Almost everyone it seems has concerns about Sarah Palin’s ability. Even some in the Town Hall community have expressed concern abut her experience, especially in the realm of foreign affairs. Why all this folderol about a Vice Presidential candidate, someone whom traditionally American has  hardly even known? Historically Veeps were not seen as important. Many were added to the ticket because they could help the nominee win, but beyond that, their duties were unknown to the public. A classic example is the fact that when FDR died, Truman did not know about the Atomic Bomb project.

So . . . Why all the fuss about Palin’s experience, especially since the job entails no set qualifications? There seems to be something more at work. Perhaps, it is not Palin, but McCain that is the problem. Specifically the concern about Sarah Palin seems to be the fact that she is “a heartbeat away from the Presidency”. There appears no similar worry that Biden may be just a “heartbeat away”. Why?

The reason I believe is that McCain is 72 and will be the oldest President! Unlike the youthful Obama, he is portrayed as an old man, who may “go” at any time. Jokes are routinely made at his expense. McCain for his part seems to take these in stride, but they nonetheless underscore a concern: His Age.

Ageism, I believe is the main reason why Palin has been dumped on. Her running mate may die in office.

But what if he doesn’t? Today, we should be past concerns that the older one gets the more enfeebled they become. Look at the senior senators, local leaders, and others. We all know older Americans who function well and contribute greatly to this nation. Their expertise is valuable.

According to the 2000 United States Census, “ nearly 35 million Americans are over the age of 65”, including those over the age 85,  which make up the fastest-growing segment of the US population.  There should be wide support for the fact that someone may finally break the “gray” ceiling, and show that a life can be of value into the 70’s. Yet amid all the celebratory cheers for the first Black and first Republican female on major tickets, no one appears interested in the fact that an age barrier could be broken.

Admittedly much of the disdain for McCain’s age comes from the Left that seeks to paint him as an out of touch old-fogey. Jokes and jabs abound. It seems to be a subtext to much of their attack. Some have even gone as low as to refer to his skin-cancer as concern that he might die. A youthful Obama battling cancer seems to evoke no fear, although we all know that cancer knows no age.

But, what about the activists in their party? Don’t they care about ageist attacks and stereotypes? The Gray Panthers, who ironically are meeting this week in Detroit, have said nothing in support of McCain, even though a quote by their founder posted on their website seems to support his maverick status.  It says, “We are risk-takers; we are the innovators; we are the developers of new models. . .” (Maggie Kuhn). Looking on their website at their mission statements and beliefs reveals that they are more concerned about liberal policies like anti-nuke, universal health care, pro-choice and pro-marijuana. Thus it is understandable that they are not in support of McCain.

But,  what about us on the Right?  Where are our voices in support of McCain’s age? Why aren’t we making an issue? For the most part, we seem to be silent. It’s sad. Despite what the Democrats say, we are the party of freedom. We should embrace McCain’s age and show, as we did with Palin’s gender, that this is not a concern for our party. With over 35 million seniors there is much we can gain by attacking those who make jokes or comment on the age of our nominee. Palin is fine. She will be a good vice President. It is McCain who is seen as the problem. He could “go at any time”. Let’s put these fears to rest by showing everyone that not only is palin capable, but that McCain is not an old-fogey. Rather we need to present him as a strong and wise leader who has reams of experience, and the vision that only comes from a life well-lived!

Is Bob Barr the most dangerous person for Republicans this fall?

With all the attention focused on Obama, Biden and the left-wing ideologues, are we in danger of a pincher attack by Bob Barr and the Libertarians? To be sure, not much has been heard from their camp. But lest we deceive ourselves, they are in a position to siphon votes from the McCain-Palin ticket. This could pose a problem in a close election.

It has happened before. In 1980, John Anderson, some argue, took enough votes as a third-party independent to allow Ronald Reagan to win. (Okay, it worked well that time. But Carter was already a wounded candidate because of his failed policies!)

In 1996, Ross Perot, grabbed enough votes to allow Bill Clinton to win. In 2000 many feel that Nader upset a Gore victory.

Now it is 2008. The Reform Party is in shambles. The Green’s should steal some votes from Obama; but what about Barr and his Libertarians?

They have some cred. They are running 2 candidates who were once Republicans and Conservatives: Bob Barr and Wayne Root. Barr was known for his role in the Clinton Impeachment hearings and has big time name recognition.

They have a populist appeal. These candidates opposed the War in Iraq and the Patriot Act. In fact these are two of the issues that led to Barr renouncing his Republicanism.

They could be viewed as outsiders and reformers intent on fixing problems. Thus they could reclaim from McCain and Palin the title of Reformer par excellance.

They are in favor of small government and free markets--Two central platforms of the Republican Party. If enough people recognize this, and feel that the Republicans have abandoned these principals then they could do considerable damage to our cause.

What should we do?

We need to reclaim our small-government free-market-capitalist individual-liberty banner that was our bread and butter. This is our issue and not the Libertarians! McCain and especially Palin are from this stock. But we need to make our case better that these are Republican ideas and that they are going to return to prominence in our party.

Second we need to continue to impress to voters that McCain/Palin are not elitists. Palin defiantly isn’t, but McCain.... Well . . . we should probably leave the wife’s fortune out of this. The voters seem to be crying for real people, this is Palin and mostly McCain. But it needs to continually be emphasized. Sure it’s easy to paint Obama/Biden as elites, but Barr/Root not so much?

Next we need to echo the message that Republicans are best positioned to enforce policy. Even in Barr wins, he will have no supporters in Congress or in the bureaucracy. There is thus no way that his administration could enact changes without a significant fight. In reality they do not have the power to change anything.

Finally we need to be firm in denying the Libertarians a voice in the debates unless they reach the 15% requirement. No debate No exposure. We do not need to be deceitful as those on the Left, for they are a legitimate party. But we need to keep the focus on us and not a splinter group that can not win. If they reach the proper percentage then of course they should be on state ballots, but we should not support any proposals that seek to get around this benchmark. Such attempts have been tried by third parties before and will be tried this year too.

Is Bob Barr the most dangerous man for Republicans this fall? Let’s hope not. Let’s derail his train as we likewise derail Obama. We need all of those people to vote for us in this close election.

GO MCCAIN/PALIN

The President is like a Security Guard.

It has been seven (7) wonderful years since this nation suffered a terror attack. May God bless us with many, many more, as we continue to battle the forces of evil that have terrorized not only the West, but the whole world. We have been –for lack of a better word—lucky. Terrorists have bombed London, Madrid, Israel. Religious zealots have destroyed churches in India and Pakistan. The world is rife with ethno-political conflict in areas such as Darfur, the West Bank, Tibet, and Indonesia. Yet the United States –that one nation that for many is the very symbol of evil in that we espouse both Christianity and Capitalism—has been safe and secure.

I believe that much of the credit for this must be given to President George Bush. Despite sagging poll numbers and a faltering economy, heightened by attacks from our liberal/progressive/neo-socialist friends, he has maintained an effective policy of offense and defense. Many are now (reluctantly) admitting that the War on Terror—the offensive, two-pronged attack on terrorists-- is working. Iraq is much safer than it was, and the terrorists’ safe-havens have been reduced.

Yet not as many people seem to be recognizing the defensive successes marked by the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the passing of the (much maligned) Patriot Act.  I believe I have some insight that may be helpful.

For more than two years I worked as a security guard, monitoring a parking garage in a downtown city. I worked the morning shift, and often when I clocked out at 2 P.M., nothing of note had happened. Since I had a Master’s degree and -- to use a Biden phrase --“was bright and articulate”, many wondered why I was working at this low level job. Unlike other vocations, the security guard usually does not have a long list of accomplishments that he can boast about. The work is often low tech, and requires seemingly minimal skills, namely being alert and aware of surroundings and noticing anything unusual.

Often security guards are seen as bottom feeders in the world economy. They are often depicted in media as lazy, incompetent louts who are barely able to walk. Even the much despised day-laborer has more esteem, for they are seen as providing a vital job with sweat and grunts. But the security guard it seems rarely sweats. He merely sits on his chair, or patrols his beat with little exerted energy. At a pay rate barely above minimum wage the hapless security guard is seen as a barely employable person. Some wonder why they are even on the payroll.

A good security guard is usually not able to advertize his success. Everyone is painfully aware of what happens when the guard is not around, or is asleep; cars get vandalized, and property gets destroyed. But if none of that happens then who gets the credit. Was it luck that your new car was not keyed by the teenage thugs who destroyed the cars in the lot next door that was unguarded? Did the security guard keep the bad people at bay? It is hard to know for sure. The fact is that he was there, and on his watch nothing happened; coincidence or planning?

Thus the same is true of the President’s defensive job of securing our nations’ borders from terror. Has he, as our media friends insist, just been lucky? Is it merely a coincidence that nothing has happened? Is George Bush a barely-competent security guard that after an initial attack has merely walked his beat, seemingly accomplishing little?

I say NO. ThePresident, like a security guard, is put in the unenviable task of defining success not on accomplishments but on the lack of disaster. He has to quantify the unquantifiable. How do we know that without him as President, we would be just as safe—or perhaps safer as some on the Left assert? The reality is that a good President, like a good security guard is a deterrent, for he sends the message to all the bad people that he is alert and aware of his mission. Historians will debate whether his predecessor Bill Clinton was as alert and aware when during his watch multiple acts of terror did occur (the first World Trade Center attack, the bombing of the USS Cole and others). But for Bush only one terrible event occurred. As a security guard he did his job. He kept –and continues to keep—us safe. That may be his biggest success.