First, in my last column, I said that Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, was "chairman of the House Banking Committee.  Of course, Chris Dodd is a Senator and chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.  I regret the error.  I can excuse it on my own behalf by the anger I was feeling towards Congressional Democrats who were trying to blame the current mortgage business mess on Republicans and the Bush administration and "de-regulation" when it was exactly the opposite.  It was Democrats during the Clinton Administration who OVER-regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...that were, in reality, the culprits in this mess--most especially Dodd in the Senate and Barney Franks in the House.  The over-regulation was, of course, the mandate to the FM's to loosen the requirements to qualify for a home mortgage.  To be fair, I'm willing to concede that the rationale MAY have been altruistic on their part, though it's MUCH more likely to be just another liberal scheme to give poor people and minorities the ILLUSION that Democrats "care" about them and want to "help" by passing out goodies from the national treasury....once again...which was the rationale for the disasterous "War on Poverty" of the 60's.

 

Now to the point of THIS column. 

 

We have two Presidential candidates who are also sitting Senators--the first time in our history, if memory serves.  In a tight race, it's important that the American public learn as much as possible about the plans and policies each would bring to the Oval Office and so debates are important activities, where the public can compare the two candidates face-to-face and live.  I write this in order to assure the reader that I do NOT minimize the importance of the scheduled debates.  However, a crisis (a REAL crisis this time and not the phony "crises" put forward by the global warming nuts) has arisen in our financial institutions.  One that imperils the world economic system.  And, this crisis DEMANDS Congress take decisive action to keep a collapse from occurring that will inevitably hurt millions of innocent people.

 

Senators, like Congressmen and -women, are paid fairly nice salaries to legislate solutions to such problems as these.  Admittedly, they often OVER-legislate and cause more problems than they solve, but that's STILL the reason they are paid.  Obama actually served about 143 days doing the Senate's work prior to starting out on his quest for the Presidency and has thereafter virtually ignored his responsibilities as the Junior Senator from Illinois (though I'm certain he has NOT refused his Senate paycheck.)  Even so, in the short time he's actually VOTED on legislative business, he's managed to compile THE most liberal voting record in that august body and hasn't written a single piece of legislation on his own.

 

One might then ask, "What on Earth qualifies this young man to be President?"  Of course, the Constitution sets minimum qualifications for the presidency as "A natural-born citizen of the U.S. at least 35 years of age and a U.S. resident for the previous 15 years," and in that sense, he qualifies...just like the bag lady "working" the dumpsters between 5th and Main.   However, thankfully, as a nation we've decided that there should be OTHER qualifications that we demand of our putative leaders in the White House.  They should have some experience in leadership roles--military, legislative or in the business world.  They should be articulate--to a degree, at least--and they should be at least reasonably, physically presentable, although we HAVE had a few who were butt-ugly.  Abraham Lincoln was one such who was gawky, gangly and spoke with a high, squeaky voice.  Taft was over 300 pounds and Andrew Jackson  was pretty horse-faced. 

 

We also ask that our Presidents know something about legislation and the legislative process, about foreign affairs and how to deal with foreign leaders and governments and we prefer someone who actually understands how a capitalist society works.  With a few notable exceptions in recent years, we also prefer that our President be morally upright, usually married, and of generally good character.  This last, Obama seemingly fulfills, though he does have some questionable "character" issues--particularly in his history of associating with and forming friendships with some pretty seamy characters.  In fact, it appears that he has NO close associates and friends who aren't pretty radical or crooked as a dog's hind leg.  In fact, his association with the corrupt Chicago Daly machine is proof enough that he MAY not be altogether trustworthy, though, to be fair, he COULD have just been using them as a means to an end, which, of course, raises OTHER character questions.

 

What then, qualifies Obama under these additional criteria?   The answer is, essentially, nothing.  He has never been a "leader" of ANY sort--with the possible exception of "leading" his own campaign, although there are some questions about even that.  He has to be scripted to seem coherent in his speaking engagements or he hems and haws like a first-semester public speaking student.  In other words, he does not seem to be able to think and speak well "on his feet" or extemporaneously.  So far, even in those venues where he doesn't have a teleprompter to rely on, he's been given advance notice of what questions are to be asked of him so he can prepare answers for them in advance--the Obama-Oprah interview, for example.  In his interview with Bill O'Reilly, he stumbled and hesitated at every question as if he were trying to formulate an answer that wouldn't commit him to any, specific position--especially one that might cost him votes later. 

 

Then, his legislative experience is limited to being in the Illinois State Senate for a few years, during which time he also didn't write a single, specific piece of meaningful legislation on his own--although one of his "mentors" in the State Senate DID allow him to add his name to a number of pieces of legislation as a "co-sponsor" after he'd announced his intention to run for the U.S. Senate in 2004.  In short, he's been given "cover" by those interested in helping him achieve his political ambitions ever since he entered the political arena.  He IS possessed of a nice speaking "style," helped a bit by theatrical devices such as placing his teleprompters unusually high so that as he turns to look at them, he appears to be looking out over the heads of his audiences as if seeing something off on the horizon, thus giving the impression of being a "visionary."  Also, his speeches are filled with platitudinous commentary with almost no specifics and those few specifics he does articulate are "promises" that he couldn't possibly keep...admittedly, not all that unusual for any politician.  He seems to be a populist at times, but occasionally lets the mask slip and reveals himself to be an inveterate elitist, like he inadvertently did at that fund-raiser in San Francisco where his elitist remarks were caught on tape and then made public...probably by the Clinton campaign.

 

McCain has taken heat from Democrats and their sycophants in the so-called "mainstream media" for engaging in "theatrics" himself by suspending his campaign to go to Washington to help solve the mortgage banking crisis while Obama had a "Call me if you need me," attitude.  "I'm going to Mississippi for the debate."  As important as the debate was, Obama's legislative responsibilities (for which he's drawing a salary, by the way) were MUCH more important to the nation--a fact that McCain seemed to grasp and Obama didn't. 

 

A person of honor should have put his salaried responsibilities ahead of his political ambitions.  McCain did and Obama didn't--although President Bush sort of saved his bacon by requesting his presence at the White House conference for Thursday.  McCain has demonstrated, time after time, his sense of personal honor and responsibility to his constituents.  Obama, to my knowledge, never has.  For that reason alone, Sen. McCain SHOULD be "President McCain" on January 20th.  With the media-created "charisma" of Obama and the American public's notorious history of being easily diverted by well-packaged junk about which they really know little or nothing, it remains to be seen if that will happen. 

 

At any rate, the debate DID happen, with Obama well-rehearsed and McCain considerably less so.  Even so, from what I could gather, Obama actually did not fare better than McCain.  McCain seemed knowlegeable, precise and decisive while Obama, once again, seemed well-packaged, but indecisive and imprecise.  Additionally, Obama continually embarassed himself by constantly interrupting McCain.  In short, he was discourteous and seemed to be trying to ignite McCain's reputation as tempermental...which he utterly failed to do.

 

All in all, I believe the debate was mostly a draw.  Neither candidate's performance is likely to have changed the minds of many watchers.  Those inclined to support Obama will probably continue to do so and vice versa.  How then, did the American people benefit from these two "debating" while Rome seems to be burning?  In truth, we didn't benefit by very much at all and may have actually lost if the administration's and Democrats' plan to throw taxpayer money at the problem prevails.