Dear underanothername:

I do not wish to be argumentative. I am asking a sincere question.

First, by way of background, this is the second time someone has taken offense to my posts on Salon, and the second time I have explained that I am not working for anyone or any campaign. Just a regular person reading the internet and enjoying some banter. Full disclosure: I am a conservative minded person who sometimes votes Democrat, and was leaning toward Obama as one part history making, one part vote against McCain until Palin's selection, and now am more interested in the Republican ticket. I happen to like Palin and find the diatribes in the MSM against her alternatively amusing and pathetic. I often see ridiculousness in both the Republican party and its intellectual organs such as TNR and WSJ editorial page.

Second, to the point. What is the purpose of your remark re: sending better trolls? Again, I have not been sent by anyone. Assuming you accept that as true, is there a problem with people offering a mix of opinions, as I have for the last couple of weeks? I prefer debate to name calling. Just trying to stimulate debate, not give offense.

I happen to believe Bush's 29% approval rating carries over to the rest of his party somewhat less powerfully than pundits commonly think. Bush lost a lot of credibility with the failure to find WMD, but he somehow managed to bury that problem with Rovian P.R. and spin. He was less successful with Katrina, followed by his embarrassing insistence we were winning in Iraq up until the 2006 election, when our chances of success -- with the surge -- somehow changed to 1 in 4 (according to Fred Kagan) and 1 in 10 (according to Petreus). I, for one, am worn out by Bush's smirk as well as his warmed over spin.

And yet: the country still favors the low taxing, high spending, sure-we'll-take-a-big-deficit policy that brought us to the present point, and of which McCain basically promises more. Even Barack's "tax the rich" plan essentially seeks to hold the status quo while scaling back only slightly the enormous deficits. Oh, I know there are lots of other issues that somehow make this the Most Important Election Ever, but I just don't buy it. 50:50 is not all that surprising to me.

Right. My basic point is that if a company with a lot of bad loans on its books goes bankrupt, the shareholders get nothing unless all creditors are paid in full. The whole purpose of the Paulson plan is to prevent that from happening. When Obama rails against BOTH shareholders and management, saying he insists that NEITHER one should benefit from the bailout, he is showing himself to have absolutely no idea what he is talking about in the context of the single biggest government expenditure of all time.

Look at the 60 Minutes transcript on CBS.com. There's nothing unclear about it. Shareholders and management are equally verboten and unworthy of protection in Obama's view.

I have not seen any credible report that Iran will possess intercontintental ballistic missiles capable of hitting the U.S. If that is the case, there is no reason for us to suggest we are going to strike them.

Israel fought on its own in 1948, again on its own in 1967 (with some possible British help), and again on its own in 1973 (with indirect U.S. assistance). But, never with American soldiers at the front. Today, our policy makers take for granted that American boys will do the fighting for Israeli boys, to paraphrase LBJ. I say: the Israelis are plenty tough. Let them fight this out themselves.

Perhaps now that Palin has been snubbed by the pro-Israeli groups in NYC, she can step back and reflect on whether her supporters in middle America really want to stick their chin out for this fight.

Here is what I think each needs to do, in the foreign policy debate.

McCain. His argument will be strength vs. weakness, Reagen vs. Carter. The problem he faces is a war weary nation that will be none too enthused with a new axis of evil list or humming refrains of bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. From a strictly political standpoint, Richard Nixon was very smart in always emphasizing "peace" to a war weary nation, even when secretly escalating war. McCain's military family is actually a detriment here: McCain seems to think it just fine when a sizeable chunk of your relatives go off to fight. Most Americans do not. McCain needs to make the case that he will bring peace through strength, not just pick a bunch of fights.

Obama. If I were him, I would forget about WMD, Bush Lied People Died, etc., and basically "go full hawk," to paraphrase a movie line from Tropic Thunder. I would embrace McCain on no nukes for Iran, NATO expansion into Georgia and Ukraine, and downplay differences on Iraq. Then, I would season it with "more diplomacy" and multilateralism (with NATO tough guys, not UN wimps). Why? Because he can't win being Carter. No Democrat since Johnson has won an election in an atmosphere of escalated global conflict. Obama needs to show he is tough as McCain, only smarter. Then glide home on the economy.