McCain, Obama Debate 2; Not a Thrilla and Not in Manila!

Barack Obama started off his part of the most recent presidential debate by lying.

John McCain started off his part of the most recent presidential debate by flubbing the return.

Obama blamed the current financial crisis one-hundred percent on "eight years of failed George Bush policies." (Gag me with a spoon will you please!)

McCain could have and should have nailed Obama right between the eyes by responding that the financial crisis is the direct result of Democratic meddling with safeguards that were put in place back in the 1930s to prevent just such a meltdown. He could have and should have noted that in 1999 Bill Clinton took off the brakes on what has become an out-of-control, headlong, downhill dash into financial oblivion.

He didn't. McCain could have and should have noted that even when the GOP tried to return the controls by initiating legislation in Congress in 2003 and other times, it was stymied by cries of "racism" from the very people who had a vested interest in seeing this situation develop.

McCain could have and should have noted that the real racists in Congress are those Democrats who gave false hope to poor people, many of them minorities. They, including hypocrites like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Henry Waxman and even Obama himself, did this by luring poor people, many of them minorities, into an impossible financial trap. They offered home ownership through mortgages that had no controls and a built in time-bomb detonator that would yank their dreams away in a heartbeat, and they knew exactly what they were doing.

Then, when it happened these Congressional hypocrites cried "Racist!" Right after that rallying cry comes "Failed George Bush policies."

Another note to McCain. Stop bashing Bush and Dick Cheney. That isn't your job. We understand your Maverick label so don't belabor the issue. Obama and his Democratic cronies are doing enough Bush bashing for everyone, you don't have to join in the chorus.

Obviously, McCain's handlers are telling him to avoid mentioning Bush at all cost, unless he is blaming something on the sitting president, which sounds petulant if not outright childish. "I didn't do it, he did it! I was just over here watching, but I didn't do it!" Enough already!

Some of us still like the president and vice president. If my history books are accurate, roughly the same number of us like George Bush and Dick Cheney as the number who liked George Washington! Do we agree with every single thing they do every single time? No. But we agree with a lot they did, and do, and McCain isn't making this any easier by offending one-third of the total electorate.

The biggest problem McCain has is that Obama may be blowing smoke up America's collective skirt, but he looks good doing it. McCain may have better ideas, and yes, certainly a better record, but he seems to be tiptoeing on eggshells, afraid to score points when he can and should.

He is trying to be everything to everyone and in the end he isn't satisfying anybody. Want to see how to win the last debate? Watch a video of Sarah Palin debating Joe Biden!

Sarah Unchained. Portrait of a Winner!

Congressman John Larson: Chris Dodd's Apologist and Face of All That Is Wrong In Congress

In a debate, or should I say, a forum, on WFSB's Face The State Sunday, long-term incumbent Democratic Congressman John Larson, who represents Connecticut's First Congressional District, gave viewers a crash course in exactly what is wrong in Washington, D.C. - primarily, him.

Squared off against West Hartford Councilman and GOP challenger Joseph Visconti in a forum moderated by WFSB's Dennis House, Larson began by defending his pal Sen. Chris Dodd. To most other residents of the USA with working IQs Dodd is a primary cause of the financial collapse that is costing taxpayers billions, and should be investigated.




Joseph Visconti


While others are calling for Dodd's scalp, along with that of Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, New York Senator Charles "Chuckles" Schumer, and let's not forget Barack Obama, what we got Sunday from Larson was a staunch defense of Dodd. Rather than seeing him as the recipient of thousands upon thousands of dollars of donations from those he should have been regulating, Larson says Dodd "has shown leadership! I'm proud of his efforts!"

Wow. That has to be the quintessential example of misplaced loyalty!

Then we had Larson claiming that he has made Congress accessible to the average citizen, and by that I guess he wasn't talking about campaign contributions. I guess. In the context of that statement, Larson said he has had more meetings and forums with residents of the 1st Congressional District than any other Congressman.

Now, I don't know if he meant that no other Congressmen held that many forums in their districts, or that no other Congressman held that many forums in Larson's district.

But I do know that when Visconti launched his campaign in May, the mayor, the general public and even the media in Torrington said they simply had never seen Larson in their community. Period.

Maybe he counts it as a forum when he has a few pals over to his place in East Hartford for Sunday afternoon football?

Then, in a commentary that had me rolling on the floor laughing, Larson said he has been responsible for bringing jobs to Connecticut, even as every other politician in the state is screaming from the rooftops that jobs are leaving in record levels!

Where has this guy been hiding? The collapsing job market in Connecticut is one of the major items on the state and local campaign trails, and Larson says he has been bringing jobs to our state? Where are they?

He even had the temerity to say he had "fought for" the Air Force tanker contract that would have used Pratt & Whitney engines and meant plenty of work right there in his own home town! But wait! That contract did not go to Boeing and therefore is not using Pratt engines. Larson forgot to mention that little factoid.

Even though an appeal has been lodged, Pratt workers need jobs NOW! Next year, or next decade is not cutting it. Where on earth are all those First Congressional District jobs that he is claiming?

I also liked it when Larson bad-mouthed George Bush for giving tax breaks to corporations, then later said he has pushed for $1 billion in corporate tax breaks himself. Hypocrite.

But the best of Larson's bogus claims is that he is an advocate for veterans.

Of course he is advocating for veterans; he has to after standing mute when Nancy Pelosi tried to steal the honor of this generation's vets, just as Larson's Congressional pals did in the Vietnam era. Pelosi couldn't bring herself to admit that the surge worked in Iraq, she was wrong, we have won, and terrorism is on the run there.

So she said that our troops didn't really win, "the Iranians let them."


John Larson and Nancy Pelosi in a "descriptive" moment.


If Larson wants the respect of the veterans' community, he isn't going to get it by handing out rebate checks. Most of us don't want to be on the government dole.

But when we win a war, even one that someone like Larson - or Joe Biden - ducked out on, we don't want Congress screwing it up, falsely labeling us as cold-blooded murderers, and denying us the respect that we deserve for our efforts.

If Larson really wants our respect he has to grow a backbone and tell a loud-mouth loser like Pelosi, the worst Speaker of the House of Representatives in history, to stow it when she is deliberately denigrating the honor, dignity and accomplishments of our military.

Oops, too late. The moment came, he stood mute, and it went on down the road.

Don't you just love these politicians who stayed in college during Vietnam then found something else to do after they graduated, but now just love us vets to death? That gives me such a warm and fuzzy feeling.

But I would have felt much better if he had torn into Pelosi instead of letting her set the agenda.

Gee, thanks John. What a guy! What would we do without you?

Well for one thing, we wouldn't owe so much in taxes, which means we probably wouldn't need rebates in the first place. How's that for out of the (Congressional) box thinking?

So, what else did Visconti nail Larson on?

Let's see, the Constitution! Visconti gave Larson a miniature copy and suggested he read it! I thought that was a nice touch.

Then there was the issue of rewriting the IRS tax code to reduce the burden it has placed on individual taxpayers, as well as businesses. Visconti has some pretty well-thought-out ideas on that one, including allowing homeowners and renters to deduct energy costs such as heat and electricity from their income taxes. Personally I'd like to see them make it through Congress.

All in all it was quite the forum, even if Larson did get at least 60 percent of the air time compared to Visconti. It really didn't work in Larson's favor, though, since every time he opened his mouth Larson showed how completely out of touch he is with what is going on in the First District, the state and presumably the country.

There are a lot of people in this country who say they are not going to vote for any incumbents on either the state or national levels. Watching John Larson on Face the State Sunday gives us a perfect example why.

Palin Was Right on Obama-Ayers Connection; Now Let's Look At Obama's Police State

Gov. Sarah Palin went right to the heart of Barack Obama's character on Saturday when she linked him to radical anti-American Bill Ayers, who with his wife, was a founder of the Weather Underground.

That radical, domestic terrorist organization claimed opposition to the Vietnam War as its originating principle. But its terrorist activities that started in 1969, when Richard Nixon had already begun withdrawing troops from Vietnam, continued through the 70s and into the early 80s.

Ayers was quoted in the New York Times in 2001 saying the Weather Underground didn't do enough, even though they bombed police stations, the Pentagon and the US Capitol. Ayers lately has been saying that the quote means they didn't do enough to end the Vietnam War.

But actions speak louder than words, and although the United States military had left Vietnam by 1972 the Weather Underground did nothing to stop the slaughter of millions in Southeast Asia, especially after the communists took over in 1975. So let's not get caught in the anti-war propaganda. The Vietnam War was just a convenient excuse to launch attacks on the core of America.

In addition members of the Weather Underground continued their attacks on the United States itself for nearly another decade after 1972.

The last act of defiance by a member of the group was the attempted robbery of a Brinks armored truck in 1981 in which three people were murdered. Kathy Boudin, the Weather Underground member who was captured in that shootout, was released from prison in Sept. 2003.

The New York times, writing of her release, called the botched armed robbery that claimed the lives of two police officers and a Brink's guard, "a last gasp of Vietnam-era radicalism."

By pleading guilty in 1984, Ms. Boudin avoided a life sentence, a factor that did not sit well with the victims' survivors when she was allowed to go free.

Weather Underground member Cathy Wilkerson said in an interview about the book she wrote about her deadly "adventures," that the cult's leadership used what amounted to communist "reeducation" tactics to convince its members of the righteousness of their cause and to keep them in line.

From the New York Times, "She describes self-criticism sessions led by individuals who used the jargon of psychotherapy. Many in the ranks slept on floors and survived on pennies, but the leadership enjoyed opulent creature comforts. A strict "need-to-know" policy was enforced, meaning individuals could share little information, creating a culture of paranoia.

In the interests of creating "new men and new women," ... the leadership pushed an antimonogamy policy, giving joyless parties where virtual strangers had public sex. "We threw ourselves into the possibility of remaking ourselves as more effective tools for humanity's benefit to the point of sacrificing our own humanity."

In December 1969, according to the Times, a Weather Underground gathering in Flint, Mich., called for war on the United States. Wilkerson says the message was: "Violence was cleansing and resurrecting."

So let's not kid ourselves about Ayers and his intentions. That he escaped a prison term only because the defense successfully argued that evidence against him was gathered illegally by the FBI doesn't alter the nature of his mission. If the Patriot Act had been passed in 1969 Ayers might still be in jail.

The fact that both Ayers and his wife are university professors in Illinois where they live under the benign shadow of the Daley Democratic political machine, gives much credence to the oft-heard complaint that many of our nation's colleges are dominated by the radical far left.

And consider this from the NO QUARTER blog site http://noquarterusa.net/blog:
Barack was the Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Foundation. Bill Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist with wealthy family connections, had co-founded the Chicago Foundation and named Obama as the Chairman of said entity. So by 2001 Barack and Ayers had worked closely together on an effort to reform Chicago public schools. I am all in favor of school reform. But if you are involved with politics you ought to understand that if you hang with, work with, and politic with a guy who is an unrepentant terrorist that it might reflect badly on you. In fact, you should put some distance between yourself and said terrorist.

Barack did not. What is curious is that Barack despite facing criticism about his lack of experience, is closed mouthed when it comes to discussing his stint running a $50 million dollar foundation. What is he hiding?

(This photo of William Ayers is posted on the Rezko Watch blog site, which notes it was first discovered by Patrick Henry, who comments at the No Quarter blog. It came from a 2001 photo shoot promoting the publication of Ayers' memoir Fugitive Days. The photograph appears in the August 2001 Chicago Magazine interview with Ayers by Marcia Froelke Coburn. On the first page of the article entitled "No Regrets", Coburn writes: This-violence, death, and white-hot rhetoric-is his past and Ayers insists he has no regrets. "I acted appropriately in the context of those times," he says.)

But there is far more to Obama's association with people like Ayers and convicted felon Antoin "Tony" Rezko. The latter is a native of Syria, long considered a terrorist state, who moved to Chicago and was a major Obama financial supporter until convicted on several counts of fraud and bribery earlier this year.

For instance, Obama also served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which bills itself as a philanthropic organization devoted to improved education and other worthy causes. However, since 2003 the Joyce Foundation has paid grants totaling over $12 million to groups opposed to legal ownership of firearms.

These include the Violence Policy Center, which reportedly received more than $4-million over a decade ending in 2006, wants a total ban on handgun ownership, not to mention semi-automatics and other firearms, and strongly supports "substantial restrictions" on legal gun ownership.

But there is even more. In July of this year, in a speech in Colorado, Obama called for the establishment of a National Police Force, equivalent in size and strength to the military.

Why on earth would we need an agency that easily would require a half-trillion dollars annually to establish and maintain, especially when we have the FBI, CIA, National Guard, US Marshals, a plethora of intelligence gathering agencies, the US Park Service, and on and on?

Why especially, when calling for this organization would you compare it to the military, unless you wanted a force that would neutralize the military?

You don't have to take my word for it, check out these sites.

From World Net Daily, posted July 16, 2008:Obama's 'Big Brother' vanishes from speech. 'Civilian security force' missing from 'call to service' transcript
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69784

You can watch a video of his comments on You Tube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw

The comments in question are at the 16-minute mark. Obama said, "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

We have plenty of police in America, including local, county, state and federal officers. We don't need a national police force either from a Homeland Security or budgetary viewpoint.

Most democratic countries don't have huge national police forces that are the equivalent in manpower and firepower to the military. There are countries that do, however, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin and other murderous dictators, Germany under Hitler, Cuba under Fidel Castro, Cambodia under Pol Pot, North Korea, Vietnam, and lately an effort by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

So, is that the model of government that Obama is mimicking? Does he want to turn the United States into a Police State? If so, why? Who does he intend to control? People who previously owned firearms?

Remember, we have some 25-million veterans in this country who are trained in all forms of warfare from hand-to-hand combat, through small arms right up to nuclear weapons. They are a massive deterrent ... unless they are disarmed.

There hasn't been much about this in the national media, which is no surprise. But it seems very, very odd to me that with just a little bit of research on the Internet I can find compelling evidence that Barack Obama may well have ulterior motives in his run for the presidency.

I noticed that Democratic mouthpieces spent a lot of time on the Sunday morning political talk shows trying to throw water on Sarah Palin's questions about Obama's patriotism and associations.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but on the other hand, is it paranoia when they are obviously out to get you? If the leftist talking heads are trying to shut her down, it is all the more reason for Sarah Palin to talk even more.

From his long-term association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who is clearly racist and anti-American, to the Syrian born Rezko, to Ayers, to the Joyce Foundation, a pattern has emerged, and it is not one of support for traditional American freedoms.

There are many people on all sides of the political spectrum who say we don't really know as much about Obama as we should. Looking at his position on leftist terrorists, as well as his friendships with them, I'd say that is a gross understatement.

Biden Loses It; Palin Gets Under His Skin in VP Debate

The bottom line was that at the end of 90 minutes of debating, Joe Biden was ranting, angry, emotional, nearly breaking down at one point.

Sarah Palin was still cool, collected, and in charge of her message and her emotions.

Wait, which one is supposed to be subjected to mood swings??

Palin did far better than just meeting Biden, she beat him. She never got off track, she never lost the point of her message and she never lost her composure.

She didn't do a lot of one liners, except pointing out that in the morning there will be films of what Biden said back when, as opposed to what he is saying now.

Biden spoke nearly constantly of the Bush Administration, while Palin spoke of the future and what she and John McCain envision.

She fielded the foreign relations, energy, and domestic policy questions with aplomb.

If handling tough times and the pressure of a national debate is an indication of who should be the vice president, one heartbeat away from the presidency, Sarah Palin proved she is more than up to the task.

At the end of the day Biden was looking hard, emotional and distraught. He wanted to point a finger of blame anywhere he could so long as it didn't come back at him. Biden looked like a man who knew he hadn't done the job.

He didn't look like a vice president.

Round One to Taxpayers on "Bailout!" Now We Want SCALPS!

Republican members of the US House of Representatives held firm and did the people's will on Monday, shutting down Speaker Nancy Pelosi's political manipulations and refusing to pass her Wall Street Bailout Bill.

Pelosi, true to form, gathered her inner circle of lackeys and, upon seeing that the travesty she calls legislation was not going to pass, allowed some of her minions to vote against the bill so they could claim solidarity with the people on the election trail. Connecticut Congressman Joe Courtney was among those who received dispensation from Pelosi. (It would be interesting to know what he had to give up in return.)

Judging from reaction in his home district, Courtney didn't fool anyone, and neither did Pelosi. You can hide in bed with the covers over your head all you want, but the people still know where you are, and that the conditions that led to this crisis were put in place by Congressional Democrats and former president Bill Clinton.

Pelosi and her propaganda ministers went to the MainStream Media and whined that "the Republican leadership" was to blame for not passing the bill because the GOP didn't muster enough Republican votes. But the Big Lie didn't fool anyone on that front either.

This is a classic example of just how out of touch Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Barney Frank, the Democratic National Committee and the ultra-left wing of the Democratic Party - including Barack Obama - are with the American voters. Most Senators - like Connecticut's Chris Dodd who chairs the Senate Banking Committee and was often the recipient of lobbyist donations that led to the financial meltdown - aren't up for re-election so they don't care what the people think.

But communications with members of Congress were running 3 to 1 against the bailout because the overwhelming majority of Americans don't want their tax dollars spent to reward a bunch of incompetents and criminals who see the federal budget as a feeding trough for their porcine appetites.

The Republicans did the people's will, because the people demanded it, not because they were trying to manipulate home district voting trends ahead of the November election.

As of this morning the Senate - apparently Reid saw that propaganda doesn't work in the age of the Internet - was planning on leap-frogging over the House of Representatives and passing its own version of the bill. The House is on recess for Rosh Hashanah, but may revisit the issue as early as tonight or tomorrow.

In another obvious propaganda ploy the news media and politicians have stopped referring to the 700-billion-dollar bailout as a bailout and now call it a "rescue." What was that line going around the last few weeks about lipstick on a pig? Still a pig isn't it?

Rescue my rear end. This is a bailout for for crooks and incompetents.

I sincerely hope that Republicans in Congress hold firm and see that the American people are on their side. We don't want this type of behavior by a few elitist financial manipulators rewarded by a massive influx of taxpayer dollars so "The Rich" as Obama continually refers to his real supporters, can continue their lavish lifestyles unabated.

More importantly, WE THE PEOPLE want to know who was responsible for this fiasco, and if there are applicable disciplinary, civil or criminal penalties we want them.

We want to know more about Chris Dodd's sweetheart mortgage deal. We want to know more about the lobbying money he took, and Barack Obama took.

We want to know more about Barney Frank's romantic relationship with a Fannie Mae executive. Frank, who received some $40,000 in campaign donations from Fannie Mae is openly gay and had a relationship with a male Fannie Mae executive at the time he (Frank) was sitting on an oversight committee.

We need to know more about this, and by all means I do NOT mean the details of their relationship. I mean, how that relationship affected decisions made by Frank on Fannie Mae issues, and whether Congressional influence was up for trade.

Most of us don't give a damn about the nature of this relationship by the way. If there were people on the oversight committee's having heterosexual relationships with executives in the GSEs, lobbying firms, you name it, they should be investigated too.

We need a federal investigation and we need it to begin yesterday.

I see the Democrats are trying to restart the dormant investigation into why the Bush Administration replaced a half-dozen or so federal prosecutors a couple of years ago. They pulled the US Attorney from Hartford, CT, to restart this witch hunt, just as she was about to be asked to launch a federal racketeering investigation into illegal immigration "Sanctuary Cities" in Connecticut. (We aren't supposed to see the "coincidence" here.)

Nonetheless, there is still no corresponding call for an investigation into Bill Clinton firing more than 90 US attorneys when he became president, so obviously this is just another diversion. (Not that I need to repeat this, but the US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and they can be replaced at will for any reason or no reason at all. This latest "investigation" will go nowhere and is just another diversion.)

But I want to know why, with all the useless, dead-end "investigations" the Democrats have launched since George Bush took office over politically charged but otherwise irrelevant issues, they don't want the financial meltdown on Wall Street investigated.

Probably because it would go directly into their offices!

Nonetheless, in the interests of preserving the union, we should have an impartial, all encompassing investigation, and if it hits Big People in Big Places, then it is time to bring them down to size, including sending them to prison if warranted.

And you can take that to the bank.

Congress Is A Lemon; And I Want My Money Back!

Thanks to Meat Loaf for the core of the headline above. You'll have to buy his CD Bat Out of Hell II: Back Into Hell, to hear the rest of the song.

So, we are about to see the US Congress agree on some form of a bailout plan for the Wall Street mess. That's the mess that was conceived, originated and created by none other than Congress in 1999, and signed into law by Bill Clinton the same year.

In the interests of "transparency" - not to mention truth - the Democrats and other crooks who have no explanation for their treachery against the American people need to develop an honest statement for the public. Their "failed George Bush policy" mantra has worn incredibly thin, is only believed by simpletons, and probably should be revised to something like "a decade of reaction to failed Bill Clinton policies!"

Oh, right, we're talking Congressional Democrats. No chance of truth in lending there.

Obviously the average American taxpayer has little to no input on how this all plays out, but if I was a member of Connecticut's Congressional delegation, including Sen. Christopher Dodd who was as much a factor in causing this imbroglio as anyone, I would heed what follows very carefully.

If the federal government takes over all this "bad debt" that it caused by removing the firewalls between lending institutions, insurance companies, etc., and by opening up the mortgage market to people who couldn't afford mortgages, there is a very real possibility that in the long run the US Treasury will profit.

A profit is possible, unlikely as that seems at the moment, because behind the bad paper everyone is talking about there exists real, three-dimensional property - houses that may not be worth as much today as they were the day they were purchased, but will be again in the not-too-distant future. When the market stabilizes and then reverses itself the affected properties will once again regain, then exceed their original sale values. It's a law. It has to happen; the only question will be how long will this take.

This happened before back in the FDR administration and the government recovered very nicely, simply by sitting on the absorbed properties until they regained their value, and then unloading them at a profit.

I strongly suspect this will happen again.

Connecticut Congressman Chris Shays, the last Republican Congressman in New England, says he wants protection for taxpayers should the government turn a profit in a year or two.

I want to take that one step further.

If the US government makes so much as a dime off of this fiasco, I WANT MY MONEY BACK!!

What exactly do I mean by that? This.

I want oversight of every dime of taxpayer money that is spent, and every dime of income that results from this "bailout" in any form. I don't want no stinking earmarks, no fast and loose amendments banning drilling for shale oil, no massive influx of tax dollars to NOBama's favorite slush fund - ACORN, or anything of that nature. No golden parachutes or contractually approved severance packages for shit-for-brains corporate executives either. Nada! Nothing!

If we take over, not the Congress, but WE the PEOPLE, all bets are off with the creators of this mess. Don't like it? Get the hell out of Dodge! We bail you out, we own you ... and your families too.

When the profits start rolling in, to the tune of more than a trillion dollars according to some estimates, I want checks made out to the American taxpayers - not rebates that get taxed as income the next year, either. I want a check paying me back for bailing out a bunch of slime-ball, pond scum Wall Street market manipulators and their corrupt Congressional stooges.

I want these checks to be dollar for dollar, dime for dime what the taxpayers put in, plus interest, with nothing, not a single red cent, deducted for administrative expenses. No diversions. None.

Do this, and you, meaning Congressional stooges and slime ball, pond scum Wall Street market manipulators, may escape the pitchforks and torches. Maybe. I can't make any guarantees on that. America is pissed! And they are pissed at you Senators, Congresspeople and slime ball, pond scum Wall Street market manipulators. YOU!

Do it not, and you will definitely feel the fires of revolution burning your asses. You'll be dragged out of the Capitol, or your hideaways in the country, tarred, feathered and ridden out of town on rail.

That is exactly what you deserve now, and I guarantee you it is exactly what you'll get if you try to turn this assault on the American economy into a money-making venture for yourselves and your corrupt, dishonest, classless, money-grubbing cohorts.

This is not a threat by the way. It is, however, an uncannily accurate prediction of future events.

The BIG Debate - YAWN!!! Sarah Palin Should Learn About the World In Eastern Connecticut

The focus group gathered in my living room to watch the highly publicized, on-again, off-again, debate between GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain and Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama had one clear outcome; if anyone is going to ever be excited about this race again, it is up to Sarah Palin to ratchet up the pace.

No more than halfway through the pillow fight posing as a slug fest, I was told in no uncertain terms by one audience member, "I'm sleepy. How much longer does this go on?"

I remained stern and referred to the pre-debate form signed by all members of the focus group that they would stay to the end regardless of which side was winning or losing. This was supposed to be, after all, one of the few glimpses we will have into the psyches of the men who would lead our country for the next four years.

But, the group did have a point.

Perhaps it was moderator Jim Lehrer, of PBS, changing the format after both Senators had arrived at their respective podiums. I had expected the traditional format, where a moderator is in charge as a panel of experts who have their own pet peeves and agendas throw unrehearsed inquiries at the candidates, which pretty much guarantees that someone will be off their game at least part of the time.

But Lehrer was alone, and he challenged the participants to go at each other, kind of like a cage fight for political junkies. Obviously neither side was really comfortable with this format, and didn't really get into the spirit.

There were a few moments toward the end when Obama tried to talk over McCain, but McCain held his own and refused to yield. That resulted in a "debate" that actually left us with the archaic talk TV format where talking heads get 45 seconds to yell over each other, leaving viewers with no useful information, and screaming headaches.

Obama came across as crass by trying to do a James Carville imitation on McCain, and it just didn't work. Want to know what the really big buzz was on TV Saturday morning. "Why didn't John McCain look at Barack Obama much?"

Well, for starters, because McCain actually knew Ronald Reagan, along with a host of other Inside-the-Beltway types whose names he dropped all night long, and Reagan was the master of talking to the audience. McCain didn't win or lose anything by not trying to stare down Obama, and he did do well by talking to the audience, which is basically what you are supposed to do in that format.

Debates are supposed to be venues for real exhibitions of political viewpoints, and frankly, I thought it was rude and low-class of Lehrer to keep pushing for fireworks. Jerry Springer's format just doesn't work in national politics.

On the merits of the debate, I give McCain the edge for being far better informed on virtually every point than Obama. Obama came across as stiff, and trying to appear as an intellectual, especially with his pronunciations of PAAAACHisTAAAHN and TAAAALEEBAHN.

God, if I heard that one more time I was going to shut the whole thing down, pre-debate forms or not.

I also didn't like Obama blaming the Wall Street meltdown on President Bush, since that is a flat out lie. Bush was the one guy who was trying to head it off, but was stymied by Congress, including BAAAHrack OBAAAAHMA.

But I also didn't like the fact that McCain let that crap slide without addressing it and slamming Obama for misleading the American public. The very people in Congress who caused this mess have been trying to lay blame on Bush for a week now, and McCain had a national stage to slam dunk them, yet he let it slide. Not very impressive.

McCain made a huge gaffe in the veterans' community during their discussions on us winning in Iraq. He was criticizing Obama for not giving any credit to the military that won there, and until recently refusing to acknowledge that our efforts there had worked.

Yet is was McCain who erred when he said he understood what it was like to come home from the war in Vietnam as part of an "army in defeat."

Earth to McCain. The American armed forces not only won every single battle in the Vietnam War, we drove the communists to the edge of surrender twice. The enormity of our victory is born out by the casualties suffered - 58,000 US deaths, 48,000 from combat, compared to 1.5 million communist troops killed in action.

We wiped their standing army out twice over. We never lost anything.

The reason Southeast Asia fell is because McCain's buddies in the US Congress, abetted by his pal Henry Kissinger, sold out our allies. The enormity of our victories in Vietnam was offset only by the enormity our the betrayal by our own government.

Remember Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, North Vietnam's most famous general? Remember he wrote in his memoirs that if the Christmas bombings of the north in 1972 had continued for a mere two more days, the north was ready to surrender unconditionally?

Giap and the communists were saved by the duplicity of the US State Department headed by Kissinger, and the Congress that passed the Case-Church resolution in June 1973 cutting off all funding to South Vietnam. Two years later the north invaded, and without the guns, bullets and air power to stave them off, the south fell.

American combat forces had been gone for the better part of three years before South Vietnam fell, and it was the south that won a crushing military victory in the spring of 1972 over the communists, before Kissinger and Congress shafted them.

Historical fact, look it up.

Maybe McCain felt defeated when he was released from North Vietnam's Prisoner of War camps in 1973, but if he ever went to a Vietnam Veterans reunion, he'd find that one of the most popular slogans on T-shirts and caps is "We Were Wining When I Left. What Happened?"

Enough said.

I heard during the week that the McCain campaign strategists have set up sessions between Kissinger and Sarah Palin so she will be up to speed on international events in time for her debate with Joe Biden on Oct. 2.

Perhaps McCain's people should stop and remember that Kissinger is a proponent of Realpolitik, which amounts to instant gratification for international power brokers. It means, in essence, screw today's ally if yesterday's enemy suddenly proves more valuable to you.

That thinking was behind the abandonment of Southeast Asia in favor of opening relations with China. See how well that has worked for us?

If Sarah Palin wants to hear about the nature of the world outside the US from people who do the real fighting, instead of sitting in plush offices pushing pins into maps, she is hereby invited to come to Eastern Connecticut.

I can introduce her to some real experts on what is going on in the world and in one afternoon she will be up to speed on international reality, not international political expedience. That's a real invitation. Palin would be warmly received on the east side of the state, where people talk straight and would be happy to help her, rather than getting a headful of nonsense on the west side.

As far as the debates are concerned, I am looking forward to seeing her take on Joe Biden. I hope she is herself, rather than some boxed in overly groomed automaton.

One reason America responded so warmly to Sarah Palin is because she has thus far been the antithesis of the cookie cutter American politician/DC insider. If she remains true to herself she will be true to us, and the Vice Presidential debate could actually be both exciting and informative.

Otherwise, we're left where we were when Bush debated Kerry. Lots of talk, lots of TV and radio, but in the end, barely a one-point change in the polls.

Obama didn't call McCain "Senator" and instead used his first-name all night. McCain didn't look at Obama enough. Wow. Dynamic presentation of the information we need to decide our next leader.

Would everyone who believes in any form of religion please take a moment in the next few days to pray as fervently as possible that Sarah Palin comes to her debate ready to be herself? Please?

Oh, the post-debate polls. They mean nothing. As a demographic, Republicans and conservatives tend to not be home much on Saturday morning. Kids' events, grocery shopping, you known what I mean. We take calls on Sunday night. Ask us then.