After watching three debates and many speeches, we all know John McCain is not an eloquent speaker. His mannerisms sometimes appear strained, partly due to torture-related injuries received decades ago as a prisoner of war, and partly because he is not as refined as his opponent. However, in this election we’re choosing a leader, not a celebrity spokesman, and so those cosmetic factors should be of little concern given the grave issues we face as a nation.

With that in mind, there are at least 10 things I’d like to see John McCain address everyday on the campaign stump.  If he will fully embrace and show energy and emotion on these ten populist issues, I feel the election will be his to lose. However, if he won’t actively campaign on them, then he will be defined by his opponent and will miss the chance to paint Barack Obama as the extreme liberal he really is. Apart from a strong stance on these issues, the race will degenerate into a popularity contest for which McCain cannot win.

Here are 10 things I’d like to see McCain embrace in his campaign:

1.  Fighting pork and cutting government spending.

Obama likes to accuse McCain of using a hatchet instead of a scalpel when McCain proposes a broad spending freeze. If I were McCain I’d welcome that accusation and say “Just a hatchet? Give me a chain saw.” The simple truth is you cannot cut much with a scalpel but you can cut vast quantities more with a larger tool. Government has so much pork and excessive spending that we need a chainsaw to cut it all out.

2. Support for the War and the need to kill terrorists.

National security is still the President’s number one task.  McCain should talk daily about his successes in this area and drive home the need for a competent Commander in Chief who supports winning the War and not just withdrawing. The same should be said about Iran and their support of terrorism. Iran must also be stopped in their efforts to enrich uranium and make nuclear weapons. This is a serious international problem that the next President will have to deal with.

3. The Supreme Court.

The next President is likely to appoint at least two Supreme Court Justices as well as scores of federal judges. These are lifetime appointments. McCain says he will nominate strict constructionists. Obama supports those who will legislate from the bench. Need I say more?

4. Abortion and the right to life.

Embracing a culture of life is critical to the survival of our nation. Forty million abortions since Roe v. Wade is equivalent to exterminating more than the entire population of California. To kill that many Americans today would mean that more than 13 out of every 100 of us would have to die.  Protecting life should be talked about everyday by a candidate who believes a baby’s human rights begin at conception.

5. Support for traditional marriage.

A huge majority of Americans are in favor of protecting marriage as a sacred institution between one man and one woman. Obama wants to redefine and distort the definition of marriage to include same gender arrangements. Americans need to know about this massive difference between the candidates.

6. Obama’s radical friends and associations.

Obama has a history of incredibly poor judgment in the area of his friends and associations. There are so many long-term radical associations in his past that it is hard to believe him when he claims that he is not a radical himself. Americans deserve to know the full story about William Ayers, Reverend Wright, Father Pfleger, Tony Rezko and ACORN to name just a few examples.

7. Oil and energy.

Drill here, drill now. Build more nuclear power plants. Develop more energy sources. We need to treat our lack of a viable energy policy as a national emergency and work to become energy independent ASAP.

8. Taxes and the economy.

With his “spread the wealth around” Marxist philosophy, Obama must be stopped before he transforms the American tax code into one that resembles a communist system.  Obama’s promise to give 95% of Americans a tax cut when only about 65% pay any income taxes amounts to such a system. Americans must be told the truth until it hits home.

9. Dangers posed by Russia and China.

Russia and China have been flexing their military muscles in more aggressive patterns over the past few years. We need a President who is willing to confront them, stare them down, and put them in their place when they bully other nations.

10. Name names and push a reform agenda now.

John McCain needs to live up to his nickname as The Sheriff and aggressively take on corrupt interests — especially Democrats in Washington — and those who led Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac down the path of corruption. McCain called for reforms of Fannie and Freddie years ago but few know that.  During that time, Obama, on the other hand, was taking huge sums in campaign contributions from these corrupt organizations. McCain needs to name names and push a strong reform agenda now.

I think if McCain aggressively addressed these ten areas he would win a landslide victory. Most voters are looking for a leader who will leave them alone to pursue the American dream, will take on the bad guys, and will protect our national interests and traditional values. John McCain needs to hurry up, step up to the plate and build the case that he is just that leader.

The New York Post reported today that during his July trip to Baghdad, Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama, while “campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq . . . tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.” This report, by Amir Taheri, cites Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari as the source of this accusation.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

In discussing Obama’s position, Taheri writes:

Though Obama claims the US presence is “illegal,” he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the “weakened Bush administration,” Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

Such an extension is due in December of 2008 and is likely to be granted anyway according to Taheri. Taheri also writes that Obama tried to persuade U.S. commanders including Gen. David Petraeus to suggest a “realistic withdrawal date.” Taheri explains that a delay in negotiating a troop agreement would be significant given the U.S. and Iraqi election timelines that would have to be taken into consideration.

Towards the end of his report, Taheri writes:

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn’t want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of “pre-emptive” war – that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self-defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

Obama’s consistant anti-war stance has made victory more difficult for our forces to achieve. As Taheri correctly notes in his report and most left-leaning commentators and politicians conveniently ignore, this war is not an “illegal war.” While I maintain that the United States has a duty to protect Americans even under circumstances that could require unilateral or pre-emptive actions, there is a UN mandate that provides a legal framework for coalition involvement in Iraq. Obama’s statements are damaging and muddying the waters. They are hurting American efforts to provide security for the Iraqi people.

Even more troubling to me is the way Obama is treating American forces and our national security. His statements demanding a calendar date to end this war gives terrorists/insurgents a specific time they view as our surrender date. If they can just hold out past that date they will win and they know that. That knowledge brings encouragement to them which means Obama’s statements are helping the enemy strengthen their resolve and hope of living to kill another day.

I’m extremely frustrated with most Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate right now. Their lack of funding for our troops and their insistence on setting what amounts to a timetable for surrender is just wrong.

Democrats cannot truly support our troops when then refuse to fund our military for weeks during wartime, write toothless resolutions and pass a cowardly “surrender funding” bill they know the President will veto. When most national Democrats say they support our troops they are simply lying. Just look at how they have been publicly (mis)treating and bad talking our war efforts using news media outlets at home and abroad.

And who ever heard of this ridiculous notion of setting a date certain to leave a war zone when the war is still being fought? That’s ludicrous and absurdly weak. I can think of no precedent in world history for such lame actions. It speaks volumes on their lack of resolve to protect this nation from radical Islamic terrorists.

These spineless actions by most of the Democrats in Congress, especially those in leadership and all Democratic Presidential candidates, brings me to a list of things that should never be done while at war.

• Never, ever, ever give up — study Winston Churchill if you need to learn more about doing this in the face of strong opposition.
• Never, ever, ever give your enemy anything to hope for — especially that they might actually survive to see the day you leave.
• Never, ever, ever show any weakness — stay on the offensive and overwhelm constantly and decisively.
• Never, ever, ever hold back — stand ready to crush the enemy at all times using all strategies at your disposal.
• Never, ever, ever divulge information that can be used against you — don’t publicize your strategy, your timetable, or any options that are not on the table.
• Always give your troops the best — the best support, equipment, vision, honor, and anything that helps them win.

There is no substitute for victory. Any war that we enter must be won decisively. We should not enter a war with any other intentions. Peace should be maintained through a wise strategy of building allies and stockpiling strength.

Many Democrats, while stating that we have lost the War in Iraq and should leave now, are asking Republican supporters to define what victory means. This question is often asked to counter the accusation that they (the Democrats) do not support our troops and are on a path of retreat.

So with that in mind, I offer the following definition of victory in Iraq. But before stating my definition of victory, I wish to lay out a few points that leads me to arrive at this definition.

• Force is the only language terrorists understand, therefore, we must speak to them from a position of force.
• The United States is safest by staying on the offense and putting constant pressure on terrorists and terrorist regimes.
• We must operate on their turf to prevent them from gaining a foothold on ours.
• Iraq is currently the central stage in the global war against terrorism (the long War against Radical Islam).
• We cannot demonstrate any sign of weakness or it will be interpreted as a lack of resolve and encourage them to wait us out.
• Radical Islamic fighters actually seek death at the hands of “infidels” in an effort to gain rewards in the afterlife. If we weren’t there, they would follow us here to die in homicide bombings.
• We didn’t start this War but we must end it.

With these long-term thoughts in mind, the invasion of Iraq made perfect sense. Furthermore, it is inconceivable to leave Iraq now. Iraq represents the first major battle in the long War against Radical Islam where we actually got credit for firing the first shot. It was long overdue, in my opinion. Everything else before, from the 1970s to 2001 was merely a weak response to some act of terrorism committed against us. Decades of relative inaction emboldened terrorists to carry out the 9/11 attacks. I’m sure the 9/11 terrorist planners anticipated elements of the Afghanistan campaign; however, I don’t think they were prepared for the invasion of Iraq. Therein lies the brilliance of that move.

The surprise move to invade Iraq forced terrorists to shift gears dramatically and fight armed American soldiers instead of blowing up more unarmed civilians. It cut into territory they once felt they could depend on for support. It removed a regime that had provided free oil and financing to terrorist-sponsoring nations and homicide bombers. In short, it changed the landscape dramatically.

I define this successful transition in the long War as a victory. The tables have been turned and the balance has been shifted in our favor. It put us in the driver’s seat for the first time in the over 30 years that this War has been waged against us and we did little. So today, every terrorist killed or captured is a victory for us. Everyday we have a strong foothold to launch more attacks against terrorists is a victory. Everyday we secure and train allies to do the same sweetens our victory and gives hope to millions who can now grow up with a different outlook on life. Iraq, while difficult, represents a major victory for us.

So I am thankful for our troops who liberated millions from a brutal dictator and his evil sons. I am thankful our military is on the front lines taking the fight to the enemy so he is too battered to take it to us. I grieve for every hero who dies in the fight. Their sacrifice is not in vain. They have done a huge service the extent of which we will probably never know.

In conclusion, I define victory in Iraq as removing a terrorist-supporting regime and securing a place to kill and disrupt terrorists. First and foremost, we are there with our best interests in mind and fighting terrorists is in our best interests. Our military presence in Iraq created the irresistible “terrorist magnet” needed to kill them on the battlefield instead of waiting for them to invade our civilian population at home. An since a dead terrorist is no longer a threat to anyone, we gain victory in Iraq every day.

I’ve been very frustrated with recent developments on the domestic and foreign policy scene involving the Democratic leadership in Congress who is seeking to micro-manage the War and weaken the President. Their actions give reason for our enemies to hope for another day to fight. I am also concerned about the weak responses of some of our allies and the inactions of those who should be our allies.

At the risk of being simplistic, I think some guiding principles should emerge to help navigate our nation through these trying times. It is my firm belief that historians will one day point out that the winner of the Long War Against Radical Islam was the side who had the most patience, vision and tenacity — essentially the nation(s) willing to do what it took to wear the other side down.

So, as a work in progress, I propose some basic thoughts or principles to guide our nation’s actions and responses in winning this War:

We must choose to win.

We must seek victory above all else. If we fail we lose everything. We should seek to utterly defeat our enemies. Unconditional surrender. No compromise. No substitute for victory. Our resolve should be stronger than steel. We must win this war no matter how long it takes.

This is a long war.

From the perspective of world history, I believe this War will be identified as starting in the early 1970s and will span more than half a century. We must carefully consider this War in the light of history if we are to prevail. It is a clash of civilizations, religions and ideas much like other great clashes in history (including Rome vs. Carthage, Allies vs. Nazis, Moors vs. Europe, Huns vs. Europe, Greece vs. Persia).

The United States will bear most of the burden.

Unfortunately, this means most of the casualties and most of the costs. Allies are great but most prefer the free ride when available. Part of this burden will be the ugly words heaped upon us by members of the international community. But I prefer ugly words any day to bombs and homicide attackers.

We should choose our friends carefully.

If a nation is not with us then they are against us. In the long run, it is that simple. I would be willing to see the creation a formal list of national friends designated with some kind of meaningful “most favored nation” status. Anyone not listed as a friend would never get the benefits of this designation and would be considered irrelevant at best and an enemy otherwise.

We should disregard the feelings and protests of our enemies.

In fighting an enemy who hides behind women and children to attack us, it is sometimes hard to pursue necessary actions to protect our troops without feeling guilty of doing wrong. In these cases, while always trying to limit collateral damage, we must protect ourselves first and let the murderous results of our enemy’s decisions to use human shields and other despicable actions fall on them. In these cases it is not our fault if civilians die. Their blood is on their government’s hands and we have to disregard the outcry and press on to complete the mission and win the war.

We should formally choose sides in the Middle East.

What Middle Eastern nation has been our best friend and ally for decades? What Middle Eastern nation has never been a threat to our security? What Middle Eastern nation is democratically elected, protects minority viewpoints and rights (including freedom of religion), respects women, and seeks to live in peace with its neighbors? Only Israel fully fits this description. Thus, in any Israeli/Arab conflict, we should side with our friend and provide aid as needed. We should not meddle and hold them back just as we don’t like for others to hold us back in our pursuit of our enemies. Joint actions, including military ones, should be considered viable options when in our mutual best interests. Of course our hand of friendship should extend to any other nation who will live peacefully with us and Israel.

All options are on the table, including the nuclear option.

In dealing with rogue nations we should never rule out military force, never set arbitrary timetables, never broadcast our plans to the enemy, and never rule out using our trump card — nuclear weapons. We must follow through on threats. Hostile acts should be dealt with swiftly and decisively and in proportion to the severity of the crime. The taking of Americans as hostages should result in an ultimatum for their immediate safe return and swift military action. Punishment via military action could include bombing vital factories and industrial facilities. If hostages are harmed or killed the actions would be far more sweeping.

We need a strong leader who explains why.

Think of great leaders of the past who persevered through dark and difficult days — George Washington at Valley Forge, Winston Churchill who promised “blood, toil, tears, and sweat” in the fight against Nazi Germany, and the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae. A people who knows who they are, why they fight, what the stakes are, and why they must win is able to give more, push harder, innovate better, and persevere to see the victory at the end. We must never forget why we must fight. Yes, some of us will die in the fight, but we will all die if we don’t fight.

So I pray that we have the strength, resolve, courage, and wherewithal to persevere to the victorious end. There is no doubt in my mind that we can win. My only fear is that we could lose hope or give up along the way, postpone our victory and let our enemies live to fight another day — a day in which they might prevail.

Vice President Cheney recently described Iran as fishing in troubled waters. Everyday new revelations seem to support this assertion. Over the weekend additional information on mass-produced “explosively formed penetrators” (EFPs) was released that seem to show that a direct link of support is being provided to insurgents in Iraq from high-ranking officials in the Iranian government. (And I’ve said nothing about all the “wipe Israel off the map” Iranian retoric and their nuclear doublespeak.)

If these allegations are proven and it is indeed found that Iranian actions are leading to the death of American troops then what should be done, I ask? Is our government obligated to protect our troops from other enemies as well? By all means, yes.

I believe there is a direct link between Iran and the insurgency in Iraq. Any nation who seems to make “death to America” their national moto is probably actively looking for ways to kill Americans both now and in the future. I feel these actions are acts of war that must be addressed before more Americans die at their hands.

I am glad the President has sent another carrier group (the USS John Stennis) to the region. As a reported by British news sources (The Guardian, 2/10), there are other preparations (including more Patriot missiles and minesweepers sent to the region) being undertaken that could indicate President Bush is preparing for a possible military confrontation. (I have zero confidence in a diplomatic solution under Iran’s current leadership.)

It is encouraging to see a President who does his Constitutional job and protects our interests and our troops in harms way by providing more resources for their defense. It stands in stark contrast to another President who almost 30 years ago seriously dropped the ball on Iran, a grave shortcoming which made these events possible today. President Carter’s weekness at that crucial time emboldened our enemies to later attempt multiple attacks that ultimately brought us into this War now.

Let us be bold now and address the needs at hand before they grow into a radioactive mushroom cloud delivered by an Iranian missile.

Many, especially Democrats, are fond of saying they don’t support the War in Iraq but they do support our troops. That statement, my friend, is an oxymoron. One cannot truly support our troops when one doesn’t actually support what they are doing.

I support our troops and their mission. I too, like so many others, wish for their speedy return. But I want them to come home in glorious triumph when their job is finished and undisputed victory has been achieved. As General Douglas MacArthur stated of a previous war, there can be no substitute for victory.

As MacArthur argued then, we must act today: As a nation we must define victory and pursue it relentlessly. I am convinced this war will ultimately be won by the side who demonstrates the most resolve.

I am deeply disturbed by a majority of Democrats in Congress who persistently call for a pullout from Iraq without even mentioning victory. Where is their resolve? Where is their pursuit of victory? How are they providing for our defense with such actions? How does this honor those who already gave life and limb for this worthy cause?

As Americans, let us be bold and stand firm in this long war without wavering. Let us see it through to victory wherever it may take us. Let us pursue the enemy relentlessly so that he cannot pursue us even for a moment. Let us use every weapon in our disposal. And let us never forget to honor and support those who do the dirty work for us preserving our freedom and our very lives.

May God bless our troops and America.