I’ll resist the temptation to expound on the substantial stupidity involved in the current stimulus package, greed in the financial markets, overblown real estate expectations and the number of people operating businesses that should not be.

I’ll further resist the temptation to wax poetic on the fact that while every poll indicates that confidence in the objectivity and skills of the media is in permanent decline, we all “believe” in the recession, essentially sold to us by that self same media.

I’ll hold myself back from addressing the historically cyclical nature of the economy and it’s key segments.

I won’t address the economic disconnect between short term politically motivated band aids and fundamentally sound economic, tax and fiscal policy.  Nor will I pontificate on the current absence of solid public policy in terms of economics or the fact that the same folks who decry the budget deficit are prepared to increase it because this program hits their constituents as opposed to the other guy’s constituents.

Americans, famous for short attention span, have quickly altered the polling in regards to concerns over Iraq and Terrorism to fixate on the promotion of a recession.  The message for those folks is “It’s NOT the Economy Stupid”, at least not like this and not in this context.  Having survived some number of real recessions beginning with President (20% interest rates and 14% unemployment) Carter this situation is not even close, despite the passionate insistence that the sky is, indeed, falling.

The Point?  The point is that our economy exists and thrives within a security context.  To abandon serious concerns related to security in the interest of a $1,200 check tends to indicate that there are many heads firmly lodged in that mythic place where the sun don’t shine. There can be no equivalency between a weak Christmas retail season and the economic chaos that a resurgence of domestic terrorism could engender.

Radical Islamist thinking has, for decades, identified our economy as a critical target.  They understand, apparently better than we do, that the ability to impact the economy is, in fact, a fundamental security issue.  To impact overall confidence in U.S. financial systems and institutions is to impact the overall view of the U.S. in a variety of other areas as well. 

With kudos to and respect for the many thousands of folks who lose sleep trying to insure that there is no “next” attack we will,  as an open society, always be vulnerable to some degree.  The degree will fluctuate based on the stated concerns of average Americans.  If we, collectively,  maintain a posture that delivers the message to the body politic they will respond. 

The government’s response to a recession that is not even a recession yet is proof enough that we can get them to respond.  Their quick elimination of the immigration bill is further proof that despite the seemingly overwhelming presence and inertia of government, we can make them move.  But we have to, first,  move ourselves  and depart that place where the sun don’t shine.      

All compass points on the political spectrum claim to be looking for “change”.  The simple fact that everyone is looking for it, is an essential guarantee that dramatic change, in the final analysis, is unlikely.

The Right and the Left, Liberal, Moderate and Conservative look for different kinds of change.  It stands to reason that the current level of partisanship will continue over the “change”  agenda.  There is no dynamic whereby San Francisco and Alabama will enjoy a sudden epiphany that  brings their views into symbiotic concert.

The competition over “change” is accompanied by the competition over who can bring the disparate points of view together.  By definition, bringing disparate political points of view together is a negotiation to get to general acceptability.  Is not general acceptability a exercise in disassembling the original idea?  This dynamic is not just an issue between the parties, and the executive,  it’s an issue within the parties.  Each party has factions and variations of the parties’ basic point of view.  In reality, general acceptability is, at least, a three stage negotiation likely to render the original “change” a shadow of the original intent. 

There is a power in exceptional leadership qualities.  Inspiration that leads us to think outside of ourselves is always welcome but inspiration deadened by a thousand cuts results in nothing more than points of frustration.   

There is also a power in the congressional class that want “change” only in terms of what works for entrenched interests and the desire for realized incumbency.  “Change” is all well and good as long as it works for the next congressional election cycle, never more than two years away.  These two dynamics put the  “change” agenda  in immediate and ongoing jeopardy regardless of what it’s point of origin may be     

There is no escape from the base line philosophical differences at play.  Conservatives are not going to accept Social Democratic, nanny state programs without a fight.  Liberals are not going to accept supply side economics without the same fight; more versus less government, the role of government, our role in the world, immigration, application of apply military force, economic management, radical Islam, international institutions, taxes, spending priorities and so on.  Short of a veto proof majority all of these issues represent an inherent philosophical conflict, exacerbated by congressional self interest.  Anything other than incremental “change” at the margins is long shot.   

“Change”, should it occur in any fundamental way, will in all probability, be a function of outside forces.  “Change” in the American body politic will be more likely generated by the need to react to new realities than that ability to create them.

MEMO

To: Conservatives

From: A Conservative

Subject: Get a life!

Observing the current debate and the wide variety of commentary about “the true conservative”, “who is conservative enough” and “was he conservative enough soon enough” it is time for you all to get a life in terms of current realities.

OK, there is no perfect candidate, I get it, I don’t disagree however, let’s revisit what should be some self-evident facts and maybe the truth will set you free:

-          You (Conservatives/Republicans) with power in your hands abandoned the Conservative agenda and the principals that you so passionately spoke to.

-          You allowed the temptation of bringing home the goodies to overwhelm your principals. Shame on you!

-          You allowed Republican corruption to hit the front page of every paper in America and when it did, you acted like a bunch of wimps, unwilling to aggressively denounce it for what it was.

-          You pissed away the opportunity to create a nearly permanent moderate/conservative majority by abandoning principals and sending your credibility to the political ash heap.

-          You refused to stand up to a sitting President and insist on conservative economic principals.

-          When you were assaulted by the left, you failed to step up with the aggressive, effective, logical, conservative point of view.  You just did not fight back effectively.

So in light of all of that, what exactly is the debate regarding “conservative enough” all about?  Where, exactly, do you find the moral authority to make these judgments in light of your very own recent history?

First point of advice let Reagan rest, bringing him up only makes you look foolish in comparison to the degree to which you have departed from his principals that you, supposedly, hold so dear.  Reagan was a man in his time, his time has passed.  This is a new day and, like it or not, it’s going to call for a different approach and a different type of candidate.  This is not going to be the Regan Revolution reprised, this is going to be a time to desperately hold the line against a Democratic onslaught that will move the country toward the European model of Social Democracy with its Socialistic undercarriage. You have to win to do that!

If conservatives/moderates can, in this election, hold the line then, and only then, can the conservative movement gain new momentum and credibility in the future?  There is in any endeavor: a military campaign, a business, writing a book, raising a child times when you just need to hold the line for a while, take a breath and recover your focus before you can move forward again.  This is one of those times!

We come to Mr. McCain.  Conservatives have a variety of problems with him, so do I.  However, policy issues aside who, in a potential general election, can be any more respected for courage than McCain.

Most of the problems Conservatives have with Mr. McCain are the result of his efforts to reach across the political divide and find a negotiated compromise that could both move issues and pass the Congress. Conservatives might want to face the fact that in an election with “change” as the likely theme this might just be viewed as a strong positive in a general election.  He’s strong on defense, he’s the only one running that stood up to the President, and his social conservative positions should be “good enough” and he can make a credible case for bringing the opposing sides together.

Now to Mr. Romney.  Sure, he’s the guy you hated in High School.  The transfer student that was good looking, smart, rich and within a week of arriving at “your” school had the head cheerleader on his arm.  I say again, get over it!

He was not conservative enough, early enough!  He flipped positions, came to pro-life too late, on and on.  So what?  This criticism on changing positions from individuals who gave up their entire philosophical basis for existence is, at best, hollow?  I say again, get over it.  Do you want to win or just feed on the two candidates that actually have a chance to win?

Conservatives/Republicans have a choice to make.  You can jump up and down and stamp your feet or you can commit to win.  If you commit to win, every part of the traditional Reagan coalition has to get on board.  The coalition has to get on board because the alternative is unacceptable.  Suck it up!  Breath in breathe out, repeat as necessary!     

There is no perfect solution for Conservatives this year.  You might want to ponder on why that is the case to begin with.  Let us all agree that less than ideal is better than beaten like a rented mule!

Democrats have, with some significant success, “owned” the racial equality issue in the wake of Southern Democrats attempting to defeat Civil Rights legislation in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.  Now race is, again, an issue within the Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party has effectively created the perception that they evolved beyond the race issue.  This perception has, unfortunately been belied of late as the Clinton campaign struggles to define Mr. Obama as the “black candidate”.

Black Democratic commentators are clearly pained as they struggle between their traditional support for the Clintons and the potential importance of Mr. Obama.  They seem to be looking for a middle ground and end up identifying the Clinton strategy as an attempt to define Obama narrowly and to mitigate his broader appeal.  They are being very kind to the Clintons.

Is it racism on the part of the Clintons?  In this case, I define racism as the use and manipulation of race for a goal, not the devaluing of individuals based on race.  By my definition, it is racism, exacerbated by the attitude on the part of the Clintons that Obama should not even be there and that he’s messing up their parade.    

Hillary is essentially taking a pass on aggressive campaigning in South Carolina and has been making appearances in states where the Latino vote could be an important block for her. 

Is this a message to the traditional black vote?  The message being: we can replace you with Latinos, and if you insist on being left behind for Mr. Obama, so be it!  It is a manner of arrogance not unknown to those who have watched the Clintons over the years.  Hardball politics, but this time being played on, arguably, their most loyal consistency. Through the looking glass indeed!

In a year where Democrats have the clear upper hand this issue could be a deal breaker.  In a year where the potential for a Clinton/Obama ticket could roll to the White House, bad blood is clearly in the air.  The bad blood could be enough to generate a ticket refusal by Mr. Obama.  There are no indications, yet, that Mr. Obama is prepared to tailor his message to keep the potential for a V.P. spot in play.  Given the rhetoric of the potential first spouse and Mr. Obama’s apparent pride and sense of self one could easily see him taking a pass on a V.P. spot.  Should he refuse it and do so publicly Hillary will be seriously wounded as she enters the general election.      

Mr. Obama seems surprised that the former president would distort his record.  Hellooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!  The Clintons are masters of incremental distortions of the truth.  Some call this masterful politics but it is distortion nonetheless.  Are the Clintons alone, of course not, they are just far better at it than nearly anyone else is.

The political chorus of self-serving explanations as to why the surge is working continues.  The recitation from the opposition holds that the impending removal of troops and political support echoed by the Democratic candidates is forcing the Iraqi Government to “get on with it”.

This position is weak at a number of levels.  In the first case the Iraqi Government has been getting on with it: Oil revenues are being distributed, a deal to bring Baath Party members back into the government has been completed, perhaps the most capable of the Iraqi ministers, Mr. Chalabi has been placed in charge of reconstruction and has attacked the issues with energy, passion and skill. 

In the second case its spin without substance.  Having crawled out on the anti-war tree branch demanded by the left Democrats invested their political capital in the belief that we would fail in Iraq and failure in Iraq was the clear path to the White House.  There have been a significant number of Democratic position modifications over time.  During the debate in October, the candidates were essentially saying that it would take their entire first term in office to get all the troops out of Iraq.  A position significantly different from the prior position(s) of “get out now, get out in six months, get out in (fill in the blank)__________”position!  As of last night’s debate, we are back to the get out in______________ position to reinforce the message to the Iraqi Government that when a Democratic President is elected the famous “time line” will be imposed.    

However, all of that belies the most meaningful dynamic in Iraq.  The surge is working as a grassroots effort; the strategic context is supported by successful tactics.  American commanders are creating the opportunity for Iraqis to organize neighborhoods, provide intelligence; they are employing Iraqis, working with local tribal leaders, paying attention to religious leaders, demonstrating where the self-interest in security truly lies, showing respect and clearly receiving it in return.

Neighborhoods in Baghdad that were controlled by gangs six months ago have seen a 90% reduction in violence.  Where a template for action has worked its being repeated, small successes building on small successes.  A classic application of an effective counter-insurgency strategy: support, presence and self-interest.

Why make this point?  Because if democratic institutions and values are going to grow it will be the Iraqi people who will demand the necessary accountability from the central government.  The groundwork for that dynamic is clearly being put in place. The fact is, however, that grassroots efforts take time to mature.  The surge is clearly working from two directions, bottom up and top down.

I contend that the bottom up successes will be the more critical and effective of the two.  Progress in the neighborhoods will eventually deliver that message that progress must also occur in Baghdad.  Politicians are politicians everywhere and the message will get through to Baghdad with the resultant scramble to catch up with the people. 

 American commanders have applied General Petraeus’s strategy brilliantly.  The Iraqis are coming to a common sense analysis of where their self-interest lies and who can help get them there.  Average Iraqis have come to understand that the change in American strategy is as much a change in attitude toward them as it is a change in tactics.

Questions present themselves for the Democrats; what timeline will you put on the dynamics of the bottom up political reconciliation, which is so clearly evolving? How much progress is real progress and what set of metrics will motivate yet another change in position?  What if your political investment in failure is faced with American/Iraqi “victory” in Iraq? 

Are you too far out on the tree branch to crawl back?  What if the branch breaks and the two dynamics of reconciliation meet in the middle with a predictable burst of progress?  What if the violence continues to dissipate?  What if the trend of Iraqi leadership in providing security improves geometrically?  What if a couple of key players in the Middle East decide to get on the U.S. bandwagon?  What if regional fears about Iran coalesce into a decision that the U.S. is clearly the lesser of the evils and it might be a good idea to keep them around?

All of these likelihoods and questions represent a significant political trap for the Democratic candidates.  A trap set, not by the hated President Bush or the Republicans but by the Democrats themselves for themselves.  

The assumption that the static conditions in Iraq of a year ago would simply continue defy the laws of political and military motion.  Was it wise to assume a beleaguered President would simply hold on to a failing strategy, or give up? Democrats demanded “change” and they got it, the surge.  Granted, the surge was not the change they were looking for but “change” it was.

Recent public opinion polls, despite the litany of assumed failure by the political class and the media’s reluctant agreement to report progress are evidence that the American people can be moved by success.  Assuming continued success American voters can also be moved to wonder if, maybe, such a significant investment in failure was not such good leadership judgment after all.    

There is something to be said for passion, the fuel of creativity.

Accepting that premise you have to admire Ron Paul’s supporters.  They are the guerilla warriors of the primary season, and boy are they fun to watch.

Browsing AOL I decided to take a look at the Presidential straw poll they were conducting.  To see the results you have to vote, so I did.  Ron Paul was leading the Republican poll in all 50 states!!  Something on the order of 31% of the vote was going to Mr. Paul.  Not the 3%-8% that is fairly consistent in the “professional” polls,… 31%!

Of course, the poll is the result of the Ron Paul Revolutionaries. It’s fun to see where the Ron Paul revolutionaries will show up next. “Today AOL Tomorrow the World”!  They seem to have an uncanny ability to take advantage of every available low cost, no cost resource available to get their man noticed, and poke the establishment candidates in the eye.  Good for them!

It’s refreshing in this Robo-Political, poll driven, focus group powered world to see a genuine grassroots movement that knows how to have a little fun, whatever the point of view.  Fun to see Mr. Paul befuddled over the fact that he has more money than he seems to know what to do with.  Supporters, literally, organizing independent fund raising efforts resulting in millions of dollars, hand painted sheets along Route 95 in Florida for miles and miles.  Grannies (self described) raising funds for a recount that hasn’t happened yet.

…..And the web sites. My favorite so far is The Daily Paul, www.dailypaul.com where you can visit, ….you guessed it, The Paul Mall; Hats, T-shirts, wristbands, stickers and the like.  But wait there’s more; The Ron Paul Car, a sticker kit for those that feel the need for their entire car to function as advertising for Mr. Paul, only $144.  For the music lover there is a 12 song CD, “Early Songs of the Great Ron Paul Revolution” including such toe tapers as “President Man”.

You gotta love this!

A smiling Mohamed El Baradei of the IAEA and an equally gleeful President Ahmadinejad met once again yesterday for continuing talks about Iran’s Nuclear Program.

Looking back on the timelines related to Iranian nuclear development provides some sense of context.  By my count, over the last 4 years, there have been:

Ø      Eight IAEA Reports on Iran’s program of, admittedly, varied tone and content

Ø      Five IAEA Resolutions calling for Iran to stop enrichment activities

Ø      Three UN Security Council Resolutions of similar intent

Ø      Between four and eight points of non compliance by Iran related to existing agreements and protocols

Ø      Eight broken deals with Russia, The EU and the IAEA

Ø      Two resumptions of suspended inspections

Ø      Two reports indicating the presence of highly enriched uranium

Ø      Two rounds of sanctions

Ø      Three years of negotiations with the EU

Ø      Uncounted declarations by Iran that they WILL proceed with their nuclear program and that they will do so without regard to outside influences.

The latest of the above litany has the IAEA, in May 2007, stating that Iran has “continued to defy” UN Security Council demands for a halt to uranium enrichment and has, in point of fact, expanded the effort.  The IAEA added that its ability to monitor nuclear activities in Iran has “declined due to lack of access to potential sites” related to nuclear development.

I’m all for hanging in there but where is the negotiated end game?  The IAEA is ineffective due to the manner of its organization, its mandate and the persistent opinion that somehow, someway negotiations will generate the desired result.  The IAEA occupies this point of optimism despite all evidence to the contrary.  The UN Security Council is hobbled by the persistent refusal by Russia and China to bring additional economic pressure on Iran. 

The EU Three were confident that if the negotiations were left to them their more sophisticated negotiating skills (as compared to the US, of course) could convince Iran to come to heel.  Iran rejected all combinations of carrots and sticks even when the deals were mostly carrots.  The EU Three spent three years negotiating with Iran only to be thanked by Iran in the end for helping to buy three years of time and space to continue to develop their nuclear program. 

I understand why President Ahmadinejad is smiling but for the life of me, I cannot understand why Mr. El Baradei is!

For the justifiably distracted and those that don’t tend to fixate (as I do) on the comings and goings of International Jihadists and the inherent threats they represent:  Following is one days reporting culled from just two daily update news letters, The Terrorism Research Center and The Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Ø      The GAO issues a report addressing the vulnerability of Oil and LNG tankers.

Ø      Two Texas sisters were, allegedly murdered by their father, Yaser Said, a Muslim: who, according to family members ranted about the corruption of his two honor student daughters by Western Culture.

Ø      A British man, employed at Heathrow Airport is jailed for four years for complicity  in a plot to commit terrorism oversees.  Evidence against him began with an intercepted e-mail discussing the status of security efforts at Heathrow Airport.

Ø      A bomb attack in The Philippines is averted by an alert shopkeeper who noticed an unattended package.  Officials describe the bomb, fashioned out of a 60MM mortar shell, as powerful.

Ø      Also in the Philippines, a move to amend the constitution for the purpose of creating an autonomous Muslim region in the south of the country.  This region has seen decades of violence over the issue of separatism for Muslims. 

Ø      A Sunni insurgent group in Iraq threatens Norway with economic sanctions and possible “other” actions over the possible expulsion of Mullah Krekar.  The status of Mullah Krekar is a long-standing issue in Norway.  In 2003 after years of court battles, the Norwegian Supreme Court declared Mullah Krekar a threat to national security.

Ø      A suicide attack on Pakistani police results in 22 dead and counting, 50 injured.

Ø      Qassam rockets located in Lebanon hit a home in Sderot.  (Reports of rocket strikes into Northern Israel is, literally, a daily occurrence)

Ø      A terrorist cell in Gaza opens fire on Israeli workers along the Gaza security fence.

Ø      Two soldiers injured in a bomb attack on a school in Thailand.

Ø      A Boy Scout in the Maldives saves the President of the Country from a knife wielding assailant shouting “God is Great” as he commenced his attack.

Ø      Japan moves forward on the creation of Anti-Terror legislation and an extension of economic support to the NATO effort in Afghanistan.

Ø      An RPG attack hits an American school in Gaza.

Ø      20 dead and counting in a suicide attack near the Supreme Court building in Lahore Pakistan.

Ø      UN Peacekeepers wounded by roadside IED in Lebanon.

Just one day, and a slow day at that!

Time to hop on the bandwagon and talk about ……..wait for it……….Change!   What change we have!

The Republicans do not have an “it’s my turn candidate” but the Democrats do.

Pundits speak of “The Establishment” but the reference is in terms of Democrats, not Republicans.

The insurgencies we’ve seen over the years were typically on the Republican side going back to Ronald Regan’s first shot at the nomination and progressing through Pat Buchanan, John McCain, Pat Robertson and now Mike Huckabee, with a nod to Mr. Dean.  (I rather miss Pat’s “peasants with pitchforks”; I wonder how they voted.)

Now, the insurgency is on the Democratic side in the person of Mr. Obama.

Experience is the other, supposed, critical issue but the most experienced, and possibly the smartest Democrat, Joe Biden is eating political dirt, again. .

The actual conservative, Duncan Hunter is lined up for Mr. Biden’s dirt entrée leftovers.

Ron Paul was essentially even with Rudy Guliani?

Bill Clinton is derisive about “Process”; Bill Clinton was, among his many skills, the master of “Process”.  Did the rules change?  Did someone miss a memo? 

The Republicans are now on the verge of adopting the traditional Democratic posture of “eating their young” potentially leaving the choice of a nominee to the convention. The ultimate result being a weakened general election candidate.

The Republican’s traditional complaints about biased media coverage have been replaced by the same manner of complaint from a former President about the failure of the media. CNN may have to change their initials.

Mainstream media pundits, very much in love with Hillary just a month ago have filed their divorce papers.  Oops, she won!  Yes, Mr. Matthews I’m referring to you.

The world is upside down, how did this happen? Ahhhhhhhh, change in capital letters. Has anyone counted how many times the media parroted the theme, seemingly more so than the actual candidates. 

The entire campaign turned on one 17-minute speech by Mr. Obama.  An excellent speech by any standards, but in light of the forces aligned against him, truly amazing!

Change may end up being the order of the day. But it more likely that the real dynamic is an almost unconscious desire to end  the déjà vu.  We’ve had two decades of Bush(s) and Clinton.  Maybe this is less about empirical change than it is about a weary sense that it’s time to just move on. 

Mr. Obama is an opportunity for Democrats to, in a philosophically consistent way, execute the inevitable generational change that was sitting on the cusp. Mr. Obama, not to dismiss his considerable skills and instincts, was a target waiting for an arrow. an answer waiting for the right question. 

As an admitted CSPAN addict, I found myself watching James Woolsey speak to a Jewish group in Palm Beach County.  As I caught up with the program, Woolsey was in the Q&A portion of his appearance. 

Mr. Woolsey is asked his opinion of how the various candidates will function in the face of a seminal threat from a nuclear Iran.  He answers that he cannot really speak to how they will react when faced with a decision of that scope.  He then pauses, and almost reluctantly notes an exception.  He makes an exception for John McCain, to illustrate the exception Mr. Woolsey proceeds to tell the following story.

During Mr. Woolsey’s time as Under Secretary of the Navy, it was suggested that a young officer named John McCain might have some political skills appropriate to the department. Than in the context of the fact that his injuries as a POW would probably disqualify him from flying again as a Navy pilot Jim Woolsey agreed to check him out.

Mr. Woolsey went to other former POW’s working in the department and heard the following story.

McCain, whose father was in command of the Pacific Fleet, was moved up the release list by the North Vietnamese.  McCain refused release.  He refused because other prisoners had been there longer and McCain took the position that they should be released first.  McCain refused to sign the release papers and suffered the consequences. 

Every day, the story goes; the North Vietnamese would drag McCain to the room where he was to be tortured in hopes of “motivating” him to sign the release papers.  McCain would fight his captors the entire way to the torture chamber, attempting to connect elbow with groin or foot with knee.  At the end of the day, the same fight would occur on the way back to his cell.  This ritual of torture and “motivation” went on for some time.

Jim Woolsey then paused for a moment in the telling and said,…….. “Until the North Vietnamese finally gave up!”

“Until the North Vietnamese finally gave up”!!!  I knew the general outline of the story but not the way the story was rendered by other POW’s via Mr. Woolsey.  There was also a milieu to the telling that does not translate well into the written word.  Jim Woolsey told the story almost reverently.  The juxtaposition of the horrors of McCain’s experience with a quite, respectful rendering of the story drew the drama of the story to a fine sharp edge.   

I was moved by both the story and the manner of the telling.

The story led me to question my standards for evaluating presidential candidates.  Was it a question of policies,  PR, age, experience or party credentials that would guide my support for a presidential candidate?  Were those issues, in light of our many challenges, what we should be focused on?  Were those issues the path to a political epiphany or was it, should it, be something else: something more basic, more intrinsic? 

This story led me to envisage all of my presidential choices in John McCain’s situation in North Vietnam.  Which of them would have had the courage, discipline, integrity perseverance and leadership qualities to make “the North Vietnamese give up”?

My answer to this question was, none of the above, hence the personal epiphany. 

A president who has looked into the abyss, with his life in jeopardy and still refused to compromise his integrity comes to be more important to me than policy issues.  A president with proof certain, that when faced with crisis refused to sacrifice others for personal benefit and refused to betray his leadership accountabilities will likely make the right decision on policy issues more often than not.

Isn’t, to some large degree, all the rest of what we focus on just easy rhetoric by those who have not looked into the abyss?  Is not the actual story of John McCain all we really need to know about what manner of President he will be?