Last Friday, as usual, I was listening to Glenn Beck on the radio.  I'm a big fan but on Friday, I was getting more and more angry with every minute.

Glenn Beck had yet to make up his mind about supporting McCain-Palin.  I understood completely why some may have hesitated to support McCain - he's poked conservatives in the eye so many times, we winced at the mention of his name.

However, at some point, after the primaries are over, and the contrasts are drawn between the GOP nominee and the Democratic nominee, angst about our nominee should give way to support.  U.S. Presidential elections are rarely, if ever, between your ideal candidate and the Democratic nominee.

Most elections are a choice between two flawed candidates that will steer the country left (Democrat / liberal / more socialism) or right (GOP / conservative / more capitalism).   Given the failures of the socialist model, it's surprising Democrats win anything.

One of the reasons the Dems win is that most Americans get their election information from folks that spin it to make Democrats look good (or not as bad) and Republicans look bad (or really bad).  That's why it's so important to have objective news sources and, maybe, some conservative ones.

Glenn is one of those few objective sources of information.  I know he's conservative but, if you spend ten minutes listening to him - he's extremely fair and objective as it gets.  He has no problem slamming Republicans if they're screwing up.  In fact, he does it all the time!

In the 2008 election, the liberal news media, if they were honest with us, would admit Obama is a candidate whose background scares most Americans (graduate of Chicago-style politics, associations with Rezco and terrorist Bill Ayers and twenty years in a church with "God Dam* America!").  Althought he's succeeded at keeping his idea of "Change" ambiguous, the positions he's clear about are also scary.  

For example, raising taxes in a weak economy will make the economy worse.  It's not a judgement call - it's economic science.  Raising taxes on businesses will hurt all Americans who shop at or work for a business.  When faced with the crisis of a huge rise in oil prices, the Obama-led Democrats took a 5 week paid vacation.  High prices are hurting most Americans.

Except Members of Congress, who make $14,000 per month, adjusted for inflation!. 

Obama will not admit opposing the surge was a mistake.  It's obvious the surge has been successful and for a future commander-in-chief to not admit he's wrong reminds many of Bush's reluctance to admit his initial Iraq strategy was not working.  Obama still thinks premature withdrawal would have been better.  Americans don't want a President, of either party, who can't admit when their wrong.

On Friday, Glenn spent a good part of the morning agonizing about how much John McCain ruined the "orgasmic high" Sarah Palin had provided with the "conservative porn" in her Thursday RNC speech.  Knowing how bad an Obama presidency would be, and what a breath of fresh air Sarah Palin is, I was stunned that Glenn Beck was still on the fence.

Angry and determined, I called in to vent:

GLENN:  Let me go to Matt in Vermont...hello Matt!

MATT:  Hey Glenn, how ya doing?

GLENN:  Good, man, how are you?

MATT:  I'm stunned.  I'm a big fan but...

After hearing how different McCain and Obama handled the Russian invasion of Georgia...

And what Obama supporters said about Sarah Palin...

After all we know about Obama's Marxist past...

After all you know about Sarah Palin...

I can't believe you're still undecided about whether to support McCain-Palin!

McCain brought Sarah Palin to national politics...to his credit...

GLENN:  Why do you have to call it McCain-Palin?

Just call it McCain.

MATT:  What?

GLENN:  Why do you have to call it McCain-Palin?

Cause then it makes me...

MATT:  That's the ticket!  He brought her there!

He put the Sarah card on the table and you're not going to pick it up!!!???

I just don't get that....that's uh...

GLENN:  I understand..

MATT:  I just don't understand that's like uh..

GLENN:  No.  Go ahead. I thought you were going to say that's stupid

MATT:  You know the saying "Perfect is the enemy of the good"?

GLENN:  What did you say?

MATT:  You know the saying "Perfect is the enemy of the good"?

GLENN:  I'm not looking for perrrfecttt.  I'm not looking for perfect.

I'm just looking for someone who, in their speech last night, doesn't say things like, "Hey, if you lose your job and your get a lower paying job, we're going to make up the difference for a while."

That's what I'm looking for, I'm looking for somebody who doesn't say that.

MATT:  (unaired) You don't have the option of choosing...

(aired) the perfect candidate.  It's who's the best candidate between the two teams?

GLENN:  Grrrrrrr!

MATT:  Are you really going to choose Barr and say no thanks to Sarah Palin?

GLENN:  No!  No.  No.

MATT:  (Not aired) Because voting for Barr has the same effect as...

(Aired) voting for Obama.

GLENN:  I just can't bring myself to say it right now...I just can't bring myself to say it yet...

(frustrated) Ugh...I'm sure I'm going to vote for McCain-PALIN!  I'm sure I'm going to do it.

(end of call)

That is the first time I've heard Glenn Beck say who he'd vote for.

SUCCESS!!  FINALLY! 

I was thrilled.

Last Thursday night, I hosted a “McCain Nation” event - a house party, of sorts, for conservatives.  Living in the state with more Obama supporters per person than any other (Vermont), I appreciate any occasion to meet and greet people who support Jessica's Law and don't feel warm and fuzzy about impeaching President Bush.

Thank you, Cindy McCain, for your comments about the women of Rwanda.  After all they’ve been through, they certainly deserve all the support we can give them (see Justice 4 Rwanda). 

At their upcoming convention, Democrats will make lots of speeches pointing to the “booming Clinton economy of the 1990s” as proof that Democrats can be trusted with the economy.

The problem is the booming 1990s economy began March 1991, 22 months before Clinton took office. 

Like Obama, Clinton promised “Change” during his 1992 campaign for President.  However, later, after the country saw what kind of change Clinton had in mind, voters overwhelmingly rejected Clinton’s policies by electing, for the 1st time in 40 years, a Republican majority in Congress that kept taxes and spending down and forced Clinton to balance the federal budget.

So the credit for the “booming 1990s economy” really belongs to Bush 41 and the ‘94 Republicans. 

So, my question is this:  Will the McCain Campaign debunk the myth of the “booming Clinton economy” so Obama and the Democrats can’t take credit for it anymore?

Charlie Black agreed with my analysis.  I was thrilled!  Perhaps he was just flattering a supporter, in front of 15,000 other supporters, but it was thrilling to offer a senior McCain advisor, directly, my advice for taking away the economy, as an issue, from the Democrats in the General Election.  (I wonder if Mitt Romney was listening - our choice for McCain’s VP!)

Anyway, Mr. Black went on to say that the ‘94 Republicans quickly entered into a balanced budget agreement, with the then-weakened Clinton, to fulfill their promises in the Contract with America, and that that agreement laid the groundwork for historic budget surpluses in the late 1990s.  He also said that he had recently heard Obama’s surrogates on TV talking about how great the Clinton years were for the economy and the country.   

Clinton didn’t create 22 million jobs - the booming economy that he inherited from Reagan and Bush 41 did.

I hope and pray that I’ve planted a seed that will encourage McCain campaign strategists to come up with an ad, or a major speech, that will debunk the booming-Clinton-economy myth and put the 1990s in proper perspective.  Many feel a President doesn’t have much influence anyway on a $13 trillion dollar economy.  I’m sure Microsoft, Amazon, Yahoo, Cisco and other great American companies feel they had a bigger influence on 1990s economy. 

Nevertheless, President Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and hundreds of other Democrat leaders, pundits and supporters in the media often boast how “magnificent Clinton was on the economy”, how “Clinton created 22 million new jobs”, that the economy is a glorious part of his legacy and that evil Bush came along and ruined all the good work Clinton had done in the ’90s.

These are all lies that need to be confronted & corrected. 

So, to the extent that any political leader can take credit for increasing the GDP, and the resulting job growth, it is the pro-growth policies of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush that kept the 1990-91 recession shallow & short - in effect extending the booming Reagan economy into the 1990s.  Credit the 1994 Congressional Republicans for forcing Clinton to keep taxes and spending low and balancing the federal budget - all things that tend to help an economy.  One must also give some credit to Ross Perot for making federal budget deficits a big focus of the 1992 and 1994 campaigns.  Whatever you think of Ross Perot, he made it “sexy” again to demand fiscal responsibility from our elected officials.   

In any event, the credit does not belong to the Clintons.

Democrats, if they’re to be honest, must use the Carter economy for guidance on what an Obama economy might look like.   Like Carter, Obama will, if elected, have both houses of Congress led by Democrats.  Like Carter, Obama’s energy plan is to make our own oil companies the enemy, to seize their “excess” windfall profits, to implement new taxes on oil & gas (aren’t they expensive enough already?) - everything except what’s needed most:  lifting the ban on offshore (OCS) and ANWR drilling effective immediately.

I'm a member of several Obama groups, just to keep an eye on things, and I just received this eyeful yesterday: 

Subject: A Reception with George Clooney in Switzerland for Senator Barack Obama

Dear Friends,

We are very excited to announce that Academy Award winning Actor George Clooney will be headlining an event for the campaign. The event will be Tuesday, September 2nd in Geneva, Switzerland and we really need your help to make this special event a success.

The evening will be broken down into two parts - a reception for $1,000 where Mr. Clooney will speak and take questions followed by an exclusive dinner at the home of NFC member Charles Adams for $10,000 per person. The dinner is limited to 75 people so if you are interested in attending, please fax in the attached invite as soon as possible. Or if know of anyone you think may be interested in attending, please forward this email.

If you do send this to friends and colleagues abroad, only American Citizens with US Passport numbers can contribute to the campaign.
Thank you so much!!!

Cookie Parker
National Finance Committee, Obama for America
National Chair, Women’s Leadership Initiative
Democratic National Platform Committee, DNC

So, let me get this straight.  A member of Obama's National Finance Committee (which nation?), Mr. Charles Adams, owns a home in Geneva, Switzerland, and plans to host a $10,000 per plate dinner with George Clooney as the headliner during the GOP convention.