Scene: Election day 2008: man on the street in front of polling place:

Excuse me young lady, before you vote...do you know about our checks and balances system of government?..."Uh, yeh...umm; I've heard of it...it's like, ah, like when the president can't do somethin because the congress, like, is able to stop him or impeach him, or somethin?

Consider this election. The one thing that is so blatantly obvious is the incredible level of this overriding intellectual absenteeism that has proliferated dangerously, throughout every socio-economic strata of our entire nation. Look anywhere...on TV...on the net, or in the papers-- stunning political ignorance! Shocking disbelief at what today's voter deems as what's important, vs. the  true reality behind the scene. The slanted liberal media is really pulling a swifty on America this time.

Example: in a recent CNN news poll, the public voted Obama 54% vs 39% over McCain as to who was the strongest, most decisive leader. Ai-YEE! Who were they polling...a class of 8th graders?

Does the public even realize that the principle job of the president is to make the tough decisions? The president isn't in charge of the economy. The president doesn't determine the price of gas or oil. The president doesn't create jobs, or determine fiscal policy. The president is the chief executive! He hires and fires everyone. He determines who goes where and who does what. This includes the military; and that's the toughest part of the job!

Examine the record of Barack Obama. Sure; he's decisive...how many times as a state senator did he vote "present? Except for some shameful opposition to an aborted live-infant survival bill, he voted present almost every other time!

How about his record as a U.S. senator?  Same thing, the great Decisive One, Barack Obama, voted "present"  70 times in 4 years. He authored no game changing bi-partisan legislation. He voted "present" on some of the most crucial bills, and "yea" only on ones that involved tax hikes, or other liberal legislation.

But the public pictures him a strong, decisive leader! Why?... because he's so calm; and so level-headed during a crisis. But what life crisis has he ever faced? A commander in chief must make unwavering decisions, often when lives are at stake.

Once elected, Obama would undoubtedly react the same way as he did when he was informed of the Russian invasion in Georgia. First, he said the aggression should stop, and both sides should mediate and seek peace. How historic. How calm. A few days later, he delivered some press-release babble about the U N . Finally, he issued a statement agreeing with McCain's original reply of blunt disapproval toward the Russian aggression.

Has Mr. Obama ever been confronted with ANY crisis? A commander in chief must make unwavering decisions when lives are at stake; What I perceive Mr. Obama doing is to basically use his Joint Chiefs of Staff as subcontractors for any crucial military decisions.

Every president faces international crises. Kennedy and the Cuban missiles. Johnson and the gulf of Tonkin; Nixon and the Pueblo incident; Ford and the Mayaguez crisis; Carter and the hostages; Reagan and Korean flight 007; Bush I and Saddam's Kuwait invasion; Clinton and Kosovo in the Balkans; Bush II and Sept 11. A president must always be ready to answer the zero-hour call for either decisive action, or inaction to avoid war. There is no time to negotiate. You can't vote "present", appeal to the UN, or hide in the Whitehouse.

Look back at our recent history. The last time our country was disgusted with a Republican administration, our nation chose to make a 90* turn. The public voted for an inexperienced liberal named James Earl Carter, a peanut farmer, who tortured our nation with 444 days of indecision during the Iranian hostage crisis. The man meant well, but he waffled in the Whitehouse, consulted with the U.N. and the World Court, and froze in his tracks, while our hostages were tortured and badgered until Reagan brought them home.

Examine my opponent's LATEST position on Iraq. He's had several. Yes he was against the war in 2002. Since then he's been dependably inconsistent. But now, the situation has decidedly changed. History is about to prove that we made the right decision. We are about to achieve a near-miracle accomplishment, a stable functional Muslim democracy, in the center of what was previously an area of instability and hostility. And Senator Obama wants us out. He would have us not only forfeiting our hard fought victory, but also he would be forfeiting the great peace dividend we are about to reap that could go on for the next hundred years.

Yes my friends, the war has been costly, but eventually we may recoup our expense a hundred-fold. As we speak, foreign investors are preparing a surge of their own. A United Arab Emirates developer will soon break ground in Baghdad on a 30-story $270 million hi-rise tower. It will house shopping malls, office space, and apartments. The cessation of sectarian tensions, and the dramatic improvements in security have attracted developers worldwide to Iraq.

The Mayor of Baghdad, Saber Nabat el-Essawy, is positively exuberant: His vision is to one day look across the city and see billions of dollars worth of malls, luxury hotels, apartment towers, outdoor amphitheaters, gardens, stadiums, and parks.

At our 80-acre military base at Rashid, a massive 5 billion dollar development has already attracted 16 foreign bids. This will include a state-of-the-art medical center, apartment complexes, hotels, shopping centers, and a sport stadium. A sports stadium? Apparently the Iraqis are planning on some long term stability, which well might last A HUNDRED YEARS! Now that the fighting has subsided, the Iraqi people are demanding cars, satellite dishes, phones, I pods, computers, and high definition TV's. Cell phone use has surged to over 70% in Iraq.

The future possibility of Iraq becoming one of our main export markets is there for the taking. The abundance of Iraqi oil is a resource for the capital they would send us to buy American goods...appliances, software, hardware, prescription drugs, airplanes, food, electronics, beverages, and whatever other markets we could develop.

But Senator Obama wants to cut and run, because he feels our money would be better spent on the alphabet soup of social agencies he has planned. Mr. Obama would subordinate our free market economy to his own liberal big-government style of socialism. Maybe he should be running for president of Sweden. Who knows?...maybe he could grow their government from the bottom up? But I don’t think that would work very well here!

But now that we've largely solved our problems in Iraq, the next president will undoubtedly be facing an even more menacing situation next door in Iran. How will the next president deal with a nuclear Iran, in the hands of Mr. Ahmadinejad? He's testing missiles. His engineers are spinning uranium into its heaviest molecular form, so it can be used to trigger a nuclear explosion. His first nuclear test could be in less than two years, and it could very well occur in Israel’s backyard.

Mr Obama said he would start negotiations with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Would he return successful, or would he only succeed in becoming the next Neville Chamberlain? What if Iran then launches a surprise attack on Israel? Or Israel strikes first at Iran? Would Senator Obama agonize in the Whitehouse? Would he waffle, or get involved, and risk a wider conflict by aiding Israel? What if Iran blocks the straight of Hormuz? We would face a fuel shortage overnight, and our military planes would quickly run out jet fuel. 

These Muslim dictators have no moral code. You can't hold them in good faith in any diplomatic agreement. Yes...they will lie, and try to lull us into a false sense of security. That's why you don't negotiate with a dictator or a sworn enemy. An Islamic theocracy and our American democracy are polar opposites. Iran has spent the last five years buying up American technology on the black market, and making electronic detonators for the roadside bombs, which have been used to kill and maim our soldiers in Iraq. This Ahmadinejad character is no friend of ours!

My friends, the best way to assure our own national security is to develop our own resources, so our children don't have to fight any future energy wars. If we were to begin a Manhattan project of new offshore drilling, in the short term, it would put one million people to work! In the long term, it would translate to even more workers, more oil, lower gas and diesel lprices, and we can keep that 700 million we send annually to Opec in this country for new investment in jobs; and enable people to purchase a new car, or washing machine, or home improvements, because people would no longer be spending so much on gas!

Mr Obama would create five million new green jobs in alternative energy. But he must have been quoting from an estimate from the National Council of Mayors, which said five million new alternative energy jobs will be created in the next 30 years! THIRTY YEARS!

That's a long time to wait for a new job.

Mr Obama says we use 25% of the world's oil, but we have only 3% of its reserves, so we should plan on driving less, turn down our thermostats, and reduce our standard of living so the rest of the world can catch up. That's his plan for real change.

My friends, you can't grow the economy without a low cost supply of energy. Our factories run on natural gas...our heavy industries use diesel vehicles, and our airlines run on kerosene. Mass-produced electric and hydrogen cars are years away. 60% of our electricity comes from coal. And I plan on supplying the rest of it with new nuclear plants, that would put many other people back to work. And Mr Obama is against it all. He promises to replace all fossil fuels in 10 years. This would jeopardize our military security. Tanks, Humvees and jet fighters can't run on wind or solar.

Mr Obama is the taxman. He would place a carbon tax on coal plants; a tax on natural gas. Like that old song from the Beatles...he will literally tax your heat! Mr. Obama despises fossil fuels. He will have Al Gore whispering in his ear, as he dismantles our present energy infrastructure.

If you want to know what your Obama future will really look like, just watch the news from Atlanta, and see the gas lines winding around the block. This is what the democrats have done to our country from their anti-American energy policies. No new drilling...no new refineries... tax the energy companies. Blame George Bush. Strangle the free market. Do the bidding of the environmental puppeteers. Pretend alternative energy is just around the corner. Let the people keep paying 4 dollars a gallon, so they can continue to send their money to Opec, instead of to the bank for their mortgage payment.

My friends, as your president, in my first act of bi-partisanship, I will go directly to the Congress, and meet with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. I will tell them that we are going make a maximum effort to drill our way out of this present energy crisis.

We will develop our alternative energy supplies. We will build 45 new nuclear plants, and we will get rid of Opec in ten years after we perfect our shale-to-oil, and coal-to gas domestic energy supplies. There's your five million jobs!...and they're all ready to be filled now under a new McCain-Palin administration.

Governor Palin is America's most shining example of the perfect energy czar. She has the experience where America needs it most...solving our energy problem! We are going to find as much offshore oil as we can, which will lower the price of gas, and restart our economy.

And we will go to work on our infrastructure, and construct new corridors of hi-speed rail, and take the burden off our airports and interstates, conserve fuel, and create another job boom in alternative transportation, and put our engineers to work developing geothermal, solar and more efficient wind power.

But my friends, none of this will happen without your support this November. You may not agree with all my policies, but as your president, we'll regain our prosperity and place in the world, because the economy comes first, and restarting it requires realistic policies backed by firm, unwavering decisions. And I ask you to think very carefully about whom you choose to send back to Congress, because a president can accomplish little unless the people and the entire government are all on the same page.

And after you go into the voting booth, and begin to mark your ballots, I'd like you to think of our soldiers abroad, who are serving in Iraq and the Middle East. They're not on the front page any more, or in many news stories, because we're winning: but just the same they are still out there everyday, accomplishing their missions, and securing our freedom back home. Keep them in your prayers. Remember those who have died, or have survived with amputations and terrible burn wounds. We've payed a heavy price, so like Ronald Reagan always said... we must stay the course. 

John McCain grew up in a military family, and graduated from the Annapolis Naval Academy. He became a flight commander, and went on to become a Vietnam war hero. Afterwards, Mr. McCain goes to Washington, and begins yet another long stint in service to his country. But after 25 years in D.C. it's too bad John Sidney never once hooked up with good buddy Joe Biden for a Delaware ride home on the Amtrak; otherwise we might have an entirely different look to today's contentious, nearly deadlocked campaign.

McCain can blather on all he wants to about, "committing yourself to a cause greater than your own self  interest", and "country first". Yes it's very wonderful and noble. No one doubts that. But the average middle class voter is thinking a lot more about 'ME' first..."how in the world am I gonna survive in this scary new era of hellishly high energy prices, and cost of living increases?"

We're all worried because everything from food to super glue is heading north, so the average John Doe wants to know..."Why is this guy talking about 'fighting on with me for change in Washington', when I need a job that pays enough to live on?" Today's voter isn't looking for miracles, just the guy who can cast some sort of positive picture for the future, like Eisenhower had when he pushed through the Interstate Highway Act in the 50's; or Kennedy, when he challenged America in the 60's to land on the moon.

Americans have a history of responding to presidential challenges. We love to be inspired, but only with a worthwhile national goal, like defeating the Axis in World War II, or beating the Russians in the space race.

But in this election, we have a bona fide voter enigma. It's no wonder there are so many undecideds. There's a candidate who's inspirational, yet seems insincere and hollow, and can't offer America a truly worthwhile vision. And the other guy has many visions, but is just plain uninspirational. But we need only one goal, but it must appeal to every one.

However, at least give Mr. McCain an 'A' for patriotism and sincerity. He's already rich. He loves to serve the nation. He needs only to be provided with some truly inspirational idea, and get fired up with a game-changer that could be key to a Republican victory. So how about we all get on board with the McCain train? Yup, it's about that time.

Have you ever heard anybody say..."ecch, I HATE trains", or "I hate riding on trains"? No? Okay now, could you apply that same comparison to flying on a plane nowadays, or commuting on our jammed interstates? That's because trains are just plain neat. They are mechanical creatures with a certain romanticism. They project an aura of mystique. Most have their own memorable logos. There are many train enthusiasts. There are clubs, model railroad fanatics, and train nostalgists everywhere. Most people love trains or even train-watching, for whatever reason.

People never think of it, but if a lot of the undecideds had any concept of the potential for high speed rail in America, they would cast their vote to Obama, who occasionally mentions..."establishing economic corridors in this country, connected by high speed rail networks". Obama's plan to end the Iraq war immediately, and instead spend the $10 billion a month here on infrastructure, may or may not be a foreign policy blunder, but at least Barack is on the right track in this one. He actually DOES understand the huge economic efficiencies of high speed rail networks. Plus, the mostly flat topography of our country makes the idea all the more feasible.

Even the Chinese, our trustworthy Asian competitors, have successfully introduced a high speed rail corridor from Beijing to the Tianjin airport. The two cities, with a total population of 30 million, are now connected with 200 mph overhead electric-powered bullet trains. The trip takes just thirty minutes, and has reduced the overcrowding at the old Beijing airport. The Chinese are taking the idea nationwide. High speed rail has been a huge success on every continent so far. The Australians have decided to be next; so what are we all waiting for? 

All political issues have two sides, but opposing high speed rail in this country would be a bona fide head scratcher. What group or party would object to the all the new jobs generated by an actual, completely new industry? It could re-vitalize the stagnant manufacturing sector, particularly in the rust belt. And this wouldn't be another political

promise boondoggle.  

Just like the exists off interstate highways sparked new suburbs and nearby proximal land development, high speed rail would generate at least a ten to twenty year boom in construction jobs, and engineering, surveying and legal jobs in building out the corridors, and securing the right-of-ways.

After the startup, there'd be permanent high paying railroad jobs both on and off the trains. We'd have steel and manufacturing jobs; railroad and construction jobs, plus jobs requiring signal technology employment. There would be a whole new sector of "destination jobs" that would be created at the junction stops and cities, such as hotel-motel, car rental, restaurant, retail, and even tourist jobs.

Hi-speed rail travel would be as much of a lifestyle effect on our culture as the interstate highway. This would be similar to how the American economy exploded in the late 19th century after the trans continental train network was completed in 1869. Nearly all towns west of St. Louis (Las Vegas) were originally founded because of spurs or stops on the transcontinental railroad.

Could there be any bitter opposition against not having to travel jammed interstate highways between major east coast cities? (There'd be no longer need to widen I-95). People could leave their cars at home. The road rage and time wasted in traffic jams would be supplanted by relaxing on a train, socializing, text messaging, laptop work, watching a movie, eating a quality meal, reading, or sightseeing out the windows at 130 mph. It sure beats looking at cloud tops from a window seat, or getting flipped off by some aggressor in an interstate traffic jam.

These days, have you ever heard any one say..."Can't wait to fly to Phoenix tomorrow!" Yeah! Or "Man, I can't wait for the weekend to go by so I can commute to work Monday on the interstate". Luv those vacant HOV lanes! On a train you don't get trapped in traffic, or go postal waiting to take off for an hour with a flight delay. Remember the old days when people could buy crash insurance policies at the airport? (Such a comforting thought). Fatal train accidents are occasional, but are mostly rare in the U.S. 

What about our jammed airports and flight corridors? Would there be opposition (other than luggage-handler job losses) to no longer being searched like a felon after waiting in some obnoxious security line? That would indeed be hard to give up. What about all the decline in short regional flights; or the fast-rising ticket prices, with those wonderful luggage surcharges? On the train you can actually bring all your stuff. Many major airlines would be spared from bankruptcy. 

And how bout the idea of eliminating the federal gas tax? Now that would be sorely missed. A 100 car high speed, intermodal freight train carrying 200 piggy-backed semi trailers, would remove thousands of 40 ton trucks off the interstates, and would eliminate the billions spent on the annual road break up, and all those glorious lane-restricted bridge repairs. But caution...this may put a lot of orange barrel manufacturers out of biz. The road barrel lobby would be up in arms, but the amount of diesel fuel saved would conserve millions of barrels of oil over time.

And how tired are you of hearing that dreadful ominous phrase..."our addiction to foreign oil"? Ugh. Who in the world came up with that one? How about our addiction to foreign cars? How about our addiction to foreign Walmart-type imports? How about our addiction to foreign food (Chinese/Italian)? Like the money we spend, oil is necessary to run our economy.

And what could possibly conserve more gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, or whatever fossil fuel, than high speed railways? How much annual transport time would be saved on a national basis? Our GDP could actually spike after the first few years after start-up.

We would now have a way to provide an actual reduction of our capital exports to OPEC, and shift our trade deficit to a surplus. The money saved by keeping it in this country would provide capital investment for the maintenance and build-out of the hi-speed infrastructure, which could go on well on into the middle of this century. 

The only possible objection might be our neo-Marxist friend Obama. His intention is to have the government run the new rail networks, but Amtrak's perennial deficits and mismanagement would belie that possibility. Amtrak will never see a profit because there's no incentive for its workers to be efficient. But where would any true opposition lie? Even the dreaded environmentalists would be chirping at the possibility of reducing fossil fuel use and improving  air quality.

Could one actually raise even one cogent argument against the idea? Sure it would cost mega billions. But the people could buy bonds to raise the huge capital required. However, since the rails would be privately owned and operated on an anti-Amtrak basis, they would make a profit and give bond investors a yield on their money.

Besides the binge of permanent, high-paying skilled employment, we'd have the one thing that's been lacking since the 1960's...we'd be united in purpose and have a national goal-- building the rail network.  Just look to the NASA moon shot of the 60's; or the Alaskan pipeline of the 70's. Not only would there be an offspring of huge economic benefits, it would again make us feel proud of our country, possibly even Michelle Obama, for the second time in her adult life.

Now enter "the awakening" of John Sidney McCain, circa 2008. More and more everyday, the man is beginning to look every bit a genius. He's emerging late in the campaign because his mysterious maverick qualities have been grossly misinterpreted. How? Well nowadays, truly patriotic politicians could qualify for protection under the Endangered Species Act. After all, who can recall in recent memory, ANY Washington politician who puts not themselves first, or their party first, or lobbyists first, or special interests first, but rather their COUNTRY first? And especially when you examine his past, John McCain fits the mold of true patriot; and we're just now beginning to realize it.

Example: During his recent acceptance speech, Mr. McCain spoke glowingly of "a cause greater than your own self interest". He waxed enthusiastically about "reaching across the aisle", and "appointing a truly bi-partisan cabinet". Of course, the liberal media reacted predictably, calling it just another ho-hum, boorish McCain speech. But if you look deeper into his past, all the evidence points to the fact that McCain will be as genuine of a President as anyone since Harry Truman, another man who at first was dubbed as boring, and noteworthy of little else besides having a bad temper. 

But isn't about time we elected someone with some true fire in the belly? And the fire of John McCain is something nobody has ever doubted. Not since Teddy Roosevelt has anyone running for President had a more aggressive backround than John McCain. The most storied example of the McCain temper involved a 2006 confrontation with Arizona Congressman Rick Renzi. At a Republican strategy meeting, McCain repeatedly addressed the rookie Congressmen as ‘boy.’ Renzi, a former college linebacker, rose from his chair and literally challenged McCain to some good old fashioned pugilism. McCain lunged at Renzi, punches were thrown, and the two had to be physically separated. Later on, the two became fast friends because Renzi's aggressive posture had won McCain's admiration.

Why has McCain surged ahead? Maybe our country is awakening to the fact that John McCain wouldn't back down to Russia, and wouldn't play softball with Iran in a Middle East crisis. Or maybe were just now awakening to the idea that McCain is the first presidential candidate in memory who's not playing the blame game. Example: When asked about the recent corporate debacles on Wall Street, Mr. McCain remarkably refrained from finger-pointing at the Democrats, but in a conciliatory tone replied that, "both sides caused the problems", and as president, he would "work with both sides to arrive at a solution".

Yes, McCain's diplomatic reply revealed that playing politics was passe’, and the country would now come first. The media were stunned by McCain's remarkable prudence, because they had been expecting the same usual partisan retort that we always hear from Barack Obama, whose robotic blather about "the failed policies of George Bush" are growing exceedingly lame. If you ask Obama just about anything these days, it no doubt occurred because of "the failed policies of George Bush". Jeez Barack; and you're supposed to be such a great orator...hmmph.

Yes indeedy, ole Barack-o has seemed rather stale lately, but it's not so much the fault of his speechwriters, it’s more because McCain is suddenly emerging as a master of the political chessboard, and appears to be out maneuvering Obama at every turn.

As evidenced by the recent polls in key swing states, Senator McCain brilliantly managed to create a political "pivot point" when he named Sarah Palin as his V.P. The polls changed literally overnight. Undecideds suddenly had become staunch McCain-ers! And overnight ten point swings in polls are no everyday event in elections, especially when no boffo-sized gaffes have occurred. McCain is proving he's a shrewd, clutch performer, capable of coming up with the big hit when behind in the score.

Recall the Republican primary debate last February: Mitt Romney had opened up a 5 point lead in the Florida polls. The two had been purposely seated next to one another. The acrimony between the candidates was apparent. Then McCain struck: he suddenly began to hammer away relentlessly about Romney's "willingness to surrender in Iraq". Romney, the very essence of political decorum, stammered under the scathing surprise attack.

Afterwards, McCain had come off as crotchety and mean-spirited. However, within 48 hours, the polls revealed that McCain had blistered Romney. And Senator McCain knew what he had to do to win: create a crucial pivot point to swung the election over to him.

But back then, no one had yet realized that McCain wasn't just some back-alley fighter, but also the consummate political master of strategy. Yes, looks are deceiving. And day-by day, Obama and his pro-liberal media cohorts are finding that out the hard way. If Obama doesn't come up with a counter strategy by the first debate, the media rats might desert the sinking Obama ship, and actually cease their shameful bias against McCain. 

Historically, in close presidential elections, there have been pivot points where seemingly overnight, a huge shift in the polls swung the momentum to one candidate over the other. In 1964, it was the famous (or infamous) "Daisy" commercial, which doomed Barry Goldwater, and propelled Lyndon Johnson to victory. In 1976, it was the "eastern Europe" gaffe of Gerald Ford, that enabled Jimmie Carter to triumph. In 1980, it was Reagan's famous rhetorical question, "are you better off now than 4 years ago?" In 1988, it was Mike Dukakis, riding helmeted atop an Abrams tank, looking as if he were playing GI Joe instead of commander in chief.   

During the recent Republican convention, one could see that McCain and Company were laying in the weeds for Obama. Like overtime in a college football game, the Republicans had the advantage of going second. McCain succeeded masterfully in turning the tables, and adroitly laid down his case that he, not Obama, was the true candidate of change. And with Sarah Palin now on board, they easily wrested the mantle from Obama, who'd managed to play the George Bush blame card once too often. Obama had fumbled, and just as in college football, once you acquire that all-important swing in momentum, it's mighty darn hard to stop.

John McCain’s reputation as a maverick is no recent contrivance. The Senator first captured the media spotlight in September 1983, not long after he’d been elected to his first term in the House. McCain drew national attention when he voted against President Reagan’s decision to put American troops in Lebanon as part of a multinational “peacekeeping” force.

Back then, McCain boldly had taken a minority position against Reagan, and was in one of only 27 Republicans to break with the President. McCain even rose up on the House floor to make a passionate speech against the move. It was at this time, the Washington press corps first began to notice his acts of political independence, and that he had put "country first".  

So even early in his Congressional days, Mr. McCain had demonstrated his unbridled patriotism, and willingness to subordinate his political career to his country. But do leopards ever change their spots? No-o-o way; national security is the name of the game with John McCain.

Twenty four years later, he unilaterally fought for a surge in Iraq, because he alone saw that America could win, just at the time when things looked bleakest. Even Bush was attempting to play Pontius Pilate back then, and was preparing to wash his tainted hands of the whole mess. Again Senator McCain had showed his prudence, but was rewarded by the tag as a "warmonger" by the leftists in Congress and the pro-liberal media.

So everybody, even if you're still undecided, you better get those yard signs ready. Go with the patriots! We all like to say that we voted for the winner. And at this point, it looks like the maverick team of Palin-McCain is going to be riding triumphantly into Washington, and injecting a booster-shot of patriotism into a Congress mired in the implacable gridlock of self-serving politics.

But is John McCain missing the boat on high speed railways? He needs to go along for the ride with Barack Obama . Mr. Obama may be a socialist, paint-by-the-numbers liberal wonk, but he sees above the horizon with his infrastructure proposals.

One of the few good uses of massive government spending, besides defense, is infrastructure. But defense spending raises inflation; it pumps huge money into the economy, but the products and services it creates can't be purchased. So more money in the economy chasing the same amount of goods and services, weakens the dollar.

But the amount of money Obama is proposing to spend on infrastructure would lend a vastly beneficial impetus to the economy. Infrastructure spending generates huge job growth, and the results are semi- permanent...the benefits are there until the concrete and steel begins to crumble.

Everyone's heard Obama's boilerplate standard stump speech..."Hey North Carolina"...or "How are we doing today Milwaukee "...ugh.  He begins them all the same way, and delivers them with the same vacuous blather about hope and change; free college tuition, etc.

But lately Obama has brightened up the blandness with a new tack..."Connecting cities by economic corridors of high speed rail networks." Bingo Barack!...a home run idea from the man with no other plan, other than the re-hashed robin hood proposals of more government and higher taxes.

But at least Obama has one thing right. If we don't update the infrastructure soon, our overripe roads, sewers and bridges will be rotten in less than a decade. So give the man credit for something no other candidate has mentioned in any of the primaries...the railroads.

High speed rail would have made sense for the  U.S. twenty, thirty, or even fifty years ago. If we had placed high speed rail right-of-ways parallel to all the interstate highways built in the 50's and 60's, this nation would never have had an energy crisis. But the original intention of the interstates was for national defense- rapid military transport during wartime. No one ever assumed the highways would become so vital to travelers, commuters, and interstate commerce. If that had been assumed back then, they would've made the roadways 20 inches thick with concrete, and built the bridges with rust-resistant steel alloys.

But ever since, we have an orange-barrel/construction zone season in the summer, and pothole/corrosion season in the winter. When one area is patched , the next must be dealt with. Not only is this a huge annual tax drain, there's no permanence to it; sort of like renting an apartment vs. buying  one's own home. The government gets nothing in return for its money, other than a mild boost to the local economies who do the repairs that year.

Now if John McCain were to climb on the high speed rail bandwagon, he could play upon the one, massive weakness in the Obama plan: government ownership. If McCain's plan would be based on privatization of the new rail networks, people could buy tax free construction bonds in Burlington Northern, Chessie, B&O, and Norfolk Western.This worked well 150 years ago when the government granted Union pacific and Central Pacific the cheap land for the transcontinental railroad's right of ways back then, and it would work again.

Face it, anything owned or run by the government never succeeds, because no one has any incentive to perform above mediocrity. Amtrak is always in the red for this reason. Could the transcontinental railroad of the 1860's been finished by 1869 if the government owned it? The two private companies worked at a maniacal pace to finish it because they were motivated by the profits that would begin immediately. The nation grew rapidly after the completion of the railroad, because regional markets became national ones almost overnight.

This same boost would be realized nowadays, only in the form of efficiency, and providing an alternative to the current horrific state of air travel. It would save Americans time and gasoline, and jet fuel would be conserved.

The benefits of high speed rail construction would be permanent. There'd be high-paying, skilled employment creation. We'd have steel and manufacturing jobs, railroad and construction jobs, engineering and technology employment. America would see a steel industry revival.

And in this pricey energy era, what's more practical than high-speed FREIGHT TRAIN corridors spanning the nation? The benefits in time and diesel fuel saved, and the reduced damage to the interstate highway system from 40-ton trucks would be enormous- possibly eliminating the need for the federal gas tax. Picture inter-modal, 100-car high speed freight trains, piggy-backing 200 semi trailers across the country at  90 MPH ...how energy-efficient would that be? Speedy just-in-time deliveries would boost the nation's GDP, and reduce OPEC imports by a huge percentage.

So are ya listening out there Mr. McCain ? Aren't you tired of the pro-democrat pundits that say you're the next George Bush ? Well then show 'em...you  ARE the maverick when it comes to the economy. Praise Obama for his idea of high speed rail corridors, and then nail him to the wall about how the government would bungle the thing up, just like they always do. The best strategy is always to take the strong point of your opponent, and turn it against them.

And for God sakes, once you're elected, then see to it that your administration actually gets it off the ground and moving forward. Call it whatever you want...the next Apollo moon shot, or the next Manhattan project. Just co-opt the Nike slogan for your motto...just do it!