Unless social conservatives were responsible for Sen. John McCain getting the nomination instead of a Washington outsider like Gov. Mike Huckabee or Gov. Mitt Romney,  they were not responsible for the GOP loss  of the presidency.

McCain lost because he had the disadvantage of being a Senator and a member of the incumbents  party when the economy was going the wrong way.  It was natural for voters to think  McCain would continue Bush's  economic policies. 
    
An  outsider might have been able to avoid being held responsible for the economy, particularly running against an incumbent Senator.  A Republican governor could have run against both the president and the Congress by blaming both for the economy.

Many political analysts ignore the fact that most voters base their votes on issues other than social issues like abortion.  Most voters are more interested in issues such as  economic policy, foreign policy or crime.    

Of the voters are consider abortion an important issue, most who support abortion would likely vote for Democrats anyway.  Many of those who oppose abortion are more inclined to the Democratic positions on economic issues, particularly with a bad economy.  Many conservative leaders  were complaining before the election that Barack Obama was attempting to convince social conservatives he wouldn't make that many changes.   

Without the social conservatives, John McCain would have lost by an even bigger margin.  If Republicans want to improve their chances of winning they need to find more appealing positions on economic issues.      

A Democratic victory may have been inevitable considering that  since the Depression every president has been succeeded by his vice president or someone from another party.  And, only one vice president, George H. W. Bush, succeeded through election instead of through the death or resignation of the president.   Bush's victory might not be that significant considering that from 1840 through 1980 every president who won an election in a year ending in zero was succeeded by his vice president.      

In fact only three presidents who won an election in a year ending in  zero were not succeeded by their vice presidents.  George W. Bush is the first since James Monroe ( reelected in 1820) who wasn't succeeded by his vice president.  Thomas Jefferson  was the other president whose vice president didn't succeed him.

Many  people suggested after the nomination of Gov. Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential candidate that she was  comparable to Jimmy Stewart's character in the Frank Capra
movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".   The character in one of the other movies in the unofficial trilogy that included "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" is  somewhat similar to the  Democratic presidential nominee  Barack Obama.

"Meet John Doe"  is about a man plucked from obscurity because of his inspiring speeches.   In the movie set in the Depression, Barbara Stanwyck plays columnist Ann Sheridan who is one of many employees fired from "The Bulletin" after it is purchased by wealthy tycoon D. B. Norton (played by Edward Arnold who was also in "Mr. Smith..."), a man with apparent fascist tendencies who wants political power.    For her final column after being fired, she makes up a letter by a man called "John Doe" who treatens to jump off city hall because of all the corruption, etc. in the country.  The letter becomes a sensation and  as a condition of rehiring her she has to find someone  who will pretend to be the ficticious author of the letter. 

From a large group of unemployed men who claim to have written the letter, she selects a baseball player with a bad arm played by Gary Cooper (who also had the lead in "Mr Deeds...").  Doe takes the job in exchange for a promise of money so he can have his pitching arm fixed by Dr. "Bonesetter" Brown.  

The paper then proceeds to carry a series of protest columns ghost written by Sheridan under the John Doe byline.  Norton decides to put John Doe on the radio and Sheirdan's mom persuades her to provide a more positive speech instead of the negative columns.  Norton notices his servants are entralled with the speech and decides to start a national movement   in John Doe's name.

Norton wants to use the movement to help him and his crooked friends take over the White House with Norton as the candidate.    Doe overhears the plot and leaves town.

In the real life version Barack Obama is the person plucked from obscurity because of his ability to deliver inspiring speeches and the wealthy tycoon is George Soros who decides to have his "John Doe" run for the presidency, possibly because Soros, who was born in Hungary, is ineligible.  Obama unlike John Doe decides to go along with the plot and run for president.  

Are we in a  Frank Capra movie?  We'll know Tuesday.  A victory by  Sen. John McCain  could indicate we're in a Frank Capra movie and everything will eventually turn out okay.   A victory by  Sen. Barack Obama could indicate the movie is by someone like Roger Corman and we don't know how things will turn out.       

Norm Crosby suggested during the Jerry Lewis Telethon that this may be the election when voters "hope that nobody wins."   He might be right. 

Sen. Barack Obama has suggested that Sen. John McCain  would be a continuation of the Bush administration.  I wish that I thought  one of the presidential candidates would be as effective a president as George W. Bush, but I don't.  The current set of major party candidates may be the worst since the 19th Century.

 I would rather have four more years of George W. Bush or Bill Clinton than have four years of either Barack Obama or John McCain.  I would rather bring back Jimmy Carter or George H. W. Bush, in spite of their ages, than have four years of Barack Obama.

Neither George W. Bush nor Bill Clinton will be considered a great president,  but both are likely to look good compared to which ever of the major party candidates  wins  this year's election.

The only ability Obama seems to have is the ability to con people into thinking he can handle the presidency.    He has never  handled any executive  position and doesn't understand  the War on Terror or the current economic  situation.  There is more to being president than just looking good on television.  Fred Thompson knows how to act like a president on television, but I wouldn't have voted for him either. 

Obama is less experienced than the 20th Century's least experienced president Warren G. Harding.  Obama shares  Harding's tendency to associate with corrupt individuals.  Unlike Harding, Obama may himself be corrupt considering that he attempted to earmark a million dollars to his wife's employer after the employer more than doubled her salary  Providing government benefits after receiving money  is usually consider bribery.  

He cannot understand that regardless of whether or not the U.S. should have invaded Iraq, the country has  become a battleground in the War on Terror.  If we leave before the Iraqis are able to  keep al  Qaeda from taking over, Osama bin Laden (OBL), or another al Qaeda leader, will move to Iraq and use its oil revenue to fund al Qaeda's operations.
 
Obama doesn't understand that if OBL is hiding in Pakistan, OBL is doing so because even if the U.S. kills him there, his successors might be able to use the action to  either take over Pakistan or at least gain access to some of its nuclear weapons.   Sending troops into Pakistan, as Obama wants to do, could spark a full scale war with Pakistan  which not only has nuclear weapons, but also a population nearly as large as the combined populations of  World War II Germany and Japan.  

OBL is not a Hitler type leader who wants power for himself.  OBL  believes he  is pursuing a cause  that is bigger than he is. He believes he might benefit in the afterlife if he became a martyr to that cause. 

Obama's comments about the current economic situation  are just simplistic partisan nonsense.  He fails to recognize that the sitaution results from global economic problems rather than the policies of President Bush.  

The basic problem began with a boom during the Clinton administration.  Historically, economic  booms fuel greed and encourage  those with money to feel they cannot lose regardless of the risk. Booms may also encourage politicians to believe that busts are a thing of the past.   The boom could have gone bust with the double shock of 9/11 and the Enron collapse, but Bush helped prevent that outcome.       

McCain isn't much better on economic matters than  Obama, but he does recognize the dangers of tax increases in a bust situation.  If I remember standard economic theory taxes should be increased during growth periods to prevent a boom situation and pay off any debts and reduced during recessions to stimulate the economy.  Reducing taxes is less expensive than sending out economic stimulous checks. 

As an experienced executive McCain won't be distracted by having to learn how to be in charge of an organization.  McCain has a better understanding of what can go wrong because of his experience during the savings and loan crisis in the late 80's.

McCain understands the War on Terror and recognizes the need to win on all battlefields.   He is unlikely to  make the mistake of starting a war with Pakistan.

McCain's weakness is that he doesn't come across as a strong enough leader.  I don't expect him to  be another Roosevelt (TR or FDR), but  he could exhibit the fiestiness  of Harry S. Truman.  McCain was too laid back during the debates which is one way he is like George W. Bush.

Obama also  shares a trait with Bush.  Obama decided to follow Bush's example and choose an older vice president who could tell him how to handle foreign policy.  If Obama really were as intelligent as his supporters claimed he would have selected a woman for his vice president. 

I'm not a fan of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, but I would concede that she would have been a better choice for vice president than either Sen . Joe Biden or Gov. Sarah Palin.  She would have been a better choice for President than Obama or McCain.     

Obama's foolish decision to choose Biden allowed McCain to select Palin as his running mate.  She's the only bright spot in this dismal election.  She is better prepared to be president than Obama.  Like Vice  President  Calvin Coolidge, who became president after Warren G. Harding died,. she was selected for the vice presidency during her first term as governor.    

Theodore Roosevelt, who like Palin was 42 at the time he was selected as vice president, was also in his first term as governor.  However, he had also briefly been an under secretary of the navy as well as an army colonel (the army equivalent of the rank achieved by McCain in the navy).    It's too early to say Palin is another TR, but she has a similar enthusiasm.  TR may have been the ultimate presidential maverick.

Why are journalists so naive about politicians?  If they had any sense they would realize that politicians are not the most truthful individuals. 

Some politicians lie to mislead voters.  Others lie because they don't really know what they are talking about.

Legislative politicians are particularly prone to changing their positions based on political expediency.  Legislators can always blame the executive branch if something goes wrong.
 
Members of the U.S. Senate have long been known for saying one thing in the Senate and the opposite back home in the states they represent.   As Gov. Sarah Palin observed in the recent vice presidential debate, Washington politicians often are for things before they are against them or against things before they are for them.

Both presidential candidates have changed their positions on important matters during the last year or so.  Sen. Barack Obama first claimed that he would accept public funding for his presidential campaign then changed his mind.  Sen. John McCain once supported realistic immigration reform before he realized he needed   the support of anti-immigrant groups.

Presidential candidates will deliberately make false promises to get elected.  Sometimes they even lie to themselves.  John F. Kennedy probably believed he could get civil rights legislation through Congress, but he failed to do so.

President Woodrow Wilson was reelected in 1916 with a slogan "He kept us our of war."  Less than six months after being reelected, President Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany.

Herbert Hoover ran for president in 1928 promising  "a chicken in every pot and a  car in every garage."  A year after he was elected the stock market crashed.

In 1964 President Lyndon Johnson said he wouldn't send "American boys" to fight a war that should be fought by "Asian boys."   A year after he won the election paratroopers of the 173rd Airborne Brigade were fighting for the lives against a much larger force in War Zone D in Vietnam.

So why do journalists assume we can believe anything polticians say?  Why do journalists suggest we should evaluated presidential candidates upon what they say rather than what they have done?

Perhaps journalists ignore the fact that polticians have lied in the past because they have memories like a VHS tape.  When they get to the end of the tape they simply record over whatever they used to know. 

Or. perhaps, today's journalists just aren't  very smart.  They don't understand that  politicians  will deliberately lie if no one challenges them with the truth.  Journalists don't understand that politicians, especially male politicians, often have a greatly inflated sense of their own abilities.

The economic portion of the so called debate Friday night was a waste of time. Neither candidate provided more than a vague set of conditions for evaluating any proposal. They want us to put them in charge,  but have nothing to offer for dealing with the current  crisis. 

But their lack of any solution shouldn't be surprising. If either had a solution to the credit he would have been in Washington trying to get Congress to adopt his solution instead of debating in Mississippi.  Hopefully, President George W. Bush will solve the problem before they take office.

Sen. Barack Obama kept trying to bring  up the issue of health care which is irrelevant to the credit crisis.  In general Obama seems more concerned with playing the blame game than ending the crisis.    The important thing now is to end the crisis. 

Both candidates repeated the old religions of their parties. 

Sen. John McCain says he  is going to freeze  federal spending except for defense and entitlement programs. It'll never happen.  Republicans have been talking about that for decades and  haven't succeeded. 

Most programs have too many supporters in Congress to be reduced.  Federal agencies often have regional offices, and the communities with those offices will  pressure  their  congressional delegation to  keep  those offices open.  The communities  or organizations that benefit  will also lobby for keeping the programs.

Sen; Obama claims he's going to raise revenue by closing corporate loopholes.  Democrats have been promising to do that for decades and haven't succeeded yet.  Congress creates new loopholes faster than it eliminates old ones.  Even if Congress did eliminate loopholes no money could be raised by taxing companies that are already losing money. 

McCain has a better chance to freeze spending than Obama has to eliminate corporate loopholes.  The president can veto spending bills.  The president cannot force congress to close tax loopholes.

McCain is correct  that Obama's spending program  would require a general tax increase rather than a reduction.  If Obama really believes that he can cut taxes and increase spending, those nice young men in their clean white coats need to take him to the happy home.  

According to the Main Stream Media, Obama is supposed to be stronger on economic issues.  I saw no evidence of that Friday night.

Based on the comments  the  candidates made on the economic situation  during the debate we would be better off keeping President George W. Bush for the next four years or bringing back Bill Clinton.  Many  people have forgotten that  Bush brought  us through the economic crisis  that followed  the 9/11 attack.

Senator John McCain is correct. He and Senator Barack Obama should return to Washington to do the jobs we are paying them to do instead of participating in a political reality show called a debate.  The place for two United States Senators to debate during an economic crisis is on the floor of the United States Senate. They can present their views about what to do and attempt to gain support from their fellow Senators.

Someone who cannot demonstrate leadership as a Senator will not be able to do so as President. 

They can participate in one of those debates anytime. At present their responsibility is to take care of the business (TCB) they being paid to take care of  as United States Senators. If Obama didn't want to continue being a Senator while he ran for president he should have done the honorable thing and resigned like Bob Dole did when he ran for president in 1996.

Obama doesn't want to TCB in the Senate. He prefers being a celebrity who goes around making speeches to adoring crowds because he likes to hear himself talk.     

Would you promote someone who spends all his time talking about what he would do if promoted instead of taking care of business in his current job?   Getting legislation through Congress is one of the president's most important jobs.  Appearing on talk shows isn't.

Does Obama  want  to merely talk about  some vague change or does he actually want to produce changes?  Perhaps Obama doesn't want to return to the Senate to do his job because he has done such a lousy job as Senator.

If Obama wants to play the spoiled brat  who has to have his way about a debate, perhaps  McCain's running mate  Gov. Sarah Palin can stand in for McCain while McCain TCB's  in the Senate.

Republicans have jumped all over Barack Obama's statement in a George Stephanopoulos on "This Week," on ABC on September 7.
 
"Let's not play games," he said. "What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith."

The Main Stream Media have largely ignored the statement because members of the MSM believe it is there job as Good Democrats to make Barack Obama look good.

Even the Republican oriented Washington Times criticized Republican bloggers for their treatment of the subject.  "But illustrating the difficulty of preventing false rumors about his faith from spreading, anti-Obama groups within one hour of the interview had sliced it out of context and were sending it around via email. They also were blogging about it."

 Israelinsider  is more critical suggesting that Obama really meant what he said.  "In one of the most astonishing gaffes in American political history, in a national televised interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulus, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama referred to 'my muslim faith,' confirming what researchers and political opponents have been claiming.  While Stephanopoulus several seconds later tried to correct him, saying 'Christian faith,' it was too late. The damage was done. Obama clearly did not mean his Christian faith, since he was admitting that 'John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.' The term 'Christian faith' would not make sense in that context."

Both the Times and Israelinsider may be ignoring a more important issue than whether or not Obama is a Muslim.  The MSM have been claiming that Obama is supposed to be more intelligent than other politicians.  If that were the case, he would accidentally say "my Muslim faith".  If he did make a misstatement it indicates he isn't much different from President Jerry Ford who made a misstatement about Poland and Eastern Europe in the 1976 presidential debate.

Obama might sound intelligent reciting a prepared speech, but the real test of intelligence is the ability to think and talk at the same time without making simple mistakes.  If President George Bush  had made a similar misstatement, the MSM would make it a headline or a soundbite.  Comedians would have made jokes about it.  If members of the MSM want to be considered as real journalists they need to report the mistakes made by all politicians, not just the ones in the other political party.  Obama only seems to be smarter than Bush because the MSM are protecting him from his mistakes.        

The following transcript is from Israelinsider to show the context of the Obama's statement. .
    STEPHANOPOULOS: You mention your Christian faith. Yesterday you took off after the Republicans for suggesting you have Muslim connections. Just a few minutes ago, Rick Davis, John McCain's campaign manager, said they've never done that. This is a false and cynical attempt to play victim.
 OBAMA: You know what? I mean, these guys love to throw a rock and hide their hand. The...

    STEPHANOPOULOS: The McCain campaign has never suggested you have Muslim connections.

    OBAMA: No, no, no. But the -- I don't think that when you look at what is being promulgated on Fox News, let's say, and Republican commentators who are closely allied to these folks--

    STEPHANOPOULOS: But John McCain said that's wrong.

    OBAMA: Now, well, look. Listen. You and I both know that the minute that Governor Palin was forced to talk about her daughter, I immediately said that's off limits. And--

    STEPHANOPOULOS: But John McCain said the same thing about questioning your faith.

    OBAMA: And what was the first thing the McCain?s campaign went out and did? They said, look, these liberal blogs that support Obama are out there attacking Governor Palin.

    Let's not play games. What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you're absolutely right that that has not come--

    STEPHANOPOULOS: Christian faith.

    OBAMA: -- my Christian faith.

Both presidential candidates and their running mates should provide us with copies of their birth certificates.  No one will steal their identities because they are too well known.  I read recently that I will have to provide a birth certificate to renew my driver's license even though I  have had a driver's license for 46 years.  

 If we average folks have to prove our citizenship we should require those who want to lead us to do the same thing. If the U.S. government believes anybody might lie about citizenship, then we should recognize that presidential candidates might lie about their citizenship.  Presidential candidates lie about other matters, why do we think they wouldn't lie about their citizenship.

By birth certificate, I mean an actual photocopy of the document produced when they were born complete with the signature of the doctor, midwife, or whoever.  

  Hillary Clinton is still officially a candidate.  Perhaps she could start the process by releasing her birth certificate.

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign slogan "Change We Can Believe In" is a nonsense phrase.  It has no real meaning.

Am I the only one who thinks that it doesn't make any sense to believe in "change"?   I can see believing in religion or love or maybe even music, but believing in "change" makes no sense.  It might make sense to believe in Sen. John McCain's ability to handle the presidency, but believing in some vaguely defined  change is ridiculous.

Bill Clinton suggested "It's time to change America" when he ran in 1992.  I don't recall him changing much of anything, although two years later voters  changed Congress by replacing many Democrats with Republicans.

The slogan "Change We Can Believe In" sounds like something a child might consider impressive, but it has no real meaing.    Not surprisingly, Obama has more appeal to inexperienced  young  voters than to wiser older voters who have seen a lot of fast talking phony politicians.

Obama  a few months ago commented about the psychological state of small town people who believed  in  religion, etc.  What is the psychological  state of  people who believe in some vaguely defined "change"? 

Obama's supporters  must have very empty lives to believe that some vague "change" is going to make their lives better.   Do they expect the president  to provide them some type of psychological satisfaction?

The term sounds like it might be some type of code word that Obama and his supporters understand, but whose meaning is supposed to be unknown to others.

As an historian I am inherently suspicious of politicians who rely on oratorical ability to reach people on an emotional level.  Southern populists like Huey Long and George Wallace used such emotional oratory to succeed.  Adolph Hitler was a master of the technique. 

I am also suspicious of politicians who use vague code words.  Politicians sometimes use code words and phrases to cover up what they are doing.  For example, white southern politicians used the phrase "states' rights" to convince people outside the south that southern whites should be allowed to mistreat black American citizens.   Southerns whites argued they were attempting to "preserve their way of life" without mentioning that their way of life involved rape and murder of black residents.       

How can we be sure the that Barack Obama  is not talking about a "change"  designed to reduce the level of democracy in the United States?  What guarantee do his supporters have that "change" is just a con to get them to vote for a candidates who doesn't have the necessary management experience to run one of Donald Trump's small companies?