There is something about a kind of liberal mind that just doesn't get it. That's why some of us prefer descriptions such as populist even though the old fashioned grassland populists had "issues."

The concept that it is a bad thing to put more cops on the street because they will arrest more criminals and therefore make conditions worse is assinine and the kind of liberal BS that confined Dukakis, Mondale and others to the dustbin of history instead of the White House.

More cops on the street prevents crime. The presence of a policeman will stop a crime from happening. That's what happened in New York City. Although Giuliani took most of the credit, the astronomical drop in crime in NYC began in the last year of Mayor David Dinkins (Black) term and was implemented by his Police Chief Ray Kelly.

I've got problems with the NYC Police force now, but not from the fact there are more cops on the street and I pray that budget cuts caused by the decreasing revenues of the Bush recession don't take them off.

And then let's remember one other thing. The primary victims of street crime aren't white but blacks. More cops means fewer black crime victims.

But more cops on the street wasn't Obama's principal point. What Obama is addressing needs to be said. More black fathers taking responsibility means fewer black on black crimes and fewer black crime victims.

And dare I remind everyone, that Obama wasn't preaching this to a white congregation. He was preaching to a black one.

After eight years of Bush, the prospects for this man's Presidency are staggering.

johnklotz.blogspot.com

This really is the most exciting election since 1960, when the country by the tiniest of margins made a leap into a future, that lasted only three years, alas.

The fascinating thing about the VP candidate discussion, on both sides, is what the choice will say about the candidates and their intent to transform. However, in assessing the choices, we will be in a looking glass world. McCain's radical choice, if it were Lieberman, would appear to be transforming non-partisanship, but would, actually be a leap backwards: back to Iraq as great "crusade." Back to the careful division of American voters into their micro-building blocs (blocks) of special interests and the assembling of an electoral plurality from an assortment of blocs. The non-partisan choice of Lieberman is thus non-transformative.

But Obama's choice may be transformative in its dreariness. He is clearly adverse to the seemingly transformative choice of Hillary who is not transformative at all but would represent more building block construction. He says he is seeking to transform politics and that would mean his betting on his message and not wanting a Vice Presidential candidate who would simply rally old style politicians and blocs.

Because the VP choice is so critical to McCain, and not so critical to Obama, Obama has more real options.

McCain's choice of Lieberman would be an obvious play for the AIPAC vote. But it would be a disaster for Israel. Israel does not need a Jewish Vice-President. The Jewish vote in the United States is not trending-up in comparison with other ethnics group. It's smaller than the votes of blacks and Latinos. Moslem voters and even Hindu voters will become increasingly important in coming decades.

What Israel needs is a President who can champion its continued existence to the new emerging groups in the American electorate. That isn't McCain and it certainly isn't Lieberman.

Let's see. How does a Christian black, with a Moslem middle name, sound as a champion of Israel to the American electorate?

Bye-bye, Joe.

johnklotz.blogspot.com