Look for substance in debates

The first of three presidential debates has been completed, with the sole vice-presidential debate scheduled for Thursday evening. Evaluation of these quadrennial events tends to be based on the most superficial matters, such as whether a knockout blow or a major gaffe was made, the presidential "look" was evident, expectations were met, positive or negative impressions were given, and so on. Instead, what we should be looking for in a president is evidence of solid character and sound public policy. Some voters are still undecided, in part because neither of those decisive criteria matter to them as much as superficial appearances. However that may be, the country depends on wisdom and virtue, not charisma or demagoguery.

Of course, character and policy, wisdom and virtue, are only distinguishable in theory; in real persons one finds some combination of these. Still, a man of character is more likely to favor sound policy than a man of bad character. A virtuous man is more likely to be wise than a vicious man.

When it comes to character, Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, has a distinct advantage. For not only did he demonstrate his courage as a prisoner of war at the hands of the North Vietnamese communists, but he has never feared to buck political pressure from inside as well as outside of his political party. I will not maintain that he has always been right–only that he would rather be right than win an election.

A year ago McCain’s campaign for the Republican nomination seemed doomed. In fact, his own fate was inextricably tied to our country’s. During nearly four years of America’s attempts to crush extremists of various stripes following the stunning victory over the forces of the late Saddam Hussein, McCain was almost alone among members of Congress in calling for an increase in troops and a change in strategy. His judgment and his candidacy were vindicated when Gen Petraeus’ "surge" virtually chased the enemy from Iraq and gave peace and stability a chance.

That same courage was on display at last Friday’s presidential debate with Democratic candidate Barack Obama. He justifiably reminded everyone of his lonely crusade to save America’s policy in Iraq and criticized his opponent for his failure to admit that he was wrong in dismissing the surge, not to mention opposing the removal of Saddam Hussein’s despotic regime, with its history of deploying weapons of mass destruction.

McCain is not the skillful rhetorician that Obama is, for that latter’s nimble verbal footwork gave the impression that his quarrel with America’s decision to topple Hussein was merely because we had "taken our eye off the ball" in Afghanistan. But it is a known fact that Obama could not win the Democratic nomination without appeasing the far left that is animated by a combination of Bush hatred and hostility to American interests.

When Obama declares that the next president, preferably himself, will need to repair the damage done to America’s reputation abroad caused by the allegedly disastrous policies of George Bush, he is merely repeating a less obvious version of the "global test" that sank failed Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry‘s chances four years ago. It was no accident that Sen. Obama went abroad a few months ago to "wow" Europeans and try to pressure the Iraqi government to delay any permanent agreements with the United States until Jan. 20, 2009.

Democrats are reputed to have an "edge" when the country is in economic crisis, as it is now. Obama only made an appearance with McCain at a meeting of the President and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson with congressional leaders to hammer out some sort of relief package for the nation’s credit. But McCain wisely rescued the House Republicans’ alternative private insurance plan from being ignored by Democrats, who preferred to stick taxpayers with the full cost of the proposed bailout and cover up their up-to-the-eyeballs involvement with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

We are in a credit crisis not because of inadequate federal regulation of private investment companies but because federal law encouraged easy credit and two quasi-governmental behemoths made a mockery out of the lending business by enticing people who could not afford even to make a down payment on a home, to sign papers for purchase anyway.

In future debates one hopes that voters will look past the atmospherics and listen carefully for evidence of what we need in a president, not for what merely pleases us.

When Prager & Sirota faced off

Monday at South High in Denver, a big crowd came out to see the noted conservative writer and radio host Dennis Prager debate Denver-based "progressive" writer David Sirota. The debate centered on a fundamental question that should be of interest to everyone in this election season: Whether liberal or conservatives ideas and ideals are better for our country. It covered a host of issues, including foreign policy, race, media, economics, and domestic social policy. I went into the evening knowing pretty much what Dennis would say, because I am a fan and avid listener of his show. But I was curious as to what the liberal Sirota would say -- how strong his arguments would be about what the left believes about America and how if views the major issues that face us. It was hardly a fair fight. Sirota seems like a bright fellow, but he's 33 years old and typical of the "children's wing" of the Democrat Party -- the one which can follow a script, but has little practical life experience. After listening to the talking points he gave last night I have one overriding question: Does David Sirota actually know any conservatives? From his answers last night I find it hard to believe that he does.

Against Prager he was clearly overmatched. For a well-known progressive writer and "thinker", Sirota sure didn't offer much insight that you can't find at the HuffingtonPost or at MoveOn.org. Sirota trotted out all the well-worn canards about Republicans in painting a very simplistic view of what conservatives think. He accused conservatives of not recognizing race in this country, of not wanting to help the poor and the needy, and of living in a "fantasy" world that ignores the cold hard realities of life in America.

In making his arguments, Sirota cherry-picked points of data from various polls and studies which he claimed made his views "irrefutable fact" -- but that were clearly taken either out of context or were spun in such a way as to be maximally damaging to conservative positions. It came off transparent and was in no way convincing. He repeated the claims of the Bush tax cuts being "for the rich", that America under a Republican administration has been "stomping around the world" with "hubris", that we were lied into a war in Iraq (that he claims was really about oil), and that we would do well to care about the fact that the rest of the world dislikes us. "It's a national security issue" that we aren't popular -- as if it were any less dangerous when Bill Clinton was traveling around the world feeling everyone's pain.

For Prager it was a little like shooting fish in a barrel. In his typically clear style, he offered a powerful counter punch to Sirota's liberal doom-and-gloom. He unapologetically told the audience -- a largely pro-Prager crowd -- that America is the greatest force for good in the world. He said that the problem for blacks in America is largely one of their own making, and that he doesn't care whether the rest of the world loves us, only that they respect us. He painted a picture of an opposite world view from that of Sirota: where America is a principled force for good in the world. It was standing ovation material.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the evening was being able to see into the narrative that the "progressive" movement is pushing about America. It represents a window into the socialist-driven policies that Barack Obama will pursue as president -- and it isn't pretty. Sirota painted a picture of what he calls "corporate socialism" -- which he argues already exists in this country. It comes in the form of the $700 billion bailout for the "fat cats on Wall Street". Or the $120/barrel price of oil that represents a windfall profit to "big oil". Or the tax breaks for corporations that then "ship jobs overseas". In Sirota's mind, America is run by a cabal of corporate chieftans who pull the levers for government -- all at the expense of the "little guy".

Prager last night called this for what it is -- the kind of Marxian materialism that underscores how the left looks at the world. I couldn't agree more. I studied Marx under some very accomplished socialists at the London School of Economics and I can tell you that socialists live in a secular world that views things purely in terms of material gains and losses. In this paradigm, the only motivation for anything is the material world -- whether it be land, money or oil. It is impossible that the United States would enter Iraq to make the world more secure and free the Iraqi people from tyranny. It just has to be about Halliburton and oil.

This, then, is the world view that the progressives hold. And it explains some of the more outlandish claims against corporate America, which must be structured to exploit the world in an evil search of more material gains. That's why Sirota and progressives like him believe that collectivist solutions are the answer; only government can ensure that society's goods are distributed fairly. It starts out by raising taxes and then leads to the redistribution of wealth -- all on a model that will engineer society down to the lowest common denominator.

If Sirota represents what America will be like with an Obama presidency, we should all be afraid. Be very afraid.

Powers helped save ALEC

Colorado has lost one of our toughest old Reaganauts. Ray Powers of Colorado Springs, who died Friday at 79, was the last in an unbroken string of Republican Senate Presidents from 1975 to 2001. Profiles ran this weekend in the Rocky and the Post. Sen. Powers was just taking over the gavel from Tom Norton when I arrived as a Senate freshman in 1999. Ray was a steady hand as a leader, consensus-builder, and legislative point man for newly-inaugurated Gov. Bill Owens. We didn't always agree on the issues, but he was unfailingly kind, fair, and helpful to me. I've never known a finer gentleman in politics.

Three memories of Sen. Powers stand out to me. First, his loyalty and skill in helping pass the Owens agenda. For the first time in a quarter-century, we had a GOP chief executive to propose conservative reforms and sign them into law when steered through the state House and Senate. Ray's fidelity to the Reagan worldview was critical in pushing through Gov. Owens' early successes on tax cuts, school accountability, and transportation, given that liberal Republican Russ George was Speaker of the House. Had the even more liberal Sen. Dottie Wham won her bid for President against Ray in November 1998, much of that might not have occurred.

Second, I was personally grateful for Powers' advice and backing when we narrowly passed the Defense of Marriage Act during the 2000 session. This statutory protection for traditional marriage (since superseded by a voter-approved constitutional amendment to the same effect) started as a Senate bill sponsored by Marilyn Musgrave, was killed in our chamber, then amended onto a different bill of mine in the House and sent back to us for concurrence. Though Ray was less zealous for pro-life and pro-family positions than I am, he stood strong with me while we steered DOMA through the shoals of antagonistic Democrats led by Ed Perlmutter and unconvinced Republicans such as Elsie Lacy. That's leadership; that's integrity.

And for context on both of the above points, I should point out that the 20-15 numerical majority our GOP caucus enjoyed during President Powers' tenure was functionally no greater than the bare minimum of 18 at any time -- and sometimes his "easy" vote count stopped at 14, with baling wire (familiar to Ray as a dairyman) necessary to pass the bill from there. To start with, Wham of Denver and Dave Wattenberg of Walden were mavericks with a McCain-style indifference to voting with their party.

Lacy of Aurora and the late Bryan Sullivant of Breckenridge, who came over from the House after Tony Grampsas' death a month into the 1999 session, weren't easy to corral either. Norma Anderson of Lakewood was constantly playing games across the aisle, and Ken Chlouber of Leadville, though a faithful team player, tended to shy from labor and social issues. On a bad day that left Ray and Majority Leader Tom Blickensderfer six down in the caucus and four down for a working majority. So their winning pattern was that much more impressive.

My final enduring memory of Ray Powers, and his greatest contribution as a conservative not just for Colorado but nationally, dates from the mid-1990s before he became Senate President. Ray was serving as board chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which came on the scene in 1976 as a membership organization for legislators in the 50 states who shared Ronald Reagan's limited-government beliefs. ALEC had thrived for two decades as a vital counterforce in state capitals against the liberal-leaning, Denver-based National Conference of State Legislators.

But during Sen. Powers' chairmanship, mismanagement by the CEO drove the organization to the edge of bankruptcy. He stepped in as acting CEO despite severe health challenges he happened to be facing just then, stabilized the situation, obtained emergency funding, and recruited new management. ALEC wouldn't be here today, playing the hugely constructive role it does on issues from energy to health care, taxes to tort reform, if it hadn't been for Ray Powers' heroic leadership in its turnaround a dozen years ago.

It's not the kind of thing they erect statues for, but some of us on the right will never forget. At least there's an important thoroughfare on the east side of Colorado Springs, Powers Boulevard, named for him -- and I'll never drive it without a little prayer of gratitude for the man's quiet strength and undaunted courage.

Say it ain't so, Sarah

I cringed when I heard Sarah Palin suggest that human activity might be to blame for so-called global warming in her ABC News interview with Charlie Gibson last week. The Republican VP nominee's claim instantly conjured up images of French President Nicolas Sarkozy breaking many of the pledges he boldly made during the presidential election campaign here in France in early 2007. As I watched Sarah Palin’s cut-and-thrust with the MSM (via the Internet here in France), I seriously wondered for one moment whether her remark was not yet another example of a politician saying one thing and doing another, once in office or on his or her way there.

Forgive my sensitivity. After all, we, American-inspired French conservatives, who have been gullible enough to believe that France might ever become anything other than a stronghold of socialism, have had our fair share of rude awakenings since the days of Turgot, Tocqueville, Jean-Baptiste Say, and Frederic Bastiat.

Consider the latest wakeup call. As candidate, Nicolas Sarkozy straight-facedly promised to reform France along clear-cut free-market principles. Granted, since then, he has cut some taxes in an effort to boost investment and stimulate growth and made moves to dispel the notion that the work ethic is a dirty word.

However, where are the cuts in welfare spending that should have gone hand in hand with the tax changes? Instead, the entitlement mentality is still the cultural norm, and President Sarkozy has been busy implementing his very own brand of Robin Hood economics, robbing hard-working, hard-saving, law-abiding citizens not only to pay for his Al Gore-certified green revolution but also to bribe loafers and welfare queens to get back to work:

** He has approved green taxes on anything from cars, home appliances, and flat-screen TVs to computers, number crunchers for school children and even plastic cutlery used in barbecues and other outdoor meals;

** He has “asked” Total, France’s biggest oil company, to make a $312-million contribution to the French Treasury to help those who can’t afford it pay for nest winter’s heating bills following last summer’s rise in oil prices;

** Worst of all, he has just slapped a new 1.1% new tax on capital gains and other investment to fund a back-to-work program, all in the name of solidarity, a code word for socialistic wealth transfers here in France.

The list goes on. Bottom line? While Sarkozy's approval ratings have been edging up, France’s GDP growth in this year’s second quarter plummeted to –0.3%. Another batch of taxes and France will technically be in a recession by next quarter.

So please, Mrs. Palin, however morale-boosting your selection as John McCain’s running mate might justifiably be, forget about man-made global what-do-you-call-it and let us hear you talk consistently about free enterprise, traditional values and strong national defense.

Let us see you walk the wholeheartedly conservative walk all the way to victory on Nov. 4 -- and from there to the Oval Office in 2012.

Shoulda said rouge on a corpse

I absolutely don't believe Obama was jabbing at Sarah Palin with his "lipstick on a pig" remark yesterday, and I hope she and McCain laugh it off or shrug it off. Repay him with grace for his gracious refusal last week to drag Bristol into the campaign. Send him a gift box of lipsticks from Avon and move on. I'll bet that around the Illinois Senate where Obama served, as around the Colorado Senate where I served, two of the cliches to describe a futile spin effort were that you can try to put lipstick on a pig or rouge on a corpse, but you'll fool no one. Young Obie probably absorbed both in his vocabulary when Sarah was unknown beyond Wasilla. Don't you know he wishes now that his preferred cosmetic for mocking his opponents' claim of change had been rouge.

If the remark wasn't a slur, though, it was still a gaffe, a big and easily avoidable one. Which gives more evidence that Obama is badly off his game right now, rattled by the Palin phenomenon and the dramatic momentum shift since his Invesco acceptance speech. (How long ago that already seems!)

Any candidate thinking clearly on his feet, as you simply have to do at every moment in the big leagues, would have done a silent self-edit when "lipstick" and "pig" presented themselves in the same sentence and instantly substituted -- rather than added, as he did, too late -- the smelly fish reference or something else with no double entendre. Barack did this to himself because he's obviously not thinking clearly at this season of unexpected adversity.

You can hardly blame the poor guy. It's tough out there all of a sudden. Exhibit A would be the New York Times front-page story last Sunday: "Rival Tickets are Redrawing Battlegrounds. Palin Helps GOP Put More States in Play." It said in part:

Fresh from the Republican convention, Senator John McCain’s campaign sees evidence that his choice of Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate is energizing conservatives in the battleground of Ohio while improving its chances in Pennsylvania and several Western states that Senator Barack Obama has been counting on, [including] Nevada, New Mexico [and] Colorado.

Exhibit B, corroborating this, is the 13,000 who turned out for McPalin in Colorado Springs on Saturday. With any other running mate, Mac would have drawn about 1300.

Exhibits C and D, a couple of columns that have made waves this week on talk radio and the conservative blogs. Pundits can say anything, of course, and two swallows don't make a summer, but what's striking is the confident prediction of not just defeat but decisive defeat for Obama, partly as a result of the VP matchup.

Heather Higgins, board chair of the Independent Women's Forum, wrote on Townhall.com:

Here’s an unconventional prediction: in this race, unlike those before, the Vice President will actually matter, particularly in what they capture relative to that anti-Washington sentiment. Barring major mishap, here’s a second unconventional prediction: this isn’t going to be a close election, but will look far less like 2000 or 2004 than it does like McGovern in ’72.

And Spengler (pseudonym of an Asia Times columnist whose identity not even Google seems to know) wrote in his latest piece, which Rush Limbaugh trumpeted to the world on Tuesday:

Obama will spend the rest of his life wondering why he rejected the obvious road to victory, that is, choosing Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential nominee. However reluctantly, Clinton would have had to accept. McCain's choice of vice presidential candidate made obvious after the fact what the party professionals felt in their fingertips at the stadium extravaganza yesterday: rejecting Clinton in favor of the colorless, unpopular, tangle-tongued Washington perennial Joe Biden was a statement of weakness. McCain's selection was a statement of strength. America's voters will forgive many things in a politician, including sexual misconduct, but they will not forgive weakness.

That is why McCain will win in November, and by a landslide, barring some unforeseen event. Obama is the most talented and persuasive politician of his generation, the intellectual superior of all his competitors, but a fatally insecure personality. American voters are not intellectual, but they are shrewd, like animals. They can smell insecurity, and the convention stank of it. Obama's prospective defeat is entirely of its own making. No one is more surprised than Republican strategists, who were convinced just weeks ago that a weakening economy ensured a Democratic victory.

To repeat, and use another cliche, these are but straws in the wind. But it was interesting to hear Hugh Hewitt, no incautious cheerleader, also speculating yesterday that we may be seeing everything start to crumble for Barack Obama and the supposed Democratic sure thing.

One reason, then, for Obie not to have made the safer remark in his Ohio speech that "You can't put rouge on a corpse" is that he may be starting to get morbid feelings about his own chances in November. Final cliche: Never mention rope in house of a hanged man.