I've often read articles by Georgie Anne Geyer and, while sometimes not totally agreeing with her point of view, I have enjoyed them.

But, not so much with her "Time to bask in hope" article, Washington Times Commentary Section, Sunday, November 9, 2008, page B4. (If you want to read her whole article, go to Washingtontimes.com and search its archives by author or date.) Some things she wrote in this article just beg for redress.

It is perfectly all right with me that her article was a little gushy about Obama winning the election. Ms. Geyer can gush if she wants to. But, as a journalist, she is supposed to also be somewhat objective. Well, not so much, at least not in this article.

Ms. Geyer: "...there he was, the first black president of the United States! And if you've lived in the years leading up to this, it all rather takes your breath away."

Well, Ms. Geyer, I have lived in all "the years leading up to this." My first presidential vote was for John Kennedy in 1960, and I served our country myself for almost 26 years in the military. But, no, Obama being elected did not take my breath away. Rather, it made me worry that the American Electorate, seemingly swayed by a near cult of personality, had elected a man, regardless of his skin color, who was not properly vetted by the liberal mainstream media, whose actual experience was less than any of the other three presidential and vice presidential candidates, and whose record, slim though it may be, showed him to be a far left liberal.

Ms. Geyer again: "It will be fascinating to watch what his presidency will stand for -- and inspire -- in the rest of the world. Americans have never understood the degree to which we are a unique nation in the world, in that we at least try to accept 'the other' among us."

It strikes me as singularly oxymoronic that Ms. Geyer would juxtapose these two sentences -- one about what Obama's presidency will stand for to the rest of the world and the other alluding to America's exceptionalism. So far, what Obama and his pending presidency seem to stand for, at least to the Europeans, is that he is one of them, a socialist. And they, our European friends and foes alike, like that. They like it because it means America will become more like their socialistic countries and share their socialistic views of their own countries and the world. And that is antithetical to the very ideals of American exceptionalism, which are that Americans are more individualistic, self-reliant, anti-state and pro-immigration than people in most other countries; they work harder, are more philanthropic and participate more in civic activities -- all of which are anti-socialist traits.

I also disagree with Ms. Geyer's flat statement that "Americans have never understood the degree to which we are a unique nation in the world..." Well, maybe not among the crowd you hang out with, Ms. Geyer, but many Americans always have and still do believe strongly in America's exceptionalism, its being different from any other nation, its being that "city on the hill," that "democratic beacon of hope" to the world. The average American may not be able to pedantically articulate what comprises American exceptionalism, but many Americans know, almost instinctively, what it is and what makes us different, what should rightfully make us proud of who we are and what we do. Of course, most of those who do know are over 30, because it's been about that long since liberalism took over our classrooms and stopped teaching such things as Civics and American History, while increasingly excluding the Judeo-Christian principles upon which our nation was founded and to which it mainly adhered until about the last generation or so.

Ms. Geyer yet again: "The outgoing Bush family should be ashamed, if they had the decency to be so, to leave our nation as it is to someone else to try to put in order: Two senseless wars still going on. Our financial structure in collapse, and the entire world endangered."

Well, Georgie Anne, I hardly know where to begin, so let me just ask you some questions. Do you not understand there is something called a Constitutional Amendment that requires President Bush to leave office now, after two terms as president, no matter what else is going on? You make it sound like he's skipping out the back door and purposefully leaving a mess for the next guy.
 
Actually, that's what Clinton staffers did as George W. came into office, destroying government property by removing the W on computer keyboards, gluing desk drawers shut, trashing official files, etc., etc., which the mainstream media seemed to think was "cute" and "playful" but for which I, as a military officer, would have been prosecuted or sometimes, as a commander, had to prosecute others for. Heck, in the military, we were subject to sanction for even the misuse of government property, much less its willful destruction. Did any of those Clinton staffers ever pay one dime of restitution to the American taxpayers for their "playful," albeit illegal, behavior? Never mind. That's a rhetorical question.

Instead, President Bush has mounted one of the most comprehensive transition mechanisms in history to help President-elect Obama hit the ground running. No mention of that, though, huh? And no mention either that President Bush has kept us safe from another terrorist attack on our own soil for over seven years? Hmmm, okay, let's see how Obama does with that.

As to "Two senseless wars still going on," of course you mean (a) the one in Iraq, which Obama opposes, has been wrong about, has been wrong about the surge for, and though he only recently reluctantly admitted the surge had turned around, still believes we should never have gotten into and we should pull out of before finishing the job, and also (b) the one in Afghanistan, which Obama actually favors and says we should be doing more about. Those "two senseless wars"? What do you think is one thing that has kept al-Qaeda so busy as to perhaps not have time to strike us again at home if it has not been our intervention in Iraq, which al-Qaeda itself then declared as the main front on which to defeat us and sent thousands of terrorists to, so we could kill and capture them, rather than have them planning another attack on us here at home?

And, as to "Our financial structure in collapse, and the entire world endangered," you might want to look a little more into the Congressional Democrats who repeatedly refused President Bush's 17 calls, starting in 2001, to tighten controls on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but who instead persisted in their social engineering experiment to give the American Dream to unqualified mortgagees, instead of requiring them to be qualified to earn it. The F&F collapse was the precursor to all the financial house of cards falling and that is what's led to damaging our entire "financial structure."

And, yes, the entire world is endangered, but by Islamic terrorists, not by the outgoing, should be ashamed and indecent Bushes. It will be interesting to see how the oh-so-charismatic and inspiring Obama handles the terrorist threat. Running an inspiring campaign is one thing; governing when you can't just vote "present" is another. I wish our new president well, for all our sakes, but I'm watching to see what he does, not just what he says. After all, talk is cheap.

So, Georgie Anne, it's okay to gush about Obama if you like, but it's not okay to take cheap shots at the outgoing president in the process. And that ending sentence of yours about one wishing "one could snatch a touch of his magic and burrow it away for the hard times," well, as I said, I truly hope President-elect Obama does well, but just in case he doesn't, you might want to really cling to that "touch of his magic" -- you know, "for the hard times."

CNN's Drew Griffin has admitted "botching" his quote of National Review's Byron York's article in an on air interview with Governor Palin, in which Griffin took a quote from York's article totally out of context and misconstrued what York was saying about the unfair press coverage of Palin to make it appear to be something someone had written about Palin herself. At the time, Palin asked Griffin who had written the article he was "quoting" from and Griffin stumbled and did not answer her question. Now, Griffin has admitted making a mistake and has apologized to National Review's editor and York, the author of the article. So, where is Griffin's apology to Governor Palin, the person he tried to sandbag with the misquote on air? Hello? I guess admitting you were wrong only goes so far.

I'm sorry to hear that Senator Obama's grandmother is ill and hope the best for her. But I've got a couple of questions. I know it's been reported she's ill, that she recently broke her hip and that her 86th birthday is Sunday, October 26th, and she might not "make it" until then. But what is she so "gravely ill" with? Is it just old age? Is it cancer, or a heart condition, or what? If it's been reported, I missed it. And, I don't know about the Obama family, or their values, but if my grandmother was about to die, I and my whole family - including my wife and our daughters - would be going to Hawaii to see her. Doesn't she deserve to see her grand-daughter-in-law and her great granddaughters, as well as her grandson, before she leaves this earthly plane?

Much has been made lately in the liberal TV and print media about the RNC spending $150K on Sarah Palin's wardrobe, makeup, etc. Why, the New York Times even had an article about it on Page One! - instead of in the Style Section where it would belong, that is, if you were going to "report" on it at all. But, gee, I don't remember much coverage at all - anywhere in the MSM - about Michelle Obama who, while recently staying in New York's Waldorf Astoria Hotel and waiting for her husband to finish up some campaign business, ordered champagne, lobster and Iranian caviar for her afternoon repast. First - what? - Russian caviar isn't good enough any more? Second, I wonder who paid for that little "snack"? Did Michelle put it on her personal credit card? Was it charged to the campaign? To the DNC? And, by the way, who pays for Michelle's custom-made business suits, dresses, makeup, hairstyling, etc.? Of course, Mrs. Obama is a millionaire, unlike Mrs. Palin who is not, so Mrs. Obama can easily pay for her own. But, hmmm, I think we might just have a real campaign issue here! Why don't you jump on that, NBC, ABC, CBS, the New York Times, and see what you can find out? After all, "inquiring minds want to know." Oh, I'm sorry. I think that's the motto of the National Inquirer - you know, the outfit which broke the story on Democrat John Edwards' infidelity? - not all of you upstanding and outstanding real "news" outfits. What was I thinking?

What follows is an email I recently sent to Brian Williams, anchor of NBC News:

All the political pundits (I just call 'em pol-dits) lately have been pointing out that Senator Obama is benefiting from our current financial crisis because that news has drowned out other issues, because he and others make the claim that it's all President Bush's fault, the Republicans' fault, and therefore also Senator McCain's fault, and because it's all due to the "failed policies of the last eight years," from which the electorate wants a change.

Well, wait a minute. Time for a little civics lesson. Although most of our presidents claim credit when times are good (even if the reasons for it began on their predecessor's watch) and try to disclaim responsibility when times are bad, the truth is that the president himself has very little ability to affect, much less control, the economy -- and even then, he can't do it independently.

So, to use the shorthand that "it's all the president's fault" is simply neither factually accurate nor fair. The president, as our national executive and commander-in-chief, has the most power in setting our foreign policy and leading the nation generally and especially during wartime. But, in exercising even those powers, he can't spend one thin dime, or, for that matter, take our nation to war, without the approval of Congress -- even those who voted against it before they voted for it, whatever "it" was. It is the job of the Congress to control the federal purse strings and ensure taxpayer dollars are used wisely.

The president may propose legislation to Congress, but he can't make them consider it, debate it, vote on it, or pass it. And, of course, in addition to the Congress controlling federal funds, it is also their responsibility to pass legislation in the form of a bill, which is then sent to the president to either sign into law or to veto and send back to Congress for reconsideration. So, the president proposes, the Congress disposes, and only then the president endorses.

Thus, if that ugly word "deregulation" caused financial institutions, say Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to become too lax, the responsibility for our current problems is at least shared by the president and the Congress. Okay, so short civics lesson over.

But, beyond that, if this were a CSI investigation, Democratic fingerprints would be found all over the crime scene. Why? Because, starting in 2001, President Bush called on the Congress at least 17 times to tighten controls on Fannie and Freddie, the two financial institutions whose collapse began the fall of the whole financial house of cards. The Democrats in the pre-2006 Republican Congress and the post-2006 Democratic Congress pushed back sufficiently that nothing was done. Both the former and current FED chairmen appeared before Congressional House and Senate committees charged with oversight of banking and financial services, chaired in the current Congress respectively by Democratic Representative Barney Frank and Democratic Senator Chris Dodd, and warned of looming trouble if controls on F&F were not tightened. Congressional Democrats not only took no action, Frank in 2007 said everything was fine.

Meanwhile, so far as the two candidates for president are concerned, Republican Senator McCain argued on the Senate floor in 2005 for tightening F&F's controls, sponsoring legislation to do so. Again, Democrats pushed back and nothing was done. Also meanwhile, Democratic Senator Obama, even as a freshman senator who has been absent from the Senate most of his first term while running for president, was receiving the second highest total "contributions" from F&F, second only to Democratic Senator -- guess who? -- Chris Dodd -- who has been in the Senate for years! Now, I said "contributions" because, you know, it would be impolitic and technically incorrect to call them bribes.

And the coup de maitre of Democratic complicity came with a series of events following President Bush and Treasury Secretary Paulson finally taking bold action and proposing what initially actually was a bailout of Wall Street, which the Congressional Democratic Majority suspiciously (because they almost universally just hate Bush) was ready to jump to support. One reason for that was subsequently revealed to be partly because they had shoved a nice little $20M gift for the radical liberal, so-called voter registration organization ACORN into their "plan." Then, playing politics, seeking political cover and inviting presidential campaign politics into the debate, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid publicly called on Senator McCain to support the "plan," saying that unless he did, Democrats would not. McCain did him one better and returned from the campaign trail to help work out a solution, which he did in part by getting the House Republicans, which had been left out by the Democrats, included. And it was their objections and counter proposals which converted the "plan" from a pure "bailout" into a "financial rescue package," with taxpayer protections. Of course, Reid, again playing politics, also later claimed it was McCain who "interjected" campaign politics into an almost "done deal" and "blew it up" when in fact the "done deal" had begun to fall apart before McCain even got back to Washington. Meanwhile, Obama preferred to "phone in" his input from the campaign trail and has since maintained that, even bordering on a national, even world-wide, recession, he still intends to raise taxes if elected.

So, in a time of national financial crisis, someone please tell me again who has shown some real leadership and who has not, and why our current economic woes should be benefiting Obama's campaign and the Democrats?