I believe it was a little of all of the above. Mostly though, it was the winning move in a political fight that Obama and Harry Reid were orchestrating. McCain received a call from Obama early on Wednesday asking if McCain would like to join him in publishing a joint set of principles on the bailout bill upon which the 2 of them agreed. McCain was calling multiple leaders of both parties and the administration to gauge the progress of the negotiations and status of the bill when Harry Reid informed McCain that he had a press release ready to announce the publishing of the Obama/McCain principles. Say what you want about McCain, but his political instincts that have been sharpened by 26 years in politics knew he was being played by the orchestrated efforts of the Democrat leaders in the Congress and the Obama campaign.

McCain did the right thing to take decisive action on this campaign and his involvement in the bail out bill. The Democrats did not want him in Washington and there is only one reason – they wanted Obama to own the economy. By pressing this bailout, the President and his administration own the problem. The only item left that has any political value is the “Solution” and “Leadership on the economy.” Since the solution is unpopular, the Obama campaign was more than willing to remain out of town to let the Congress craft the solution and gain politically from the “taxpayer protections” amendments that are being added to the administration’s proposed legislation.

That left “Leadership on the Economy” as the remaining item with political value. The best way for Obama to maintain that was to have both McCain and Obama remain out of Washington and by default that leaves Obama as the leader since he has that at present. What would we think about President Bush if he was in Florida preparing for a political debate or flying off to a political fund raiser right now? Who in their right mind would say “Well, a President has to have the ability to focus on more than one thing at a time.” That is ridiculous and this quote will come back to haunt Obama when the discussion comes on leadership of the economy question. He will have to say “As a sitting Senator and Presidential candidate, I was willing to let Chris Dodd, Harry Reid Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi fix the single biggest financial crisis in my lifetime.” Now that is lack of leadership we can believe in.

It is about country first, John McCain is willing to go into a political firestorm to rescue this country. If he were making a pure political calculation his campaign could have convinced any other politician that the benefit of fighting to leadership on the economy was not worth the potential risk of embracing this issue and it’s unpopular solution. I can imagine McCain sitting in New York pacing, calling, just itching to get into this issue with his colleagues back in Washington. Then to be pushed out by a freshman Senator and his ally Harry Reid was more than McCain could take. John McCain is running toward the fire in this country, not just sitting by because someone told him things would be better if he just stayed back.

Yes, McCain is playing politics with this issue. However he just one upped his opponents political gamesmanship. Yes, McCain realizes he is in a knife fight with a gang of political thugs and if they turn their back on you there is only one place to stab them. Yes, McCain is “Country First” and his desire to be part of an unpopular solution is proof of that.

We have a great opportunity and challenge every 4 years to select what is called the “Leader of the Free World” the President of the United States. I read blogs and articles and have been struck by how difficult it is to keep our conversations civil and focused on the issues in each election cycle. What I would like to offer is a discussion about an idea – rather than throwing slogans, barbs and “half truths” that we have heard through every media channel.

To sort through all of the election cycle chatter, I am offering the idea that it is instructive to look at who is “walking the walk.” If a candidate lives their ideas, we can give their views and values additional consideration. To clarify this term, “Walking the walk” is also: leading by example, living what you say, NO double talk, NOT making false promises, NO “do as I say, not as I do.” We should explore whether a candidate or representative of a candidate/position has demonstrated a history of living their positions that would make us believe that they will follow through with their ideas and promises.

Issue #1) Let’s focus on the Issues! Before we look to the quality of our leaders we should start with ourselves. Our discourse should be civil when discussing our political positions and we should always live our positions. In one particular instance a writer was imploring another writer to discuss the issues of the election and casually tossed in the point that John McCain didn’t know how many houses he owned. My question was “Is this an issue in this campaign, or has this writer just violated his own rule of focusing on the issues?” I had heard this multiple times during the Democrat National Convention – Gov. Kaine from Virginia for one scolded folks that had more than one house. I considered these points:

·         A very wealth Senator Teddy Kennedy spoke at the convention and no one asked him how many houses he owned.

·         John Kerry, John Edwards, John F. Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy all were very wealthy and had multiple homes that they had sole or partial ownership of and the still were qualified to be the Democrat candidate

·         This has never been an issue prior to this year with a candidate for the office of President

·         I cannot determine how the number of houses John McCain owns will impact his ability to serve different from wealthy Democrats.

So I conclude this is not really an issue but a “gotcha” that should be ignored when mentioned. If this is what a person uses to argue against a candidate they should first tell you what the significant difference is between John McCain and the Kennedy’s home ownership. – In this instance the writer reverted to talking the talk of focusing on issues.

A common “Gotcha” in line with issues discussion is to put in a quote from John McCain’s campaign manager regarding the importance of issues in the campaign. The problem was that they only take a portion of the quote to make a point. Rick Davis actually said “This election is not about the issues.. (most stop there to prove their point, however the quote continues) …but about a composite view of the candidates that includes character, values … and part of this is where the candidates stand on the issues.” The use of a selected portion of a quote to distort the speaker’s intent violates an unspoken rule in civil discourse – you should not distort another person’s positions or statements about issues when there is a real opportunity to discuss them.

Issue #2) It is patriotic to pay more taxes! & The wealthy should pay more! This patriotism comment was a recent statement from Joe Biden and reminded me of Elvis Presley and President Clinton. The issue of who should bear the burden of supporting the government through taxes is an issue in every campaign. Why did Elvis and President Clinton come to mind you might ask?

·         I had heard some time ago that Elvis also thought it was his patriotic duty to pay taxes and he had instructed his tax accountants to file a simple tax form with no deductions to maximize the tax that he was obligated to pay. I salute Elvis for his living his ideas.

·         During the ’92 campaign President Clinton talked about the need for higher tax rates on the wealthy. After review of his tax returns it was revealed that he claimed a charitable deduction of $3 for each pair of underwear donated to Goodwill to minimize his tax bill. Clinton is an example of “talking the talk.”

My question for Joe Biden and every other person that believes that any level of government should receive higher tax revenue – Are you living what you say? Since 50% of the population state that they support the Democrat platform of higher taxes all we need is for each of them actually pay more tax than they currently do by paying the highest taxes possible on their income. The rest of us that don’t feel like paying more taxes would thank them for their patriotism and everyone would feel satisfied. I think that we could close the deficit from the Hollywood crowd alone! But please don’t stop at the federal level, the state, county, city and schools all need more cash also. In this case, “walking the walk” is putting your money where your mouth is. Why would we follow leaders that only ask others to pay the price of their policies? Have Joe Biden and Barak Obama paid the maximum tax possible on their income, or did they take deductions to minimize their tax bill while asking others to pay more.

Issue #3) We need to reform government! Both tickets have taken this as a central theme of their platforms. The question I have is have any of them demonstrated their willingness to reform government? So far in this campaign I have not heard of any past performance of reform from the Obama/Biden ticket. The information about 1 billion in earmarks that Sen. Obama secured for Illinois in his first 2 years as a senator is not a good indication of a reformer. To be fair the fact that since running for President he has not asked for a single earmark is some indication that he is possibly inclined to reform. I suspect this might be a deathbed conversion, maybe not a trend that we can rely on. John McCain has lived as a reformer by not securing earmarks for Arizona in his years in the senate. He has also attempted to reform campaign finance, attempted to reform immigration laws, and most importantly attempted to reform the oversight of Fannie and Freddie in 2005 as co-sponsor of S-190. Sarah Palin has reduced the number of earmarks requested by Alaska from 60 to 30 and has cut out funding with a line item veto in each of her first 2 Alaska budgets. Although this is not as dramatic as Sen. Obama’s record on earmarks, I would point out that these were reforms before she thought she would be the candidate for Vice President. What you do when you don’t believe people are watching is very instructive. If you believe in reform of government and not just change of party, there is only one choice with demonstrated history of actions in my view.

Issue #4) We need to clean up corruption in Washington! Another common theme, and one that should happen every day within government since the public trust is the most important asset a government has. What we have seen from Sen. Obama is a willingness to associate with many corrupt individuals up to the point in time where their corruption is pointed out to him. He didn’t see anything wrong with Rev Wright’s sermons, He didn’t see anything wrong with Father Pfleger’s sermons, He didn’t see anything wrong with Tony Rezko helping him buy a house at a deep discount. On the other ticket we have 2 individuals that see corruption when it occurs and are willing to confront it. John McCain told Charles Keating that he would not interfere with the audit of Keating’s savings and loans. McCain did attend one meeting and was recorded at that meeting to be in favor of the audits proceeding as planned, others in that meeting asked the auditor not to be difficult with Keating’s S&Ls. McCain was part of the Keating 5 investigation due to that meeting and was exonerated of charges of corruption. Sarah Palin was willing to turn in the Republican state chairman on corruption charges when she was confronted with problems on the Alaska State Energy Commission. When I am looking for the person that will clean up corruption I want the person that recognizes it while it is happening, not in hindsight.

These are my views focused on the issues that are part of this presidential campaign; no slogans, no talking points, no personal attacks. Next idea for discussion is the federalization of health care.