Final debate should make it clear that John McCain and Sarah Palin each has more courage and better character and judgment for the presidency than Barack Obama. Obama versus McCain and Obama versus Palin in an election in which Joe Biden is irrelevant.
The fnal debate should make it self evident that not only is Barack Obama less qualified for the Presidency than John McCain, he's also demonstrably less qualified than Sarah Palin.
With respect to the final debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, controversy existing over the wisdom of John McCain focusing on Barack Obama's failure to timely and unequivocally repudiate corrupt or radical activists with whom he worked or associated brings into sharp focus the fact that Sarah Palin's record of achievements in exposing corruption (even within her own party) shows that she, like John McCain, has more courage and better character and judgment for the presidency than Barack Obama. Whether a candidate for the presidency possesses such character traits is not a trivial issue-- a point which Peter Wehner brilliantly and insightfully makes in his October 15, 2008, column. Here's an excerpt:
For those who say that these associations don’t matter, that they’re “distractions” from the more urgent problems of our time and an example of “Swift-boating,” consider this: if John McCain had sat in the pew of a pastor who was a white supremacist and launched his political career at the home of, and developed a working relationship with, a man who bombed abortion clinics or black churches and, for good measure, was unrepentant about it, McCain’s political career would be (rightly) over, and he would be (rightly) ostracized.
A political reference point may be helpful here. Senator Trent Lott was hounded out of his post as Majority Leader because of a few inappropriate comments — made in bad taste but in jest — at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party. Much of the media and the political class were outraged. Yet we have a case in which Obama has had close, intimate relations with some really unsavory folks, and we’re told it doesn’t matter one bit.
There are some so-called "moderates" and "independents" (and even some "conservatives") who deem Palin's experience insufficient to qualify her for the presidency, but their analysis seems to overlook the demonstrable fact that she, like McCain, has the courage and judgment to oppose corruption even when she finds it among political associates on her side of the political spectrum. On this issue alone, the contrast between Sarah Palin's record of accomplishment and Obama's record of evasion, denial, deception and equivocation is stunning.
When Palin was still a political neophyte serving on Alaska's "Oil and Gas Commission," she encountered corruption on her own side of the political spectrum. What did she do? She tried to force the resignation of the offending person, and when her efforts initially failed, she resigned in protest, after which public pressure forced such person to resign.
Whenever it may have been that Obama "learned" that William Ayers, an activist with whom he worked and whom he supported and from whom he received political support, was a radical activist who remained "unrepentant" for his domestic terrorism in the late-1960's/early-1970's, what did Obama do? He did not repudiate or dissasociate himself from Ayers. Instead, and only in response to public pressure, he dissembled, misled, and equivocated about his relationship with Ayers until he finally "repudiated" Ayers when public pressure made it obvious that failing to do so could damage his campaign. However, at the time of such "repudiation," Obama disingenuously and dishonestly attempted to mischaracterize his relationship with Ayers and Ayers' radical activism as having been so remote as to be virtually meaningless. Since such equivocal and grossly misleading "repudiation" by Obama, extensive documentary evidence reluctantly and grudgingly released by the University of Chicago has indisputably exposed the falsity of Obama's prior statements regarding his relationship with Ayers. Also, since then, it's become a matter beyond dispute that Obama launched his political candidancy for the position of Illinois State Senator at an event hosted by Ayers for Obama in Ayers' living room. [For links to sources, see footnote 1 below.]
But that's not all. Whenever it may have been that Obama "learned" that his political benefactor, Tony Rezko, was corrupt, Obama did not "repudiate" Rezko until forced to do so by public pressure. In an attempt to excuse himself from a relationship with someone known in Chicago as key player in corrupt Chicago politics, Obama said that the corrupt Rezko "was not the Tony I had known," even though Rezko had arranged a sweetheart land deal to benefit Obama, who subsequently used his political power as an Illinois State Senator to benefit Rezko projects. [For links to sources, see footnote 1 below.]
But that's still not all. Long after it became public knowledge that Jim Johnson had presided over corrupt accounting and sub-prime-loan practices at FreddieMac (and made tens of millions in the process), Obama selected Johnson to serve on his special committee to recommend a running mate for Obama. Yet Obama did not remove Johnson from such position until after intense public pressure revealing, among other things, that Johnson had received a "sweetheart" loan from the now-defunct Countrywide Mortgage, which was up to its leaders' eyeballs in the sub-prime-loan crisis with FreddieMac and FannieMae, which spawned the mortgage/credit crisis that ultimately produced a near-collapse of our entire banking/financial system. [For links to sources, see footnote 1 below.]
But yet that's still not all. Well after it became public knowledge that Frank Raines had presided over corrupt accounting and sub-prime-loan practices at FannieMae (and made tens of millions in the process), Obama relied upon Raines for advice on "housing policies" and did not disassociate himself from Raines until after intense public pressure in the wake of the public exposure of the massive accounting and sub-prime-loan corruption at FannieMae under Raines' leadership. [For links to sources, see footnote 1 below.]
Incredibly, that's still not all. Long after it was known by Obama that in 2003 the Bush Administration had forcefully urged Congress to impose regulatory reform on FannieMae and FreddieMac (explicitly designed to prevent the very kind of mortgate/credit crisis that finally exploded in 2007/2008) and that not only had Democrat Representative Barney Franks and numerous other liberal Democrats in the house implicitly characterized such proposals for regulatory reform as motivated by racial bigotry and animus for "the poor," but also that the Democratic leadership in the Senate (Senators Christopher Dodd, Charles Shumer, and Harry Reid) had used the Senate's super-majority rules (fillibuster rules) to block such reform, Obama nevertheless falsely claimed that the "cause" of the mortgage/credit crisis was "deregulation" imposed by Bush and supported by McCain rather than having the courage to blame Senate Democrats for having blocked remedial legislation for regulating FannieMae and FreddieMac. [For links to sources, see footnote 1 below.]
Even more incredibly, that's still not all. Long after Obama learned (after he had become a U.S. Senator) that in 2005 Alan Greenspan issued dire warnings to Congress that dramatic regulatory reform of FannieMae and FreddieMac was urgently needed to avoid a banking/financial disaster and that Obama's fellow Democrats (Chris Dodd and Harry Reid in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank in the House) ignored such warning and opposed regulation to remedy the problems, Obama continued to falsely claim that "anti-regulation" policies of Bush and McCain "caused" the mortgage/credit crisis. [For links to sources, see footnote 1 below.]
Astoundingly, that's still not all. Long after Obama learned that in 2006 John McCain and several other senators had proposed legislation to authorize imposition of such regulations to avert such disaster, Obama's allies in the Senate, Chris Dodd and Harry Reid, and his allies in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank, blocked such legislative proposals for remedying the looming disasters at FannieMae and FreddieMac, yet Obama brazenly continued to falsely claim that "anti-regulation" policies of Bush and McCain "caused" the mortgage/credit crisis. [For links to sources, see footnote 1 below.]
In a nutshell, Obama's entire career is proof that he has never called to account anyone in his circle of political associates or political allies for any form of corruption or radicalism unless and until forced to do so under the glare of public scrutiny, and even then, his "repudiation" or "condemnation" has been grudging and equivocal and decorated with implausible excuses for his failures to have done so before. His entire career is proof that he's never "crossed-party lines" to support the opposing party rather than his own on any matter of genuine partisan dispute.
Why has Obama never repudiated such corruption or radicalism until virtually forced to do so by public pressure or scrutiny as a matter of political necessity? From his pattern of behavior it's legitimate to conclude that it's because he either is not offended by it or agrees with it. Such a person lacks the courage, character and judgment we need, and our country deserves, in a president.
Finally, apart from these social-policy/economics issues, his unfitness to be Commander in Chief is self-evident from his dogged, ideologically motivated opposition to the surge and his insulting claim that Operation Iraqi Freedom was a "mistake." His position on those issues not only is insulting to the sacrifices of our troops (go here or here) but is also evidence that Obama is still in denial about the dangers we'd face today if Bush were to have left Saddam Hussein in power to increasingly make a mockery of U.N. sanctions which opponents of toppling Saddam naively claimed would prevent him from restoring his weapons of mass destruction (go here or here).
It's vital for the country that the final debate awaken the "moderates" and "independents" and the JFK/Reagan Democrats who seem to have been sleeping through this campaign if recent polls are indicative of their understanding of what's at stake. It's likewise vital that those comprising the "YOUTH VOTE" prove themselves not to be "JayWalkers" by proving they possess the attention span and willingness to inform themselves about history and the facts that ought to affect their votes.
Jim is a proud descendant of 18th Century criminal exiles from England who swam to the Outer Banks when the British ship taking them to a Georgia penal colony sank in a storm near Cape Hatteras. Having the prescience to prevent their descendants from becoming "TarHeels," they immediately migrated to Virginia, where, within just a few generations they worked their way up into poverty. Jim's grandfather was the first in the family tree to see the distant horizons, but his career was cut short by severe injuries he sustained when a cousin cut down the tree.
After a brief stint in the Amry (ours) following graduation from law school, he began his legal career in the state bureaucracy but was never able to break into the federal bureaucracy. Several years later, he entered the private practice of law and co-founded a small law publishing company. Later, finding the publishing of small laws unstimulating and finding his private practice too private to be lucrative, he began writing political satire/commentary. His greatest vice is taking himself too seriously.
Although he regularly teaches Continuing Legal Education courses to lawyers, he's too-often available through he Rubber Chicken Speakers Bureau to speak on politics, satire, etc., at luncheons, dinners, root canals, funerals, etc. His speaking fees are so outrageously high they border on criminal price-gouging, but as a free-market advocate, he defends his fees on the higher moral ground of charging whatever the traffic will bear. For more information (surely more than one would want or need), go to www.PoliSat.Com.