Editor's Note:  The following is a guest piece by a fellow conservative commentator.

Like John McCain, I attended the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, but our similarities pretty much end there.

I am not the son of serial admirals. I am the son of a wartime sailor who raised a family with a single used car, a black and white TV, no air conditioner in the L.A. heat, not even a dishwasher or microwave - on an always precarious low paying job. I did not marry an heiress who could, with the stroke of a pen if she so chose, finance a Presidential campaign.

But I donated the maximum amount I could to the Senator's campaign because in my view he is the best candidate still standing, damnation by faint praise though this statement may be.

I also was never held captive in Viet Nam. Those of us lucky enough to share my fate will never know the depths of the pain and horror Senator McCain plumbed. The only thing we can know for sure is that the depth of his courage demonstrably proved to be the greater.

Our paths continued to diverge after service, with Senator McCain continuing to make a living at the federal trough and me in the private sector helping to pay for it.

Which, with a little background, leads me to my questions for John McCain.

I am self-employed. I write patents to protect inventors, the lifeblood of our innovative economy, and I'm the only lawyer in my firm, although I employ two people full time at generous salaries and five others part time. It's hard work and tricky, which is why I pay upwards of $10,000 per year in malpractice premiums even though I've never been sued in almost 20 years of practice. I work for large clients who dictate my fees. They have not dictated a raise in ten years. Maybe they should be put in charge of Congressional salaries. In any case, I've done more than my share to personally combat inflation.

Last year, I paid a total in income taxes and business taxes of around $150,000.  That's a lot of golden eggs from one middle aged goose who employs people to boot. I thank God for granting me the grace to live in a country where I can live this story, and for the opportunity to help pay for a government of that country. But as to this last blessing, I have a surfeit, courtesy of the colleagues of John McCain, who apparently believe that Providence requires more than their usual assistance in this particular matter.

Because the U.S. government appears intent on busting my butt as a way of currying favor with what they surely mistake to be an unduly socialist Almighty (who took two out of ten Commandments to forbid us from envying our neighbors' possessions and whose Son told the rich young man to give up his own possessions - not his neighbors').

I will not digress that the unelectable Obama would make matters even worse. Instead, I'd like to know what John McCain will do to ensure that I can continue to employ the people I do at the wages they receive and still keep something for my heirs.  Which will be taxed to the max unless I die before 2010 unless John McCain does something about that too.

What specifically, Senator, will you tell Congress when the Bush tax cuts expire? Do you have a cogent free market argument for allowing small business people like me to keep a little more of my inflation-eroded money, or at least a principled reluctance to allow the government to confiscate more than they already do? How does your argument dovetail with your continuing support of war funding PLUS your election year obeisance to reducing greenhouse gases that will have little environmental effect but will require enormous economic sacrifice, including higher taxes to pay for the new cult of "climate change"?

Your judgment, to the extent that it has been questioned in the past, is linked to temperamental self-righteousness. You took great offense at being one of the Keating Five, and in response hung the McCain-Feingold campaign finance rules around the neck of the First Amendment of, to borrow a phrase, the "so-called" Constitution. You took offense at the businessman Mitt Romney impertinently challenging you for the Republican nomination and in response painted an entire vibrant and vitally important part of the private sector - the pharmaceutical industry - as being the "bad guys".

You take offense at "obscene" oil company profits yet are an officer of a government that confiscates far more in taxes from every gallon than what the oil companies make from it in profit, the same government that has permitted the dollar to weaken to the extent that during the period oil has doubled in terms of the Euro it has quadrupled in terms of the dollar. Do these two facts not at least suggest to you that a chief reason for crippling gas prices is the U.S. government? Do you understand that a weak dollar and the inflation that it stokes is a matter of poor monetary policy and not necessarily poor fiscal policy? Do you know the difference between the two?

Can you not muster even a little anger on my behalf against this fecklessness that  I've been paying for and that you've been part of all of your adult life? Or is an economically oppressive government, a topic that has always been at the heart of our Republic (think Boston Tea Party) too dry to stir your emotions?

Or are you willing to master your emotions and allow your better judgment to emerge?

Either path would be salutary Senator, and I will deeply appreciate your following either one even as much as I, your comrade in arms, will always appreciate your brave service.

COPYRIGHT 2008 JOHN ROGITZ

Earlier this week, MoveOn.org posted its “10 Things to Know About John McCain” list.  The list’s writer combines an interesting mix of inadvertent humor and slander.  Below, I have posted the list in bold, with my response to why each of the points is wrong.

I hope that this exercise does not seem futile.  I feel that it is important to spot the fallacies in statements such as these in an election year because we are sure to be confronted with them with increased frequency as we draw closer to November.

Attention to detail and making critical distinctions in debates will be vital leading up to this election.  We need to be able to spot these types of ill-informed statements and non sequiturs so that an honest, intellectual debate may ensue.  Otherwise, we will fall into the trap of playing liberal linguistic gymnastics by using broken logic and accusations of intolerance to put us conservatives back on our heels.

10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't):

1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.

Response: 

So John McCain is racist for a position he took years ago based on valid reasoning, but the left says we're supposed to dismiss an Obama pastor who continues to make racist tirades?  Why should we excuse Obama's pastor as a product of his environment, but not excuse John McCain for being a product of his?  Race was not a big issue for an Arizona Congressman back in the 1980s, and John McCain opposed making it a national holiday not because of racism, but because of a loss of perspective.

McCain is on record stating that MLK should not have a national holiday while some of the greatest leaders in history – American Presidents such as Abraham Lincoln – do not have one.  Further, McCain stated that it would cost the country too much money to make an MLK holiday viable.  So because McCain believed we had lost perspective and because he was a hawk on finances even back then, he’s now being labeled as a racist.

      For further reference on what a truly racist perspective looks like, see Obama's two autobiographies - each exuding racist invective on every page.

2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."

Response:

            Well, I really have no complaint here. McCain said the surge was the proper solution before the Bush Administration suggested it.

A military guy being pro military?  Who would have thought. Conservatives are peaceful too.  The only difference between conservatives and liberals is that, while liberals refuse to discuss war, conservatives are at least realistic enough to not take war off the table as a last resort.

Merely insinuating that McCain is a war-mongerer without substantiating it with any evidence other than a quote from a conservative columnist who is breaking Reagan's 11th commandment is an ignorant and self-serving statement.

3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.

Response:

That bill sought to restrict much more than waterboarding, and afterwards McCain explained that he did not want to hamstring the CIA.  “None of those techniques would entail violating the Detainee Treatment Act, which said that cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment are prohibited.”

While McCain still opposes waterboarding, he will not take other interrogation tactics off the table.  This is the same logic as SCHIP (which I will get to in a minute).  Just because you oppose one means to an end does not mean you oppose the end. McCain still categorically refutes the use of torture, including waterboarding.

4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."

Response:

            So what?  I have no complaints with this statement.  As a matter of fact, not only do I have no complaints, but I whole-heartedly agree with it.  It merely seeks in evoke the emotions of liberals without providing any substantive debate.

From the second of conception, the fetus has a distinct genetic existence that is separate from that of it’s mother.  Thus, the fetus is not part of the mother's body, but a body separate and distinct from the moment of conception.

Now that little bit about the fetus’ distinct genetic code is a scientific fact - not just an opinion seeking to incite the emotions of like-minded individuals.

5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.

Response:

            Exactly.  McCain voted against SCHIP along with the rest of the Republican Senators.  For those that don’t know, SCHIP was a bill that would have provided universal, government sponsored health care for children.

This is manifest evidence of the left's inability to make distinctions that do not serve their perception of the world.  McCain does not support SCHIP does NOT = McCain hates babies.  What it equals is McCain favors the private sector over the government being everyone's daddy.  Enough said.

6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.

Response:

            Once again, McCain favors the private sector over the government.  People got themselves into this crisis by taking on mortgages they could not afford, and he believes people should work themselves out of the crisis and not run to the government for help like a 5 year girl child who just cut her finger.

What is this statistic regarding McCain's eight houses suppose to prove?  That McCain should start putting up the homeless in the houses he's not using?  This is the epitome of a non sequitur.

Though it’s not directly relevant to my present point, I felt it would be interesting to throw this in: The top 10 riches Senators are Democrats.  That's not a sweeping statement like, "The Senate is filled with millionaires."  That is a fact.  Don’t let liberals like MoveOn.org trick you with conclusory statements that are not supported by facts.

7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

Response:

            This is so blatant it does not even merit a substantive response.  Once again, there are no facts here.  MoveOn.org does not even identify the Senator who made this statement.

Wasn't this supposed to be 10 things I didn't know about John McCain, not 10 things other people have said about John McCain?

8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.

Response:

            Once again the left is unable to make critical distinctions.  McCain is against receiving money from special interest groups, which opens the door to an exertion of outside influence.

However, that does not mean McCain cannot hire lobbyists to further his OWN positions.  There is a difference between being coerced into positions by some one else and promoting your own positions through some one else.

When McCain speaks of his insusceptibility to special interests, he means that he will not be subject to undue influence from others seeking to promote their own agenda I instead of his.  That doesn’t mean McCain cannot hire lobbyists to further his own positions.

9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."

Response:

            Once again, we can't take pot-shots at Obama for a religion he's endorsed for years, but liberals can take pot-shots at McCain for speaking at churches where he is courting votes?

            So McCain called Parsley his spiritual guide and Parsley made a few statements against Islam.  That isn’t the same as Wright getting up on the pulpit spouting blatantly false conspiracy theories.  Parsley’s statements have some evidence of a rationale thought process.

Speaking of Obama's religion = not cool.
  Speaking of McCain's courting of religious votes in an election that will be close = describes McCain's personal views?  And "Do as I say, not as I do," screams the left!

10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.

Response:

            McCain opposes drilling in the ANWR Province in Alaska.  He also cosponsored the first bill in the Senate calling for mandatory reductions of greenhouse-gas emissions in 2003, and has also been a vocal critic of the Bush Administration’s inaction regarding the environment.

            One of the far right’s most significant criticisms of Senator McCain is that they believe he continues to pander to the global warming cult.  Whether he is pandering or not is up for debate.  But he has proposed significant legislative reform regarding the environment.

So my question based on those facts is: Who gives a rat’s behind what the liberal League of Conservation Voters says?

__________

            MoveOn.org concludes their list with the following statement:  “John McCain is not who the Washington press corps make him out to be. Please help get the word out—forward this email to your personal network.”

            Ironically, John McCain is not who MoveOn.org make him out to be, either.

COPYRIGHT 2008 JOHN M. ROGITZ

            Well readers, Pelosi and co. are at it again.  As I said in my last post, 38 of the cosponsoring forty nine Democrats still have not signed the SAVE Act discharge petition, which would bring the SAVE Act to a vote.

            As if that wasn’t insulting enough to their constituencies, Pelosi’s cronies are devising even more ways to circumvent what should be both a compromise for them and an action mandated by the American people following the McCain-Kennedy debacle.

            On top of preventing the Act from ever coming to a vote, now Rep. Joe Barca (D – California) has proposed an amendment that would include amnesty!

            Not to worry reader, you are not the only one having flashbacks to that McCain-Kennedy debacle.  If this amendment were to be approved, we would be right back to square one – in other words, right where Democrats want us to be.  They want us to be back to square one because they know square one means no progress towards immigration reform. 

            Democrats won’t even discuss immigration reform until we conservatives concede amnesty.  That is absurd.  Amnesty has become the critical issue when it comes to immigration reform. 

After the Democrats took over both houses in 2006, didn’t they say they would put an end to partisan bickering and strive to accomplish things through bipartisanship?

            That campaign promise has turned out to be amusingly false.  Democrat Heath Shuler and Republican Brian Bilbray have come up with a bipartisan compromise on immigration.  The bill they wrote does not even deal with any of the illegal immigrants already here.  It merely strengthens border security and allots additional resources to enforce existing laws.

            To top it off, the bill was cosponsored by 157 members of the House, forty nine of which are Democrats.  That appears fairly bipartisan, right?

            But alas, thirty eight of those forty nine Democrats don’t want to vote on the bill they are endorsing.  Now Joe Barca has proposed the aforementioned amnesty amendment that would allow a 5 year temporary worker permit for illegal immigrants already here, rather than to allow our law enforcement officers to continue deporting people who break our laws. 

That buys the Democrats plenty of time to conspire on how to further circumvent immigration reform.  Five years is plenty of time to pacify the immigrants and their American cult following, and after those five years I’m sure the Democrats will have a way to keep the people who participated in the 5 year worker program here forever.

            As if that wasn’t enough, Barca’s amendment to the SAVE Act would also shield employers who have hired illegal immigrants in the past, irrespective of any statute of limitations.  That means we cannot prosecute anyone who has broken existing immigration employment laws, which is in direct contrast to what the SAVE Act sought to accomplish: enforcing existing immigration laws.

            So the Barca’s logic must be as follows:  I campaigned that we should compromise.  Ok, to do that we should at least enforce existing laws until we come up with a better solution.  But in the mean time, let’s not enforce existing laws.

            Barca’s Congressional website amusingly purports that, “The American people demanded a New Direction: to make America safer, to help restore the American dream, and to restore accountability and fiscal responsibility to the people's government.”

            That’s exactly right, Mr. Congressman.  The McCain-Kennedy backlash made it abundantly clear that Americans want to make American safer by securing our borders.  So in furtherance of Barca’s “New Direction,” I’m going to restore accountability by exposing his party’s manifest hypocrisies, particularly concerning the notion of bipartisan support when they are secretly scheming against it.

            It is also worth noting that although Barca’s website lists many of his proposals and accomplishments, the SAVE Act amendment is not among them.  I’m guessing that’s because the San Bernardino voters who put him in office would be pretty ticked off if they knew about his little amendment.  The southern California area has felt more of an impact because of illegal immigration than most other parts of the country.

            For those that don’t know much about the makeup of the California constituencies, if you go anywhere east of the beach then you’re in a conservative zone.  Barca is a Democrat that managed to get elected in hostile territory.  I’m sure his voters would not be too happy if his little Pinky-and-the-Brain plan was publicized.

            Once again Congressional Democrats are showing why they are undeserving of the political majority they have received in both Houses.  In 2006, they said the American people had spoken.  The only thing is, the American people continue to speak.  They spoke after 2006 when McCain-Kennedy was introduced, and they continue to speak today through Congressional approval polls.

            Congress had a very low approval rating prior to the 2006 Democratic takeover.  Those numbers have not moved an inch since the Democrats have controlled Congress.  Not only is the party torpedoing itself when it comes to the Executive branch, now they are self destructing in the Legislative branch as well.  I, for one, cannot wait for the pendulum to swing back in our favor come November.

COPYRIGHT 2008 JOHN M. ROGITZ