’s friends for such a silly list.

18. In your opinion, which U.S. president was the most successful world leader and why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Several American presidents have lead strongly on the World Stage. Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, James K. Polk. As an Alaskan, I’m of course somewhat fond of Andrew Johnson, because if it wasn’t for his purchase of Alaska, Alaskans might be speaking Russian today.

Several Twentieth Century presidents made real change through tough foreign policy decisions. President Nixon’s outreach to China was undoubtedly historic. George H.W. Bush assembled a great coalition to beat back Saddam Hussein’s aggression in Kuwait.

But in my lifetime, one president stands out – Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan refused to back down from bedrock American principles, even when ridiculed by the left. He stood toe-to-toe with the Soviet leaders and refused to blink. He lead us to victory in the Cold War, which ultimately reduced global tensions and the nuclear threat. He lead us to rebuild our military capability and helped restore America’s stature in the world.

19. Which U.S. political thinkers, writers, and politicians would you enlist to advise you on matters of foreign policy and why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: That’s a better question for John McCain. He’s the one running for president.

It’s been my experience that you get so much volunteered advice from so many quarters that you don’t have to “enlist” anyone special. We need to hear a variety of voices from both parties and outside of the U.S. John McCain has pledged to build a cabinet that’s inclusive.

And even if I don’t always agree with a position, I’ll listen to it. But naming names of particular people who will advise me after the election is presumptuous and not something I’m going to do.

20. Who is the first world leader you'd like to meet with and why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: There are many leaders that I’d like to meet with. The order would be dictated by the situation. Obviously, we’d need to concentrate on leaders involved in hot spots in the War on Terror, energy and the world economy.

That aside, for strictly selfish reasons, I’d like to sit down with Angela Merkel because she’s a strong, able woman that I’m sure would have a lot of helpful insights on a variety of topics we’d have in common.

OBAMA & BIDEN: THE “DREAM KILLERS”

[Get the latest TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER Here]

In a couple of months (barring a reprise of the “Sore-Loserman” sour grapes litigation of 2000) we will know which presidential nominee has the uncertain fate of U.S Constitution, Detroit's automakers and our shrinking automotive liberties in his hands.

The choice is about as stark as any now possible in the American two-party system.

On one hand, is Barack Obama and his old, plagiarizing, inside-Washington side kick Joe Biden. On the other is the battle-tested maverick John McCain and the refreshing "real world" conservative supermom Sarah Palin.

Obama is riding in as this year’s designated “progressive” in a cult of personality which is wholly out of proportion to anything he’s ever accomplished anywhere in his life.

His quest for office isn’t a mere campaign. It’s a “movement.”

[Some conservatives will have to be forgiven if they interlineated the word “bowel” before “movement”]

He claims to be some sort of post-partisan agent of “change.”

(Of course getting hit by a bus would be a "change" for most of us . . . "Change" isn't necessarily a good thing)

But, signing on to a couple of minor bills is hardly the record of a legendary bipartisan legislative leader.

At least he didn’t merely ad to his impressive and courageous total of “present” votes, though.

And other than running his mouth (almost non-stop) in a protracted campaign for the presidency, what has Obama (apparently known to some as the Messianic Mulatto) ever actually run?

Oh! He did find a few typos on the liberal “Haaa-vard” Law Review . . . .

And there’s that resume bulking “community organizer” job . . . .

“ But he's never run a city, never run a state, never run a business.
He's never had to lead people in crisis.
This is not a personal attack....it's a statement of fact - Barack Obama has never led anything.
Nothing. Nada.” – Rudolph Giuliani

Perhaps a fitting sobriquet would be “Zerobama” (as in ZERO EXPERIENCE).

And as for being a “community organizer” . . . Speedzzter’s been to south Chicago . . . and it doesn’t look much like he finished the job . . . .

“I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities.” Gov. Sarah Palin

Lack of experience aside, the motley and freakish collection of special interests, perpetual victims and “nutroots” activists that make up the Democrat party’s primary voters apparently saw Obama as better able to recover the imaginary “Camelot” of past Democratic eras than that certain shrill, female, coat-tail-riding proxy for Bill Clinton known as Hillary.

Obama is one of the greatest beneficiaries of mindless, kneejerk "affirmative action" racial identity politics in American history.

Had he not been a glib and telegenic African-American (or more accurately a half African-American), he would not be anywhere near the U.S. Presidency at this point in his fledgling political career. However, he has attracted about 90% of the primary votes cast by those in the Democrat party who believe that the color of one’s skin and not the content of one’s character is the relevant factor in selecting a president.

A candidate's race, of course, ought to have absolutely no role in the selection of any elected or appointed leader. However, the liberal fixation on the demographic composition of the GOP convention, for example, is a strong indicator that Democrat leaders simply do not agree with this core American principle. Obama's dramatic ascendency sans any real qualifications is another.

Obama’s other major base of support comes from those who are obsessed with losing the war in Iraq.

Anyone with a memory of more than a couple of seconds is aware that Obama has run consistently hard for defeat and surrender in Iraq and has rhetorically opposed anything that would “escalate” our chances to win.

He won’t even admit he was stone-cold wrong on the troop surge.

Notwithstanding years of demoralizing, hyper-partisan and often misleading rhetoric against the Iraq War, some claim Obama only voted once to defund it and only because his hand was forced by the wily GOP as a procedural matter. However, the fact that he was too busy campaigning to show up for votes does not diffuse the valid observations of Joe Lieberman about “Zerobama’s” gelding positions on winning at the major beachhead in the War Against Radical Islamofascism.

When Zero did show up, he amassed the most liberal voting record of any currently sitting U.S. Senator.

Still, while some anticipate Obama as some sort of a new age liberal (a/k/a “progressive”) who can sell (without any partisan rancor whatsoever in a new, imaginary post-partisan age) a sharply divided country on all of the old, big government schemes and scams on the shelf since the days of LBJ’s “Great Society, ” others seem to view Obama as some sort of a reincarnation of the almost-moderate Clinton Administration. Balanced budgets and dot.com prosperity are just around the corner . . . .

Of course all of that assumes a highly revisionist view of the Bill Clinton era.

For example, the federal budget was balanced (on paper) despite Clinton and AFTER the Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress. It was a direct result of the Democrat losses in the 2004 mid-term elections and of the GOP’s “Contract With America.” (Admittedly, once Newt Gingrich was gone and Tom Delay took over, the GOP Congress lost its discipline on spending) The budget was balanced, in part, by rejecting the very sorts of big government initiatives and redistributionist handouts "Zerobama" favors (i.e. federalizing/socializing the health care system, soaking small business owners and small investors with a huge tax increase)

Obama-ism seeks to undo the bulk of the favorable economic policies which survived the Clinton era and replace them with disincentives to investment, protectionist trade restrictions, vast and expensive regulations on commercial activity and energy production/usage.

The salient lesson from the 2006 election has been lost on young Zero as well. A fair plurality of American voters are tired of wasting billions in federal tax money – which is money extorted by force of law from productive Americans -- on pork-barrel crap like nature trails, Woodstock cultural centers and overpriced bridges with minimal traffic counts.

However, because the Democrat political model is STILL based on Tammany Hall-style inducements to special interests (to which Tom Delay misled the GOP to adopt and George W. Bush failed to police with his veto pen before the 2006 election debacle), real earmark reform still hasn’t occurred.

Obama’s laundry list of “change” proposals suggests he will further balloon federal spending with more “targeted” pork (cash rewards for political loyalty) and expensive new “entitlements” (government-mandated wealth redistribution). It’s a solid lock that a former ACORN “community organizer” is going to be free with doling out the hand-outs that he undoubtedly coveted when he was just “Barry” on the south side of Chicago.

“Nobama’s” tax plan is even worse.

It will increase taxes over John McCain’s plan by NINE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS according to the non-partisan Urban Institute. Zerobama’s plan will increase marginal rates by nearly 15% on those who already pay over 90% of the revenue from gross federal income taxes. It will increase the rate on corporations by one-third over the McCain’s plan.

Obama’s tax plan will result in a huge tax increase on millions of small businesses, sole proprietorships, family enterprises and individual investors because it fails to preserve the bulk of the 2001 tax cuts. Because these heavy taxpayers simply cannot print additional money to pay more, these Obama tax increases, in a majority of cases, will be passed on through increased prices, reduced investments, reduced consumption and reduced hiring. The corresponding increases in transfer payments and other big government spending will not produce as much of a multiplier effect as leaving this same money in the private sector to begin with.

Obama doesn’t just limit the interference of big government to taxation. For example, Obama has said

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our houses on 72 degrees at all times . . . That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.”

In other words, Obama’s brand of "progress" portends regulation of almost every area of personal freedom, except of course those areas of sexual morality and dangerous substance abuse which have traditionally been regulated for both didactic purposes and the public good.

Obama is arguably the most dangerous choice for president in recent memory because he is an anti-constitutional, big government socialist who is limp-wristed on national defense, mostly hostile to the fundamental right of armed personal self-defense and private property rights, wholly lacking in understanding of private initiative and entrepreneurial values, openly beholden to scores of liberal special interests, and devoid of the ideological resolve to protect our fragile national sovereignty from being co-opted by international government.

Compared to that, Bill Clinton was just an egotistical opportunist with a bad Southern accent and an overactive libido.

Obama’s hypnotic set-piece propaganda speeches often mention the theme of “enabling dreams.”

Yet Obama and Biden are actually dreamkillers.

If you dream of finally purchasing a new, high-performance V8 musclecar, sports car or the SUV of your choice, the radical Obama-Biden increase in Corporate Average Fuel Economy and obsequious fealty to the anti-oil environmental crowd will kill that dream.

If you dream of a Supreme Court that will read the Constitution as written and not make it up as they go, Obama’s anticipated two appointments to the Court will kill that dream.

If you dream of a robust individual rights of self-protection and sport through small arms ownership, Obama-Biden’s revival of intrusive gun control will kill that dream.

If you dream of hunting, four-wheeling or snowmobiling on public lands, Obama-Biden’s “don’t tread” land management policies will kill that dream.

If you dream of a state-by-state political resolution of the “right to life” controversy instead of a Court-imposed, taxpayer-subsidized nationwide abortion industry, Obama-Biden’s judicial appointments and hyper-phobia of common-sense regulations will kill that dream.

If you dream of a military that is not weakened by the forced social engineering of the radical homosexual rights movement, Obama-Biden’s policy of open, forced acceptance and subsidy of the “gay agenda” will kill that dream.

If you dream of the freedom to maintain the centuries-old traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, Obama-Biden’s refusal to permit a Federal Marriage Amendment will kill that dream.

If you dream of the opportunity to build a small business without the crippling parasitic burdens of trial lawyer piracy, intrusive regulations and confiscatory rates of taxation, Obama-Biden’s neo-socialist redistributionist schemes will kill that dream.

If you dream of a free market of ideas on the radio, television and internet, Obama-Biden’s return to the discredited and unfair “fairness doctrine” will kill that dream.

If you dream of meaningfully increasing domestic gas and oil production and refining capacity and safe and clean nuclear electric power, Obama-Biden’s environmental policies will kill that dream.

If you dream of a free market-based health care system, Obama-Biden’s bureaucratic, de facto nationalization of the health care system will kill that dream.

If you dream of responsible tort reform and common-sense limits on “jackpot justice” and trial lawyer piracy, Obama-Biden’s judiciary packed with liberal former trial lawyers and refusal to cross the trial lawyers who have funded much of the Democrat party will kill that dream.

If you dream of peace with honor in the Middle East and unflinching support of our dear ally Israel, Obama-Biden’s cut-and-run isolationist military strategy will kill that dream.

If you dream of the opportunity to compete and trade in the world marketplace, Obama-Biden’s protectionism will kill that dream.

If you dream of low income parents having a real choice to move their kids from failing public schools and into the same sorts of private schools that elite Democrat politicians often use, Obama-Biden’s wholesale rejection of vouchers and school choice will kill that dream.

If you dream of public schools that don’t circumvent parental and religious teachings on sexual abstinence before marriage and the illegitimacy of homosexual conduct, Obama-Biden’s liberal, “values-neutral, ”graphic “how-to” sex education mandates will kill that dream.

If you dream of real border security without amnesty immigration lawbreakers, Obama-Biden’s immigration policy will kill that dream.

If you dream of the free exercise of religion in the public square and freedom of public religious expression, Obama-Biden’s packing of the federal judiciary with liberal, ACLU-type haters of religion and hostility to legislative protections will kill that dream.

If you believe in the constitutional principle of federalism, Obama-Biden’s massive expansion of the federal bureaucracy and federal role in local issues will kill that dream.

If you believe in the principle of free private association for legitimate economic and business matters and the corresponding principle of the freedom not to associate, Obama-Biden’s policy of forced acceptance and subsidy of homosexual and unmarried sexual conduct will kill that dream.

If you dream of free market solutions to the “energy crisis,” Obama-Biden’s managed (government controlled) energy economy with draconian limits on greenhouse gas emissions, oil drilling, shale oil production and other artificial limitations will kill that dream.

If you dream of an “American Autobahn” someday, or unfettered sport boating, motor racing and sport aviation, Obama-Biden’s draconian energy use policies will kill that dream.

If you dream of a summer gas tax holiday to promote tourism and economic growth in a time of high fuel prices, Obama-Biden’s rejection of that proposal will kill that dream.

If you dream of more competitive “right to work” opportunities, Obama-Biden’s increased unionization policies will kill that dream.

If you dream of the freedom to contract for market-based fringe benefits, Obama-Biden’s unfunded federal mandates for increased fringe benefits will kill that dream.

If you dream of common-sense amendments to and reasonable enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Obama-Biden’s demand for increased federal intervention in this area will kill that dream.

If you dream of reasonable capital gains taxation, Obama-Biden’s “soak the rich” tax policy and increase in the capital gains tax will kill that dream.

If you dream of passing your family business down to your children, Obama-Biden’s “death tax” policy will kill that dream.

If you dream of maintaining American sovereignty without interference from international law, Obama-Biden’s penchant for freedom-killing UN initiatives and international treaties will kill that dream.

If you dream of a smaller, less intrusive government that lives within its means, Obama-Biden’s old-fashioned “higher taxes and more spending” mentality will kill that dream.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden are dreamkillers. Plain and simple.

The only real hope to protect the dreams of ordinary Americans is to vote for McCain-Palin.


The preceeding is commentary protected by the First Amendment and is not paid for or sponsored by any candidate or political party. Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.