I like ideas: the bigger the better. I'm a dreamer and the future fascinates me. So I was intrinsically drawn to the July/August issue of the Atlantic Monthly whose cover announced THE IDEA ISSUE: HOW TO FIX THE WORLD. The article coincides with my reading of The Way We Will Be 50 Years from Today, edited by 60 Minutes' Mike Wallace. 50 Years from Today collects thoughts from 60 of the world's greatest minds about what the world will look like in 2058. It's a fascinating collection, though most of the ideas seem either self-indulgent or benign. There are a few ideas in 50 Years that really stretch me, though: bioengineering the human genome "and including all the knowledge up through a great college education directly in the child." (George F. Smoot). "The technological ability to read other people's minds" (E. Fuller Torrey). The ability to "print" products with "an inexpensive tabletop molecular nanofactory" (Ray Kurzweil). Or, the most outrageous, the ability to communicate by thinking (Kim Dae-jung).

Can I take a few minutes of your time and run something by you? I’m having dilemma and I need some honest answers only you can provide. 

Have you gotten smarter in the last 18 months? Have you been boning up on the provincial conflicts in Kandahar? Do you understand the context of Kandahar Governor Tooryalai Wesa’s call for increased negotiations with the Taliban? 

Let me explain my problem: I support President Obama’s decision to send more troops (or shall we say, his “Troop surge?”) to Afghanistan.  It’s the right decision to combat the Taliban’s increased violence in the region and Pakistani unrest.  And it would appear that I am in the majority which is new for me because when I supported President Bush’s troop surge in Iraq, I was so NOT in the majority. I just can’t figure out how the public has come to decide that THIS troop surge is copacetic and the previous troop surge was an impeachable offense. 

I have yet to see or hear any negative commentary about our Commander in Chief’s decision to double (that’s right America—double) the troop presence in Afghanistan. (To be fair, Cindy Sheehan is against it. But Cindy Sheehan thinks the surging troop membership at Girl Scout 6770 in Toad Suck, Arkansas, is a military conspiracy too.)  A local tribal elder in Afghanistan, Nani Kako, says more Westerners mean more targets for militants, which inevitably will lead to more civilian casualties.  Apparently, President Obama and American citizens aren’t buying it and we’re pressing ahead with our plans to send 17,000 more soldiers to the region. 

Although, Kako’s comments sound an awful lot like what Time Magazine wrote in December of 2006, “In Anbar province, where the presence of American troops on the streets of places like Ramadi actually prompts violence rather than heading it off.”

 Of this we can be sure: there’s no way the media is guilty of partisan politics just to support the policies of the new President. There’s no double standard. No free pass. No 100 day growing period. Just honest, factual reporting.  Right? 

“The media's the most powerful entity on earth,” Malcolm X said. “Because they control the minds of the masses.” 

The Democratic Party has a suite on the Lido Deck of the SS Speciousness, as well: nary a word of dissent from the party of change. “This strategy recognizes a point that I have emphasized for years,” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said. “And one that I shared with the president following my visit last month to Afghanistan, which is that we must have a regional approach to countering terrorism.” 

 So long as that regional approach is championed by Obama and not Bush, Nanc? 

In a letter dated January 5, 2007, to President Bush she had written, “A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.”  

My how this party has changed indeed. 

President Obama’s statement announcing the troop increase went so far as to cast blame for Afghanistan’s unrest on his predecessor: "This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires," Obama said. 

Or maybe the Democrats have just been smart enough to learn from the success of the previous surge strategy, also overseen by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and General David Petraeus, even if they’re unwilling to say as much.

I’ll be honest, and I hope this isn’t hurtful, but I don’t really think you’re that much smarter. I think those of you were smart on these issues two years ago are still smart today. And those of you who didn’t know diddly a few years back, still don’t know diddly. I don’t for one second believe that Americans today have a fuller understanding of the nature of the conflict in Afghanistan and, as such, are now supportive of the President’s efforts to combat terrorism and the Taliban in an effort to defend America and the interests of liberty worldwide.  

No; I think this is simply one of the most egregious examples of media bias and fickle American politics I can remember in my lifetime.  Those of you who were aghast at the audacity of President Bush to send more troops to the Middle East and who are now sitting idly by ought to take a good hard look in the mirror and ask yourself why that is. 

The answer is the real problem with the American political process.

All around us we see signs of the United States beginning the long hard work of transforming its power consumption habits. Solar panels are popping up on your neighbor’s rooftops. Wind turbines reach for the breezy spaces above America’s amber waves of grain. Heck, even the tony Toyota Prius just got BAD press for being too OUTdated. I’m still driving an SUV and the Prius is already old news.

Newsweek’s Daniel Lyons (May 19, “TIME FOR A TRADE-IN”) recently wrote the story that Toyota’s hybrid technology (a gas engine and an electric engine sharing the work of powering the drive train) is old news. The new news is the “plug-in” hybrid, in which only the batteries power the drive train. The small combustion engine on board only serves to recharge the batteries. But alas, all that is new is somehow old again.

As it turns out—and there are scant few voices making this case (Simon Romero, NY Times, Feb 3, 2009, though is one of them)—the batteries that both of these hybrid technologies rely on, lithium ion, is only likely to shift an existing problem to a new part of the world. Part of America’s impetus to move away from the combustion engine is to decrease our reliance on foreign oil imports and all the attendant problems that come with it. But the hybrid engine needs lithium and, as it so happens, we here in the US don’t have much of it. Nevada once had vast resources but those have been tapped in the development of other lithium intensive operations over that last few decades. North Carolina closed its lithium mines when Chilean lithium was found to be cheaper, and these mines could be reopened, but the quantities are small compared to what exists in South America, and principally in Bolivia. The U.S. Geological Survey notes that 5.4 million tons of lithium could potentially be extracted in Bolivia, 3 million in Chile, 1.1 million in China and a sparse 410,000 in the United States.

In our rush to solve today’s problems immediately (oh, how very American of us—drive through problem solving) the public is likely to perceive that the development and deployment of cost effective hybrid vehicles based on the batteries in your iPod will be the end of our personal transportation dilemma.

Oh contraire, my friend.

It would appear that we will simply replace Iran with Bolivia; Ahmadinejad with Evo Morales, the far-left leaning, former coca growing president of Bolivia who recently opted out of America’s war on drugs in the region (TIME, Nov 4, 2008). If we’ve learned anything from Hugo Chavez it ought to be that making any South American country resource rich is not consistent in America’s best interests.

Neither I, nor Mr. Romero, are unique in our identification of this problem. As far back 1975, “the United States Geological Survey convened a symposium in Golden, Colorado, on lithium demand and resources prompted by the premise that lithium resources would be inadequate to meet future demand in fusion power generation (expected from the Year 2000 onward) and in load leveling storage batteries.” (http://lithiumabundance.blogspot.com/)

Industry, too, appears to see the writing on the wall. Our good friends at currently beleaguered GE are investing heavily in alternative technologies. GE announced on May 12 that they would invest $150 million and build a production plant for sodium battery technologies in Niskayuna, NY. (NY Times, http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/ge-announces-new-york-battery-factory/). This despite the fact they bought A123, the lithium battery maker that just recently inked a deal with Chrysler to provide them with LI batteries.

I have been saying for some time now that, as far as technology is concerned in the deployment of renewable technologies, we don’t have a technology problem. Wind, solar, geothermal and other technologies exist, they just need to advance. Except in the area of energy storage. The technology simply doesn’t yet exist to help us realize our goals. I attended The Energy Conversation in Washington, DC, last week (http://www.energyconversation.org/) and former CIA director Jim Woolsey spoke to the same point (thus demonstrating, once and for all, that I am indeed as smart as your average Stanford grad/Rhodes Scholar--or, more likely, that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then). Notwithstanding my misplaced vanity, the point remains that battery storage is an emerging field and lithium isn’t the answer.

As consumers, we need to understand the limitations of the technologies being offered to us. A lithium-ion plug-in hybrid may make tremendous sense for the next decade or so. But be wary of making large capital purchases (and by that I mean “car buying”) that don’t anticipate the demise of lithium.

With any luck at all technology will develop quickly enough that Mid-East scale problems will not develop in South America and we won’t be fighting a “war for lithium” in the mountains of Bolivia in our lifetimes. With any luck at all our national leaders are working TODAY to mitigate those possibilities tomorrow, whether through investments by our national labs in alternative technologies or strong, proactive foreign policy in South America (or, dare I suggest it? “Both of the above.” Nah, our leaders aren’t THAT smart are they?)

As a former airline pilot I used to hear guys complain about their wives and ex-wives all the time. I told them I didn’t want to hear it. Your spouse is the only significant relationship in your life that you get to pick. Your parents and siblings are given to you. Your kids are given to you. But you picked your wife. “If she’s a b*&ch then you’re a moron,” I used to tell them. “You picked poorly.”

It seems common among newly divorced people to tear down their ex. I guess somehow it makes the one party feel better to believe that all that went wrong was someone else’s fault and they are simply the victim. Of course, not only do we all know that this is never the case, but I’ve never understood how these folks feel their position is advanced by making derogatory remarks about someone they once loved; how they feel that they are somehow better because their ex is a moron of epic proportions. Do they honestly feel better spending their days pondering what accident would befall their former mate if, for just one day, they were omnipotent? Can’t it simply be that both people are relatively fine folks who can simply no longer live together? Good night! For the sake of the kids play nicely. 

In the April 13, 2009, edition of Newsweek Magazine Newt Gingrich wrote, “Let’s be clear: our energy crisis is not due to a lack of American energy resources. We have more coal than any other country in the world. There are 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lying undeveloped offshore. Shale-oil reservoirs in parts of Colorado and Utah could hold upwards of 1 trillion barrels of oil—more than three times the proven reserves in Saudi Arabia. Nuclear power is a clean source of energy that produces zero carbon emissions. Instead America is suffering fro an artificial energy crisis. What America needs is a rational energy policy that utilizes all our homegrown energy resources….”

I love ya, Speaker Gingrich, but you’re dead wrong. If I’m feeling generous in voicing my disagreement I think it might be most accurate to say we don’t have an “imminent” energy crisis. The lesson we must learn from the development of the problematic petroleum and power source paradigm we find ourselves in today is NOT that oil is bad. Rather, the lesson is that any energy paradigm that is dependent on finite resources is not sustainable and will ultimately require another fix, another solution, another investment, another crisis of resources.

On this Gingrich is right: we are a resource rich nation. To wit, we currently have 264 billion tons of coal; enough to last 225 years at current rates of usage. I won’t nit pick the actual availability of and the cost to bring to market the many resources Gingrich also mentions in Newsweek. However, I will point out the land-cost of exploiting those resources. Mining, drilling, and digging for those resources will tear up land that we may need for crops as our population grows. The land that isn’t useable for agriculture could support infrastructure needed for an increasing population base. Mr. Gingrich proposes a liberal use of our land resources and by liberal I mean wasteful and careless given what we’ve learned in the last century. The vast quantity of available resources isn’t the issue. The issue is that his solution—exploit our existing resources to solve today’s energy problems—doesn’t address the energy crisis. The energy crisis is not TODAY’S problem. It is tomorrow’s problem. If we know today that we will have a coal problem in 225 years then we have a coal problem today. Yes, we have 225 years to solve it, but we can’t allow ourselves to press on, business as usual, acting as if there is no problem and never will be. Business as usual is bad business. We are better than that. We are smarter, more thoughtful, and more considerate of future generations than to pass the buck to our great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren. Perpetuating the status quo isn’t the kind of progressive, values based innovation I expect from the former Speaker. What would be? In order to discover what the future of global energy might be and how we can get there, let’s start with the end in mind. Few people seem to be talking about a 100 year plan, or a 200 year plan: let me postulate one vision for the future, expanding on technologies that already exist, if only in their infancy. I envision a world in which enormous solar arrays deployed in space efficiently collect the suns rays 24 hours a day and beam power via lasers or microwaves to rectifying antennas and transmitting stations on earth. These transmitting stations wirelessly transmit that energy like radio waves and wireless networks transmitted today. Electricity will be ubiquitous and accessible. Our cars, and power-requiring devices will simply connect to the electricity the way our radios and telephones do today. We will pull our cars out of the garage and they will connect, or plug in, like wireless technology today and simply “go.” All the world’s citizens will have electricity from a completely ecologically renewable source.

With that vision of the future in place, how do we get there? Speaker Gingrich is correct about utilizing these resources; but not as the end game; not as the solution. These resources are a bridge to the future. We can, and should, utilize all of our available resources to improve our foreign policy options and to provide the US with marketable resources that we can sell in order to fund healthcare, social security and education.

The US needs to develop a diversified energy portfolio in the short term and Speaker Gingrich correctly identifies many of the resources at our disposal to do just that. In fact, this is already taking place throughout the country. These measures need to continue—not just on a national and strategic level, but also for individuals. Individual homes should begin to develop their own diversified energy portfolios; combinations of demand reduction and energy efficiency measures, then solar, wind, geothermal HVAC. We are a century or more away from achieving a completely renewable and sustainable source of power and distribution system. Until that time, we can intelligently create new infrastructure, design our cities and structure our lifestyles to facilitate achievement of a sustainable energy future.

By not referring to our resources as what they need to be--bridges to a future the world can live with--Gingrich instead turns our resources into dams--instruments used to hold back progress.

Events arise periodically which elicit a variety of responses from conservative voices in America. Often these voices oppose each other, which shouldn't be surprising. Diversity is normal. As for me, I try to use this tension to develop and cement my own beliefs: what is it about conservatism that I like? How do I apply it? Is there hypocrisy in my value set? Who's voice do I value most. 

The time has arrived for President Obama to do something bold and decisive. I know, people have been saying this since he took office, and he’s certainly been busy, no doubt. But I mean something really BIG. Something enormous. Something even bigger than a $3 trillion budget on the heals of a $789 billion bailout package. Something like….

Nothing.

It’s time to let his activities work their way into the economy. It’s time he trusted the people. He provides $789 billion and the stock market immediately plummets. He must feel like the maid: “I just cleaned this place.”

He rose to office on the shouts of “Yes We Can!” (I postulated during the election that when he said “we” what he really meant was “My friends and I,” but we’ll leave that little tidbit of cynicism by the wayside for now.) I’m assuming that the meant, “us” as in “you people and me, as your president.”

I’m not seeing a lot of “us” in his “we” lately though. It’s mostly been just him. Which is my point, exactly.

I’m not a proponent of his actions, but given that he’s taken them and this is whom we’ve got to lead us, let’s make the best of it. And we can do that by insisting that he slow down for a little while. He needs to let that money settle into the broader economy and do its work. He needs to let corporate America respond to new banking laws and regulations. Corporations need to restructure policies and departments to take advantage of new opportunities.

Amity Shlaes, the author of the book THE FORGOTTEN MAN about the Great Depression, suggested that the economic doldrums of the 30s and 40s lasted as long as they did because FDR continued to tinker with the economy, never allowing the citizens and corporations to learn how to take advantage of the new rules of the game. Policies that could have been effective if given enough time were castrated before they ever got a chance to be effective. American business was left to flop around like a fish on the deck trying to adjust to a rapidly changing and inhospitable environment.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Time must be given for those reactions to materialize.

The boldest thing President Obama can do today is to do nothing with the economy for 9-12 months; make a speech that the ball is on our court. Tell Americans that he has done what he can and the onus now rests with us. It’s not his job to take care of us—just to lead. He has done what he can. Excessive tinkering will damage the economy further and facilitate the undoing of good that may come from his efforts to date.

I, for one, would welcome his efforts to step aside a little and empower the citizens to participate in their own bailout. We, the people (you remember us?), have kvetched for months that Congress and the President keep throwing money at banks and big corporations with few restrictions or limitations on them. Honestly, we need a taste of our own medicine. It’s time we were asked to participate in our own rescue and I think he’d be surprised at the positive way we respond.

 

The placement of two recent in articles on the topic of energy in supposedly conservative magazines would leave the impression that these views are consistent with conservative thought.  Patrick J. Michaels of the Cato Institute wrote “Energy Policy Snake Oil” for Townhall Magazine in the November issue; and Tom Bethell, a senior editor at The American Spectator penned “Has Oil Peaked? Maybe Not” for the October issue by his employer.

Each of these articles highlights two points: first, the attitude of some people, who define themselves as Republicans or call themselves conservatives, is grossly unaligned with traditional conservative thinking; and second, any discussion about global warming or peak oil serves more to divide than coalesce thoughtful discourse on US energy policy.



For too long conservatives have acted more as PRE servatives than innovative thinkers about today’s problems.  In an election where “change” was de rigeur the Republican nominees never really got it. They bandied about the same tired policies that had seemed fresh 30 years ago but which now are afoul with stink of “43” who has sullied the good name of conservatism. Sure, Senator McCain and Governor Palin tried to market themselves as mavericks, but unpredictability is not change—it is only confusing, and Americans saw through their charade.

It is as true as sunrise that conservatives wish to conserve that which liberals brought about.  Our founding fathers, advocates of throwing off state religion and revolution against the motherland, were as progressive and liberal in their approach to future as any Americans in the history of this great country.  They understood there were times when the status quo simply would not suffice and radical change was in order.

Republican attempts to simply recreate the Reagan era are as poorly conceived as the most liberal thinking by the Democrats. We cannot hope to preserve the past as a way to grow and nurture our nation, unless it is our desire to create a national Williamsburg—selling tickets to an image and notion of the past which matters little to the outside world.



Having arrived in 2008 in a gasoline powered economy, we now know that our thinking on energy must be given the highest national attention.  We are forced to pour money into the economies of our enemies; our soldiers are dying while trying to safeguard fuel convoys to forward operating bases; our expenditures on depreciating assets are losing value faster every day; the global economy is not as inexpensive as it once was due to rising transportation costs; our electrical power grids are prime targets for terrorism; and selfishness in pursuit of the “good old days” is creating monstrous debts our children and grandchildren will have to pay off.

It should be incumbent on the debtor to be the debt bearer and yet we seem all too comfortable trying to preserve our lifestyle rather than trying to conserve our nation.  Investment is an inherently conservative principle. We invest in the things we value and through investment we impart worth. We hope to see our investments grow and prosper, not through maintenance but through progressive growth.  

Mr. Michaels and Mr. Bethell seem to write from a point of view of ones seeking to preserve today’s lifestyle as opposed to gentlemen committed to American exceptionalism through innovation and progression. Mr. Michaels writes about US energy policy while referring frequently to global warming. Mr. Bethell takes exception to the concept of peak oil. Neither of these topics is a necessary impetus to alter US energy policy. In my list, two paragraphs above, did I mention carbon, global warming, or peak oil?  Each of these topics is hotly debated by experts in their fields, with only name-calling and not consensus as a by-product. Yet many so called conservatives feel qualified, after listening to Republican Talk Radio hosts discuss the faulty science of left-leaning academia, to comment on these highly technical topics.



Conservative entertainers heard on the AM dial are skewing the effective discourse on US energy policy by making listeners pick sides.  The facts are these: no one really knows about global warming and peak oil (and I just angered readers on both sides of both debates). We have our opinions. But other than providing intellectually stimulating discourse around the water cooler, smoke shack or hors dourves tray, these topics serve no useful purpose.

The minute I mention “global warming” in any energy discussion, 40% of America stops listening, not because they don’t understand the importance of energy, but because they don’t personally believe global warming is happening or is problematic. At the point I mention “peak oil,” I am met with a barrage of pseudo-scientific psycho-babble  parroted from the most recent Drudge report link.

Discussion on either of these two topics should be avoided at all costs when discussing the need for change in US energy policy.  Whether oil will dry up tomorrow or in 200 years doesn’t matter. We know it will one day so why not address the problem at today’s prices for the benefit of our heirs?  Whether the world is warming or not as a result of human activity is irrelevant—I’ve never heard anyone say that pumping carbon into the atmosphere is helphing--have you?

If we make the changes to US energy policy that are required, we will improve our national security, we will lower the prices of goods and services, we will create jobs, we will restore America’s standing in the world, we will win the war on terror by bankrupting terrorists, we will rebuild America’s crumbling infrastructure; and, oh yea, we’ll put less carbon in the atmosphere which can’t hurt.

Mr. Michaels speaks of the high cost of changing; but let me speak of the high cost of NOT changing and while I’m doing it, I’ll never mention global warming or peak oil.

Have you ever read something that started with great promise and quickly disappointed? I had last felt like that 50 pages into Gregory Maguire’s WICKED—until last night when picked up the latest issue of Townhall Magazine and read Jerry Bowyer’s article entitled WEATHERING THE STORM: HOW TO USE CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES TO THRIVE DURING THE LEAN YEARS AND WIN THE WAR AGAINST WEALTH.

To be honest, once I got to the point of the article, I didn’t have any problems—he gives good, sound advice.

But I’ll tell you what he provides: he provides another great example of where conservative principles digress from republican principles. I have long bemoaned the fact that the Republican Party has kidnapped the adjective “conservative” and, furthermore, in possession of it, have besmirched its good name.

Mr. Bowyer writes, in describing the world’s first green recession, “Artificial restrictions on the production of fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal have done to our economy what wars and natural disasters used to do to us against our will—they have imposed supply disruptions.” This statement is, a) true; b) pro-big business; c) republican; and d) NOT conservative.

A good first question in evaluating the veracity of my conclusion ought to be, “In advocating supply increases for oil, what is it Mr. Bowyer thinks is being conserved?” The answer would be a less than inspiring “the status quo.” Talk of OCS or ANWR drilling that purports that previous limitations are causal in the current high prices of gas immediately warn me that the speaker is only frustrated with the current situation and not long term problem solving. Sure, had drilling been approved in 1998 we’d have a greater supply of oil and our situation would certainly be no worse and would likely be improved, if only marginally. I can read a supply and demand curve—it’s not rocket science. But the only benefit would be perpetuation of our petroleum paradigm and dependency, manifesting itself as a continuance of the status quo.

For the conservative, solutions are not always the result of seeking the path of least resistance in the short term. Conservatives are as interested in conserving resources and values for future generations as they are in continuing to live out the values inherent in the American way of life (by which I mean Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, not cheap gas and SUVs).

The article also asserts that, “By giving government the power to place a tether on our energy production, we’ve given it the power to attach a tether to all economic growth.” If I were to grant his premise I’d be inclined to grant his conclusion, but his assertion implies that our “energy production” capability is solely reliant on more drilling and more oil. Energy solutions ARE tied to our economic future. The fire under our butts after a summer of $4 gas is the impetus to create new companies based on new technologies to transition to a sustainable future and continued American Exceptionalism. Our energy paradox today is a return ticket to greatness, but not if we choose to meekly seek a return to the old days. Conservatives are not PREservatives. Change is required, often through investment, in order to protect the things we value.

Mr. Bowyer, of course, takes a swipe at the evil left by saying, “The leftist vision of American industry is a vision of turning food into fuel.” Look, I’m no proponent of ethanol, no matter its source. As far as I’m concerned, ethanol (although maybe a decent transitional technology) is a halfhearted effort—a weak attempt to appear to be making change while all the while preferring to not change at all. Let me summarize my position: if it burns, I’m probably against it—oil, ethanol, coal, etc. If you can light a match and your energy source goes “POOF” then I’m not excited, because ultimately anything that burns is being consumed and will eventually the planet will run out of it. That’s well said so let me say it again: I’m anti-poof, anti-bang, and anti-pfft.

Let’s learn the lesson from oil—we have an energy appetite greater than the planet’s ability to provide for, unless you’re talking about renewables. The sun is not going anyplace [bone to end-timers, “….going anyplace soon.] The wind will always be with us. Ocean currents will outlast our appetites. Now we’re in the realm of “conserving” stuff. When we’re talking about transferring energy as opposed to consuming energy, we’re talking about conservative principles.

There’s nothing wrong with Mr. Bowyer’s article, thoughts or conclusions. The problem is in his title in which he implies that his pro-big business, pro-republican position is indicative of conservative values.

Conservative values are held by the majority Americans—from both parties. But the close association of conservatism with republicanism gives the former a black eye at the expense of unimaginative, staid, and dying values emanating from the Republican Party.

If all the increased drilling arguments make sense to you and you believe those are better courses of action to take than more visionary and more technologically advanced approaches, then good for you. You’re a good Republican. But you might just find you’re not as conservative as you thought you were.

I haven’t seen a night like that since July 14 when the Texas Ranger’s Josh Hamilton hit 28 dingers in the home run derby at the All-Star game in Yankee Stadium. I mean, wow! I could spend several pages enumerating the high points of that speech, but I want to focus on the issue of experience.

Some might say the line of the night was when Governor Palin said; “I guess being the mayor of a small town is like being a community organizer; except you have actual responsibilities.” Great line and the first part of it is true. The second half, though, is not true and leaves her open to attacks (like the one David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager, has already sent out this morning-after). The comment denigrates community organizers and volunteerism by association. What she should have said is, “….except you’re actually ACCOUNTABLE.” Now that statement IS true. Many community organizers have a laundry list of responsibilities. But the organizers are seldom the people ACCOUNTABLE, and accountability is the difference in the QUALITY of the experience that we should be talking about.

Many pundits, talking heads, commentators, citizens and village idiots are comparing the experience of Palin and Obama. We can admit that Obama has marginally more quantitative experience. He was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996, the same year Sarah Palin became Mayor of Wasilla. She left office in 2002 while Obama continued in the State Senate until he started work in the US Senate in January of 2005. He then spent roughly two years engaged in active legislation before deciding to run for president. Sarah Palin became governor of Alaska in 2006 and has governed for roughly two years before being selected as McCain’s VP.

The case the McCain campaign started to make last night andwhich it needs to make more often on behalf of Sarah Palin is that she has EXECUTIVE experience. She has been responsible AND accountable. The political offices she has held have made her the final arbiter in decisions on how to govern. She has had to choose. It’s been her name on the line. If government didn’t perform, the citizens were going to blame her; and that’s fair. She’s been IN CHARGE. Barack Obama has never had that type of experience. He’s been a “suggester,” (and not a prolific one, at that). This is also true of John McCain, in fact, and is why our nation hasn’t elected a Senator to the White House since 1960. When it comes to ACCOUNTABILITY, there is NO comparison. Sarah Palin has the better qualitative experience.

I thought Rudy Giuliani’s speech was an excellent prelude to Governor Palin’s. He spent several minutes regaling the experience of Senator Obama and how it is devoid of decisiveness. He pointed out that as a state senator, 130 times Obama voted “present.” He wouldn’t even decide “yes” or “no.” “It’s not good enough to be present, you have to make a decision,” Giuliani said. These are points the GOP needs to hammer home for the next 61 days. Giuliani recounted Obama’s ever-shifting thought process on the skirmish between Georgia and Russia—once again illuminating the Senator’s inability to formulate a position on his own and have it be worthy enough to stick with. (Give him credit, he knows when he’s talking trash and he’s willing to change his position, but that’s not really awe inspiring, is it?)

Instead, the most telling line of the night from Governor Palin was, “The American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of self discovery, ” and this is what Barack Obama has made it. He is just now learning to make decisions. He has said as much in the last few days when he has talked about how running this campaign (isn’t that done by his campaign manager?), with it’s large staff and huge budget, is his executive experience. This is all he has. Meanwhile, Governor Palin has overseen a $12 billion budget and 29,000 state employees in the largest state in the country, which also happens to be the only state that borders one of our country’s greatest adversaries—Russia.

But let’s now get to brass tacks: Obama has limited experience and NO executive experience, but Palin doesn’t have a lot of experience, either. Senator McCain, you picked her. Now live with it. The McCain campaign needs to turn this negative into a positive. America keeps saying it wants “change” and new blood in Washington DC. Well here it is. She’s an outsider. She’s not jaded by years of experience operating within the system. She has fresh ideas and is uncorrupted. She doesn’t have the putrid stench of Washington’s insider politics on her; she wears the fragrance of Alaska’s wide-open spaces. She is a breath of fresh air.

Let the democrats make your point for you, Senator McCain: every time they say “inexperienced” you translate that for America as “outsider.” Sarah Palin is a great choice for the McCain campaign precisely because of her experience….and lack of it.

George Will said recently that, “Americans want a common man to be president. But they also want an uncommon president.” By this he meant that we want our president to be someone who understands what life is like in America for the common man and the common family. However, we also want someone who is smarter and more capable than we are. I know I share that latter sentiment. I love my friends, but I don’t want any of them to be president. I’ve set the bar a little higher (sorry fellas).

This idea will be put to the test during this extraordinary presidential election. Over the last 18 months, watershed events have been followed by landmarks that have been succeeded by historical firsts. Last Friday (the timing of which can only be described as strategically brilliant) John McCain introduced Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. This was a landmark event for the Republicans since Governor Palin became the first woman to run as a vice-presidential candidate in the party. But her inclusion is a historical first for another reason: never has someone so common, so blue collar, so working class, been a candidate on a major party’s presidential ticket. Maybe I’m jaded by over-exposure to Hillary Clinton or unimpressed having seen Geraldine Ferraro on the Democratic ticket in 1984, but I think Sarah Palin’s identification with these common and rural roots is almost as significant.

Jeff Foxworthy said that redneck just means a “glorious lack of sophistication” and we are all guilty of it at some point in our lives. Rednecks rejoice! Our candidate has arrived.

Parents have been telling their children since our nation’s independence that in America you can grow up to be anything you want—even the President. For two centuries women and blacks must have known this was a lie--until last week. We now know that any man or woman regardless of race color or creed can have an opportunity to run for president. But what of people from lower and middle class? Hasn’t it also been true that you had to have money to run for president? You had to come from the finest education? You needed to hob-knob with America’s elite, creating a network of power brokers and influence peddlers to propel you into the upper echelon of America’s political structure?

Many candidates were raised in modest circumstances, but their early drive and ambition begat success and opportunities not afforded to everyone. Even Barack Obama, who was raised modestly, was able to parlay his strengths and ambition into an education at Columbia and Harvard. Now THESE are presidential credentials and they opened the door to law firms and politically minded people who would help propel Senator Obama to where he is today.

So as the gender myth exploded on a stage in Dayton, Ohio, on Friday, August 29, 2008, so, too did the money myth. Governor Palin and her family represent the elimination of the last perceived barrier to access to political power in the United States. Educated at the University of Idaho (yawn), this “hockey-mom,” pageant queen, sports reporter and fisher-woman, married a man who is a member of US Steel Workers union and who works the oil fields in northern Alaska. This is hardly the Political A-team I’d pick to do combat with the likes of the Clintons or Bushes.

Does this fact mean anything important? Yes, two things, in fact—one certainty and one possibility. Certainly, any American child, even one from modest economic roots, should now be able to believe that there are no barriers to success in America, save those that are self-created. The possibility created by Governor Palin’s place on the ticket rests in what the Republicans do with this exciting fact. Can the GOP media marvels turn Sarah Palin into a greater identification between working class Americans and their party? Can Sarah Palin and her family attract the common American citizen by saying, without qualification, “vote for me. I am one of you. I GET it. I understand YOU.”

Then it will be up to the American voters to decide whether that inspires us or scares the hell out of us.

You've got to give credit where credit is due: Hillary Clinton is an excellent orator. She DELIVERED that speech extremely well. James Carville seemed ready to serve papers on his wife Mary and propose immediately to the NY Senator. Gushing though he was, Mr. Carville was dead on. Hillary Clinton can give a speech and she made those who preceded her look amateurish.However, the speech itself probably did little. She certainly had nothing to say that might sway Republicans to rethink their party affiliation. Furthermore, absent too were talking points that independents might find attractive. The speech seemed to have two purposes. First, convince her supporters to vote for Obama. But who else were they going to vote for? Those people involved enough in politics to be at or watch on tv the DNC convention are also likely to be people who will value their vote and not stay at home. Those who might elect not to vote at all, certainly were not in attendance and might well have been watching America's Got Talent and missed the speech completely. Secondly, and more importantly to Mrs. Clinton, the speech was littered with reminders of why she should remain relevant in the Democratic Party. This was a "You Picked the Wrong Guy" speech. Will we remember her or this speech in 4 or 8 years? I suspect not. The speech didn't brand itself with any tag lines that might survive the next few years. But it was a hell of an effort.