Last night, I had the privilege of interviewing Jim Beatty, the man who’s attempting to unseat John Kerry, who served in Vietnam. I’d done some research on Mr. Beatty prior to the interview. His national/homeland security resume is quite impressive, having served in the Delta Forces, as a FBI Special Agent and with the CIA. In addition to that, Mr. Beatty owns a business that called TotalSecurity.US, which he started in 1992.

According to his campaign bio page, here are some of his accomplishments:

In transportation, www.TotalSecurity.US has written the Anti-terrorism Action Plans for both the American Trucking Associations and the American Bus Association. Further consulting support has been given to 25 major US cities and the FMCSA, FTA, WMATA, MBTA and MASSPORT.

On a Global scale Mr. Beatty and www.TotalSecurity.US worked on major international meetings and special events like the Rose Bowl and Rose Parade, Superbowl, Asian Development Bank, BIOTECH and 4 Olympics.

In other words, his resume suggests that he’ll be more than able to hold his own on these issues with Sen. Kerry.

I’d be doing Mr. Beatty a disservice, though, if I left the impression that he’s a one issue candidate. He isn’t. The first question I asked was intentionally a softball. What I asked was why he’d be a better senator than Sen. Kerry. His response was measured but to the point. He said that he’d “protect Massachusetts’ families, protect our country & protect Massachusetts’ jobs.” (continue reading post »)

The more I read about Jeff Beatty, the more I’m impressed with him. This op-ed is a perfect example of why we need Jeff Beatty in the United States Senate. Check out how Mr. Beatty goes after Sen. Kerry on energy policy:

The U.S. Senate, including Sen. John Kerry, could have acted recently to resolve our current fuel crisis by voting for a comprehensive energy plan.

Instead, Kerry characteristically shirked his responsibility to the people of Massachusetts. He and the Senate leadership ducked for cover, allowing a comprehensive energy reform bill, which included lifting Congress’s moratorium on offshore drilling, to die.

Kerry and others then exited the U.S. Capitol for the August recess, a five-week vacation most of us cannot afford, leaving a steadfast few who demanded a vote on this issue literally standing in the dark of the House chamber with the American people left in the lurch.

The citizens of Massachusetts would be wise to pick Jeff Beatty because he has a plan to improve their lives. Compare that with Sen. Kerry. He’s been in the Senate sin 1984. Since then, he’s been wrong on almost every foreign policy issue. His accomplishments are thin to nonexistent. That begs the question: Why vote for someone who’s had a remarkably mediocre career when you can pick someone whose policies would help his constituents and who brings a wealth of experience on homeland security matters?

This paragraph is another reason why Massachusetts needs Jeff Beatty’s leadership: (continue reading post »)

Many in the Right Blogosphere have brought up the inexperience subject. To be fair, they’ve done so in a thoughtful manner. Two such people are Kevin at Pundit Review and Allahpundit at HotAir.

Here are a couple of concerns Kevin raises:

McCain turns 72 years old today. When thinking about a VP, I believe voters look at them and think, “can I imagine this person as president”. For all his flaws, Joe Biden passes that test. Will Sarah Palin? I don’t know?

Can she hold her own against a hostile press corps? How about against Joe Biden for that matter? The only honest answer is that nobody knows. I saw her about a month ago on Larry Kudlow’s TV show and I thought she did ok, not great, just ok. If that was my impression watching her in friendly territory, how will she do when really pressed?

With all due respect to Kevin, Joe Biden only passes the test stylistically. That isn’t nearly good enough for me. It’s why I ignored statements like this or that candidate “looks presidential.” When Sen. Obama took his overseas trip, especially after his meetings with President Sarkozy and PM Brown and in his ‘Citizen of the World’ speech in Berlin, the press practically wet their pants in talking about how presidential he looked. (continue reading post »)

Friday evening, Mort Kondracke of the Beltway Boys said during the roundtable portion of Special Report that Sarah Palin wasn’t qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. I took offense with that, especially considering the ineptitude and qualifications of Sen. Obama, who wouldn’t be “one heartbeat away from the Oval Office”.

This morning, I wrote an email to Mr. Kondracke. Here’s the text of that email:

Mort, You’ve really outdid yourself this time. Saying that Gov. Palin, who’s visited Kuwait to talk with the troops from Alaska’s National Guard deployed in the Gulf, who’s rooted out corruption within her own party, isn’t qualified is uninformed opinion. It’s also irresponsible journalism.

Why haven’t you talked about Obama’s lack of qualifications? As you know, he chairs a subcommittee with oversight on Afghanistan. As you know, that subcommittee hasn’t met under his control. He’s been to Iraq twice. The last time he visited, he couldn’t even admit that the surge had worked because his hyperpartisanship wouldn’t allow him to admit that.

Who’s qualified to be commander-in-chief? It isn’t the junior senator from Illinois. (continue reading post »)

During one of his campaign stops yesterday, Sen. Obama complained that Sen. McCain had changed his mind about offshore drilling:

“McCain says ‘Here’s my plan, I’m going to drill here, drill now which is something he only came up with two months ago when he started looking at polling,” Obama said of McCain’s energy policy.

The GOP hopeful has become a vocal proponent of offshore oil drilling as a way to ease U.S. dependence on foreign oil and has criticized Obama for failing to embrace it as a way to help bring down oil prices. Obama noted that McCain had long opposed lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling.

back in late June, I noted John Meynard Keynes’ famous quote:

When asked why he changed his position on an issue, John Maynard Keynes said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

It isn’t entirely clear why that hasn’t sunken in with Sen. Obama. for that matter, it isn’t clear that the Democratic majorities in the House or Senate have figured things out with regard to energy policy.

Sen. McCain changed his mind when gas reached $4/gallon. Sen. McCain changed his mind because he knew that high gas prices had the potential of tanking the economy. He knew that high gas prices were causing unbearable inflation for consumers. I’d say that those are pretty solid reasons for changing one’s mind. I’m betting that most people would agree. (continue reading post »)

People are taking notice that John McCain knows what he’s talking about on national security matters. Recent polling shows Sen. McCain opening a significant gap over Sen. Obama on national security:

The reemergence of the national security gap comes amid the first headline-grabbing world conflict of the 2008 campaign, the Russian invasion of Georgia that highlights the potential for a dramatic military event to upend the political landscape, and likely aid McCain.

July’s NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll found that three in four Americans believe McCain can “handle” the role of commander in chief, while only 19 percent said he “cannot,” compared to a 50 percent to 42 percent split for Obama.

I can tell you from reading more than a few polls that having a +50-someting point gap between favorable vs. unfavorable is almost unheard of. Having a +8 is commonplace.

David Paul Kuhn makes a special note of Sen. McCain’s initial statement when Russia invaded Georgia vs. Sen. Obama’s neutral initial statement:

When violence between Russia and Georgia escalated to war earlier this month, McCain’s first statement demanded that “Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory.”

Obama’s first statement, by contrast, delicately avoided the question of responsibility. “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war,” he said. Later that day, Obama blamed Russia for the invasion. By Saturday, the Democrat had moved still closer to McCain’s position: “Russia has escalated the crisis in Georgia through its clear and continued violation of Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

Sen. McCain’s initial statement showed the world that he understood that the invasion was Putin’s Russia flexing its muscles in an attempt to reconstruct the old Soviet empire. Sen. McCain’s statement was forceful and direct. (continue reading post »)

Here’s the text of Sen. McCain’s statement on the Georgian-Russian War as reported in the NY Times:

“Americans wishing to spend August vacationing with their families or watching the Olympics may wonder why their newspapers and television screens are filled with images of war in the small country of Georgia.
Concerns about what occurs there might seem distant and unrelated to the many other interests America has around the world. And yet Russian aggression against Georgia is both a matter of urgent moral and strategic importance to the United States of America. Georgia is an ancient country at the crossroads of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and one of the world’s first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion. After a brief period of independence following the Russian revolution, the Red Army forced Georgia to join the Soviet Union in 1922. As the Soviet Union crumbled at the end of the Cold War, Georgia regained its independence in 1991.
But its early years were marked by instability, corruption and economic crises. Following fraudulent parliamentary elections in 2003, a peaceful Democratic revolution took place. Led by the US educated lawyer, Mikheil Saakashvili, the Rose revolution changed things dramatically and following his election, President Saakashvili embarked on a series of wide ranging and successful reforms. I’ve met with President Saakashvili many times, including several trips to Georgia. What the people of Georgia have accomplished in terms of Democratic governance, Western orientation and domestic reform, is nothing short of remarkable. That makes Russia’s recent actions against the Georgians all the more alarming. In the face of Russian aggression, the very existence of independent Georgia and the survival of its democratically elected government are at stake. In recent days Moscow has sent its tanks and troops across the internationally recognized border into the Georgian region of South Ossetia. Statements by Moscow that it was merely aiding the Ossetians are belied by reports of Russian troops in the region of Abkhazia, repeated Russian bombing raids across Georgia, and reports of a de facto Russian naval blockade of the Georgian coast. Whatever tensions and hostilities might have existed between Georgians and Ossetians, they in no way justify Moscow’s path of violent aggression. Russian actions in clear violation of international law have no place in 21st century Europe. (continue reading post »)

One of the central questions this election is what type of foreign policy we want. Based on their competing statements, it’s apparent that an Obama administration wouldn’t assign blame to aggressors. Actually, an Obama administration would assign blame on aggressors and victims. John Hinderaker’s post at Powerlineblog shows the intellectual incoherence of Sen. Obama’s foreign policy and the comprehensive grasp of geopolitical factors to be weighed of Sen. McCain’s foreign policy. Here’s one of Sen. Obama’s statements on the Russian-Georgian conflict:

“I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict,” Obama said in a written statement. “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war. Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected.”

Saying that Georgia “should show restraint” is like telling Kuwait in 1990 to show restraint after Iraq invaded. Here’s Sen. McCain’s statement:

“[T]he news reports indicate that Russian military forces crossed an internationally recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia. Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory. (continue reading post »)

Dick Morris has penned a brilliant column on why the lagging economy won’t automatically hurt Republicans this November. Here’s the most impressive part of the column:

[Clinton’s] promise to “focus like a laser beam” on the recession won him big points throughout the campaign. His 10-year record as a governor and his chairmanship of the National Governors Association bolstered his credentials. But we first met Barack Obama as an advocate of racial and partisan healing and then as an opponent of the war in Iraq. When he tried to morph into an economic expert in time for the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries, voters didn’t buy it and voted for Hillary.

So the question that hangs over the election is: Are we prepared to trust a new candidate with almost no experience and no claim to economic expertise in the middle of one of the most threatening economic situations we have ever faced?

I said last spring that Sen. Obama would have difficulty getting elected because voters would turn against him when they got serious. (continue reading post »)

Last week, Barack Obama decided that drilling was acceptable…Sort of. To this point, though, I don’t think that he’s changed his opinion that nuclear power is part of the solution. According to this article, that gives Sen. McCain a major advantage in Michigan. I’ll bet that Sen. Obama’s mind will change on nuclear if it’s hurting him in the polls.

U.S. Sen. John McCain is scheduled to tour DTE Energy’s Fermi II nuclear power plant Tuesday to highlight his support for the development of nuclear energy. It’s a good opportunity for the presumptive GOP presidential nominee to sharpen the contrast between his energy views and those of the leadership of the Democratic Party.

Michigan voters could then have a clear set of choices on the energy issue, which a recent Detroit News/WXYZ poll said was one of their top concerns. State voters, according to the poll, support the Arizona Republican’s positions calling for the building of 45 new nuclear power plants and allowing oil drilling off of the nation’s coasts.

Sen. McCain’s Lexington Plan includes nuclear power. He hasn’t backed away from it. He’s been consistent, which is what clear-thinking leaders do. This proves that he’s thought things through before putting the Lexington Plan together. (continue reading post »)