For example, I would have little difficulty teaching a parrot some variation of the following debating rebuttals or attacks:

1)  Deregulation: So, Senator Obama, when you speak of "deregulation" causing the current crisis, what deregulation are you talking about? Since you've mentioned Sen. Gramm, I assume you mean the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, but only your Democrat cronies in Congress agree with you, even though your running mate, Joe Biden, voted for it. In fact the Senate passed the bill 90-8. Bill Clinton and his Secretary of the Treasury Bob Rubin agree that the Gramm Act had nothing to do with the crisis. So what are you talking about?

2)  Fannie and Freddie: It's really Economics 101 isn't it, Senator Obama? When you and your Democrat pals Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Harry Reid and a few spineless Republicans, decided to turn the already risky business of home mortgages into a social program by pushing for sub-prime mortgages, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got in trouble. Then, after you all accepted $100s of  thousands in campaign contributions from them, you continued to block attempts by me, Elizabeth Dole, and other Republicans to regulate and audit them even after reports of their cooking the books surfaced. And, finally, they collapsed and ate at least $200 billion of the taxpayers' money. That's deregulation Democrat -style!

3)  Corporate "tax breaks": Senator Obama is constantly harping about my proposal to reduce corporate tax rates like that's a bad thing. "Senator McCain wants to reduce taxes for big corporations, some of whom are taking their business overseas and taking American jobs with them." Well, this is more Economics 101, Senator Obama. You are right about two things, big corporations create jobs and some of them are moving overseas, but you are dead wrong about my tax proposal. The U.S. has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world at 35%. Compare that to Ireland with a rate of 12.5%. In the last decade, or so, Ireland has gone from relative poverty to the second highest percapita income in the European Union because of the influx of new corporations. If you are running a corporation, do you want to do business and create jobs under a 35% tax rate, or a 12.5% tax rate. And folks, in case your thinking this is just about more corporate greed, pick up your phone and call, say, Ford, General Motors and G.E. and ask 'em how they're doing these days. You'll find they are struggling and jobs are being lost. A tax break can turn that around. Simple economics.

4)  Israel, Brzezinski, Samantha Power: I know Senator Obama claims to share my deep and long-standing commitment to Israel, but some of my friends here and in Israel are troubled by his selection of Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samantha Power as key foreign policy advisors. Brzezinski was, of course, Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser, and his commitment to the safety of Israel and to the Jewish people has been questioned by Zionists here and in Israel. Ms. Powers should pose even more of a problem for Senator Obama. She has endorsed withdrawing military aid to Israel and - whether Israel is willing or unwilling - sending a [quote] "mammoth" military occupation force into Israel to force concessions to Palestine. Ms. Power has resigned from the campaign, not because of her radical views on Israel, but because she publicly called Hillary Clinton a "monster." My friends, I don't argue that these folks are not entitled to their opinions. I do argue that their opinions do not reflect the commitments of the people of this country to Israel and that this is another instance of Senator Obama claiming to reflect the values and views of mainstream America despite surrounding himself with people who clearly do not not reflect those values and views.

5)  Pakistan: We've been sparring around about Pakistan for a while now and I'm sure people realize that I have downplayed my position on excursions into that country. After conferring with friends in the military I've decided there is no reason not to clarify.  Senator Obama has confidently proclaimed that if we are aware of terrorist threats to our troops coming from Pakistan and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to deal with them we should take aggressive action within Pakistan with or without her permission. I don't believe there is a man or woman on earth who reveres our troops more than I do, but, frankly, I am appalled by this policy. Pakistan is not Afghanistan. She is a nation of 180 million people, including more than its share of radical Muslims. More importantly, Pakistan has had nuclear weapons since 1972 and has a fellow named Khan. Mr. Khan is believed to have assisted North Korea and Iran with their nuclear programs. He has 35 years of experience with nukes and is very likely someone who can build a suitcase nuclear device. Put simply, a prudent leader doesn't  poke a nuclear nation like Pakistan in the eye and doesn't state beforehand his intent to do so.